Re-thinking the theological thought police

“free pass to reactionary Opus Dei over here”

How true. Just look at the newly issued “ aid for confessors and spiritual directors” from the Congregation for the Clergy. http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2011-05/20-13/Sussidio_per_Confessori_...

Prayer for the lay is now redefined to fit Escriva’s definition, contrary to what Christ said. For thousands of years it was “Ora et Labora”. Now it’s “Labora est Ora”.

Passage from the guide:
“The spiritual director should assist the lay faithful in their relationship with God (by making concrete their participation in the Holy Eucharist and prayer, in the examination of conscience in a manner that is in union with their lives), in forming conscience, in assisting with the sanctification of the family, work, social relationships, and taking part in public life. “Work done in this fashion becomes a prayer. Study done in this fashion is a prayer. Scientific research done in this fashion becomes a prayer. Everything converges to one solitary reality: all is prayer, everything can and should bring us to God, feeding our continuous relationship with Him, from sunrise to sunset. Every honest labour can be a prayer, and every work is prayer, it is an apostolate. In this manner the soul is strengthened in the unity of a simple but robust life.104” 104 ST. JOSEMARIÁ ESCRIVÁ, È Gesù che passa, 10.

Compare this to Luke 10:38-42

“As they continued their journey he entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary [who] sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.” The Lord said to her in reply, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.”

Payer and work are both important, but are two different concepts, like night and day. St Benedict made that clear distinction in his definition of “Opus Dei” which means prayer before and after work. As a scientist or physician or laborer I should pray that God help me that my work be well done, but when I work, I am not praying, I am working to God’s given and my best ability. The same way, when I pray, I should be praying to the best of my abilities. Payer takes precedence over and informs work, as Christ teaches Martha. But no, in pure Orwellian double speak fashion, the word “prayer” and “work” is made the same, as shoved down the Catholic world’s throats by the Escrivisitas. The reason? It’s simply to collect $$$$ from movement members, because if a member “works” and gives all his/her money to the movement, then, according to the movement “spiritual director", the member “prays” and is “holy” (more so if she/he follows Escriva’s idea of “holiness”: coercion, intransigence and shamelessness). Why was this given an easy pass? Lets pray Church leaders have the Love, faith, hope, prudence, fortitude, temperance and sense of justice, to correct this.

..btw, I am not a theologian, perhaps an curia "expert" can clarify the above???

How absolutely a beautiful if searing description of what's going on in the Church these days. Thank you, Phyllis Zagano and Jim Jenkings!

Jim,

I agree with you but as a physician educated in a Catholic University, I see this creeping doctrinal policing extending to all forms of scholarship. Just recall the Olmstead case in Phoenix when a Bishop felt that he had the authority to make a decision abut medical care. The idea that any article could be published in a good journal without proper pier review is preposterous, but the idea that a Bishop would attempt to intervene in the medical care of a critically ill patient on the side that this mother of four must die along with a fetus that could not be saved is frankly very dangerous. The dogmatists have reached a point of grandiosity that they must be told a firm NO as the ethics committee at St. Josephs Hospital told the Bishop. This is true even if these tyrants declare their excommunication's of individuals and institutions as happened in Arizona. We must seek truth from the Holy Spirit where ever we find it. We can not rely on the inaccurate but forcefully articulated voice of dogmatic Catholic neo-"Traditionalists." We as truthful academic people must stand up and say no!!

R. Dennis Porch, MD
Irvine, CA

Without Theologians you would not have the doctrines you have now. Not only that, the theology we hold sacred was very threatening in its day. Perhaps you recall that St. Paul was considered bad doctrine by a large number of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. A publication is not under obedience. Thank you.

If you can only see this in terms of obedience, you are completely missing the point. The article explains that the relevant publication has a tiny circulation and that there is no chance the faithful in the pews are going to be misled by anything published in it. If a few thousand scholars around the world cannot explore theological questions in a publication devoted to inquiry, there is no hope for the Catholic Church's intellectual tradition.

It is precisely your attitude of unquestioned, blind obedience that has gotten the Church in so much trouble in the last ten years. Stifling debate, which is the Vatican's real aim, works in the short term, but in the long term it bankrupts the conversation which should exist within the Church. There is more than a little fear of the modern world in the Vatican's actions, which perhaps shows that very little changes in the Church after all.

If anyone would like to respond that obedience is the proper role of the faithful I urge you to update yourselves on what Vatican II says about that.

Of course, Francis was referring to someone who had done something wrong.

SJohn...your comment provides little evidence that you even bothered to read the article. It provides no evidence that you understood the article in the least.

Many years ago I read a publication by the Russell Sage Foundation entitled 'Cooperation in change'; the author Goodenough PH.D...the thesis was 'there cannot be change without dissent. If more information is needed to verify go no further than Galileo or Einstein and numerous others. Somehow the above reply of SJohn implies usage of 'dissent' as a pejorative, which it is not. Even worse Rome has no intention at all in protecting Truth. Its interest is solely in maintaining an overwhelming authority and subjugation of all dissent, all learning, all scholarship. It is time long past for all of us to say NO to Rome. There is more than enough room in the pews for the 'mindlessly obedient' to gather.

I have a west coast orange bridge to give you --- absolutely free!

Just give me $100 to defray cost of shipping & handling.

Believe me, it'd be a steal!

(i don't see a sign at the front of a roman catholic church indicating "check your brains at the door")

(not yet, anyway)

Are you a democrat on food stamps? Not to be rude, but the intellectual poverty of your comment is so popeful, ala the cartoon cast of PJPII and B16 current missing-the-mark Bishop cadre. Dolan and the numbing 9 that panned E.Johnson's work are so illustrative of the ilk now cluttering our once great Roman Catholicism with religiosity.

YES!!!!

I completely agree. They did not have to publish the article, they could have said no. I do not think this is a move by the Pope, or even the entire Curia, but one person. I like this article very much because as a Master's student of Theology, I frequently consult TS and find the articles not only good, but tough! We have to stand up and say we are the Church. We, the body of Christ.

Interesting how an article _being published_ is somehow considered to be "censorship." Interesting also how that article _being published_ is taken to be an occasion of hand-wringing about how there is no longer freedom of discussion. Very interesting. Anytime a scholarly article is in line with "the Vatican's view" on a topic is published, this is censorship, lack of free thought, absence of discussion, etc.?

rome asked only that a reply be published . the reply passed peer review . the issue is that the editors of TS took so long to publish it . the delay seems to have come through resistance to publishing a contrary opinion

that is the story . most comments here so far has been unhelpful .

does an article supporting conclusions of the magisterium and passed by a peer review groups amount to an attack on academic freedom . I would have thought it publication might start a helpful debate..

the people at the defense of the faith too often put their foot in it : not here though . TS looks as if it was hostile to dissent

Dear WT, in addition to the paper & journals you mention there is one more courageous magazine: US CATHOLIC put out by the Claretians. It doesn't purport to be a mirror image of AMERICA or of COMMONWEAL; nor is it a newspaper. It's appeal is to educated Catholics looking for commonsense and pastoral approaches to issues, but not necessarily at a highly abstracted level. This is a magazine that, like NCR, might be found in church newsracks (or nowadays: counted among the parish website's links) but has much that is solid, inquisitive and evidences solid scholarship. Yes, dissenters find themselves among subscribers as well.

V. R. David, you clarified the problem totally when you referred to the hierarchy's programmatic effort to convert journals of study/disputation/peer review into "house organs". Thank you for that.

Unless they are "house organs" what use are they in keeping you abreast of "where Rome is"?

You say you expect books and articles on Catholic subjects to be "orthodox." I expect them to be interesting, stimulating, and inspiring. Is someone who wants religion to be interesting, stimulating, and inspiring not a "true" Catholic?

Anon, St Augustine could not be considered Catholic under the rules as you've described them. Neither could Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Francis of Assisi, and more who have enriched (changed! for the better) our Church. One can only conclude that the rules as you've described them are man made and imposed, not historical but relatively recent. To coin a phrase, they would constitute a hermeneutic of discontinuity.

When the papacy and hierarchy reflect Jesus, your orthodoxy problem is negligible. We all long for that. Did Jesus ask us to be correct, or to be lovng and selfless and take up our cross?

Define "correct". Catholic Theology is broader and deeper than the narrow and ultra conservative things that are spewed forth from "Rome and it's theologians". When what they say continually disagrees with "sensus fidelium" we should at least ask questions!

You know over the ages a lot of supposedly "orthodox" opinion that came out of the Vatican later proved to be wrong in fact, stupid, bigoted, racist, anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and contrary to Catholic understand of Christian doctrine today. God save us from people who think that orthodoxy is what always comes out of the Vatican.

"I expect..."

Please demonstrate some knowledge of the subject-matter.

The professional field of (Catholic) theology is not catechesis.

Who do you think you are kidding? The "thought police" are the Vatican hierarchy. In recent years, anyone who dares challenge or even disagrees with Rome is ousted (as in the Bishop in Australia). Some of our great saints were the biggest challengers of the Hierarchy. It is a sad day when a bishop can be removed because he dared to say that if Rome would change the ruling on women priests, he would "consider it". No thought police? Open your eyes and think again.

You are clearly a catechist and not a theologian. The task of theology is to investigate, not propagate. Each is an important task, but they are different.

Anonymous on Aug. 31, 2011.

You stated:

"This article is pure hyperbole. The Catholic theological sky is not "falling". There are no Catholic "thought police".

It is important for scholars to know and remember that Catholic theology is not like other fields of study. Rome and Roman theologians have the right AND THE OBLIGATION to define official Catholic teaching. Furthermore, every Catholic publication and writer should be willing and prepared to have corrections printed for any theological article. This is NOT censorship. This is accuracy and honesty.

As a Catholic, I expect books and articles on Catholic subjects to be "orthodox". If they are not, I also expect them to publish responses"
--------------------------------------------
Accuracy and honesty? From Rome? I suppose that you believe that Rome has the world's best theologians---who all have direct phone lines to the Holy Spirit. The Vatican has been silencing, condemning theologians all during the pontificate of JP II and has continued into the pontificate of Benedict.

Take a look at past ages. If theologians had not forged ahead in the Church---we would not have the understanding of God and human relatiionships to God that we have today. And don't kid yourself----the great theologians of the past went theough Hell with both Rome and their bishops---either silencing them or threatening to excommunicate them because of what they wrote. Later, these very theologians became the cornerstone of our theological understanding.

We are into a new millenium---and our growth in understanding of God and our relationship to God MUST continue to develop. But, it cannot if the Church is more interested in looking backwards in time, because it it afraid. And with the Vatican shouldering its position into theological journals---its FEAR is most evident in trying to 'sush' everything and everyone who doesn't walk lock step according "orthodox positions".

The last dictatorship? Not at all. I once belonged to a parish that was chock full of dissent and was a bastion of "progress" and the "Spirit of Vatican II." The pastor was an absolute dictator and woe betide anyone who dared dissent from his dissent. His loyal minions were if anything worse. There was no mercy and no quarter. No one is more intolerant or dictatorial then a liberal with power.

robertg, have you ever heard of "Catholic Identity"? This push has also been going on for at least seven years in Europe and in USA at least. Benedict xvi has established an curial office for The New Evangelization (especially for Europe and USA deemed the two most "secularized" segments of the church). Only a few people are known to be part of that office as yet; to my knowledge it hasn't publicized its official mission, goals/objectives, policies, programs if, in fact, they exist at this time. There is a recent shift in language however from Catholic Identity to New Evangelizing.

If you're looking for "another story" look no futher than policy, program, and application descriptions of these in practice. The recent colloquim held (closed door) by the Pope with select German theologians had the topic New Evangelization as its theme. Even the official pronouncements regarding World Youth Days was rife with references to the new evangelization.

And, what is your point?

Good point. While I, too, agree with the the thrust of Phyllis Zagano's article, your comment reminds me of something more important that Rome has been denying: everyone can and at some point does "theologize." They seem to be so concerned with theologians "confusing" people or "leading them astray" somehow, as if they were still children waiting to be fed, rather than adults needing to be hungry.

I respect tradition, and the theological wisdom of centuries that humbly remind me that we are not the first people to grapple with questions of life, suffering and death. But we will continue to grapple with them, in large "serious" discussions and forums, and in small, more important life-changing moments everyday. As I get older, I appreciate more and more how Jesus spent time in widening circles, from hanging out with Pharisees and discussing and debating in "serious forums," to countless meals among us rabble, like Zacheus, and talks of a woman giving all her pennies. It is simply the stuff of life.

My own understanding of God's strength and power came not from my theology degree, but by witnessing my Dad's response to cancer and leg amputations as he "walked" (he'd like that joke) his last days, growing more and more feeble but stronger and stronger in integrity, and wonder and awe.

We are all God's children, but if we choose to follow the Way, then we need to become an adult church.

I had the same experience with my own mother, whose education was limited to the required eight years of basic education afforded to most European kids back in the early 19 hundreds. Her life was an extremely difficult one and her words to her grandson (my son) and his wife come back often to me now that I'm embracing my own old age. However, I happen to like to read theology, especially some of the contemporary thoughts of feminists theologians as well as the many outstanding works of Liberation Theologians. I agree that theologians themselves will do a better job than the "thought police" in keeping theology from any major error.

If you want an interesting approach to divorce and remarriage in the Orthodox Church check out:

Orthodox Research Institute a article by:

Bishop Athenagoras (Peckstadt) of Sinope

The subect is on divorce and remarriage in the Orthodox Church.

In the US the legitimacy of children are established in the civil courts, not in the Tribunal. The declaration of nullity in a marriage case no more affects the legitimacy of children than it does the property settlement. The Tribunal examines a case and makes a decision as to whether a valid consent was given at the time of the marriage ceremony. Please, let us not continue speaking of illegitimate children resulting from nullity cases.

Sally Morrow:

Long ago, I had a conversation with a theologian who related to me that in the Coptic rite (in union with Rome) there were actually three levels of marriage practiced and celebrated in their liturgies:

1. Betrothal, or what we would call "engagement" : usually between young teenagers; can be divorced or terminated.

2. Civil marriage: Couples marry; raise their families; live together in union with the church; can be divorced or terminated.

3. Sacramental marriage: After years, sometimes decades, of marriage and children, the couple then celebrate and renew their marriage vows with the church; there is no divorce.

There is no exclusion for the first two levels of marriage. I'm sure that cultural/societal norms would mitigate against dissolving any agreement of marriage, but this arrangement does provide for people "to change their minds," accommodate changes in their life's situation, and move on with their lives.

Sounds like a good place to start when we think about reforming marriage customs.

The children of a marriage which is annulled are not affected (i.e. considered illegitimate). It is something that I checked out before I applied for one in 1975.

Good points!

1. A "Catholic" theologian is "an ecclesial vocation" and should be "in hierarchical communion."

2. As another reader commented: these "Self-styled Catholic theologians—as opposed to protestant theologians, which they're welcome to be, and some in fact are."

3. These self-styled, self-serving, free-wheeling "theology academic/scholar" should publish their work in Protestant journals. If they want to work or claim to work as "Catholic", they should hav e 'tock-enough skin" to face evaluation and criticism from Catholic theologians proper including the bishops.

Amen!

Fr. John I think your statement somewhat begs the question.

Nowhere in this article did I perceive a questioning of the mission and purpose of CDF. Nowhere in the article did I note that the two "corrective" and no-peer-reviewed authors are members or even official reps of CDF. The article merely makes a reference to unsourced pressures received and felt by the editors and publishers of TS over a number of years. It then intimates a link from those pressures to the article in the June issue which is an editorial and professional anonomaly for the journal in context.

Peripatetics' hits the nail on the head about "the dominant issue of the hierarchy" being their "fear of loss of power and control." Many historical decisions by Authorities in Rome have been based on fear rather than faith. Maintaining the "traditional" status quo within the church by any means necessary has frequently been employed whenever Rome has seen its authority slipping away. Its policy is based on the end justifying the means. In doing so it frequently uses fear and intimidation to enforce conformity, even when its loss of authority is its own undoing.

The reformation occurred because Rome refused to reform its corruption when critics pointed to its existence. Today the hierarchy has lost its authority because of its corruption. The corruption now is the abuse of authority by bishops in allowing pedophiles to abuse our children on a worldwide scale.
When an adult sodomizes a child it is an abuse of power. When a bishop transfers a pedophile priest causing more children to be sodomized, it is an abuse of power. When such abuse of power is occurring on a worldwide scale it is a corporate abuse of authority.

What is the reaction of Rome to this abuse of authority? Is it reform of authority? Is it any curtailment of the power of bishops to cause more children to be abused? NO! NO! and NO! Rome's reaction to the corruption is to defend the offending bishops and attack the victims and critics.

Using fear and intimidation against theologians, critics and dissenters and against the theological journal are just part of the same pattern of behavior, the tactics of a bully who acts out of fear, not faith. Rome realizes it has lost more of its authority, and instead of truly reforming, the Curia is eager to attack. Rome is about absolute medieval power and control.

Rome opposed and condemned the reformation. Rome opposed and condemned democracy and republican forms of government. Rome opposed and condemned the American Bill of Rights. Rome opposed and condemned the rise of scientific knowledge. In every case Rome saw reform and change as threats to its power and contol. Abuse of power and persecution based on "fear (not faith) of the loss of power and control" were the result. Rome has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that its loss of authority was the result of its own corruption and misjudgement.
Using fear and intimidation against professional theological jounals is just more abuse of authority. Does Rome have the right and power to do it? Sure! Is it wise? NO! Its just more stupidity to anyone who knows church history.