The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionBishops ignored own guidelines in Johnson critique
Apr. 07, 2011
Franciscan Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy is pictured in a March 2006 file photo. (CNS photo/Bob Roller)
The U.S. bishops chose not to follow their own guidelines in handling disputes between bishops and theologians before issuing a critique last week of a 2007 book by a prominent U.S. theologian.
In a statement dated March 24 and released March 30, the bishops’ doctrine committee said that the book, Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God by Fordham University theology professor St. Joseph Sr. Elizabeth A. Johnson, is marred by “misrepresentations, ambiguities and errors” and “completely undermines the Gospel and the faith of those who believe in the Gospel.”
The public finding, the committee determined, was necessary because the popular book is directed to a broad audience and is being used as a textbook for the study of God.
According to guidelines approved by the U.S. bishops in 1989, doctrinal disputes with theologians are to be kept as local as possible and are to follow carefully delineated steps involving dialogue with the theologian to clarify data, meaning and the relationship with Catholic tradition while identifying the implications for the life of the church.
The committee, however, chose not to notify Johnson -- viewed as one of the nation’s leading systematic theologians -- that it had undertaken a study of her book. It did not engage her in conversation before issuing its findings.
Despite the harsh conclusions by the committee, the bishops did not call for any disciplinary measures against Johnson, such as a ban on teaching or publishing.
It was in the late 1970s and early ’80s, with several major theologians being investigated by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that the question of handling disputes between bishops and theologians began to receive focused attention in the United States.
The Catholic Theological Society of America and the Canon Law Society of America established in 1980 a joint committee, headed by Jesuit Fr. Leo O’Donovan, with three members from each society as part of the committee. They worked for three years before producing a report they submitted to the bishops. The U.S bishops’ conference then worked on the document, which was eventually sent to Rome for approval. The conference finally embraced it in June 1989, by an overwhelming 214-9 vote.
Titled “Doctrinal Responsibilities: Approaches to Promoting Cooperation and Resolving Misunderstandings between Bishops and Theologians,” it included an approving appendix letter written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
The purpose of the nine-year exercise was to establish precise guidelines that urged formal and informal cooperation between bishops and theologians -- including private dialogue -- to resolve conflicts and avert the use of formal procedures.
The U.S. bishops’ doctrine committee is currently chaired by Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington and includes nine bishops.
Speaking in a phone interview April 5, Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy, executive director of the Secretariat for Doctrine at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, confirmed the committee did not follow the guidelines set out in the 1989 document. He cited several reasons, including the urgency of the matter, the widespread use of the book, and the ineffectiveness of other earlier efforts to resolve conflicts.
He also said the book had already been published. The doctrine committee, Weinandy said, found “no ambiguities” concerning certain errors in sections of the book.
On the issue of following the procedures set forth in “Doctrinal Responsibilities,” Weinandy said, “The bishops felt that, all things being equal, those guidelines should be or can be employed. But when it seems imperative that something needs to be said and said soon, that cannot always be done. The book was out there for three years before it was brought to our attention, so I think the bishops were wanting to clarify the situation as quickly as they could.”
When asked how long the bishops’ committee had been looking at Johnson’s book, the priest said “probably a year or so, from beginning to end.” He also said the bishops’ statement went through several drafts.
Immaculate Heart of Mary Sr. Mary Ann Hinsdale, president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, said she was “utterly astounded” to learn the bishops did not follow the procedures in the “Doctrinal Responsibilities” document. Hinsdale, a professor of theology at Boston College, said the doctrinal committee’s statement “seriously misrepresents what I understand her [Johnson] to be doing in Quest for the Living God.”
Mary Ann Hinsdale (Photo taken from the Boston College Web site)
“Much of the book is a re-presentation of what other theologians are saying about ‘the living God’ today. In seeking to ‘map’ the terrain of recent theological scholarship, she is doing exactly what ‘Doctrinal Responsibilities’ advocates when it says, ‘As members of diverse communities, theologians have the responsibility to seek suitable ways of communicating doctrine to people today. They should adapt the communication of their research to the audience of their lectures or publications, and take into account the effect their presentation may have.’”
O’Donovan, former president of Georgetown University in Washington, said, “It’s regrettable, and much more than regrettable, that our bishops have not seen fit to use procedures they themselves adopted in the document ‘Doctrinal Responsibilities.’ That text, after all, was framed not only to resolve doctrinal difficulties but to promote cooperation between bishops and theologians. In my opinion, it would be hard to find a theologian today who is more committed than Beth Johnson to true expression of Catholic teaching and also to a spirit of cooperation in the church.”
Weinandy, who has been the executive director of the Secretariat for Doctrine since 2005, lamented that in past instances dialogue with theologians “came to nothing.”
While the committee “wants to be fair,” he said, its ultimate responsibility is “to ensure that the faithful receive the faith as it is proclaimed and believed by the church. That was very much on their [the committee’s] mind in this particular book.”
Weinandy also urged theologians to seek dialogue before publication of their works either in the form of an imprimatur, an official declaration from a bishop that the book is in accord with Catholic teaching, or by meeting personally with a bishop.
“If dialogue is to take place, then dialogue should start prior to publication of the book and not afterwards,” said Weinandy. “Otherwise the bishops are always caught trying to play catch-up. And so they’re always at a disadvantage.”
Wuerl made a similar point in a letter he wrote that accompanied the committee’s 21-page rebuke of Johnson’s book. “By seeking an imprimatur, the author has the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the bishop concerning the Catholic teaching expressed in the book,” said Wuerl. “Thus, clarifications concerning the text can be made prior to its publication.”
Imprimaturs have largely gone out of style in the past half century with the exception of catechetical textbooks.
Quest for the Living God, released in October 2007, has sold more than 20,000 copies, a high number for a book dealing with Catholic theology. Since the bishops’ criticized the book publically, it had sold an additional 819 copes as of April 5, according to Continuum, the book’s publisher, which also said a typical initial print run of one of its academic texts is under 1,000 copies.
[Joshua J. McElwee is an NCR staff writer and Thomas C. Fox is NCR editor.]
More coverage from NCR:
- Johnson: Bishops' condemnation came without discussion, March 31, 2011
- U.S. bishops blast book by feminist theologian, March 30, 2011
- Shortly after Johnson's book The Quest for the Living God was published, she discussed it with NCR editor Tom Fox. Their discussion was posted to the NCR web site as a two part podcast:
Elizabeth Johnson and the Quest for the Living God - Fox's review of that book is here: A hunger for mature theology
- In August 2008, Johnson addressed a joint assembly of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the main umbrella groups for women’s and men’s orders in the United States, meeting in Denver. NCR senior correspondent John L. Allen Jr. covered the event and filed this story:
Theologian Elizabeth Johnson: 'Drench anger with forgiveness' - The text of Sr. Elizabeth Johnson's address is on the LCWR website at:
www.lcwr.org/lcwrannualassembly/2008assembly.htm
"the popular book is directed
"the popular book is directed to a broad audience and is being used as a textbook for the study of God."
- This undercuts your entire point. If this had simply been her opinion in a study shared only among research fellows or just other theologians, then yes, a private handling of the matter would be best.
However.
The book was published broadly and was meant to be used by non-experts as SOURCE MATERIAL for learning. This, I would agree with the bishops, requires very public and very rapid address.
Although I think the Bishops kinda dropped the ball here. It was published in 2007 and is JUST NOW being reviewed?
This whole article is like a weather reporter breathlessly giving a gripping account of a super destructive storm, a storm that is nothing more than the steam cloud of a boiling tea pot.
For those of your whose automatic response to NCR articles is "hurl abuse at anyone wearing a miter", go and read the actual statement from the USCCB on this book. It is very clear and reasonable, which is more than I can say for the coverage the NCR has given this topic.
Does anybody really care what
Does anybody really care what the Bishops have to say on this matter? I certainly don't.
The Bishops have lost so much
The Bishops have lost so much credibility that their opinions are irrelevant for many Catholics, and their stock continues to fall everyday.
“If dialogue is to take
“If dialogue is to take place, then dialogue should start prior to publication of the book and not afterwards,” said Weinandy. “Otherwise the bishops are always caught trying to play catch-up. And so they’re always at a disadvantage.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Always at a disadvantage"? I'll say. While we're on the subject of the bishops "caught" at something, why not just add it is nothing compared to being caught with their purple pantaloons down too in so many other areas of their mismanagement of the American church. Any theologian worth his or her salt today neither cares, nor should care what the bishops think one way or the other. The pursuit of truth is your personal journey. Others are free to join you in it or not.
Since God's existence cannot be PROVED, why do these silly old clowns persist in trying to convince Catholics or anyone else that they and they alone know who God is, or that their "magisterium" is the last word on any subject? Sister Johnson needs to just keep writing and teaching; ignore being bugged by the masters of humbug.
couldnt agree more
couldnt agree more
Catholics do!
Catholics do!
NO, NO & NO ! The bishops,
NO, NO & NO ! The bishops, as usual have been boxed into a corner & may they forever remain there!
They are ll without question, "theological illiterates" ! May the good Lord spare us from these MEN!
Yes, I am Catholic and I
Yes, I am Catholic and I care. If you don't care what the Bishops declare you should reconsider your understanding of the faith. "Christ, whom the Father hallowed and sent into the world, has, through his apostles, made their successors, the bishops namely, shares in his consecration and mission; and these, in their turn, duly entrusted in varying degrees various members of the Church with the office of their ministry." Lumen Gentium 28 & 1562 of the Catechism.
People who claim they don't care about Church authority are little better than atheists.It would have been wiser for the Sister to seek an imprimatur from the Church seeing how this book would be used to educated thousands of future Catholics. Unless of course she was seeking to avoid their objections in the first place. The universities are where we lose most Catholics to heresy, apostasy and sloth.
DavidW on Apr. 08, 2011. You
DavidW on Apr. 08, 2011.
You stated:
"Yes, I am Catholic and I care. If you don't care what the Bishops declare you should reconsider your understanding of the faith. "Christ, whom the Father hallowed and sent into the world, has, through his apostles, made their successors, the bishops namely, shares in his consecration and mission; and these, in their turn, duly entrusted in varying degrees various members of the Church with the office of their ministry." Lumen Gentium 28 & 1562 of the Catechism.
People who claim they don't care about Church authority are little better than atheists.It would have been wiser for the Sister to seek an imprimatur from the Church seeing how this book would be used to educated thousands of future Catholics. Unless of course she was seeking to avoid their objections in the first place. The universities are where we lose most Catholics to heresy, apostasy and sloth."
----------------------------------------------
You made absolutely no statement that Jesus Christ means any to you personally, or that a deep relationship with him means anything to you. In your mind----all that your faith is about is what the bishops say that it is.
Beth's books (and so many other theologians) already educate thousands of people. But they educate people to see God more vividly in the world in which we NOW live. Not a world that we no longer inhabit. Beth's earlier works, especially, "She Who Is" certainly utilized similar images of God that "The Quest for the Living God" contains.
Daniel Horan (one of the many male theologians defending Beth's work) stated in his "Dating God" that the bishops have a 'misunderstanding and fear of contemporary theological engagement with the social and natural sciences and modern and (postmodern) philosophical resourcing."
In plain words, our bishops (and the Vatican) are still presenting concepts God as coming out of the age of Thomas Aquinas. They are trying to state that Johnson's book 'contaminates the traditional Catholic understanding of God and equates it with modern theism.'
Johnson, instead, speaks of a crisis within the Church, a crisis reflected in the break between 'modern theism' and a more contemporary understanding of God based upon secular experience.
It is clear in reading the argument of the Bishops, that they are unable to see that she, like they, is stating that Enlightenment deism is BAD (to put it very simply).
What Beth does criticize is the idolatrous understanding of God, as proposed by the Enlightenment theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries. In their writings (and in the sermons that priests presented to the people), images of God were created as 'a grand old man, or a resident policeman, or a tape of parental hang-ups, or a consummate churchman, or a managing director, or a dictator, or a disppointing protector, or a spoilsport." She points out that these are all trivial and simplistic images of God.
Do you see any of these visions of God as good and acceptable to you? Then perhaps, universities are a dangerous place for you.
"Lumen Gentium" is a
"Lumen Gentium" is a self-serving document designed to protect the status quo and to quell any desire by the People of God to contribute to the building up of the Faith. Read the Patristic Fathers. There you will find the Holy Spirit has empowered all of us. Bishops can no longer hide behind high-handed pontifications based upon a false reading of scripture and based upon the twists and turns of western and eastern Church history.
Catholics need to learn to read and go to public libraries, or the internet to grow in their faith, and not to enslave themselves in the controlling language of catechisms. Adult Catholics always move beyond their childhood dependency upon a faith spoon fed to them uncritically by propagandists.
The universities were in the vanguard of preserving orthodoxy in the middle ages David and they always have been.. Their independence served the Church better than an army of robots in scarlet and purple pumping out formulaic teachings to children unwilling to examine them critically and using their God-given intelligence.
DavidW, You are certainly
DavidW, You are certainly free to blindly follow. Follow whom ever you want; that's the beauty of living in a free country. I live in the US, not Vatican City.
After the People of God trusted in the likes of: Law in Boston, Dupre in Springfield, MA, Ryan in Springfield, IL, McCormick in Manchester (and on and on), and were betrayed, most of us are done following bishops.
You noted that "People who claim they don't care about Church authority are little better than atheists." You better have an imprimatur from the Church before you publish such a decree.
You can follow the bishops all the way to Jonestown, Guyana, as did the followers of the Rev. Jim Jones did. Drink all the Kool-Aid you want, but no thanks David, NONE FOR ME!
The major point at issue is
The major point at issue is NOT whether or not the Bishops have the right to comment on their opinion of the orthodoxy of a theological book published in a Catholic context -- they do. I am a trained theologian, and have read the "actual statement from the USCCB on this book".
What they did NOT do, is follow their own rules/procedures regarding such situations. No amount of "spin" can contradict what could be seen as unprofessionalism or arrogance or whatever other motive some might read into their action. One needn't be prone to "hurl abuse at anyone wearing a mitre" to be deeply concerned over the fact that, as in so many other issues, some Bishops "just don't get it". How sad for the Church which, at its best, is the face of Christ.
It seems to me that bishops,
It seems to me that bishops, as shepherds of the flock of Christ did what needed to be done to let the faithful know that some of what is being presented in this book is not in tune with the Catholic Faith.
This whole episode is being presented strangely here on the NCR. To make an analogy, it's like a mother going into a teenager's room to put a basket of clean socks in his drawer, not knocking and opening the door before the teenager could toss the weed he was dividing up back under the bed. The teenager then explodes at his mother for being so rude for not knocking, but the real reason for his anger is that his mother caught him with weed.
The bishops 'get it' very well it seems, having read their statement.
Note to Pete the Geek: Do you
Note to Pete the Geek: Do you think that many Catholics really care what the Bishops have to say on this matter? Duh! I doubt it. It's not the 19th century and the laity will read what they will and make their own conclusions. We are not stupid sheep who need to be told what to think. The whole culture of clericalism seems to still think of the laity as ignorant, illiterate peasants who need to be told what to think. Those days are over.
It's curious that the Bishops don't seem to grasp this simple fact.
Have you read the book?
Have you read the book?
Pete the greek on Apr. 07,
Pete the greek on Apr. 07, 2011.
You stated:
"It seems to me that bishops, as shepherds of the flock of Christ did what needed to be done to let the faithful know that some of what is being presented in this book is not in tune with the Catholic Faith.
This whole episode is being presented strangely here on the NCR. To make an analogy, it's like a mother going into a teenager's room to put a basket of clean socks in his drawer, not knocking and opening the door before the teenager could toss the weed he was dividing up back under the bed. The teenager then explodes at his mother for being so rude for not knocking, but the real reason for his anger is that his mother caught him with weed.
The bishops 'get it' very well it seems, having read their statement."
--------------------------------------------
There is excellent evidence that the bishops did not EVEN READ Sister Elizabeth Johnson's book with any intelligent understanding. All over the theological scene, trained theologians are weighing in---reading Johnson's book and comparing it to the comments of the bishops. On Commonwealmagazine earlier this week, came this comment from one of the editors of Commonweal (a trained theologian himself.
(As anyone who has read the book can tell, Johnson has no interest in dumping male images of God in favor of female ones. She wants us to consider both. As did John Paul I, who delivered the following remarks—cited on page 103 of Quest—in 1978:
God is our father. Even more God is our mother. God does not want to hurt us, but only to do good for us, all of us. If children are ill, they have additional claim to be loved by their mother. And we too, if by chance we are sick with badness and are on the wrong track, have yet another claim to be loved by the Lord.
“What is lacking in the whole of this discussion [of female images of God],” according to the Committee on Doctrine, ”is any sense of the essential centrality of divine revelation as the basis of Christian theology…. The standard by which all theological assertions must be judged is that provided by divine revelation, not by unaided human understanding.” Apparently the committee failed to notice that Johnson repeatedly cites scriptural sources of female images of God–Isaiah 49:15, for example. Makes you wonder what else they missed.)
The bishops could care less whether or not they correctly examined Johnson's work. Since they can no longer torture, and murder any who don't march lock-step to their vision of the'Golden age of the 13th Century' for the church, they settle for smearing theologian's good names. But this has back-fired on the bishops and has proven them to be less concerned about 'orthodoxy' and more concerned about silencing good theologians.
What a terrible and insulting
What a terrible and insulting analogy !!!
Pete the greek on Apr. 07,
Pete the greek on Apr. 07, 2011.
You stated:
"It seems to me that bishops, as shepherds of the flock of Christ did what needed to be done to let the faithful know that some of what is being presented in this book is not in tune with the Catholic Faith.
This whole episode is being presented strangely here on the NCR. To make an analogy, it's like a mother going into a teenager's room to put a basket of clean socks in his drawer, not knocking and opening the door before the teenager could toss the weed he was dividing up back under the bed. The teenager then explodes at his mother for being so rude for not knocking, but the real reason for his anger is that his mother caught him with weed.
The bishops 'get it' very well it seems, having read their statement."
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes, Pete, and you still haven't read her book to compare what the bishops have stated with what she actually wrote. By the way, on one page (and it is not the only page like that), the bishops criticize her for failing to support male terms for God----and it is on the very page that they cite that
she failed to support these terms that she did.
And all this verifies that the bishops really have a mental concept of God that belongs back in the middle ages. God, in their mind, is an Old Man with a long beard----who submitted the 10 Commandments, and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and the Priestly prayer of Christ (found in John's Gospel) to the Magisterium for an Imprimatur, before uttering a single word.
Beth is not a teenager smoking 'weed'. Rather, the bishops are acting like little boys on a Little League team, who face a girl on the other team, who pitches a no-hitter.
I believe that she could more than hold her own in a discussion of her book with any and all of the bishops on the committee any day of the week.
The bishops who are clones of
The bishops who are clones of JP2 and his guy Friday, now gloriously reigning, are not truly members of a teaching episcopate. That is the last part of the apostolic job description these two popes had in mind for their appointees.
John Paul and Benedict XVI looked for enforcers of "orthodoxy". A low barrier to be sure and not much of a firey hoop to jump through either. Any child can be an enforcer.
The USCCB has few bishops today who are qualified to do battle with any theologian where it counts the most: in the public forum with debate, patient and skillful scholarly exposition and disputation. Instead, they retreat to AUTHORITY, the last refuge for bullies, tyrants, and intellectual midgets.
I'm getting very tired of these heel-clicking prelates and their SS-style tactics to demonstrate their undying loyalty to this Bavarian bureaucrat, Ratzinger.
Most of the bishops have as
Most of the bishops have as much air in their heads as they have under their mitres...sad, probalby can't stay awake long enough to read Johnson's book.
I remember the same defect re Fr. McBrien's travesty, we have a truly sorry lot of bishops and their syncophants. Sad
Pete as I read the entire
Pete as I read the entire actual statement of the USSB, I see that the bishop prefer a continued catechistic approach on the collegiate level rather than growth and development. One would think that this approach would be reserved for a much lower level of education. The American Episcopacy seem to wish a Catholic cultism rather than to allow young developing minds to be exposed to ideas and creativity. Most young adults that are truly interested in knowing more and thinking more about our God will simply become bored by the approach of todays Bishops.
Since Universities are centers for higher learning and increasing the creativity of those they seek to teach, they must have the academic freedom to help minds at the collegiate level seek more truth. Instead, it is clear from the Bishops statements that they simply believe this will cause chaos rather than bear any fruits. If Catholic Universities follow these Episcopal wishes, of the books that may be used, they will no longer be institutions of higher learning but become merely catechetical centers for the teaching of Episcopal approved doctrine.
Certainly Science as a discipline is not safe at this type of a center because it requires observations in present time not an Episcopal definition of what is believed to be true. Any time a scientist makes a discovery that proves a dogma not exactly correct, the Bishops seek sanctions against science and the scientist and refuse to understand that their own doctrine may be in need of repair. The Bishops believe in their own definitions; observations of truth be damned! If the Bishops have their way in these centers, Forget about tolerance for developing new and improved ways of thinking in philosophy. There certainly could be no allowance for philosophers that would challenge the Bishops about ways of thinking. History itself would be submitted to "approved" facts of the Bishops.
Any Catholic University that would submit to this form of Episcopal tyranny will not be allowed to produce the creativity that a society should expect from higher learning. The belief that the Bishop is THE Teacher of his diocese is behind this attempt to control by these men. It is regrettable that the Bishops are not the humble shepherds that would seek to guide their people into a more creative and sustainable ways to live. It is the Bishops' own lack of faith in the on going work of the Holy Spirit in the teachers that are dedicated to grow and develop in their scholarship that presents the problem. It is not the book writtne by Sister Johnson. Bishops can not have the back ground or curriculum vitae that the many teachers at a University have, they do not dedicate their lives to the academic research required of a scholar, and instead of being humble shephards they wish to control thoughts and ideas of those who spend there whole lives thinking about better approaches for living in real time.
An interesting parallel is the tendency of a political tyrant who does not wish new ideas in his people will close down the University or in the case of the Chinese Cultural Revolution send the professors away from the university to do brute labor. When this occurs it is because the tyrants fear that new ideas will bring chaos to his own attempts to control his people. This censorship of Sister Johnson is purely the tyrannical action of Bishops who see themselves as omniscient. They are attempting to act as omnipotent barons at the Catholic University in an attempt to control these institutions as part of their cultish thought. There fear of chaos is unfounded. It is the Episcopal rigidity to change itself that is the telling problem. If Universities listen to them, they cease to be the great institutions that society expects and they cease to function as centers for higher learning. So we as Catholics should welcome Sister Johnson's book as one of many that our students will read at the University.
May we seek peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Wow, a great piece Dr. Porch.
Wow, a great piece Dr. Porch.
Looking at the way this ws
Looking at the way this ws handled I can't help feeling that the guys are slapping down an uppity woman.... The same guys who can't keep their own moral house in order... Maybe it's time we listened more carefully to voices outside the hierarchy.
Imprimaturs are put on
Imprimaturs are put on catechisms, and canon law books. I haven't read a single book on theology that has an imprimatur. That includes Karl Rahner.
I'm wondering why it is now being suggested that theologians have imprimaturs on their books. Seems contrary to the freedom advocated by Vatican II. Theologians are those persons who expand the thinking of the Church. It also seems more than interesting that would choose a woman theologian's work who is a well established, respected, and widely read, to recommend such a thing.
"Seems contrary to the
"Seems contrary to the freedom advocated by Vatican II."
And what that's going on in the Catholic world these days isn't? Much of what's going on smacks of a strong desire to return to pre_Vatican II days and even earlier. If that's the case, I strongly urge our bishops to return to traveling by horse and carriage and stop using phones and computers.
I have seen imprimaturs on
I have seen imprimaturs on books of much lesser importance than the Bible and the Catechism. Karl Rahner was popular but espoused egregious errors in moral theological thought. He taught for instance that formal existentialist ethics were to supplant material essentialist ethics using the rules of discernment according to St. Ignatius. However, St. Ignatius rules for discernment states that if the individual perceives a thing to be one way and the Church states that it is to the contrary then that person must correct and align their assumptions to what the Church teaches. St. Augustine himself took the same stance. We have also had poor moral theologians and teachers like Charles Curran,to whom the only fault I can ascribe to the Bishops was not getting rid of him sooner. Also, Hans Kung who lost his ecclesiastical mandate to teach Catholic theology by the late (great) John Paul II.
DavidW on Apr. 08, 2011. You
DavidW on Apr. 08, 2011.
You stated:
"I have seen imprimaturs on books of much lesser importance than the Bible and the Catechism. Karl Rahner was popular but espoused egregious errors in moral theological thought. He taught for instance that formal existentialist ethics were to supplant material essentialist ethics using the rules of discernment according to St. Ignatius. However, St. Ignatius rules for discernment states that if the individual perceives a thing to be one way and the Church states that it is to the contrary then that person must correct and align their assumptions to what the Church teaches. St. Augustine himself took the same stance. We have also had poor moral theologians and teachers like Charles Curran,to whom the only fault I can ascribe to the Bishops was not getting rid of him sooner. Also, Hans Kung who lost his ecclesiastical mandate to teach Catholic theology by the late (great) John Paul II."
------------------------------------------------------
Ah, yes, DavidW. And we are still living in the days of St. Ignatius and St. Augustine, too. They were human beings---shaped and formed by their world and their understanding of it. Their understanding cannot guide the Church for this new millenium
Your concept of God is that knowledge of God has to bend to the dictates of the Church (even though the Church hasn't caught up to the rest of the the world, yet). God cannot be boxed by the Church. And the Church has not grasped all that there is to know about God.
According to what you stated, the Church was correct to force Galileo to recant his studies, because the Church stated that the earth was in the center and all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth(and the Church was wrong). It was fine and proper for the Church to burn Joan of Arc at the stake, because she claimed she heard heavenly voices directing her. And the Church stated that God would never have a woman lead armies (and the Church was wrong).
The Church stated that God created the world in six days, but Darwin proposed evolution as having actually occured. The Church condemned Darwinism (and the Church was wrong). The world still is experiencing evolution on a material level and on and existential level as well. With knowledge expanding every 5 years, Rahner has his theology quite correct.
As far as the way Han Kung was treated by JP II and worse by Benedict XVI----
their treatment of him are sins crying to Heaven for justice.
The U.S. bishops chose not to
The U.S. bishops chose not to follow their own guidelines
Bishops do what they want, and are accountable to nobody, not even their brother bishops. They've made that clear.
Consider this the next time some bishop's PR droid points to the Dallas Charter for the protection of Youth and claims that it is the policy of their diocese.
On an April 6, commentary by
On an April 6, commentary by one of the major contributors of Commonwealmagazine, and a trained theologian, the question was asked, 'did the Committee on Doctrine even read ‘Quest for the Living God’?
Johnson's book was carefully checked and she clearly states that she is not out to replace all male references to God. Rather, she believes that BOTH can be used. She even quoted Pope John Paul I (yes, the first one), who had the same belief.
Many of those on Commonweal came to the conclusion that no, the bishops committee didn't really read "Quest for the Living God." They only wanted to smear the reputation of an excellent theologian.
And then there was the
And then there was the comment that was "censored" for being not "relevant" because it suggested that sometimes you CAN judge a book by its' cover, not to mention that a book's cover is relevant to the book.
[Winandy] cited several
[Winandy] cited several reasons, including the urgency of the matter, the widespread use of the book, and the ineffectiveness of other earlier efforts to resolve conflicts.
Urgency? The book's over 3 years old!!!
Of course, Elizabeth Johnson is a WOMAN theologian, so I'm guessing that guidelines only apply to male theologians?
I've read the book...Johnson lays out how people of varying cultures, etc. see/understand God...did she say this is the doctrine of the Church? No, she didn't...
But learning how others comprehend (?) God certainly can advance one's own spiritual life and open us up to listening to God more fully.
"I've read the book...Johnson
"I've read the book...Johnson lays out how people of varying cultures, etc. see/understand God...did she say this is the doctrine of the Church? No, she didn't...
But learning how others comprehend (?) God certainly can advance one's own spiritual life and open us up to listening to God more fully."
Right on, Rachel.
I wonder if any of those,
I wonder if any of those, bishops and others, involved in the Johnson affair, are well-read enough in Scripture to recognize the name of Gamaliel? His advice has always struck me as being particularly sound (Acts 5:34-39). Look it up and see for yourself.
"Otherwise the bishops are
"Otherwise the bishops are always caught trying to play catch-up. And so they are always at a disadvantage", so speaketh the exec.dir for doctrine of the US conf. of Cath.Bishops in justifying "breaking the rules".
So, breaking rules, ignoring concensus conventions, reneging on consultative and signed agreements are necessary for the bishops, the hierarchy, to "be with the game". How machiavellian, how "un-Christlike", how untrustworthy.
Though one small slice of patriarchical authoritarianism it is however, a teaching moment.
"But when it seems imperative
"But when it seems imperative that something needs to be said and said soon, that cannot always be done."
The bishops are two-faced idiots and liars (that would make their father the devil).....uh....says so in the Bible.............they should put their heads in the sand and hide out of sheer embarrassment and self-disgust
................the sexual abuse of children.............well that wasn't a pressing issue now was it???? They certainly couldn't act quickly there afterall they didn't want to end their fun! They are quick with the excommunications and the flapping of their mouths. Another example of the hierarchy flaunting their abuse of power and maintaining zero accountability.
Cheers,
The only "disadvantage" the
The only "disadvantage" the bishops are at is their failure to be pastoral rather than canonical and dogmatic. Cardinal Wuerl's pointed finger is an indication of such behavior. Vitually all of contemporary theologians commend Prof. Johnson for her lucidity and pastoral approach.
Pax. Aristophilos
Perhaps the seriousness of
Perhaps the seriousness of the flaws, amounting to heresy, required immediate action on the part of the bishops. That the author did not follow Catholic teachings in her text indicates that she knew she was writing a book with 'theological' ideas which are in defiance of the Catholic Church and its Magesterium. One more low blow for Satan on the part of a supposed 'professed' religious.
"abbyschult" One simple
"abbyschult"
One simple question: Did you read the book? If not, how can you say that she knew she was writing a book ........in defiance of the church?
Simple answer: Sometimes you
Simple answer: Sometimes you can judge a book by its' cover.
abbyschultz, how do you
abbyschultz, how do you define "immediate" action. The book was published in 2007!
required immediate
required immediate action
__________________________
2007 to 2011 is hardly immediate action. Nah. It is one more blow for Satan tho because good and rational people everywhere don't trust the sneaky snakey 'professed' prelates. Elizabeth Johnson like many other women- religious and priests follow Jesus and shame the Bishops.
Wow, you certainly jump to
Wow, you certainly jump to some conclusions and even Satan is behind this book. Get a grip and start thinking and not be a uninformed non educated Catholic. They waited 3 yrs to bring this out. Looks liken they were seriously worried about it...not. Could it be because she is a well received and well read "woman" religious and how dare she think on her own? And why are woman so hard on women?
These "bishops" if you can call them that, live splendidly off our donations and due to their complicity in the clericalism and cover-up of the sexual abuse crisis in the church they have no right to "judge" anyone else. They let our children be raped and if one of those kids were your child you would feel very differently. They have lost their credibility so who really cares what they think? Do you really think the majority of Catholics care what they think of their opinions on anything? I think not. Let them read their findings to each other. We do not care what they say anymore. Not after hurting the children.
It is the job of theologians
It is the job of theologians to create ideas. Why are so many people afraid of ideas? Ideas are creative acts, made by people imitating their Creator. Ideas can be read, thought about, and then rejected, or accepted, or modified. Or a little fragment of an idea might stimulate your own original idea. Or a piece of an idea might intrigue you for years, as it periodically keeps suggesting something important or truthful. To read an idea is not to force anyone to believe it. Some bishops seem to be mixing up a healthy generation and sharing of ideas with forcible child molestation. This whole overreaction to ideas seems really confused.
If the bishops didn't engage
If the bishops didn't engage in dialog because "in past instances dialogue with theologians 'came to nothing,'" why would they expect theologians to initiate it?
Why would anyone now expect
Why would anyone now expect bishops to follow their own rules. The rules are what they say they are on any given day regardless of the contradictions or the lies.
The Queen of Hearts comes to
The Queen of Hearts comes to mind.
"On the issue of following
"On the issue of following the procedures set forth in “Doctrinal Responsibilities,” Weinandy said, “The bishops felt that, all things being equal, those guidelines should be or can be employed. But when it seems imperative that something needs to be said and said soon, that cannot always be done. The book was out there for three years before it was brought to our attention, so I think the bishops were wanting to clarify the situation as quickly as they could.”
*********************************************************************
Boy howdy, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sure is keeping up with the cutting edge of Catholic theology in the US, isn't it? The book was a top seller in the field for 3 years and the bishops had never heard of it! I wonder if her gender had anything to do with the bishops not bothering to read it. It certainly had something to do with them not calling her up or asking her to visit them over the space of 1 full year. I guess Wuerl had other more impoertant things to do like backing Olmsted over his decision to pronounce the self excommunication of a Phoenix nun before running off to Rome to get measured for a new set of cardinal colored duds.
when the Bishops want a
when the Bishops want a woman's opinion, they will give it to her.
Shirley, thanks for the
Shirley, thanks for the laugh!
One of the problems with the
One of the problems with the hierarchy's royal exceptionalism posture is that "established guidelines" mean absolutely nothing in actual practice in any venue — we've seen how that works in Philadelphia and elsewhere. It's all window-dressing, and they continue to do as they please. It's yet another variation of allowing "the end to justify the means" when it works to their advantage.
Credibility is everything, gentlemen. Perhaps these prelates should try practicing what they preach.
Well said, Aileen. "The U.S.
Well said, Aileen.
"The U.S. bishops chose not to follow their own guidelines in handling disputes between bishops and theologians before issuing a critique last week of a 2007 book by a prominent U.S. theologian."
And who really is listening to them anyway? Hardly any among those I know.
Being a native Philadelphian who lives just next door in New Castle, Delaware, I can assure everyone out there the recent release of the second Philadelphia Grand Jury Report on the Philly Archdiocese has destroyed whatever appearance of credibility, acccountability and transparency the bishops have tried to have us buy into since 2002.
By his actions, in what he has done and in what he has failed to do, Cardinal Rigali has truly shown us "The Criminal Legacy of American Catholic Bishops,"
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Criminal-Legacy-of...
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
maturlishmdsnd@yahoo.com
www.votfgp.org
This book was published four
This book was published four years ago. So...where is the urgency that
bishops are using their failure to follow proper procedure in criticizing it?
Says +Wuerl: “By seeking an
Says +Wuerl: “By seeking an imprimatur, the author has the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the bishop concerning the Catholic teaching expressed in the book"..... “Thus, clarifications concerning the text can be made prior to its publication.”
Yes, and those "clarifications" would come from a group of institutionalized theologians who would tie up the authors in pedantic red ink."Weinandy, who has been the executive director of the Secretariat for Doctrine since 2005, lamented that in past instances dialogue with theologians “came to nothing.” I rest my case.
While no one should be
While no one should be surprised when bishops ignore their own rules and make fools of themselves, the sad thing is, that their actions negatively affect faithful ministers of the gospel, like Sister Elizabeth.
Don't know how long faith-filled members of the Roman church can continue to ignore the foolishness of their bishops, before saying: enough is enough!
I've listened to people like Sister Joan, Fr. Richard Rohr and Fr. Hans Kung, telling us to hold in there... that it is OUR church, not just theirs, but it is getting more difficult, every time a bishop opens his mouth.
In the diocese, I am in, the bishop "disappeared" one year ago today, with no real explanation. Several months later he sent an email to the chancery ( not, by the way, to the people) saying he was on a sabbatical in Jerusalem!
Not a word since..... lawyers are looking for him to witness in a sexual abuse trial, but no one seems to know where he is! I would suggest Rome, with Bernie Law. The chancery meets the lawyers' request with "arrogant silence."
And it goes on and on........ is this any way to run a church?
Why should His Emminence
Why should His Emminence Cardinal Wuerl consult with anybody? He thinks he has a divine right to do as he pleases. Here is a recent quote of his that is a telling signal of the new ideologues Benedict has placed in power who will be sure to bring down many more U.S. theologians without due process:
“But for priests, we meet him (Christ) at the level of identity—of oneness. Our spiritual life is rooted and nurtured by this constant realized memorial in which we, as Christ, act and are united.”
Taken from Born of the Eucharist: A Spirituality for Priests, Liturgical Press, 2009, page 57.
Thanks Anonymous. I hope this
Thanks Anonymous. I hope this quote of Wuerl is accurate. If it is, it is astoundingly outrageous. It is so unbiblical that he seems to be talking about some foreign group of some fundamental sect that is non-Christian. How this is grounded in the Bible is a mystery.
Why does it often seem that
Why does it often seem that an inverse relationship between laity and episcopate develops when the spirit of the gospel is revealed? The more the enlightenment / the more the chasm.
ric on Apr. 07, 2011. You
ric on Apr. 07, 2011.
You stated:
"Why does it often seem that an inverse relationship between laity and episcopate develops when the spirit of the gospel is revealed? The more the enlightenment / the more the chasm."
-----------------------------------------------
What 'spirit of the gospel is revealed?" Where in any of the 4 gospels does Jesus ordain any the Twelve Apostles? And if you point to the Last Supper, even the official Church teaching is that---it cannot be proved with any credibility---that ONLY the Twelve Apostles were present at the Last Supper.In other words, it cannot be proved that women were not present at this Passover Meal as well. The fact that so many Eucharistic celebrations were held in private homes, with women presiders in the early (years)of Christianity---indicates that women were present and were elected by their community to both lead it and preside at the celebration of the Eucharist.
There was no time for the
There was no time for the bishops to follow procedures, even their own, because they were merely scurrying in this incident to deflect attention from the latest debacle in the priestly pederasty outrage, in Philadelphia. Likewise Rome, which is on the record for equating women's ordination with clerical child rape as the most grave crimes, at this time brought pressure to bear on Maryknoll to dismiss Father Roy Bourgeois.
Hmmm - I think you might be
Hmmm - I think you might be on to something here. The "distract & deflect" strategy seems to be just about the only thing in the episcopal toolbox these days. How about a little read and reflect. eminences? Or maybe even, since there's a high probability that few, if any, in the group have actually read Sr. Johnson's book, "be still and know I am God"?
There was no time... the book
There was no time... the book had been out there for three years before someone brought it to our attention
In other words the bishops are not reading theology. I am not surprised.
Quick! Quick! Doesn't she
Quick! Quick!
Doesn't she know who is in control?
Hurry! Hurry! Hurry! These women who have forgotten they are inferior are once again showing their heads. Pretty soon they will think they have a right to dignity.
And be sure and rain on her parade right after she gets a prestigious award. The will really put her in her back in her place.
Sort of what the GOP politicians do to President Obama to keep him in his place, isn't it.
Every time he accomplishes something, they step on it, immediately.
What is this world coming to.
I suppose today they would step on Jesus because he's not western and doesn't check with the Bishops for approval of what he says.
It's amazing over the past
It's amazing over the past few years as the pedophilia/child rape scandal ramps up and even whole countries are torn apart by it, losing credibility for the church, how these men deflect and distract by attacking and excommunicating another woman or nun here and there, or just going after all of them.
Sr Joan Chittister
Sister Louise Lears,
Sr. Margaret McBride
Sr. Elizabeth Johnson
Investigation/Inquisition of women's religious orders
Dear God, if they could, they would just drag these women out and burn them at the stake as "witches" one and all (read: smart, shining women who think apart from the hogwash they are brainwashed with).
And they wonder why there are few vocations?
"Medium & message." Since the
"Medium & message." Since the book is so popular, and the bishops weren't on the bit initially, it is surprising that they did not see this as an invaluable teaching moment. If they had engaged in a "pastoral" styled response, engaging readers and potential readers on issues of doctrine with the "true" doctrine articulated with context, would that not have provided a much more effective and digestible route to their purpose of protecting the faith and the faithful?
It makes me wonder whether they are not so swift as a group or whether their real purpose was not to, as some say, to "put down" a female theologian or to give an example of hierarchical imperialism?
This condemnatory initiative
This condemnatory initiative sounds to me like a directive from Rome..
The Americans, including Wuerl, probably couldn't have cared less.
Better late than never, as they say in the Vatican.
Testing. testing. testing. Who knows what for.
Maybe a visitation?
Pretty soon no one's going to be scared of the big bad wolf.
What do they do then?
Excommunicate? excommunicate? Excommunicate?
Good thing there is no exception in American law for burning at the stake.
Four years ago, I gave up
Four years ago, I gave up Catholic guilt and fear for Lent. I'm no longer afraid of the big bad wolves, and don't mind letting them know what I think.
The book under discussion is one of the books that the new priest threw out of the church library when he took over a parish I was attending a couple years ago. He announced that he cleaned out the library because some of the books weren't Catholic, and one of the books even mentiond that God might be a female. He gave the theology books to the seminary because the "seminarians could understand them better than could the laity." This was a young priest fresh out of the seminary. When my wife and I are in that area for extended periods, we attend the Episcopal Church which has a large percentage of former Catholics.
Dan Pickett
The book was a theology best
The book was a theology best seller and it took the bishops three years to find out it existed. Some urgency!!! Are those guys living in a coal mine? This incident also shows how much stock the bishops put in their own written commitments to deal fairly with those who live outside the rarified environs of their old boy's club. That's probably about the same degree of seriousness their written commitment to protect our children deserves.
"...The book was out there
"...The book was out there for three years before it was brought to our attention, so I think the bishops were wanting to clarify the situation as quickly as they could.”
I wonder who 'brought it to our attention.' Don't they read NCR, America and Commonweal? This is just more nonsense.
Sister's book "is marred by
Sister's book "is marred by “misrepresentations, ambiguities and errors” and “completely undermines the Gospel and the faith of those who believe in the Gospel.”
Must be a very persuasive and powerful book in that it COMPLETELY undermines, etc. How do the bishops know all this? Did they go around, asking and "testing" people who read the book? Or is this just an ASSUMPTION because something like this needs to be ASSUMED to make their rebuke of this book sound "well-founded"? Like: inventing a straw-man so that you have something to aim your gun at.
I expected better from Bp.
I expected better from Bp. Wuerl; however, if he wants to keep on "rising" in the ranks, he has to bow to the Vatican. Politics and religion: both are guilty of some of the 7 deadly social sins as noted by Gandhi which I suggest you Google.
Post new comment