Bishops' theologian critical of Fordham theologian

Well, good! That is the way Theology is supposed to work. The give and take among scholars can eventually lead to some insight and greater degree of expressing "the truth".

Does this read as a paranoid article or what?

In my years of theological and historical studies, one thing I have picked up is that if you want no trouble from Rome, do not stray from a few dogmatic issues and one will not have a problem: Christology, Mary, and abortion. Deny the Trinity or Sacraments an nobody cares. Why? Who knows? Just don't touch those three and you are fine. Of course, by causing an issue with Rome, it brings an author more publicity and perhaps leads to better sales of her/his book.

Another USCCB assault. I don't pretend to know the finer points of the theological examination of Christology, but I do know this: the Vatican has not acted "in a scholarly, respectful and professional manner" since JP2 took office.

Thank you, Mr. Allen, for this insightful and comprehensive report of issues critical to our Faith and our understanding which is theology. If we cannot understand as we understand we will never understand, which is an incomprehensible way of saying what Mr. Allen so clearly and succinctly says here as: "Finding ways to express who Christ was in ways relevant to their cultures and times, without betraying the content of the faith."

Commited Catholic readers may find helpful the relevant original texts, so valuable for our pilgrimage of Faith, not only in the link supplied here to ctsa, but also more than anything else in the books. Read them this Christmas season for a firm rebirth of our Faith.

from the Reverend Father Jacques Dupuis SJ:

Who Do You Say I Am?: Introduction to Christology

Christianity and the Religions: From Confrontation to Dialogue

Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism

Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions (Faith Meets Faith Series)

From Fordham's Father Tilley:
Inventing Catholic Tradition
The Disciples' Jesus: Christology As Reconciling Practice
The Evils of Theodicy
History, Theology, and Faith: Dissolving the Modern Problematic
New Horizons In Theology (Annual Publication of the College Theology Society)
The Wisdom of Religious Commitment
Postmodern Theologies: The Challenge of Religious Diversity
Talking of God: An introduction to philosophical analysis of religious language (An Exploration book)
Religious Diversity and the American Experience: A Theological Approach
History, Theology, and Faith: Dissolving the Modern Problematic

plus numerous articles and lectures, all essential reading for understanding our Faith in its fullness, and learning to Love our Enemy in truth and in peace.

After reading the address and the response from Thomas Weinandy, I have a better understanding of why St. Francis asked his friars to burn the books! St. Francis wrote to St. Anthony that yes he may teach provided that he not lose the spirit of humility that would be requisite of the friars. Humility is one virtue that Weinandy does not seem to value. He calls Dr. Tilley's address: unscholarly, fallacious, and superficial. This does not sound Franciscan to me.

What Dr. Tilley is trying to argue is that we need to find new ways to communicate our doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity to the people of our age. How true! If one tries to teach these concepts in a class, as I do, one will note that these are difficult concepts for contemporary people to comprehend. I, (and perhaps it is due to my own limitations, no doubt) have a difficulty trying to help people of Jewish, Muslim, and atheist backgrounds understand our beliefs. I should note that most of the Catholics in my classes have no idea about these concepts, and are surprised by the meaning of the words they have been reciting in the Nicean/Calcedonian Creed.

The people I encounter do not understand the complexities of these realities. There needs to be a new way to speak, or new models to refer to when teaching the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Reaching out to our multi-religious, multi-cultural world is not easy. But I guess reaching out to the non scholarly, is beneath Weinandy. He is way too good for that.
(St. Francis - perhaps you were correct!)

Let's just line up all the liberal heretics and burn them at the stake.

Why don't we line up all the "liberal" heretics and burn them at the stake! Where is the Holy Office when we need it!

Greek philosophy and its terminology is merely a medium through which the faith has been expressed. Weinandy does not seem to realize that there is a very real difference between the antiquated, generally unintelligible Platonic vocabulary in which Christian truth in the past has been phrased and the eternal Christian truth itself. Does he really imagine that Platonism is the ONLY lens through which a believer can interpret the Jewish texts which comprise the New Testament?

How can a statement, presented in language, be "a true ontological account of the mystery, one that can be known and believed.”? Isn't ontology always beyond language? Isn't all language a model with a referent which is always beyond itself?

Weinandy says that when the Vatican criticizes a theologian, it always does so “in a scholarly, respectful and professional manner.” That'll be the day!! I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

So the "orthodox" theologian states that when the Vatican criticizes theologians, it does so "in a scholarly, respectful and professional manner."

Pure BS!

I won't get into the "scholarly" part, but a "respectful and professional manner" do not at all characterize the CDF's treatment of theologians under Ratzinger's tenure.

I suggest that Weinandy's comments (at least in this respect) mirror the codependent (and, thus, dysfunctional) behavior of his friends in Rome.

These Vatican suckups are so out of touch with reality.

What a joke --- and what a pity!

It appears that Fr. Weinandy is a bit confused. He seems to be putting belief as the cause of faith when actually belief is faith expressed in words.
Gaile M. Pohlhaus, PhD.
Practical Theologian
"Set love as your criterion..." Augustine of Hippo

Over the years I have read a lot about the fear of relativism among the doctrinal guards at the core of the Catholic institutional Church.This has led to some kind of vigilance ,control,silencing of some theologians in the periphery.This is understandable.One way to look at it is that persons at the core and the periphery are both sure about their different stands on Christological issues-so they refuse to dialogue and exchange opinions that might change views of both parties.They act as opponents.Another way to look at it is that both the core[right-ist]group and the peripheral[left-ist]group have been 'searching' since Vatican II.So much has happened in the Church and outside,so many new challenges coming due to changes in the contemporary world, it seems too much for the Institutional doctrinal guards to give priority to Christology-so there is a deliberate silencing of the issue in formal circles[not really a silencing of theological thought-because from what I see, it is very free among thinkers in the Church in the informal space.]
With regard to the fear of relativism I sincerely sympathize with the Pope.However I've not found enough reflection among Church authorities and theologians on one question that is constantly stirring my mind and heart.In multi-religious situations there seems no significant difference in the value system of peoples following different formal religions or beliefs.The presence of the Holy Spirit is expressed through the same fruits.Inspite of the Church's missionary identity or attempts to evangelize the world,I personally think the Institutional Church and Christians are not superior ontologically due to consecration through baptism and other sacraments, rites and rituals, when compared with similar religiosity among other religions.The quality of life in not necessarily different among people of different religions.
Inspite of the similar quality of life among followers of various religions, when I look at the faith experience ,even through a dialogue at the mystical level, inspite of much similarity which points all to the same Ultimate Reality or God, there are 'several levels of depth' of the experience of God through Incarnation[whether mythological or historical or anticipatory]that differentiate the experience /journey of each religion.
Hence a Christology that fulfills human expectations in its struggles in the comtemporary world, one that is very down to earth as the historical Jesus, but still not confined to the Church or ANY religious institution, rite or ritual ---is the need of the hour.It involves a shift in focus from the Christ of the Church, to the Christ of the entire Universe.
This means ,letting Christ knock at the door of peoples hearts and the doors of other religions[hence not limited to Christianity which may still retain its identity and boundaries as a religion].It may even mean a spiritual re-birth /baptism in the Spirit -that does not demand membership of an Institutional Church .I think Jesus Christ cannot and will not be relativized. "He will retain His identity even when He enters the hearts of individuals and followers of other religions".
He does not need any guards to hold the Truth in their pockets for fear of relativism !They should not be surprized that He has freed Himself from the Church and is knocking at the doors outside the Church so He can be the King of their hearts too!

Oh boy! I'm just a shade tree theologian; doubt if either the "Fellowship" or the "Society" would admit me, CUA grad or not. Friends and I -- Religious Ed types -- do read and discuss Catholic authors a lot. So, what, is there a Gospel truth and an ontological truth? Are we born God's children, become ontologically different/superior in Baptism? and ontologically different/uber-superior with Holy Orders? Are we ontologically predisposed in utero? We would be more comfortable with Weinandy inasmuch as we need to talk to folks where they are at the parish and/or barber shop level -- where there is adult conversation taking place betimes. That's a pastoral bias, not relativism, and if it ends in a conversion and conversation with Jesus and His Father and openness to the Spirit, of what value is the "ontologically different" distinction, except to contribute to exclusivity and entrench anti-clericalism in these United States.

"...while Weinandy says that when the Vatican criticizes a theologian, it always does so “in a scholarly, respectful and professional manner.”

WEll, we already know that that is not the case, so that statement sure casts doubt on the rest of it. We do have to remember that sometimes all of this is simply academic (and otherwise) competitiveness.

Oh boy, again. Mea culpa. I mixed up the names in my earlier post. It is Tilley's approach that my friends and I find more comfortable. But we do not see -- nor would we condone -- a relativism that concerns Weinandy just because people are startled by their personal revelation that the Christ can be related to as a very human Jesus.

Allen writes: "Tilley suggests that contemporary theologians are doing what earlier church fathers and councils did: Finding ways to express who Christ was in ways relevant to their cultures and times, without betraying the content of the faith."

Perhaps that offers a clue to fundamental problem Tilley and some theologians, past and present, encounter as they engage in their theological speculations: they should be more concerned to find ways of expressing who Christ IS in ways relevant to their cultures and times, rather than finding ways of expressing who Christ WAS in ways relevant to their cultures and times, without betraying the content of the faith.

It makes a difference whether one approaches Christ as a dead laboratory specimen for dissection or as a living reality.

I went to the web site for Catholic Scholars.
Found several interesting tenets.
Page 16
Contraception as the analogous of murder; more serious than fornication.
Page 18
Contraception is at the root of the culture of death.
Page 22
Abortion is the equivalant of killing a living baby in a sacrifice to the devil(Moloch).

Now I see where some of the justification for the Manhattan Declaration comes from.

These bishops are not going to stop with abortion. Next will be contraception.

Maybe it would help us all if NCR did a couple of articles on Ontological foundations and Post-Modernist Structural foundations.
I know as a simple, but interested parish priest and a teacher of religion in a Catholic High School, I'm seriously challenged by PMS foundations impacting on other areas of the curriculum.
I find my students to be very respectful of the Church's foundations but they would like to be able to understand how PMS can fit into being a modern Catholic younf adult's life.

"At that stage, Ratzinger’s footnote was no more than a scholarly citation, yet it signaled that Dupuis was on the radar screen of the church’s doctrinal authorities."

The footnote in question:

"Church-centeredness, Christ-centeredness, God-centeredness, all of these seem to give way to kingdom-centeredness, the centering on the kingdom as the common task of all religions, under which point of view and standard they are supposed to meet.[4]"

4 Cf. the indications of J. Dupuis, "The Kingdom of God and World Religions,— in Vidyajyoti, Journal of Theological Reflection 51 (1987), p. 530-544.

cf. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZHONG.HTM

Surely, the Capuchin hatchet-man for the USCCB is doing the backstroke in a river of denial:

"...Weinandy says that when the Vatican criticizes a theologian, it always does so “in a scholarly, respectful and professional manner.”

Fr. Jacques Dupuis, S.J.

In the Press...

* Jacques Dupuis, SJ 1923-2004 Times Online. January 12, 2005.
* Remembering Jacques Dupuis, by John Allen, Jr. Word from Rome January 7, 2005.
* "Rome sends mixed signals on Jesuit contributions", by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter, April 27, 2001.
* "Theologian Criticized by Vatican Wrote Interreligious Guidelines". America. April 23, 2001.
* "A Matter of Justice : Was the trial of Jacques Dupuis really necessary?", by Ladislas Orsy. America. April 16, 2001.
* "Ways of Salvation? On the investigation of Jacques Dupuis", by Francis J. Sullivan. America. April 9, 2001.
* "Theologian's work merits encouragement, not censure". National Catholic Reporter. March 9, 2001.
* "Theologian Dupuis says He's Free At Last", by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter, March 9, 2001.
* "Cardinals Air Differences on Role of Doctrinal Congregation". America. April 10, 1999.
* "Provincials decry Vatican Suspicion of Asian Theology", National Catholic Reporter, April 2, 1999.
* "Ratzinger Rips Konig's Criticism", National Catholic Reporter, April 2, 1999.
* In Defence of Jacques Dupuis, by Cardinal Franz Konig. The Tablet, January 16, 1999.
* "Indian Archbishop Defends Jesuit Theologian". America Dec 5, 1998.
* "Two European Scholars Under Scrutiny for Heresy", by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter, Nov. 20, 1998.

Documents Pertaining To...

* Commentary on the Notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism by Father Jacques Dupuis, S.J., Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, March 20, 2001.
* Statement of Father Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Feb. 26, 2001.
* Notification on the book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Orbis Books: Maryknoll, New York 1997), by Father Jacques Dupuis, S.J., Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Jan. 24, 2001.

Access many of these at:
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/cdf.html

The CDF's post-Hong Kong "treatment" of venerable Father Dupuis was and remains morally reprehensible both in form and content. They literally destroyed a man who had given his entire life to the Church, the Jesuits and to his beloved India.

But Dupuis is enjoying his eternal reward in the company of his confrere Roberto de Nobili, S.J. who endured the same treatment at the hands of the Vatican:

http://ignatianspirituality.com/ignatian-voices/16th-and-17th-century-ig...

Thomas Weinandy just might keep me Roman Catholic. As opposed to Terrence Tilley, whose "theology" (What else do I call it? "Crap" comes immediately to mind, but that favors accuracy over charity) will send me screaming to Oriental Orthodoxy, where they don't put up with this nonsense.

At least from the article, the two sound like they're pretty much equals. Don't theologians- and academicians- often disagree? It's not like one trumps the other. I'm trying to figure out what the issue is here .

Has Weinandy adequately studied the hermeneutics of the fourth century councils in light of modern criticism of their categories (Schleiermacher, Harnack etc.)?

I've read both Tilley's address and Weinandy's response, and both make many valid points. Weinandy is more buttoned down, more accurate, when it comes to presenting the specific Christological issues and definitions that Tilley rightly contends have oftimes left the faithful at an "impasse." Weinandy is right: Tilley is sort of sloppy in his presentation.
However, it seems the point of Tilley's address is not really to discuss Christological points. Rather, he seems to be using those points and the impasses they created to illustrate communication or the lack thereof in the Church.
It strikes me that Weinandy is more correct when it comes to the specifics of Christology, while Tilley is on the money when he discusses the murkier issue of the how poorly suited 1500-year-old terminology is in helping modern people understand difficult theological concepts. He's right when he says it was a good thing that we now pray in the name of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" instead of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Ghost no longer means the indwelling spirit or soul; it means the restless dead of the horror-flick genre to most modern people. And the ancient terms that 6th Century theologians used to define the two natures in one person of Christ are even hard for me to keep track of--and I only recently left the seminary where we had to study these things at length. Many those terms are fine for priests to study, but we must be able to present those ideas to parishioners in terms that are easier to understand or we will not effectivly communicate the foundational ideas of the Catholic faith. And if we are not communicating those ideas in a way people can understand, we're not doing our jobs as well as we should be.
I'll offer one glaring, easy-to-understand example of how problems arise when the Church uses terms that are understood differently by regular people out in the world. In discussing homosexuality, the Church repeatedly uses the term "disorder," --a term many people find off-putting, even offensive. This is a problem because the term disorder means something very different in the halls of the Vatican or in seminary classrooms than it does on the street. For the Church, disorder means not in keeping with with "order of the universe," since homosexuality does not keep that natural order rolling forward via reproduction. However, on the street, disorder means a psychological disorder: that someone is sick in the head. The Church would be wise to think not only about what it means by words but also about how those words are understood by most people. We'd avoid some serious damage to the Body of Christ if we'd, as bishops and priests, stopped to think before we use words that do not convey the meaning we want to get across.

Hans Kung's two volume autobiography certainly speaks of the disrespect with which they treated him.

I think that the Vatican has had more than enough theology speechifying to last for the next few decades and shoould focus its attention on more urgent matters.

The release of the Murphy report on the Irish Church and the Vatican Curia's acquiescence in the moral incompetence and criminal coverups under its supervision (since these Irish leaders were chosen by the Pope and have been retained in office despite their now public shortcomings), shows that what Jesus taught His followers in the Scriptures is the opposite of what they were doing...And the same laissez-faire attitude is shown to US, Australian, other European transgressors that I have heard about...

As long as leaders are letter perfect in orthodoxy, their behavior makes no difference to the Pope or the Curia, since they are retained in their offices...

What a surprise these people will get on the day of their deaths, when they will have to account for their behavior to God, not just the Internet!

Does Hans Kung speak of the disrespect and venom with with he recently addressed the Holy Father? Of course a rhetorical question.

Yes doctrine is important- unless you think it isn't important to know what and who we worship. Tilley seems to be saying "Hey you don't agree with me! Thats unfair you big meany." Please. Any man that has defend himself by claiming that Starchamber (a thoughly British practice lol) tactics are being used is obviously of a delicate ego. The danger of creating new terms is evident and opens one to critique. It is not always clear what the author of these new terms means. Often it isn't quite the same as the old or else the urge for new terms would not have been indulged. Explain the meanings of the old terms in a standard way- after all using trying to create a new word oor the concept of the incarnation is silly. You go through all that effort when it was more practical and easy to explain the meaning of the older term and they could then understand the older literature. New and cutting edge usually means likely to break down and faulty. Would you buy a prototype car which the manufacturer has never allowed to be tested to make a journey around the world with? If not then why should one trust their soul to a man who can't accept criticism of his work?

Obviously he doesn't mean the same thing as Church teaching as he is not complaining about being misuderstood but being censured or critiqued. He is not teaching sound Catholic doctrine.

By the way contraception was always regarded as a serious sin by Catholics and protestants before the 30s. Obviously the Church's teaching has not changed. Nothing new here. You should have been aware of that before.

What is Weinandy's bottom line? A purple hat? He is certainly 'down and dirty' enough to qualify. Or, is he looking for a show on EWTN? With his narrow, judgmental views, he is certain to be hired. I guess that he has never heard of the Constitutional guarantee to express one's opinions without recrimination. When JPII and B16 threw out the Church's teaching from the Council of Vatican II, they lost, among other things, the spirit of collegiality, the give and take among bishops and theologians. It is entirely possible that Weinandy, by immersing himself in ultraconservative theology, does not have the wherewithal to fully understand what Tilley is trying to convey.

Whatever happened to academic freedom?
Whatever happened to Christian Charity?

Sounds like "doctrinal ambiguity and error" might become the buzz words replacing "confusion and scandal" while "scholarly, respectful and professional manner” might now become code words for INQUSITION!

CHRIST, YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER- John Allen is right when he says: "Though the disputes involved are complex, as with Dupuis the heart of the matter is Christology." This is not a little academic spat between Fr. Weinandy and Terrence Tilley. It's about Jesus' dramatic question to his apostles: "Who do you say I am." I applaud Fr. Weinandy for challenging Tilley on such a fundamental and consequential issue as the identity of Jesus Christ. I have read both their presentations and find Weinandy's paper very thorough and professional. Instead, I find Tilley's paper superficial, theatrical and populist. Apparently, he still hasn't made his peace with "Dominus Jesus." Tilley is still regurgitating some of the stale theology on Christ that some theologians espoused twenty or thirty years ago. Wineandy put it well when he suggested that Tilley offered clever rhetoric masking “doctrinal ambiguity and error.” This is serious, very serious stuff.

A reminder of some past disputes over wording and the need for adaptation:
Some at Nicaea in 325 did not want to use the Greek philosophical term homoousios; they wanted to stick to biblical language alone. They lost that argument.
Nicaea echoed the somewhat docetic (Jesus only appeared to be human)language of II John 1.7 by saying Jesus came down from heaven, as though even the humanity of Jesus were divine or pre-existed earthly life.
Chalcedon rejected this in its insistence in 451 that the humanity and divinity were both full and complete, and also not mingled or confused. (When I hand the words of Chalcedon to my college students, many are disturbed; they mentally have the divinity and humanity stirred together in a smooth blend.)
In his work on Genesis Augustine noted both the biblical image of the earth as set on pillars under a dome and the Greek conception of the earth as a sphere floating in the center of space, and accepted the Greek science as one valid option. This Greek science became so traditional that the Inquisition condemned Galileo's rejection of it as heretical.
It should not therefore be surprising that some traditional formulations relevant to Christology are no longer adequate to the faith. Tilley's goal is not to roam off into random speculations but to identify more precisely impasses that may be best addressed by a reconsideration of language or conceptualizations once suited to earlier times but not necessarily adequate for current times. This is theological work that must go on today as it has for centuries.

C'mon, NCR, you function just like the Vatican:

1. A secret cabal, unpublicized Board of Directors that makes decisions which keep dissenting opinions out of your paper

2. No transparency in financial matters

3. Total secrecy involving any issues with employees

but, love ya' both! :-)

bureaucracy lover

An Open Letter to Father Weinandy

Dear Tom,
In the fall semester of 1976 we both began our teaching careers at Georgetown University. Then and now we have agreed on some theological issues and disagreed on others, both methodologically and substantially. I have followed you stalwart defense of the doctrine of divine impassibility with interest.
However, I was very disappointed by your essay, “Terrence Tilley’s Christological Impasses: The Demise of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. ” The main reason is that you fault my presidential address for superficial scholarship. However, your essay never mentions over three decades of my published scholarship that underlies the address and was cited in the notes. This is especially disappointing coming from the Executive Director for the Secretariat of Doctrine of the USCCB and the Convener of the Christology Section of the CTSA.
First, you misrepresent my views. I affirm the doctrine of the Incarnation. See my The Disciples’ Jesus (Orbis, 2008) especially 36-37; 224-231. I do not support adoptionism. I never say that the classic councils were “complete failures,” although for reasons stated I do think that the central problem was not resolved.
Second, you misinterpret my views. I do understand the centuries of discussion and debate that led to the orthodox formulae differently from you. I simply point out the political issues were also involved. I am not a cultural relativist as you suggest (see Inventing Catholic Tradition [Orbis, 2000], especially 156-170, and History, Theology and Faith Dissolving the Modern Problematic [Orbis, 2004]). Nor do I hold that “the present culture always trumps the content” of the gospel. I do hold—and have argued—that the contemporary use of terms like “nature” do not mean what “phusis” or “natura” meant in the Patristic era and so cannot be used to communicate the tradition accurately today (unless, of course, one expects all believers to have graduate degrees in theology). Your inference that I challenge the authority of the magisterium is inaccurate; I do question how some magistri have exercised their authority.
Third, you fault my rhetoric, yet you tar the approach I use by rhetorically associating it with other approaches that lead to positions I never address and that you find abhorrent. In so doing, you at least neglect the maxim “abusus non tollit usum.” This sort of rhetoric implying “guilt by association” is hardly fair, especially from a person of your status.
There are other issues that I find you misread or misinterpret. That contributes to my sadness at the tone and content of your essay. But they are too many for discussion in a brief note.
I hope that you will begin to emulate the theologian whose name graces the chair that I have agreed to take up in January, 2010. His practice was always to read others’ work thoroughly, interpret it charitably, and report it accurately—especially when he disagreed with them.
Sincerely yours,
Terrence W. Tilley
Avery Cardinal Dulles Professor of Catholic Theology(elect) and
Chairperson of the Theology Department
Fordham University

So Weinandy believes that the only way to express doctrine is in the phraseology of aristotelian/scholastic philosophy. He should get his head out of the 13th century. But then he'd end up more modern than the pope. As regards "scholarly, respectful and professional treatment" of people who really want to DO theology--is that why so many professional theologians have had their credentials pulled, have been denied an open hearing with due process or the right to face their accusers, and have been silenced and forbidden to publish? Thank God we no longer have the Inquistion to burn these rascals at the stake!

Thank you Fr. Thomas Weinandy, a son of St. Francis and guardian of Catholic orthodoxy. All Capuchins should smile to see one of their own serving the Church this way. Some call this a USCCB assault. Many may remember another scholar in the Franciscan tradition - Fr. Miguens, OFM who served the contemporary Church so well. His difficulties at CU are evidence that charity can be difficult to find in the academy and that professional theologians will work to marginalize those with whom they disagree.

Anyway, Fr. Thomas is doing what bishops, or their agents, are supposed to do. The problem is when academic pride gets in the way of the reception of fraternal correction. There is a need for humility in all of us, including the academy.

There are too many broad generalizations in Tilly's talk. Just a few from early in the paper: "a presbyterate that cannot be enlarged under present rules...." the flourishing presbyterate in our own country just a few decades ago as well as successful dioceses like Atlanta and Lincoln indicate otherwise, "a laity that loves the church (sic) but that has stopped listening to the bishops..." is so broad that it would not pass notice by a high school teacher and it probably reflects the circles the writer operates within more than anything else, "hard working & loyal body of religious women who are disgusted and discouraged by investigation..." Tilly must measure loyalty in an irregular way since, according to the NCR, the organizations he refers to have already publicly said they are not responding to the questions being asked of them (http://ncronline.org/news/women/women-religious-not-complying-vatican-study). Perhaps Tilly should compare the way the Legion of Christ and the LCWR communities are responding to their visitations to measure different interpretations of "loyalty" & obedience.

-Robert

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion."
(B.Russell: "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish'" in Unpopular Essays 1950)

Yes, while the executive director of the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat of Doctrine offers theological critique on the legitimacy and credibility of this or that fine point of Christology of other scholars, the official Science office of the Vatican announces that there are very likely aliens.

Weinandy's statement “a true ontological account of the mystery, one that can be known and believed.” is inherently illogical because mystery by its very nature cannot be known. If it could be known, it wouldn't be a mystery.

(The more the faithful parse the statements coming out of the USCCB and the Vatican for their basic rationality, the quicker we'll get to the kind of church we should have.