The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionTheologians struggle to tie together roles in church, academia
Jan. 09, 2012
(Illustration by Pat Marrin)
Duquesne University Professor George Worgul remembers well a conversation he had with Cardinal Donald Wuerl in 1989.
The professor had just been appointed chair of the theology department at Pittsburgh's largest Catholic university. Then-Bishop Wuerl had taken the reins of the diocese the year before. Worgul says the bishop reached out to talk about how bishops and theologians can work together.
Recalling the meeting as "very positive," Worgul says he walked away impressed with how the bishop appreciated the "complexity of the role of the theologian."
The professor remembers in particular one thing the bishop said.
"I understand that you have a doctoral program and you have to push the edges and ask the questions. I understand that and respect that," Worgul recalled Wuerl telling him.
Although Wuerl did not respond to NCR's request for comment, that brief conversation, remembered anecdotally 22 years later, seems to provide some context for the ongoing discussion of the role of the theologian in the church.
Last March, Wuerl, now the archbishop of Washington and head of the U.S. bishops' doctrine committee, issued a condemnation of St. Joseph Sr. Elizabeth Johnson's book Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God, saying it contains "misrepresentations, ambiguities and errors" and "does not accord with authentic Catholic teaching on essential points."
That condemnation touched off a firestorm of debate between the bishops' committee and theologians, who wondered why the bishops didn't first dialogue with Johnson about her book, as a 1983 document outlining the relationship between bishops and theologians suggests.
But among other questions raised by theologians in the wake of the bishops' condemnation is what exactly it means for the role of theology at the university level, where theologians are expected to "push the edges and ask the questions" in ways historians or philosophers would.
In a conversation in October, one theologian rang a warning bell about his profession, wondering how it could continue in the light of the bishops' latest move.
"If the bishops continue along this path of censuring or making statements without engaging in dialogue with the theologians," Terrence Tilley said, "theology may be laughed out of the university as mere propaganda."
Saying faculty in other academic disciplines have expressed concerns to him about "the worth of doing theology with academic rigor," Tilley, theology department chair at New York's Fordham University, where Johnson is a professor, wondered about the endgame of hierarchical condemnations.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
"The net result of the attempts to 'correct' theologians is not merely to increase book sales," Tilley said, "but also to expose faithful theologians to derision from those who are not especially respectful of ecclesial theology or the church as an institution."
NCR conversations in early November with several current and former theology and religious studies department chairs found them each raising similar questions.
While each differed regarding how exactly the bishops' condemnation of Johnson would affect the continuation of theology at the university level, all openly wondered how the theologian -- who may "push the edges" for the church by asking questions -- fits at the university, where asking questions is a part of the job description.
For many theologians, the key to the debate about theology's role in the church is whether the discipline is seen as independent of catechesis, as something that both provides an education in the basics of the Christian life and goes beyond the lines of the catechism.
Professor Susan Ross, theology department chair at Loyola University Chicago, put it simply.
"The theologian's task," she wrote in an email, "while sometimes involving some kinds of catechesis, is more properly the task of asking questions about the tradition, pushing forward new ways of theological expression … and pointing out ways of understanding what Catholics/Christians believe."
Yet, others say, the idea of theologian as master catechist is also prominent.
"In some quarters of the church," said John Thiel, a professor of religious studies at Fairfield University in Connecticut who is also a former chair of the department there, the role of theology is seen as "simply repeating the uncontroversial and recognized heritage of the ancient tradition."
"That's one legitimate way of doing theology," said Thiel, who is president of the Catholic Theological Society of America. "But it's not the only way of doing theology."
Instead, he said, "there is a pluralism in ways to do theology in the church today and this pluralism is unprecedented in theology's earlier history."
"The reason that it's unprecedented is that we live in cultures that are much more pluralistic in our thoroughly globalized world, so we appreciate the different ways of approaching and naming reality," Thiel said. "Theology can develop an appreciation for all those different approaches, too, and has."
What keeps theology's new approaches to reality at the academic level, said one department chair, is its ability to pursue all the questions, not just those the bishops have specified as worthy of consideration.
Just like any other academic discipline, said Gary Macy, chair of the religious studies department at Santa Clara University in California, theology has to "put all the questions on the table."
Using his own specialty of historical theology to explain the requirements of academic rigor, Macy gave the example of a historian examining the provenance of a document signed in the 14th century.
That historian, Macy said, would have to look into what evidence there is to prove the document's authenticity, what was supposed to have happened during the signing, and, ultimately, what the signing matters to current generations.
"To be an academic, you have to ask all the questions and answer them consistently," Macy said. "It's quite rigorous. Academics don't take questions off the table. We just don't. You don't do that."
Moreover, he said, when bishops expect theologians to hold certain questions back -- for example, whether women can be ordained -- it just makes it more difficult for theologians to explain church teaching to their students.
"It's a Catch-22," he said. "We're told: 'Don't talk about this, but explain it.' That's very difficult, if not impossible, to do.
"Theologians are also supposed to explain the church teaching," Macy said. "But if we can't talk about it, we can't explain it. And it's not going to work to say my explanation is 'I don't need an explanation.' "
While some might see the need to ask questions as opposed to staying faithful to the dictates of the hierarchy, Thiel said theologians can tie together the two dynamics by thinking of them as "liberating responsibilities."
The key to tying together the active pursuit of questions with fidelity to the church, Thiel said, lies in the fact that theologians "have a responsibility to sources of authority that other disciplines don't have," including to the "word of God, the tradition and the magisterium."
"Although I think there are confining understandings of how theologians are responsible to these authorities, I don't see how that responsibility to God or to the workings of the Holy Spirit can be confining," Thiel said. "They're liberating responsibilities."
Yet, at the same time, Macy said, theologians have to be careful not to be seen as always reaching the same conclusions as the bishops. Otherwise, he said, people might say theologians are not "really part of an academic discipline because they're subject to Rome, and because they have to reach the conclusions that Rome already has."
Complicating the theologian's role at the university, said Worgul, who is now in his second stint as theology department chair at Duquesne University after a break in the 1990s, are changes in the world and church.
Along with those changes, he said, are evolutions in how theology itself is practiced. While the majority of theologians are now lay, decades ago most were members of religious communities, and those communities served as their "reference points."
Those reference points are changing more and more. Citing the expanding diversity of students at Catholic colleges, where students of other faiths are commonly found, the professor said theologians are dealing with "questions that ... sometimes don't resemble questions that we're asked before."
Among those questions, he said, are ones concerning how Catholic beliefs relate to those of other faiths. With a host of diverse students in their classes, he said, theologians, unlike bishops, "actually inhabit the world" of those "who are asking the deepest questions" about Christianity.
"In light of these changes," Worgul said, "reality shifts a bit."
Part of the irony of the bishops' moves against theologians, Macy said, is that they sometimes scare the scholars who have the best understanding of the changing dynamics of the world: younger theologians.
Condemnations like the one issued against Johnson, he said, affect younger theologians the most, as they become concerned they might not get tenured or could get their schools in trouble should they "push too far."
Also a concern, he said, is that theologians might start "self-policing."
"People might start ... asking, 'Do I really want to say this?' " Macy said. " 'I could get my university in trouble with the bishop and that could be a problem for my career.' "
And at colleges that have good relationships with their bishops, Macy said theologians might conversely withhold from publishing because they "don't want to get their bishop in trouble."
Both Macy and Worgul expressed concern that continued standoffs between bishops and professors could lead to disinterest in the study of theology.
Worgul said bishops and theologians need to find ways to work better together, or they risk losing pertinence when contrasted with the challenges facing people in the modern world.
"Both theologians and bishops face the same challenge that's coming," Worgul said. "That's the challenge of being declared irrelevant, of people saying, 'What you're saying is interesting, but we don't know who you're talking to.' "
In today's society, he said, both groups "have to work together to try and make sure that we're listening to the questions ... people today are asking."
Bishops and theologians, he said, have to "work together to show that the Gospel has some positive response to offer."
[Joshua J. McElwee is an NCR staff writer. His email address is jmcelwee@ncronline.org.]
This article appeared in the Dec. 23 print edition of NCR, along with a sidebar, in our Theology special section.
In our search for God the
In our search for God the questions are far more important than all the prepared answers given us, Sophia Burnham said: "To believe in God or in a guiding force because someone tells you to is the height of stupidity. We are given senses to receive our information within. With our own eyes we see, and with our own skin we feel. With our intelligence, it is intended that we understand. But each person must puzzle it out for himself or herself".
I recall, as a long time catechist, the number of times the cradle Catholic sponsor would inevitably raise his/her hand and ask the priest “Father what does the Church have to say about . . . .? Often a wonderful opportunity for discussion was forgone – but not always.
I disagree with Professor
I disagree with Professor Thiel's comment that the pluralism in ways to "do' theology today is unprecedented in the life of the Church. It appears to me that
discussions - an outright arguments - about theological issues have been going on in the Church from the beginning with the one difference from today being that they were completely out of sight of the laity and the world at large. A case in point: would have to do some research to cite a date but for now let's just say that at a time in the past a major question came up in the Church about what happened to the souls of babies who died without having been baptized. Some theologians held firmly to the idea that since Jesus was clear that "Unless you are baptized in water and the Spirit, you can not enter the Kingdom of God," so they concluded that that meant that the souls of unbaptized babies went to hell.
Others, believing that such harshness was not in tune with our belief that God is a God of love, refused to consider such a thing and held out that there must be another answer. Finally, and I'm sure that some of NCR's readers can identify on the spot (which I cannot at this moment) the person who finally proposed the idea that, since neither heaven nor hell seemed like a good answer, perhaps there was a third place, a place where there would be no suffering for these innocent babies, a place - not heaven - where they would live in a state of natural happiness but minus the Beatific Vision. Ah-ha!
Problem solved, said the Church, and so Limbo was born and taught as positive doctrine - until recently. Isn't theology just the perduring discussions that
have been and are going on to help us get to understandings of doctrine, the explanations for which are not yet universally satisfying? Why would any sane bishop want to stop that, or even curtail it significantly? Gnawing on questions of faith is EXACTLY how thinking people GROW IN FAITH! I'm sorely tempted to ask all of the bishops a question that my grandmother used to ask often, "Whatsamattayou?"
spot
Good example of why the
Good example of why the Church and Theologians have to re-think Theology and Doctrine.
So much Medieval and prior Theology took one supposed “saying of Jesus” as a major premise without considering other teachings of the New Testament, and then reached conclusions which became “Doctrine” and eventually “Tradition” but which were just wrong Theology and teaching. Wrong premise led a wrong conclusion.
We really need to completely “re-do” theology.
When inquiry is stiffled by
When inquiry is stiffled by oppression, suppression or erasure, pursuit of Truth dies, one way or another. Critical thinking must be nurtured and rewarded, not reversed.
Dear Alice, In other words if
Dear Alice, In other words if you do not get your way everybody else is wrong?
Those aren't Alice's words,
Those aren't Alice's words, they are yours.
So Tom, I assume you believe
So Tom, I assume you believe bishops possess all the Truth then?? God forbid other thinking human beings may have insights into God and humanity.
Another display of Mr.
Another display of Mr. Warren's dichotomous thinking.
(fyi, Mr. Warren --- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dichotomous)
Dear Alice - are you a
Dear Alice - are you a Reverand in a Presbyterian, Anglican or some other Protestant denomination which has 'women priests'?
Why the quotation marks,
Why the quotation marks, Deggsie? Some religions do have women priests--a fact. Their ordinations may not be valid in our church, but they are valid in other churches. As a parallel, must we call our Protestant Brothers and Sisters "Christians" (quotation marks signifying that we don't really believe they are the genuine article) in order to be doctrinally correct?
The essential point of the article is that the American church hierarchy has a different view of the theologian's role than do the theologians themselves.
If there are no questions left to ask and answer about God's will (a rather arrogant assumption on the part of us puny humans if you ask me), then why does the church need theologians at all? It should simply have a Department of Rules and Regulations filled with people who are good at memorizing things, not people who are good at asking new and interesting questions.
Perhaps we need new classifications of theologians. Academic theologians should not be called "Catholic Theologians" (a term that should be reserved for theologians who happen also to be Catholic) but theologians who are experts in Catholic Doctrine. The title "theologian" should be reserved for people who are free to explore new horizons in ANY faith, including their own.
On the other hand, people who work for the church and are comfortable with limiting their explorations to hierarchy-sanctioned boundaries should be called "Catholic Church Theologians."
Theology, to me, has always
Theology, to me, has always been a questionable discipline. Unlike philosophy, which forthrightly asks the hard questions like "Does God exist? If so, prove it!", theology is always part and parcel of a faith tradition and its foremost purpose in the Christian tradition, at least in its early days, was to make the Christian faith palatable to the intellect. So, to put it bluntly, Christian theologians have always been the hirelings of the Church. But sort of like the 40 year old blogger who still lives with his mother, the theologian feels hemmed in at times and wants to show his independence by defying Mommy (or, perhaps more accurately Daddy) but can never quite cut the apron strings because the theologian harbors, at the heart of his/her academic project, certain faith assumptions about the Divine, for example, that are derived not from theology but from the faith tradition, a.k.a. the Church. So, true intellectual independence is, in my opinion, not really possible.
Disagree with you here,
Disagree with you here, because it sounds like you are saying that reason and faith are incompatible. If that's true, we are in a lot of trouble. May as well cast our lots in with the atheists. I'll pass on that option, thanks.
It's not a matter of academic theologians having "temper tantrums" as you put it. Thinkers, by nature, can't stop themselves from thinking critically. And do we really want them to?
Seriously, if no one in Jesus's time had been capable of thinking critically, Christianity as a religion would have died with the crucifixion. The whole idea behind the "good" Samaritan or the Prodigal Son would have been impossible for people to accept. Jesus created a new paradigm for leading a moral life; he was the biggest boundary pusher of them all...tax collectors, prostitutes, rabbis, poor people, rich people, scribes, gentiles--he challenged them all.
The big danger I see is for
The big danger I see is for the "Rome-Church" to condemn and excommunicate practically everyone and so isolate itself that the universality (Catholicness) of that Church becomes doubtful. What is "THE CHURCH"? Where is the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of God working today? Maybe God is telling us something new.
I'm almost a 72 year-old
I'm almost a 72 year-old priest and this all triggers memories of ancient (we were told) "wars"! You couldn't be a "real" Catholic, unless you "did theology" as a Franciscan or a Dominican or a Jesuit (and, of course, in our seminary, only that last group "won")! Yet our big umbrella let the "others" stay in the Church!
It used to be fun being a Catholic. I hope we can recapture the "fun" and let Jesus save and the rest of us try to put the salvation into practice and attract others to it!!
Yes, professors and
Yes, professors and researchers do and should push the boundaries in order to see God more clearly. However, just as with other sciences, some theological theories end up being incomplete and wrong. When these theories are shown to be wrong (the bishops being the arbiters of compatibility with the faith), responsible professors don't beat a dead horse, but look back where they went wrong and try to find where they can go from here.
The problem with Sr Johnson and others is that their theories were found to be erroneous or incomplete they insisted on the obsolete theory and would not give it up.
Just out of curiosity - have
Just out of curiosity - have you read the writings of Sr. Johnson or just accepting the words of 'informed' Church leaders who for centuries insisted on '... and would not give it up. ..." the obsolete theory that the sun revolved around the earth.
It's a lovely book...so
It's a lovely book...so refreshing to see how many different ways people experience God!!
The problem, of course, is
The problem, of course, is that the bishops can also be wrong. We are all only human, including bishops, Capucins named Weinandy, and, even, popes. We are not called to stand mutely and quietly when the hierarchy speaks. We are called to think and discern. Frankly, I think this is another time the official Church screwed up and lost the right to argue because they never even talked to Sister Elizabeth.
Is there a male in the hierarchy of the entire Roman Catholic Church who knows how to listen, will make the effort to listen, cares to listen?
especially when it comes to
especially when it comes to listening to the voices of women....
Jim, there was nothing
Jim, there was nothing whatsoever erroneous about Prof. Johnson's writing. The problem lies within the narrow minded bishops who do not have the creative imagination to ponder God as anything bigger or beyond what they have been told be Rome.
God created us to test all
God created us to test all all things and to hold onto what is good. All "ideas" about God, i.e.,things like divine gender, divine manner of acting in creation, divine preference for a certain people or race, are all "ideas," are always "things," not to be confused with the Ultimate Reality, the "Sacred." By sincerely testing all things we draw closer to The Inefable Mystery, God. Conversely, we abandon God if we make "things" sacred and condemn persons for testing them more deeply. The history of Christian testing of ideas from the 1st century on validates the value of testing all things. St. Paul tested and proved false St. Peter's denial that the Spirit had been poured out on gentiles. Authority which fears testing loses its authenticity and its credibility. Authority which condemns persons for testing "things" about God sins against the Spirit of truth and is itself spiritually diseased.
You are absolutely RIGHT ON,
You are absolutely RIGHT ON, William. I have no idea in the world why the bishops don't understand this, do you?
It is already happening that
It is already happening that theologians are not speaking out on some issues because of the danger to their careers and to their colleges. The most liberal and progressive are in a stressful situation as the Vatican becomes more and more rigid, and the bishops are not forthcoming.
Do not forget that Elizabeth Johnson is a woman, and she defends women in her book. Right there she has probably crossed a line in the eyes of the hierarchy.
Virginia, please! You could
Virginia, please! You could do better than that....
Critique the post, not the
Critique the post, not the poster...
I agree with Rachel (below)
I agree with Rachel (below) here. Actually I'd go a bit further because what Rachel charitably notes as "critique" I see as condescension as a superior to an inferior. Alex your opinion is probably no better than the one of Virginia's that you put down. We'll never know though because you didn't risk putting it out there...
Disinterest in Theology might
Disinterest in Theology might be exactly what the bishops want--then only "catechists" will study Theology.
“Your time is limited, so
“Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”
--Steve Jobs
Theology is an ongoing search
Theology is an ongoing search for Truth in its multiplicity through the gift of the Spirit of Wisdom. It is a concrete experience of the experience that "you will know the Truth and the Truth will make you free". It has nothing to do with fear, power and control, which are NOT gifts of the Spirit.
Let's not overlook the
Let's not overlook the Council of Jerusalem at which Paul took Peter to task for requiring circumcision for male gentiles who converted to Christianity. James, the brother of the Lord and head of Christianity's mother church, the Church of Jerusalem, decided matters in favor of Paul. James's position seems to have prevailed over time; but what would Christianity look like today had Peter prevailed! Fortunately, he did not know he was supposed to be infallible.
Unfortunately, one of the
Unfortunately, one of the easiest ways for a bishop to gain positive notoriety is to claim some theologians work is heretical or somesuch. Its even better if its a female theologian. In todays world it is also very easy to wind up with egg on ones face. Not following agreed upon procedures then
pushing aside the need for the procedure "in this case" seems to tell the
truth of the matter. Its about power and people who have a very real need to
be seen as powerful. That is a dangerous game.
I would love to see the good bishops in this case give a discourse on Aquinas
statement, "Deus est animal, super omnia amimalia." God is the animal above
all animals. Here you have the sacrosanct position of Thomas and the good
bishops are going to have a 'hell' of a time trying to sound deep, knowledgeable, and profound. There is absolutely nothing in Elisabeth Johnsons work that in any way approaches the difficulties inherent in Thomas's
statement. But its sacrosanct back there in its many centuries ago safebox.
In many fields of science today it is the questions, not the answers that lead
to deeper understanding. No matter, no matter how many popes may say it, is closed. In fact to decree the matter closed is to guarantee endless discussion making it more open than ever. Power never seems to come to understand that letting things be can be the best thing. It will all work out
in the end. Some day we may be visited by another being from another planet,
revealing to us that there too Jesus came, but he did not say the same things at all ? ?????????????????????????????
When all is said and done in theology it is the QUESTions that count.
Onward Christian Soldiers.
TomC
"Deus est animal, super omnia
"Deus est animal, super omnia amimalia." Can you tell me where Aquinas says this? I haven't been able to find it.
I'd not be surprised to find
I'd not be surprised to find that it was hominus est animal super omnia animalia. I do think this is just off as a quotation and in both vocabulary and grammer.
Or the visitor might reveal
Or the visitor might reveal that Jesus too is an ET! I wonder how Rome would handle that revelation?
I suspect that at the USCCB
I suspect that at the USCCB staff level there is some professional jealousy at play. USCCB is staffed with true believers rather than envelope pushers. This does not help the bishops come up with the right answers in their own work if they cannot count on answers that they may not like. The relationship with Rome is a complicating factor. Even if the USCCB was prepared to point out where tradition is out moded, it does not wish to stick its neck out with Rome, where the real doctrinal dinosaurs can be found.
The answer to me is a
The answer to me is a no-brainer. Theology mean, "the study of God." Since God is infinite, ever-expansive, ever-revealing, then there can be no end or limits to this study. Theologians provide the checks and balances we need as Christians/Catholics against the opposite pole that seeks to keep God in the box of catechism, doctrine, dogma and Canon Law. Without an open forum for theological study, theory, discussion and practice, then we are simply creating God in our own image instead of allowing God to reveal the fullness of the Godself to us in all its infinite forms. I don't understand why the Bishops don't get this!
Lauri Lumby
Authentic Freedom Ministries
http://yourspiritualtruth.com
Dear Lauri, And of course we
Dear Lauri, And of course we can all look for a " Theologian " who will teach us what will satisfy us not TRUTH!
We are all theologians at
We are all theologians at heart.
Tom, bishops are not
Tom, bishops are not theologians. And it shows. Boy, does it show. They're mouthpieces for Rome.
tom warren on Jan. 10,
tom warren on Jan. 10, 2012.
You stated:
"Dear Lauri, And of course we can all look for a " Theologian " who will teach us what will satisfy us not TRUTH!"
--------------------------------------------
Tom, when a young person expresses interest in pursuing a degree in theology---they do not write to a bishop to become either their professor or their mentor. They apply at a university and as they move along---they try to get into those classes with the best theologians to teach them.
The job of a theologian is to
The job of a theologian is to ask questions, not just parrot what the local bishop tells him.
You cannot put God in a box. God does not do what the Bishops tell God to do. The sheer arrogance of this boggles the mind.
People who are serious about
People who are serious about their Faith will continue to look to people like Sister Elizabeth Johnson, John Courtney Murray, Karl Rahner, etc. for deeper understanding of that Faith. I'm not aware of any bishops engaging in discission with the people, except to promote fund raising. They may give a pep talk to the priests at the Chrism Mass, or occasional homilies, but it is always a one way street. Bishops simply don’t listen!
Satan is talking with one of
Satan is talking with one of his fallen angels while looking at the foibles of humans on the earth.
"What should we do?" implores the helper. "See there, a human has gotten hold of a piece of truth!"
Unperturbed, the Prince of Darkness replies, "Don't worry; those humans will try to institutionalize it, and then it will be long to us again."
Thank you Joshua for a great
Thank you Joshua for a great presentation, with great insights and good questions. Institutionalization and Orthodoxy have its problems in staying relevant. I wonder where the fruits of the spirit exist in the present day male hierarchy's grasp for power.
Christians should not fear
Christians should not fear the true search for the fullness of God by theologians, UNLESS they are both Bishop and theologian and heretical, as in the case of former Bishop John Spong. When church leaders go on the wrong path,
or when theologians go renegade, there must be a solid, God-centered body to restrain and denounce. Same with
Theologians. Those who don't believe the basic truths of the faith, should not be allowed to progress in status or
position or influence and most certainly should not be TENURED. This seems to me to the overriding word in schools
of theology.....tenure: .job security, with no heart for the heart of Christ? Go get a real job and say what you will.
Don't teach or preach faith when you have none. Go play in someone else's litter box.
Well, well, are we nasty
Well, well, are we nasty today Cox. Doesn't sound like you fully understood the essay nor understand the job of the theologian. "Faith seeking understanding" is what doing theology is Cox. Its not being a spin doctor for the RCC.
BTW: Bishop John Shelby Spong is Anglican. He does not answer to the Vatican nor does he give a hoot what they think.
It is the Bishops that are
It is the Bishops that are appointed and in no way earn or are even elected to a TENURE. Seems to me it would be much better to live in a church that Bishops are only allowed to serve for one five year term and that they are "appointed" by the election of the People of God in their own diocese. Yes, let's have term limits for Bishops and especially for Popes.
This is a good article in
This is a good article in very many ways. But it's a deep disappointment that there are no women theologians quoted and consulted as experts on the topic. One of the single most distinctive features of Catholic life today is the large number of women with Ph.D.s in theology--an unintended side effect of the exclusion of women from ordination. It would be good if their voices could be more prominent in a piece about the relationship between the profession and the church, and not only in pieces about feminism or other "women's" issues.
Do you know of any good
Do you know of any good living female theologians? I've found Joan Chittister (I haven't had a chance to read her). I will also have to read the one mentioned in this article.
Thanks!
I am currently reading Sr.
I am currently reading Sr. Johnson's book, "Quest for the Living God," and at the end of each chapter she supplies a FOR FURTHER READING section that list many great theologians including women. Enjoy the book and you will see what all the fuss is about.
Hi Eric. Try Rosemary Radford
Hi Eric. Try Rosemary Radford Ruether and Elisabeth Shussler-Fiorenza (to name but a few). They are well-established theologians with a great deal of published work to read.
Yes , Eric . Maria Harris
Yes , Eric . Maria Harris .
And BTW I heard that the theologians sort of shelved the idea of the fate of the unbaptized infant . They relegated it to the " margins " namely Limbo .
Some women theologians who
Some women theologians who are both good and living are these. Check them out: Sr. Sandra Schneiders, Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz. Barbara Fiand, Sr. Mary Peter (CSJ), Susan A. Ross, Ilia Delio (OSF), Ivone Gebara,Michele A. Gonzalez, Diana Hayes, Sidney Callahan (I'm not sure she's still alive).
With the exception of Ivone Gebara, a Brazilian who has suffered at the hands of the CDF, every woman listed above is from USA. They are only the ones who first came into mind. The article itself mentioned a couple others. The roster of members of the American Catholic Theological Society certainly would include more; I just don't know or cannot remember them. In addition some women are professors in Departments of Theology but in specialties such as Religion and Liturgy; Ethics; etc. (I think here of Sr. Miriam Therese Winter).
An outstanding woman theologian, but not living (she died around 2000), is Dorothee Soelle. She was born and raised in Germany but has taught and written from U.S.A. venues. Africa, India, the Phillipines are hot houses for the next women theologians of note. I have my antennae out; I hope you will also.
As with many other pursuits Eric's question indicates the need for us non-academics to deliberately seek out a feminine voice in the area of theology.
My comment should speak the
My comment should speak the TRUTH, BE NEEDFUL AND KIND...should be, sorry,
my kindness towards the tawdry treatment of "The Quest" and Sr. Johnson by pathetic hierarchy screams the TRUTH that the institutional church i.e. Roman Catholicism NEEDS drastic reform. Doubtful for me to see in my life time as the Pope just loaded 22 more cardinals into the curia, rota, the mix to insure the continuation of an elite branch of Catholicism that continues to alienate people like myself. Very sad as I exit and journey to a Catholicism
that does not diminish spirituality with misbegotten religion.
Doctrines and dogmas of the
Doctrines and dogmas of the church were formulated in certain historical epochs. These epochs are time based and are understood by the science and knowledge of the time. Science advances and so does our understanding of who man is. If there is one constant in the universe it is change. Traditional theology is based on substance only and excludes the influence of change. The theory of evolution in plant, animal, human, and celestial bodies is in a constant state of change. Even the theory of relativity which is the bed rock om modern physics is being challenged by new evidence and advancing understanding of how the universe works at the sub atomic level. The hierarchy is totally committed to so called eternal truths that are rooted in philosophy and are time based theological abstractions that are true for all time. This is where permanence and change collide in conflict. The hierarchy keeps repeating the mantra of tradition as understood in the past without integrating the advances that science reveals about human nature. Authority is the ultimate source of truth enforced with sanctions. The evidence to support authority is eroding. This is where lay theologians not encumbered by obedience to authority are attempting to make faith and religion relevant to the world of 21 st century man. The hierarchy needs to see them not as enemies of the faith but as co-partners to promote the faith.
Theologians who aren't also
Theologians who aren't also catechists are like physicians who can't do first aid. The trick is knowing what to do when.
Unlike every other teaching job, where a teacher is responsible to:
* the employer
* the student
* the students family
* their fellow faculty members, as a college of teaching researchers
* their disciplinary peers in a professional association, e.g. the American Physical Society for physicists, the ABA for attorneys.
the thing that makes theology different from every other discipline in academe is that "theologian" is an ecclesial vocation. That makes a theologian accountable to the community in whose faith they believe & practice, like every other member of the "laos tou theou."
Additionally, as Catholic theologians, they participate in the teaching ministry of the bishop(s). The assertion that "the clergy, particularly the bishops, are 'not my professional peer and no educated judge of Catholic belief & practice' is, charitably, hard to square with a Catholic understanding of the Church.
Figuratively speaking, you can't through a rock in the documents of Vatican II and not find a statement that the bishops, weak human vessels though they are, have a particular ministry as prophet, priests & kings in & for the Church. It stems from their baptism, and all of the baptized share in this ministry. But baptism doesn't make us all bishops, at least not in Catholicism.
Did the bishops give up their rights & responsibilities as teachers, worship leaders and governors because of the sexual abuse crisis? In a word, no. The bishops are not beyond correction, even by the civil courts, if necessary, as is the case in Kansas City. But why do some Catholics think the answer to our problems is an immediate application of some foreign polity? Who can say with a straight face that the abuses of power so often attributed to the Catholic hierarchy don't also occur with heart-breaking frequency in academe, in other ecclesial communities, in business and in our own homes & hearts? Lets speak for ourselves first.
"through a rock" should say
"through a rock" should say "throw a rock".
Some of our best Theologians
Some of our best Theologians have been banned from speaking out all through Church History, and some have been reinstated later in time. Chardin comes to mind. The Church fears anyone who thinks outside the box, which is sad. I think in this century when physicists have decovered what they call the "God Gene" all mankind seem to have, and the History Channel runs a series on whether or not Angels were really ETs, or that Aliens from advanced civilizations may have tampered with our primitive DNA early on moving us from primates to who we are now. All sorts of questions come up now that would radically alter religious beliefs, and I find that exciting and not a threat, but showing us the absolute unlimited imagination of God.
Chardin did theology, but
Chardin did theology, but "best" isn't the word that comes to mind to describe his theological reflections. Also, I don't recall physicists doing genetics. I'll stand corrected if you can find me a citation for ONE peer-reviewed article from the genetics literature. I like the History Channel, too, but its entertainment, not scholarship.
St Tomas Aquinas was
St Tomas Aquinas was condemned three times before being exonerated, made a saint, and then a doctor of the church.
Even the U.S. government
Even the U.S. government recognizes theology as a professional discipline. See 5 CFR 208(a)(2) at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b3cf4999c023c50....
Theologians are within the category of "Learned Professionals".
(can't say the same for kowtowing bishops)
THE MANY CHALLENGES OF DOING
THE MANY CHALLENGES OF DOING THEOLOGY TODAY: THE WAY FORWARD.
"I understand that you have a doctoral program and you have to push the edges and ask the questions. I understand that and respect that." I appreciate in very strong terms this remark on the vocation of the theologian and on the task of theology today by Cardinal Donald Wuerl. And I thank Professor George Worgul for remembering. As a theologian, it is my conviction that the real and most authentic approach to theology today lies with the contribution made by Professor Susan Ross, theology department chair at Loyola University Chicago that: "The theologian's task, while sometimes involving some kinds of catechesis, is more properly the task of asking questions about the tradition, pushing forward new ways of theological expression … and pointing out ways of understanding what Catholics/Christians believe." The understanding and collaboration solicited for in the discussion between Wuerl and Worgul find their manifestation in this statement accredited to Professor Susan Ross. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Karl Rahner and Hans Kuhn started off on the same theological pedestrian in view of the urgent and daunting theological challenges of the 1960s. Post-Vatican II Ratzinger, Rahner and Kuhn did actually succeed in making their contributions to theology but in different ways and with different methods as did suit the achievement of their respective goals in doing theology. While the former merits the theologian a pat on the back from curial/catechetical personnel, the former evokes suspicion from “authority” and therefore requires a huge dose of humility, openness, resilience and perseverance. The position of Cardinal Donald Wuerl as a bishop replicates the person of a Joseph Ratzinger that latter became a bishop while the position of Professor George Worgul replicates that of a Rahner whose valuable theological works survived the rustications of a Holy Office that did not properly understand its vocation, and at the same time resented the requisite demand upon it for dialogue. However, one must be convinced beyond reasonable doubts that the extremism of Professor Hans Kuhn, despite the huge promises it holds for reconciliation and ecumenism, cannot find a place in the scheme of events that define an authentic theological progress in the Catholic tradition, and any attempt to force such extremist attitudes down the throat of the Church has always proved catastrophic for the growth, development and practice of the Faith. Honestly I have not read Sr. Elizabeth Johnson's book Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God but whatever may be the case, she can find a lead to a solution in this humble submission that is a testimony of my own personal experience in the stagnant theological waters very much colored by pretentious collaboration and malignant clericalism for which Africa is known. But must this be the case?
You can assess my own predicaments by reading some of my works as provided below:
1. http://marysrose.hubpages.com/hub/developing-the-principles-of-theologic....
2. http://marysrose.hubpages.com/hub/LIVING-IN-THE-POWER-OF-THE-CRUCIFIED-L....
3. http://evurulobi.hubpages.com/hub/The-Church-And-Global-Security-Introdu....
4. http://marysrose.hubpages.com/hub/THE-FATIMA-MESSAGE-AND-THE-21ST-CENTUR....
1-12-12 “ In today's
1-12-12 “ In today's society, he said, both groups "have to work together to try and make sure that we're listening to the questions ... people today are asking."
This is a small first step. But the theologians and bishops have some catch up to do. Who is paying attention to what either group is saying? Educated people look to science (including SCIENTIFIC historical knowledge) for evidence and advanced contemporary philosophy with its diverse branches for relevant reasoning. Both groups have to step out of their box of indoctrination and further their reading in numerous disciplines. ‘Listening to the questions’ will evolve into sharing the answers as they come to light with professionals and laity seeking germane solutions for the twenty-first century. This will compel both bishop and theologian to doff the headgear and don a new and appropriate cap of his/her choice.
How does this abstract suggestion work? Here is an example. Scientific biblical-historical scholarship has convincing evidence that the bedrock of Christianity is gone and therefore the entire faith infrastructure by implication has to be redone. Where can you find the evidence for the doctrines of the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus? (Funk et al The Acts of Jesus). [Scientific biblical –historical scholarship.]
See online Thomas Sheehan’s essay in The New York Review of Books dated 6-14-84 for an understanding of the circular argument regarding the faith-revelation issue. See also in the same vein the bishops’ claim to infallibility in certain doctrinal matters.
“In other words, the Catholic argument from revelation seems to end up either begging the question (the infallible interpreters of revelation must first interpret revelation as constituting them infallible) or taking refuge in a quasi Protestantism that throws believers back on their personal experience of God's revelation. But if one follows the second path, as the liberal consensus is often accused of doing, the same circularity of revelation of himself is what brings faith about; yet only from within faith can the believer know that there has been revelation and what has been revealed.”
“Over and above the scientific gains that the Catholic liberal consensus has made, its major achievement has been to rediscover the ineluctability of this hermeneutical circle of revelation and faith. Some would say that the consensus has simply reinvented the Protestant wheel; others, that it has gone further and jumped aboard the Protestant cart. In any case, this rediscovery seems to be bringing the Church to what can be called the end of Catholicism, that is, to the limits of what it can say about God and the human condition.”
We see the need for logic and epistemology that the discipline of philosophy offers to contemporary thinking. So the discourse goes far beyond theologians struggling to connect roles in the church. It is academia and related expertise effectively discussing with an evolved post-axial age faith community. We literally have arrived at a new age for our species – Homo sapiens.
I suggest you consult Vatican
I suggest you consult Vatican I Constitution Dei Filius and Vatican II Constitution Dei Verbum for what the church actually teaches rather than a NY Times review...As far as "the post-axial age faith community" I learned in college that if you made up words that dont mean anything you could easily convince anyone, even a professor that you knew what you were talking about. I tried the trick myself when I didnt do my homework. And so it goes.........
It seems fair to say that
It seems fair to say that while the bishops are suppposed to understand the complexities and nuances of theologians, that same understanding of roles is not expected to be acknowledged in the reverse simply because theologians often operate in an academic institutions. That seems a bit disingenuous.
Catholic bishops are, by the very nature of their vocations, obligated to protect and impart Catholic truth. We need to be fair and honest concerning the obligations of both vocations and disciplines.
Theologians can, and should, probe all questions concerning our understanding of God, but there is "official" and authentic Roman Catholic theology.
If a theologian argues that they are presenting Catholic theology, it much be, in fact, Catholic. If not, make it clear that the questions being asked and the answers beginning put forward are opinions, not official teaching. This should be a matter of honesty.
Ask all the question, probe all the possible answers, challenge conventional thinking when necessary, but be genuine about what is taught as authentically Catholic and what are alternative opinions.
Post new comment