Peter Phan investigated by Rome.
Georgetown University theologian–and Commonweal contributor–Rev. Peter Phan (a priest of Dallas) is being looked at, according to John Allen:
Both the Vatican and the U.S. bishops are
investigating a book by a prominent American Catholic theologian, Vietnam-born
Fr. Peter Phan of Georgetown University. The book raises issues about the
uniqueness of Christ and the church, issues that were also behind recent
censures of other high-profile theologians, as well as a recent Vatican
declaration that the fullness of the Christian church resides in Catholicism
alone.
(…)
Sources who asked not to be identified said that Phan received a July 2005
letter from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith signed by
Archbishop Angelo Amato, the congregation’s number two official. It presented 19
observations under six headings, charging that Phan’s book “is notably confused
on a number of points of Catholic doctrine and also contains serious
ambiguities.”
The letter said the book is in tension with the 2000 Vatican document
Dominus Iesus, which states that non-Christians are “in a gravely
deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the
fullness of the means of salvation.”
The congregation asked Phan to write an article correcting the problems
identified in Amato’s letter, and to instruct Orbis not to reprint his book.
Phan wrote back in April 2006 offering to comply under certain conditions, and,
according to sources, to date has not had a response.
Last May, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chair of the Committee on
Doctrine for the U.S. bishops, also wrote Phan to indicate that the Vatican had
asked his committee to examine the book, and that it wanted Phan to respond to
an enclosed three-page set of observations. Lori indicated that the committee
“feels obliged to publish its own statement.”
In a subsequent letter dated June 20, Lori indicated that his committee’s
examination is separate from that of the Vatican.
According to sources who have seen the correspondence, the central issues
flagged both by the Vatican and the U.S. bishops are:
- Christ as the unique and universal savior of the world;
- The role and function of the Catholic church in salvation;
- The saving value of non-Christian religions.
These themes certainly are familiar. This is also another opportunity for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and now apparently a USCCB committee, to show their cards as they attempt to dispel the “confusion” they’ve identified in Phan’s 2004 book. If Lori was essentially ordered by the CDF to investigate Phan, why should Phan have to answer to separate investigations?
As the discussion of this moves forward, I will be looking for two things: 1) A careful ability to differentiate between WHAT the Catholic Church teaches and WHY it is taught; and 2) How many times is the word “mystery” used to end the discussion of “why.”
Perhaps folks who have read Phan’s book could comment?
Phan’s articles online radiate sound Catholic faith and common sense. I just spoke to a leading French Catholic here in Paris, just back from Rome, who deplored the bottomless mediocrity of the Vatican with its sycophantic court theologians. How can they be taken seriously?
I do hope (silly me) that Phan gets the chance to (1) face his accusers and (2) defend his positions in an OPEN hearing so that others may hear what he and his accusers have to say.
As “Fair & Honest” Fox News says: “We report, you decide.”
Or will they simply give the guilty SOB a fair trial and then hang him?
So we Catholics have the fullness of the means of salvation and others do not.
How trite. Kind of like saying “My water has fluoride and yours does not” in a time when everyone has access to toothpaste with fluoride! Perhaps we have the “brand name” and others loved by God have “generics” that ultimately attain the same goal?
Enough of us need to support Phan and other “dissident” theologians.
Really, this whole “thing” is lucicrous!!!
(Now everybody sing along with me: “My church is better than your church, My church is better than yours, My church is the One True Church, My Church is better than yours.”
Very good, children. Class is now dismissed. And have a nice day :)
Maybe another respected Catholic theologian on his way to the Catholic Studies Section of a theology department of a non-Catholic university?
By continuing this crap, it seems Rome is continuing its decline into lack of credibility and irrelevancy.
At what point will there be more intelligent Catholics outside the official church? Maybe Bennie will get his “smaller but purer” church, but will it really matter?
Naw :)!!!!!
Hahahahahahaha……………
Jimmy Mac,
If I were ever investigated for anything, I would want to have the option of privacy.
Really? And what if your accuser released a public statement that you didn’t find particularly accurate in its representation of your views, but your superior was keen on not having you in the papers saying that so the accusations went unanswered? What if you showed up for a private hearing with your accusers after you had delivered a long response to their questions about your work and you found that no one had read what you’d submitted? Would you want your response kept private as the accusations continued their public trip through the blogosphere?
As if a lack of privacy is a serious problem in these matters.
Grant:
I said “the option.”
Maybe Phan called the Vatican to censure him. For sure the book will escalate in sales. The name is “Being Religious Interreligiously.”
Fortunately coincidental to the move on Phan is the substantial article by Scott Appleby in the current Commonweal. A must read. http://commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2003
After noting how many of the ideas, condemned by Pius X in his famous encylical agains modernism, are part and parcel of the church’s teaching today, Applebey concludes with a comment on the similarity of Pius X to our last two popes.
“And yet, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI remained deeply suspicious of “dissenting” theologies-that is, twentieth-century innovations, such as feminism and liberationism, that strayed from Thomism and other traditional Catholic approaches. Both popes presided over intraecclesial culture wars and ad hominem attacks on theologians who thought to expand the boundaries of Catholic orthodoxy beyond strict adherence to one of the Vatican-endorsed, medieval (premodern) schools of theology. ”
I guess the Vatican cannot stop itself.
As has been said more than once: If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
My last word on this matter … today:
“: The leadership of the Catholic Church sees as the only way out the restoration of as much as possible of the old hierarchical structure with clearly defined boundaries, at the price of repressing or driving out people who cannot live any more within such a community … For more and more people the Church becomes a place where human rights are not respected.”
Andrew Lascaris, OP, God and Repression (article), “New Blackfriars”, June 1990.
Has anyone that has actually read Phan’s book give a comment as to whether or not the charges are can be substantiated?
When it comes to CDF matters, people seem to start bashing as soon as the acronym comes up. I would like it if a person with in-depth theological training (of which there are several on this blog) could give their own review of Phan’s book.
Fr. O Leary wrote of: “the bottomless mediocrity of the Vatican with its sycophantic court theologians.”
The only one of the Vatican’s “court theologians” whom I happen to know is Joe DiNoia, and I must say he has never struck me as a sycophant nor as a mediocre theologian. So I must assume your friend is speaking of the other court theologians.
I haven’t read Peter Phan’s book, so I wouldn’t venture a comment on the fairness of the charges. But given some of the comments on this post by those who are positioning themselves as his supporters, there certainly do seem to be people out there who would sneer at the claim that the Catholic Church alone has the fullness of the means of salvation, as well as the belief that Jesus is the unique source of salvation. So, whether or not Father Phan is guilty of it, we are at least not dealing with a “phantom heresy” here.
F. C. Bauerschmidt,
I am not sure I would be able to understand either the book in question or the criticisms of it, but isn’t the problem here that the Church (and you) are speaking in terms of “charges” and “guilt”? I don’t think anyone, Catholic or otherwise, would begrudge the Church having an official position and pointing out when someone is departing from it. But it’s my impression that these kinds of investigations are more like criminal prosecutions (kind of like in Kafka’s The Trial) than intellectual explorations and dialogue with someone whose views are challenging. It seems to be more about exercising authority than getting at the truth.
I see many problems in the way the CDF carries out its defense of doctrine, notably in the secrecy, the reliance on anonymous complainants, the lack of transparency and due process for the accused, and the fundamental, often crushing lack of charity (a virtue the Pope likes to exalt everywhere else, it seems) toward people who deserve better as Catholics and as children of God.
None of this relates specifically to content. From what I have read of Phan, he seems to be well within the tradition. But that’s my view. The question is why theologians like Phan are singled out for such investigation. The CDF engages in very selective prosecutions. Such profiling is unjust, and indefensible.
I think a model worth exploring is the extensive exchange from late 2006 and early 2007 in First Things on some of the theological questions surrounding the views of Hans Urs von Balthasar. The back and forth, largely between Alyssa Lyra Pitstick and Edward T. Oakes, S.J., is titled “Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy: An Exchange” and you can find it here: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5422.
Balthasar was of course a favorite of the Vaican “in” crowd, and was made a cardinal by JP2 (he died three days before getting his red hat). So the CDF would never likely investigate him. That’s one problem. But I think the open exchange, as in First Things, as to the merits or demerits of his views on salvation–and even whether he was heretical on that point–is a more constructive, Christian, and charitable way to go about determining the validity of content.
I take it that Commonweal has never reviewed the book in question?
Regarding openness vs. privacy in these investigations: it seems complicated to me. If I were under investigation, I think I’d feel angry and defensive and humiliated, and wouldn’t want it announced to the entire world. And I’d like transparency, due process, presumption of innocence and the right to confront my accuser built into the whole process, to protect my good name as far as possible.
At the same time: if I published a book intended for a popular audience that contained errors that could lead people astray, how can the church not investigate and, if warranted, issue a public correction?
That John Allen broke the story seems somewhat ambiguous. Did the CDF leak it? Or Phan or one of his supporters? Or someone else with no direct connection to the case who bears malice toward Phan? It seems there are several possibilities.
U haven’t read Fr. Phan’s book.
I have read Scott Appleby”s wonderful article on the Americanism/
As Appleby notes in conclusion, the Sobrino notification underscores the issue some have noted already here in regard to Fr. Phan.
I like the way he summarizes “The linkage between institutuional intraclerical power and theological orgthodoxy is the most i significant legacy of the Modernist cris.”
The recent Benedict outing in Austria demonstrates the problem of how the curail control of truth in the Church from a distintively one sided Roman perspective turns away a numbef who think that there is not only arrogance in that view being the Truth, but also caring enough to see the need for more engagement, dialogue and new formulations.
I have little hope that the American hierarchy will show much resistance to the CDF methodology as most continue to be curail servants.
After the Catholic Theological Society called for a calming down in their relationships with the powers that be, it will be interesting to se if any take up the cause of Fr. Phan.
Frederick Bauerschmidt wrote,
“..there certainly do seem to be people out there who would sneer at the claim that the Catholic Church alone has the fullness of the means of salvation, as well as the belief that Jesus is the unique source of salvation”
This kind of thinking leads to a passive Christianity which bespeaks a sacramental mentality that engenders an attitude that we are here if the people need us since we have it all. It fosters an attitude of superiority that sanctifies doing nothing as long as your doctrine is right. You don’t have confirmation then you are incomplete even though it is quite difficult to show that confirmation is a sacrament as well as mandatory auricular confession.
If you read Appleby’s article you will see that what the hierarchy vigorously condemned in 1910 it approves in 2007. Of course the counter is “As the church as always taught…” What is unclear here?
Spare us the heresy hunt here. What is next? Make “Triumph” mandatory reading?
The church is still intact if we abandon such outrageous claims to fullness. We have plenty without condemning everybody else and Jesus Christ still lives with us. As He said: “Whoever is not against you is for you.”Luke 9:50
Jim,
Why the language of a criminal proceeding (due process, presumption of innocence, accuser)? Einstein was wrong in his arguments against quantum mechanics for almost the last thirty years of his life. There was never a trial, his good name remains intact, and although he is generally regarded as the greatest genius and the greatest physicist who ever lived, he doesn’t seem to have led the field astray.
“This kind of thinking leads to a passive Christianity which bespeaks a sacramental mentality that engenders an attitude that we are here if the people need us since we have it all. It fosters an attitude of superiority that sanctifies doing nothing as long as your doctrine is right. ”
Hi, Bill, it seems to me that, if the Church is functioning as it should, then the conviction that we have been graced with the fullness of truth should lead to the opposite of passivity – we should feel the urgency of spreading the Good News of salvation to the entire world.
We all know good people–atheists, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc., whose virtuous lives put us to shame. How did God provide these people with the means necessary to acquire these virtues? Fr. Phan, like some of his predecessors such as Fr. Rahner abd Fr. Dupuis, attempted to think through this issue and, in my view, shed helpful light on it. So too did an article in a recent issue of “America” (I can’t lay my hands on it at the moment). To my knowledge, the CDF people have not done much about this issue other than to “raise questions” and call for “clarifications.”
As some of you have already said, the way CDF does business is no model for serious intellectual work.
< < Why the language of a criminal proceeding (due process, presumption of innocence, accuser)? >>
Hi, David,
I guess your question points to the nature of authority. A disagreement between Einstein and Bohrs would have been, at a fundamental level, an exchange between equals, with neither possessing the unilateral authority to declare the other’s ideas out of bounds. Each would have had to rely solely on the reasonableness of their arguments to prevail. If we were to use a trial analogy, there is no judge to render a verdict and pass sentence.
The CDF is not just a particular locus of theological expertise and opinion, one among many. It is part of the governing apparatus of the Catholic Church, which considers one of its gravest duties that of safeguarding the deposit of faith. The Congregation has been given the authority to determine which ideas are fully consonant with that deposit and which aren’t. In the trial analogy, it’s both prosecutor and judge.
When a governing institution that is vested with the power to condemn a person’s ideas undertakes to formally investigate them, it is not a dialogue between equals, regardless of how civil or even amicable the tone.
David Nickol wrote: “I don’t think anyone, Catholic or otherwise, would begrudge the Church having an official position and pointing out when someone is departing from it.?”
I suggest you look at Joseph Jaglowicz ‘s comment on 9/12 at 7:01. As to the specifics of CDF procedure, I don’t believe that I commented on it one way or another. Like Fr. Phan’s book, I don’t consider myself sufficiently informed to have an opinion worth sharing.
Bill Mazzella wrote: “This kind of thinking leads to a passive Christianity which bespeaks a sacramental mentality that engenders an attitude that we are here if the people need us since we have it all.”
Well, it doesn’t seem to me that a “sacramental mentality” is a bad thing for Catholics to have. Exactly how a sacramental mentality fosters passivity is unclear to me.
With regard to the condemnation of modernism, I have no question that good people were either ruined (Tyrrell — a good person, though not a particularly good theologian) or badly hurt (Blondel and von Hugel — both first-class thinkers) in the witch hunt that ensured. However a quick read of Loisy’s “My Duel with the Vatican” shows that in his case the condemnation hit a bullseye. Unfortunately, it did it by dropping an atom bomb. I would hope that the Church learned a lesson from that.
That should be, “the witch hunt that ensued.”
One has to wonder what lessons were learned.
Consider the 9 Sept 2007 Our Sunday Visitor piece on Pascendi and Pius, which quotes Creighton University (that liberal Jesuit institution with a squishy Catholic identity) theologian (and recent Catholic convert) Rusty Reno as to the legacy of Pius’ attack on Modernism (whatever that may be):
“Viewed from a hundred years distance, we can look back and say it was providential that the Church put the brakes on this false solution,” Reno said. “If modernism means everyone gets to make their own definition of God, then there are a lot modernists out there today.”
Everybody duck.
This comment dovetails a bit win Jim’s comment on the nature of authority.
I think that I don’t understand how the CDF works. After all, I had been thinking of them as the Dean of Students in a school – not responsible for making the rules, but rather enforcing them (and thus also interpreting them).
Obviously, that would not be the realm of “intellectual work” in the way one might think of a civil academic discussion.
David, or anyone else: is that a fair analogy to make?
F. C. Bauerschmidt,
I see point you are making, and I apologize for not looking closely enough at your earlier message to have seen it then.
Jim,
I guess I have a hard time understanding how an organization can serve the truth by imposing its viewpoint by authority. Is there an assumption or belief that the CDF will always arrive at the truth because of inspiration by the Holy Spirit (or some similar mechanism)? Perhaps it is mistaken to assume that you can arrive at religious truth in the same way as scientific truth, but it is difficult for me to understand how putting someone on trial and possibly silencing him could be the best route to arriving at the truth. Having said that, it seems obvious to me that the Catholic Chuch has every right to point out when they believe someone is departing from official Chuch teachings.
I suspect that I am at fault for not reviewing Phan’s book. The editors send me boxes of books from which I choose some for my column. I try to review a range of works but passed on Phan who is not as interesting, theologically speaking, judged on his occasional writing, as the late Jacques Dupuis. My suspicion is that if he is being “advised” it is because he publishes prodigiously, he is a priest, and is now trying to crank up a doctoral program at Georgetown. Rome is leery of high profile writers who do not seem in line with the tradition. It is a book with which they are concerned not, evidently, the corpus of his writings.
I basically agree with Fritz Bauerschmidt’s posts and caution against the black hat/white hat approach to these issues.
Finally, Scott Appleby’s essay on the American modernists is a well written essay on a topic more amply covered by Michael Gannon (especially on the sad story of the New YorkReview) some years ago. I do not agree with his final paragraphs – to compare the CDF today with the Modernist suppression of a century ago is just a tad tendentious and overly rhetorical. I do take the point that it is better to slug these matters out among scholars. I shall be interested in seeing how the American bishops respond to the Phan kerfluffle.
I just now read, and loved, David Nickol’s response to F.C. Bauerschmidt: “I see the point you are making, and I apologize for not looking closely enough at your earlier message to have seen it then.”
That kind of humility and generosity (which we’ve seen here on earlier occasions) is one of the things that makes this blog special. Thank you, David.
For those interested in this subject, let me recommend Bernard Haring’s “My Witness for the Church.” A few lines on the back cover describe it as follows:
“Haring details and documents his own painful encounters with the CDF, particularly the ‘trial’ concerning his own writings in the 1970s. In the end, he urges, and exemplifies, a mature love for Christ and the Church, calling us to wholeness and holiness: ‘I wrote this book to show that we can love the Church in the midst of difficulties; to awaken hope for a new springtime in the Church in the midst of wintry frost.’ ”
For Haring, loving the church did not mean pulling punches or failing to speak truth to (the CDF’s) power. He cites serious flaws in the charges against him, and asks, “Was this document of indictment checked over by no one? Was no one assigned to carefully check the indictment to see whether or not it dealt justly with the aims of the indicted author?”
Here is an excerpt from his response to one of the charges:
“The next, likewise unargued, accusation speaks of a ‘falling into an ethical relativism which derives the criteria of a virtuous act exclusively from the historical situation.’ As I read this charge a strong feeling of disgust came over me. How should I disprove this extremely serious charge since there is not a single item of argumentation given for it? This charge weights all the more heavily since the Doctrinal Congregation presumably is familiar with the rest of my works. From them there is more than enough to show how constantly I have turned my efforts against the charge of historicism, which is made against me here. If I have done this with greater nuance than those theologians who have neglected the historical context of the language and the ethical statements , then I may be seen as having made a significant contribution in this regard so that it is inconceivable that I should be accused of having contributed to the promotion of historicism, of relativism. Has it occurred to no one in your Congregation how weighty the word ‘unicamente’ (exclusively) weights? May I request that you personally read my book Medical Ethics itself so that you may realize the enormous injustice of this accusation?”
He added that, despite the “negative experiences, I would not like to skip mentioning that I have found much love and recognition in the Vatican, first of all by popes, but then also by many highly placed and not so highly placed persons. I admonish the reader not to be misled into too quick generalizations. Even today I have good friends in the Vatican. Even there, there are open and absolutely selfless men. I would glad add ‘and women,’ but for women the Vatican has hardly been a place of much influence thus far. This does not foster a health ‘climate,’ and here lies one of the points in which the Vatican is not representative of the world Church.”
Apropos the CDF and Phan and salvation: In Kathleen Norris’s “The Cloister Walk,” she quotes from a prayer by Karl Rahner. It says, in part: “But I, O hidden Lord of all things, boldly affirm my faith in you. In confessing you, I take my stand with you…If I make this avowal of faith, it must pierce the depths of my heart like a sword, I must bend my knee before you, saying, I must alter my life. I have still to become a Christian.”
Amen.
Someday a pope will apologize to Bernard Haring. It is indeed sorry leadership who condemned such a person of the highest integrity. A true saint of our time. He was both a great teacher and pastor.
No one here can deny that the CDF has made mistakes and substantial ones. How many here believe that Humanae Vitae was correct? Make a statement those who support the CDF. Who will deny that the official church has made errors? Vatican II gave us freedom which was unheard of in the church since the third century.
The CDF is intrinsically a un-Christian body. The whole of the gospel is an invitation to love God, neighbor and enemies. The CDF is a child of the Inquisition which based its policy on Augustine’s “Coge intrare”, which was a convenient interpretation of the gospel’s words. (Without a doubt, Augustine the theorist of the Inquisition and the CDF) would have been condemned many times by the CDF because Augustine guessed a lot when it came to Scripture. Amazing.
Let’s be consistent and forcibly baptize all those Iraqis as St Charlegmagne did with conquered countries. Tell me its not Rome’s fault that the gospel has not been proclaimed enough in the Far East and that the Church, while its clerics were well fed, did very little to help starving Frenchman before the French Revolution. No wonder the people turned on them.
We don’t need the CDF, thank you. The Church has its real witnessing without it. When Paul spoke of people going astray he spoke of behavior. On the contrary he spoke of the Freedom of the Children of God. The monarchical church always condemned that idea. Once one was condemned for just saying “ecclesia semper reformandi” the Church must always reform itself.
Fr Miscamble of Notre Dame recently issued a clarion call to make Catholic Universities more Catholic. This is the same Miscamble who clamored for the abolition of the Vagina Monologues on the Campus and badgered President Jenkins about it. I suppose he enjoyed the reign of terror that Ex Corde Ecclesia cast upon Catholic Universities when many hypocrites in the leadership were working their way back to the Index.
It is the Spirit which gives life. Certainly not the CDF and its ancestors.
I haven’t read Phan’s book and so can’t comment on it.
As for the competence of members of the CDF, one of them Joseph Di Noia is the author of “The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective”–so he’s long been a part of the conversation. And the former head of the CDF addresses questions associated with it in “Truth and Tolerance,” a work praised to me by one of Phan’s editors.
So whatever the precise issues, and whatever the process so far carried out–about neither of which do I know anything–it is wrong to describe the matter as a battle between incompetents and experts. Things seldom are so simple.
< < Is there an assumption or belief that the CDF will always arrive at the truth because of inspiration by the Holy Spirit (or some similar mechanism)? Perhaps it is mistaken to assume that you can arrive at religious truth in the same way as scientific truth, but it is difficult for me to understand how putting someone on trial and possibly silencing him could be the best route to arriving at the truth.>>
Hi, David, I don’t believe the CDF claims a unique charism of the Holy Spirit. At its root, I believe its authority is rooted in the teaching authority of the college of bishops in union with its head the pope (the members of the Congregation are all bishops, even though advisers and other staff members needn’t be).
Teaching authority seems a useful and practical way for understanding the CDF’s charter to investigate and rule in these cases. I’m sure the CDF doesn’t see itself as pursuing new knowledge as a researcher or theoretician would; rather it is preserving and disseminating already-existing knowledge (the deposit of faith). Preserving and disseminating knowledge is the province of the teacher.
In at least some instances when the CDF rules on something, it does take the trouble to publicly explain what it is doing and why it is doing it, often enough in long and tedious documents. Whatever it lacks in editorial zip, it does seem to recognize that there is a connection between authority and reason.
(Of course, a permanent dicastery isn’t the only way to serve this function of preserving and teaching; I may be wrong about this and would gladly be corrected, but my impression is that in earlier ages, bishops convened synods and councils more frequently to hash out these doctrinal disputes.)
Btw, regarding Einstein and quantum theory: at the risk of invoking First Things twice in the same blog thread, did you happen to see Stephen Barr’s article earlier this year on the lack of unanimity in the scientific community regarding quantum theory? Einstein may not have been completely wrong.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5441
>>How many here believe that Humanae Vitae was correct? Make a statement those who support the CDF.< <
Um. . . Huanae Vitae was not issued by the CDF.
>>I suppose he enjoyed the reign of terror that Ex Corde Ecclesia cast upon Catholic Universities when many hypocrites in the leadership were working their way back to the Index.<<
Reign of terror? The Index?
I wish I could reply, but words fail me.
Fred,
The question do you believe Humanae Vitae or not? Nice avoidance though.
Contrary to your assumptions many people in acadamia were in great fear during the promulgation of Ex Corde Ecclesia.
But I can understand that you had no problem.
I haven’t read Phan”s book , and I may never reader it, or I may. I, also, am no authority on the CDF. My question is: “Do you have a right to be wrong? If someone thinks you are wrong, he has an obligation to point how you are wrong, and why you are wrong, and how and why he is right with such credibility that the readers can make their decision. What’s all this condemnation and censoring nonsense. That should have ended manny years ago.
In case someone missed it:
This very site (commonweal.org) has in its archives two articles by Peter Phan:
Speaking in Many Tongues, January 12, 2007
and
Praying to the Buddha, January 26, 2007.
——
Simply register on this site. Then put “Phan” in the search box at the top right of the page.
At one time, I knew Peter Phan only as a clear, learned commentator on television (chiefly regarding the death and election sequence in 2005). His articles are most helpful.
Joe McMahon
>>The question do you believe Humanae Vitae or not? Nice avoidance though.< <
Different statements by the Church carry different levels and degrees of authority, depending on who issues them. So it has nothing to do with "avoidance" to try and clarify such things.
And if you really want to know -- and frankly I don't really think you do; rather you use "Humanae Vitae" in an argument the way others on the internet use "the Nazis" to try and win their argument -- then I would say that of course I don't "believe in" Humanae Vitae. Nor does the Church ask me to, since it does not teach one of the mysteries of faith. It does, however, ask me to accept that encyclical as authentic Church teaching (which I do) and to try as best I can to let its teaching shape my life (which I also do). Do I have questions about its teaching? Yes. Do I find it difficult to let its teachings shape my life? At times. But the Church does not ask me not to have questions or difficulties.
>>Contrary to your assumptions many people in acadamia were in great fear during the promulgation of Ex Corde Ecclesia. <<
I’m not sure what “assumption” of mine you are referring to. But in any case, those who were in great fear were proved wrong. There has been no “reign of terror.” There has been no return to the Index. And, as Larry Cunningham pointed out, the comparison between the current proceedures of the CDF, as flawed and they may be, and the reaction to modernism is a silly one.
I can’t comment on the book yet. I’ve only read one article by Fr. Phan, which was on the figure of “the holy fool” as found in spirituality, particularly Russian spirituality. I remember thinking he grouped too many types of figures under this one type of figure. If I’m right that, who cares, it is harmless. He was exploring a human construct.
Andrew, you ask “What’s all this condemnation and censoring nonsense.” In an article like the above, the question would never come up.
My sense is that the CDF’s major censures have been aimed at theologians like Roger Haight and Jacques Dupuis, and not for negligible or dismissible reasons. I’m not saying that the CDF’s judgment is infallible or true in these cases, but I do think that the questions that were raised were serious enough to wonder whether confusion might be raised in the minds of the faithful.
In reading Haight and Dupuis, my sense was that they were trying to stretch the idea of the unique mediation of Christ, in order to leave some thought-room in Catholic theology for other faiths to be as salvific as Christianity. So far, this is an avant-garde project. It would raise red flags, but I don’t believe (could be wrong) that it would result in official censure. In that sense I believe that we are possibly past the age of defending our theological and ecclesiological ground by force.
But my sense is that both Haight and Dupuis went farther than the question of the nature of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis non-Christian religions. It seemed to me that in both cases, in order to present coherent, systematic arguments, each one developed new kinds of Christological thinking that are at least in tension with the early Councils. Haight apparently thought he was saying enough by saying that Jesus Christ is “divine”; I believe that Nicea went further than that in its expression that Jesus was “homousios” or “consubstantial” with God. Dupuis developed–if I understand him–of a distinction between the pre-existing Word and Jesus Christ that seems to me–again, if I understand, because he is an amazingly subtle thinker–to be stronger than the Chalcedonian decree would allow: unchanged; unconfused. I’m no expert on either one of these theologians, but in reading them, these are what seemed most problematic to me. First, the question of whether Christ was the unique mediator; second, questions having to do with the Person of Christ.
The Christology of the early Councils is a theological “third rail.” Can it be developed theologically? Yes. Can it be contradicted? I think that was why the CDF felt it necessary to take action.
(I haven’t the foggiest idea of how relevant this is to Fr. Phan’s book–I’m really just saying what I think the CDF’s concerns are lately, and why they would still be disciplining theologians.)
F.C. BAUERSCHMIDT:
I don’t begrudge the church having an “official position” and engaging theologians who offer insights that may be or are, in fact, perceived as being in opposition to it. On the other hand, I have utter contempt for the way the CDF operates. And I do mean utter contempt!
And while we’re on it, I don’t deny the church’s “official teaching” that Christ alone is the unique Source of our salvation and that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of our salvation. For me, the operative word here is “our” because we have been lucky enough to be recipients of the gift.
Others, however, have either not been exposed to the gift or, having examined it, have respectfully or otherwise declined it.
If even our church teaches officially that “others” can be saved outside the church, and if these “others” are living most if, in fact, not all of the gospel message within their respective belief systems or religious traditions, then I am compelled to ask, “Such being the case, does it really matter in the final analysis whether these good folks make it to the “finish line” wearing Nikes or some generic brand?” And I think you know my answer.
On other dotCom threads, I’ve offered what I think are fair and reasonable (read “truly catholic”) suggestions to improve the CDF’s functioning. Some of our fellow bloggers have repeated them here.
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. For me, the CDF is one very big part of the problem! If it’s unwilling to reform itself, I’m willing to give each member a gold-plated shovel and invite him or her to dig a hole to the other side of the world.
KATHY: So you’d at least like the “option of privacy” when dealing with the CDF?
Really?
Have I got a story for you! “Little Red Riding Hood.”
Thank you for the recommendation, Joseph J.
I’m not sure if I’ve put enough caveats in my comment above. One more: I don’t have any knowledge of the proceedings regarding Frs. Haight or Dupuis. These were just my own reflections on what I thought was possibly problematic in their writings–and what I believe the CDF is cracking down on these days.
“those who were in great fear were proved wrong. There has been no “reign of terror.” There has been no return to the Index.”
My reference to the index was intentional hyperbole. But everyone knows that the reign of terror stopped because of the pedophilia crisis which was handled irresponsibly by Benedict and John Paul. I give him credit for recovering with Maciel.
Now there are new efforts to recapture the moral highground alla the Miscamble article. More will be tried.
Your equivocations were just marvelous, Fritz. You deserve to go on Colbert’s show. He would have a good time with you. I will not even attempt to refute it. Hmmm. Now that’s your style.
I am also impressed by your great clairvoyance in determining my motivation. Now no one would call you flippant would they?
Please point out any equivocations in what I have said.
And, no, everyone does *not* know that “the reign of terror stopped because of the pedophilia crisis.” I do not know this. I suspect you do not know this either, unless you are privy to some information that the rest of us are not.
And finally, people often call me flippant, particularly when I am dealing with sophistry and empty rhetoric.
I apologize to the readers of this discussion. I’m letting my remarks get far too personal. I think I will bow out of the conversation.
Bill,
Your hyperbole and personal attacks are moving this conversation precisely nowhere. Give it a rest.
I sympathize with Mr. Bauerschmidt’s choice to not respond to the rubbish hurled at him. In such a situation I know I would find it difficult to restrain myself.
And for once I can endorse Mr.Gallicho’s intervention. It hasn’t seemed very even-handed in the past but this gives me hope.
Back to the topic.
Is there a mousetrap in the farmhouse?
cf http://www.catholica.com.au/jokes/011_joke_101106.php
Of possible interest regarding the thought of members of the CDF, here is a link to an article from First Things by Fr. DiNoia. The article is very similar in tone and content to his book The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective.
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9506/articles/dinoia.html
Just let me say this. Fritz started the put downs. He leads with ridicule. In every post. I apologize if others were offended. I criticize the thoughts. Not the person.
I’d like to weigh in with a note of appreciation to those who have stayed in the thread despite facing over-the-top comments, and regrets to those who understandably bowed out. I often learn as much from the behavior of people on the blog–admirable and less so–as I do from the content.
Thanks also to Sister Mary Wood for the Parable of the Mousetrap…Parables are good.
I would like to suggest a possible new thread that could be a bit seminar turned blog. Many of those who participate in dotCommonweal seem more than willing to read texts linked through replies. It strikes me that we have an opportunity to explore this issue by way of Phan’s most recent essay in Commonweal which includes a very personal reflection on his mother’s Buddhism. Kathy has also kindly linked us to DiNoia’s introductory reflection on religious pluralism. I can also add that I have met both of these men, although I have had longer conversations with DiNoia, and both strike me as significant scholars and extremely generous souls. Thus, I do not think it would be a waste of time to let them guide us a little in our thoughts.
The idea is simple: read both essays, and then reply to a thread that focuses on responses to the essays.
Perhaps this would somehow violate blog protocol, but I, for one, would find it quite enjoyable.
Here is a little analogy that we might think about when considering the CDF. From antiquity both provincial and general and ecumenical councils have issues canons both for disciplinary reasons and for doctrinal ones. Vatican II was unique in not issuing canons. Canons were a way of stipulating what was and what was not compatible with Catholic faith. With the centralization of power in Rome the now named CDF functions pretty much as canons did in the past; however, they do so with a much gentler hand (rare is the “anathema” or the “excommunication). I offer this analogy not as an apologia for the CDF but simply as a way of understanding how it functions in the church. It would be better, perhaps, if these things were done less centrally via the local bishops but I have no clue as to how that would work in practice. One of the problems today is that we have a much higher level of literacy, more means of communication, and a lot of material is disseminated. Does not the church need to have some way to say that X is not compatible with the received tradition of the church? This is not a topic I spend a lot of time pondering but it does seem to me that the Church requires some voice/office/locus/authority that says: X is not compatible with the Faith we have been entrusted to hand down and to proclaim.
A quick thought regarding authority and what is or is not compatible with “received tradition.” One element of Judaism that I have found admirable is its willingness to preserve minority voices. Thus, Talmud is written largely in the form of conflicting answers to a question. While there is a “we conclude” moment, there is also a very real need to indicate those positions that are contrary to what is concluded.
A rabbi once explained to me that he understood the purpose of preserving minority voices to be stewardship on behalf of future readers and debaters. What does not seem important today may seem important tomorrow. What does not carry the day today may prove more compelling tomorrow.
Christianity, even when guided by a teaching office, is seems to me, could benefit from not only indicating the existence of minority voices, but also of respecting the important role they can play in the struggle to live faithfully.
Sr. Mary Wood, thanks much for the link :) !!!
Lawrence Cunningham, thank you for noting the need for an authoritative voice on official Catholic teaching, today’s unparalleled complexity, and the possible value of a better ecclesial mechanism for dealing with original theological inquiry.
If I’m not mistaken, academics value professional critique as a way of advancing knowledge and understanding in their chosen fields. I have no reason to believe that theologians would somehow be different in this regard from their peers in other professions.
In light of the above (assuming I’m correct), I cannot fathom why any *professional* theologian would object to a transparent, open, and respectable process that allows for his/her peers to examine a work under review.
Given the perceived problems with the CDF’s approach as well as advances in telecommunications technology, might I suggest the church abolish the CDF and, in its place, adopt international videoconferencing to enable a theologian’s peers at various remote sites, i.e., major theological centers, to dialogue with the theologian in exploring his/her work? Provision could also be made to link such proceedings with colleges, universities, and seminaries around the world so that their audiences would at least be able to observe the give-and-take and submit comments and questions via fax, internet, etc.
I myself, of course, think the CDF is probably irreformable and likely must go the way of the dodo bird. It’s way past time to devise a new “mousetrap,” that is, a model without the “bite.”
I would be very interested in following Joe P.’s suggestion of a blog-sponsored “seminar.” Is this possible?
Fr. Phan is an excellent theologian and a wonderful and humble priest. I had the privilege of being on of his students at Catholic University. I don’t understand why the official church teaching is so fearful of differing thought (unless it makes more sense and de-centralizes power). The issue seems to be one of control, not theology.
Fr. Phan – you are a great man – you have a lot of supporters out here.
We are your “Phan” Club!
Jaglowicz makes an interesting proposal but one must then add: who is responsbile for adjudication after the extended discussion is over? A majority vote (and by what criteria does one gain a vote)? Some time or other we need to think of the bishops who have the claim of teaching authority. This is not to say that I resist the “clash of mind with mind” (Newman) but from what I know of academics, that clash could go on ad infinitum.
Revealing that we had the same discussion on Sobrino about six months ago. http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/854/What-if-YOU-ran-La-Suprema
Why was that discussion more civil?
First, I think the question raised here is not whether the church needs a mechanism to defend central truths, but whether or not it needs an effective mechanism and is CDF that mechanism?
Given the increase in both knowledge and literacy, increase in communication and pace of change, I think the question is even more pressing.
I think the answer to the second is no and that Appleby is right on when he notes how theogogy and power issues are and have been too intermingled.( I’ll leave it to scholars of history to judge if his conclusion is a “tad tendentious.”)
My experience with bureacracy (and I think many oethers will concur) is that their minions (as opposed to scholars in the field) are deeply invested in protecting current policy.
That;s not to deny there are good folk involved – I am sure there are many good folk in the Curia. But the system/process – still very much run like a middle ages establishment (with some modern trappings) hardly produces the botom-up needed to balance the top down an organization needs to be eficient and credible. I don’t need to go on about secrecy, etc.
We need to be careful about talking about having “the fullnes of truth” given our faith is grounded im mystery and whose truths are quite comples.
As to our Bishops, it would be useful to evaluate the extent to which they see themselves passing on what comes from the Curia (with its limitations) as many major managers do with their leaders.
Finally, there is the issue of charity – Gene Palumbo did a nice job in reviewing the Haring matter (My own view is that CDF represents a slow motion return to the Ottavianni modus operandi.) I suspect that some posts here that have more heat than light were driven by that consideration.
So, finally, I’ll submit that the Church’s review of theological proposals should not only be effective (with wide ranging scholarly input) but also remarkable for its charity – and hence divorced from power considerations.
In a comment above, F. C. Bauerschmidt wrote, “a quick read of Loisy’s ‘My Duel with the Vatican’ shows that in his case the condemnation [of modernism] hit a bullseye.”
That reminded me of a sentence in John Ratte’s book, Three Modernists: “Alfred Loisy remained a Roman Catholic priest for twenty years after he had decided that the only statement in the Apostles’ Creed to which he could give historical assent was that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate.”
Doctrine is dumb,
Whenever a new strain of doctrinal truth is first explored, its first cries are inarticulate. It’s like a two-year old who has learned no other words than Mommy, Daddy, and “no.”
And the most frequent word is “no.”
Or it’s as though a shepherd were guarding his flock at night against lions and tigers and bears (oh my). The shepherd strikes first, asks questions in the morning. That’s how David, “the man after God’s own heart,” acted in his youth.
Clear articulation of the sensus fidelium is not easily accomplished. It is very slow. And even after it is established, it’s not easily safeguarded from “an admixture of errors.” New questions come up all the time.
It wouldn’t be easy to a) know what’s going on b) immediately and clearly spot the problems c) articulate the problems and d) articulate new theology, instantaneously, that both resolves the issues that sparked the problematic theology in the first place, and promotes a new spirit of freedom, joy, and cooperation among theologians.
That’s what the CDF’s work could be, if theology weren’t extremely slow. And if the stakes weren’t infinitely high.
Kathy:
Interesting thoughts on doctrine. One question: Why the high confidence in the sensus fidelium? Not that there shouldn’t be some confidence in it, but is it capable of error, shortcomings, false starts, etc.? I am guessing from your discussion of doctrine that you would take it that we can improve on our expression of it, but is it possible that improvement could also include correction?
Joe P.,
I mean the REAL sensus fidelium.
I think there is an authentic understanding of the truth, stable yet culturally flexible (given that it is given to the whole world), that the Church as a unified whole is meant to come to know, in perfection, over time.
“We have the mind of Christ.”
Lawrence Cunningham, thank you for pointing out some of the actual or potential pitfalls of my suggestion. To use a word that was in vogue a number of years ago, perhaps the church needs a new paradigm vis-a-vis proclaiming official doctrine and handling novel theological insights.
In his YOUR CONSCIENCE AND CHURCH TEACHING, part of the Catholic Update series published by St. Anthony Messenger Press, Nicholas Lohkamp distinguishes between the traditional “universal” method, on the one hand, and the more contemporary “personalist” approach, on the other. We might see the former as the “bones” of morality and the latter as the “flesh” of morality. These two ways of judging the morality of human actions, although quite different, should be seen as complementing each other rather than competing with one another.
Perhaps the church could adopt a similar “bones” and “flesh” approach in proclaiming official doctrine and handling divergent/dissenting views. In this way, folks would have the “official line” as well as new ideas in theology. The focus would be on explaining and understanding rather than censoring and condemning.
The problems you mentioned earlier would still need to be dealt with, of course, but a new operational philosophy might make them easier to tackle. This approach not only brings more people into the process but also has the potential to contribute to the sense of the faithful.
Anyway…………….
(I’d be happy to negotiate a consulting fee with the powers that be :)
Joseph J.,
We have the traditional line, and new ideas. The Pope and his predecessor–both full of new theological ideas.
It’s not that theology is utterly stifled.
There is this huge question of inculturation that needs to be asked and very creatively responded to. What do we make of the deep religiosity of many Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists? How can a greco-roman-european religion be truly translated into Chinese? In some way, it must die to its heritage and truly be taught by the East. But are there some ways in which Catholicism must remain Greek? My sense is that the Pope believes (with Pannenberg and others) that there was providence at work in the Greek cultural early context of Christianity.
This is really hard theological work. It’s theological brain surgery–intensely delicate and momentous. It has to be done: now, expertly, cautiously.
Here’s a Taoist parable:
“A good cook changes his knife once a year—because he cuts. A mediocre cook changes his knife once a month—because he hacks. I’ve had this knife of mine for nineteen years and I’ve cut up thousands of oxen with it, and yet the blade is as good as though it had just come from the grindstone. There are spaces between the joints, and the blade of the knife has really no thickness….[I] move the knife with the greatest subtlety, until—flop! The whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground.”
Similarly, here’s a Christian parable:
“For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
Kathy: Here’s a story, not sure if it’s a parable.
When I was a junior in college I studied theology and New Testament for a year at the University of Edinburgh. A German friend of mine, who was a NT and biblical archeology student, went to Ireland with me on a short vacation. After many pints, he asked me with some note of frustration, “But don’t you believe in revelation?” At which point I paused, reflected, and answered, “Yes, I suppose it is possible, but the problem is knowing when you are looking at it.” I have been something of a mess ever since, but I stick by my soaked statement.
Must the search for God include certainty regarding revelation? I think if it does that one has found the wrong god, but obviously very good and faithful people disagree with me. The only place that I can find room to converse with such folk is over the question “WHY is important to affirm such and such as revealed?” Too often, the only answer seems to be “Because we always have done so.” This strikes me as a good sign that something is NOT a revelation. A true revelation from God would at least enable the presentation of some good reasons to believe it, independent of a history of attestation.
“We have the traditional line, and new ideas. The Pope and his predecessor – both full of new theological ideas.”
Kathy, are you suggesting that only the pope provide new ideas to theology?
Whether “yes” or “no,” if the pope submits new ideas, should he be subject to CDF scrutiny?
Not my intention to play devil’s advocate here. I’m just not sure how to “read” your comment.
Joe J.,
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. What I meant is, not only are the two last popes unafraid of new ideas, they develop them themselves. Pope Benedict came out with a book last spring, and positively invited criticism.
Joe P,
Don’t drink and derive. (For some reason I’m thinking of that scene in LOTR when Pippin says “It comes in pints!?”) I agree that that is a problem. How do I know that this is what was revealed?
One traditional answer, maybe the most traditional answer, is unfortunately precisely the answer that you find unsatisfying, St. Vincent of Lerin’s “Commonitorium”:
“We must hold all that has been held always, everywhere, and by all; this is truly and properly Catholic … this can be obtained if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.”
(I realize I’m no help, but that’s perhaps better-fleshed-out than “Trust in God, who cannot lie, who told the Church He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us everything.”)
What is hugely interesting right now is that there is a new “everywhere”–a more universal universality–and Asia is a fascinating place of deep custom and interior experience. At present this culture has met up with a Western Church that does not really own its own mystical heritage. Many things make this discernment very difficult–perhaps an enormous imbalance on the level of mysticism is most important.
I had a church history professor who liked to talk about “the folding of the Church.” The folding occurred along linguistic lines, like on a map: the Latin West and Greek East divided first (vertical fold), then the Latin South divided from the German North(horizontal fold).
There is no guarantee that the map has finished folding. Imagine what an Indian schism would look like. That is part of what is at stake in doing this theology well.
Kathy: You win the pun of the year award. I will remember that one for a long time. I’m afraid I also think that if the criterion for Christian belief is the one you note from St. Vincent of Lernin then exactly NOTHING in the history of Christian ideas would meet that criterion, except perhaps “God exists”.
Joe:
How about “Jesus Christ is Lord.”
From tomorrow’s 2nd reading: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”
Also, “God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself.”
I’m pretty sure those are perennial, universal beliefs of the Church, beginning with the apostolic preaching. And, if I understand correctly, it is currently a matter of dispute in the academy whether Catholic Christian evangelization should always include sentiments such as these.
I would just mention again that I believe that it has really become urgent for the Catholic Church in the west to become more deeply aware of the Christian mystical tradition.
Maybe Bl. Teresa is going a long way to make it known–for her beloved India.
Kathy:
Could you explain more what you meant by your comment about mysticism and the Western church?
Are you talking about the intersection between East and West in a religious framework–the Western tendency to rely on theological pronouncement vs. the Eastern embrace of mystery and transcendence?
Or are you talking about mysticism as it relates to receiving and embracing divine revelation? About the source of the church’s certitude regarding the deposit of the faith–and the need for each individual believer to have some kind of “revelation” of these truths?
I would agree with you on both counts, by the way. I just wasn’t sure which direction you were heading in.
Mark:
The Orthodox have an expression: “The best theologian in the Church is the little old lady in the fourth row.” In my experience of parish life there seem to be people who have an intense faith and relationship to God. What do they know? Or rather, Whom do they know?
Many people, when they pray, have an occasional experience of knowing this delightful undertow in their consiciousness. Without putting too fine a point on it, because I would like to say, “That’s God”–which is not really accurate–I would suggest that that feeling is a divine invitation to intimacy. Christian mysticism is closer knowledge and love of the personal God of the Bible and the Creed.
So where does one go from there? My personal experience suggests, better not try to talk with the parish priest about it because he either a) won’t know what you’re talking about or b) will have some idea but won’t know what to do with it and will therefore retreat into stiff clerical circumspection.
So where does one go? What is the telephone extension at the local chancery office for the expert on contemplation and what to do about it?
Kathy and Mark: One of the interesting questions to ask when focusing on this issue is the “revelatory” capacity of other religious traditions. There are old and prayerful individuals in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Are their experiences as authentic as those of a Christian? If so, what does this say about the relevance of differences? If not, why not?
Thomas Merton, as you probably know, got very interested in this question and had active correspondences going with Muslim and Jewish mystics, and was explicitly exploring Eastern thought when he died. He had no interest in collapsing the different traditions into one feel good religion, but he was also far less interested in religious differences.
Joe,
Wasn’t that about the time that Merton started drinking a lot of beer and going out with that girl?
Kathy:
So you’re talking about personal revelation (not as dangerous sounding a term as it may first appear). Intimacy of the kind you’re describing does indeed make the little old lady in the fourth row a stellar theologian. I’ve known a few of them and have found them to be absolutely delightful. But they’re not always old, and they’re not always women.
As for the parish priest, there is yet another response one might receive: He might try to dragoon you into some parish service or other, like running a bible study or helping out with the youth group. Not wholly appropriate, but well-intentioned.
Where does one go? Outside of the parish/diocesan institutional structure. I just don’t think they’re set up to help encourage or foster this kind of thing. The bar is set too low.
There’s always groups like the Third Order Carmelites. I have a few friends in Frederick, MD, who have had very good experiences with their local group–they finally found a place to explore these things. You’re right. The church doesn’t do well when it comes to things “mystical.” Such a greater emphasis on parishioners knowing and reciting enough doctrine to maintain their Catholic identity, giving their children a modicum of catechesis, and upholding teachings like Humanae Vitae, etc.
Are you suggesting that this may be one reason why Fr. Phan is in the dog house?
Kathy:
Indeed, although, in light of certain events that have rocked the Catholic Church recently, I would clarify that she would better be described as a woman and not a girl (and there is reason to believe that the relationship never got truly “intimate”). Furthermore, as Merton was monk, there is no doubt that the beer was top shelf.
Mark, you asked, “Are you suggesting that this may be one reason why Fr. Phan is in the dog house?”
No, I really don’t know much about Fr. Phan’s situation, which is, as I understand it, not yet settled. Who knows–the investigation might turn out to be a learning opportunity.
I’m addressing one of the side issues that has been brought up, possibly by me. There is a huge project of evangelization and inculturation going on in Far East Catholicism. As I understand it, Fr. Phan is working on that. Which is altogether admirable.
That makes me pause and wonder whether the West ought to be doing some things better, and one of those things is quite evidently the low emphasis and priority that the mystical life is given in western Catholicism, and a lot of the problem is ignorance of the Catholic mystical tradition–the mystical doctors John and Teresa, the Rhineland mystics, the Fathers, and the desert Fathers.
There is also a low emphasis placed on ascetical practices in the west. I’d say more about that, but I have to go get some more coffee and check my email. Maybe there are cookies in the break room!
Okay, Kathy. You go get your snack. In the mean time, I’ll work on memorizing the Catechism. After all, isn’t that the best way to grow in holiness?
Mark,
It’s a good first step. I know that is the most unfashionable thing a person could possibly say, but I really believe it to be true.
There has been a revelation, and it has content.
However, I will ask the Lord, when at last I see Him, why the very first step of contemplation (according to St. John of the Cross) is counterintuitive. What happens is that meditation is going along very nicely, the imagination and intellect are engaged in the revealed mysteries–everything is fine. Then, these consolations disappear. Now objectively speaking this is “a sheer grace”–St. John’s words. God is calling the person into deeper prayer, on a spiritual level where the imagination can’t be helpful. Discursive reasoning isn’t helpful either. But it does feel sort of nice to just sit and wait, and according to St. John, that’s the way to go. The problem is that this is very counterintuitive, and it’s very helpful to hear, from someone else, that a new tack must be taken.
Which is why every diocese should have a hotline.
“You’ve reached 1-800-ABSENCE. All of our customer service representatives are assisting other contemplatives. Please hold.”