“Saul, Saul, why do we persecute you?”
October 2, 2007, 11:02 am
Posted by David Gibson
At the America Web site, John Donahue, SJ, has some shocking news about the latest Church investigation of an unorthodox thinker. Have things always been this bad? Well, maybe…(Satire alert.)
If Fr. Donahue keeps this up, he might go the way of Fr. Reece.
An interestung approach to CDF – by the way, whatever happened to “reform of the curia?’ Given their closeness to the Poe and their ability to use power and control over agenda for discussion, probably nothing.
The central office view will go on. But I did like Peter Phan’s letter in the current issue about the European(Roman) view of liturgy which obviously has broader implications.
That’s really clever.
He left out a couple of things. Saul/ Paul’s initial theological u-turn, and his visit of submission to James and Peter.
Kathy, you are getting so predictable. You sure know on what side your bread is buttered.
Wonderful blog by John D. Shows there are mature and courageous clergy left in the church. Pretty soon the CDF will have to measure in on merit rather than authority.
Bill, I eat my bread dry, let me tell ya. If only I could learn to compromise. That’s where the real money is.
But better not to make things so personal. What do you say?
Bill, please let’s try not to draw people–and the thread–down dead-ends with ad hominem (or whatever the feminine would be) remarks.
Donahue’s point is well-taken insofar as, as I’ve said before, theology is slow. The Holy Spirit works in persons. Persons are able to see and innovate, and their ideas are always suspect at first. It takes some time to catch the drift, then to investigate, and finally to establish that yes, this line of reasoning is consonant with the Tradition.
What’s the remedy? Is the academy system working?
Well, all I can say is, it’s about time the Vatican cracked down on this guy!
Save some trees! Excise Galatians!
Luther got some whacky ideas from Galatians so I’m open, I suppose. But seriously, Kathy’s response was pithy and on-point.
John R. Donahue edited Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown! One of the contributions was written by a Rabbi! Does anyone else see a sinister pattern here?
Tradition is a very abused word. Jesus condemned the scribes and pharisees for following their traditions instead of God’s word. In fact Jesus opposed Religion. Gary Wills writes:
“The most striking, resented, and dangerous of Jesus’ activities was his opposition to religion as what was understood in his time. This is what led to his death. Religion killed him.”
Jesus corrected the leaders on their rigidity on the Sabbath and he strongly admonished them that mercy is prefered over sacrifice. Jesus was a layman and no priests were part of his community. In fact the early Christian community was entirely without priests. Paul never referred to himself as a priest. And look who is extolled as the example of Christain living. A Samaritan, whose people were the enemy of the religion.
Officials in the church have negated many important lessons from the gospel, rationalizing them as they encouraged mediocrity and disallowed anyone who acted like Jesus. Like calling them to the Spirit not the letter.
I was about to say that Gary Wills isn’t a theologian, but wiki informs me that he does in fact have an honorary doctorate from The College of Holy Cross.
So his word is Gospel, after all.
Sorry. I just ate my ice cream so I’m a little more settled down now.
On the other hand, it bears pointing out that Jesus never actually used the words “rigid” or “legalistic.”
Instead, it seems to me, he kept insisting on the presence of the Kingdom of God, which carries with it certain implications. There’s no fasting while the Bridegroom is here. And the sabbath is made for human beings, not the other way around. If there was ever a day for being healed, and for eating grain in the ear, it’s the Sabbath.
That’s not to say that there is no Law. Not the smallest part of a letter will be done away with. But the sun, when it dawns, outshines the other stars.
(That last sentence is for Fr. Imbelli.)
Just a point of clarification. It’s Garry Wills, professor of history at Northwestern. He can be a bit touchy about the spelling of his first name, if I remember correctly a letter to the editor in Commonweal a few years ago. Except for an interesting history/meditation on the Rosary he wrote a few years ago, I haven’t read any of his other writing on religious subjects, but his “Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America,” which won the Pulitzer Prize, is a great book for Lincoln and/or Civil War buffs, and his “Nixon Agonistes” reportedly helped earn him a spot on Nixon’s enemies’ list (Lucky guy!).
<>
You mean in Scripture. What was the point of mentioning Garry Wills’s lack of a PhD in theology?
>>What was the point of mentioning Garry Wills’s lack of a PhD in theology?<<
Isn’t the prior question: what was the point of implying that Kathy is somehow intellectually dishonest?
No, since I wasn’t implying any such thing.
Thank you, F.C.
Grant, what did you think the point was?
In context, I was responding to Bill Mazzella’s citation of Wills’ opinion. Often this kind of reference implies that a person is an expert in the subject, so I was clarifying that he is not–at least not in the normal way that people acquire theological expertise, through rigorous study.
Although, interestingly, Wills is writing theological books!
I really don’t know. To discredit the quotation (with which I don’t completely agree)? I’m not sure what pointing that out gets us. Balthasar didn’t have a doctorate in theology either.
Grant, I was figuring 50% odds you’d mention Balthasar. He’s a whole ‘nother subject–one whom I think has said a lot of dumb things as well.
But usually one can argue with Balthasar (about some of his Christology in Mysterium Paschale, for example) using reason, Scripture and Tradition, and thought. This was different. How can anyone argue with such a fundamental assertion such as “In fact Jesus opposed Religion.” It’s like in Euclidean geometry. One can argue from first principles, but not TO first principles.
So I resorted to what is usually considered an acceptable counterargument–undermine the authority cited. I guess in court one would ask an expert witness, “So, doctor, did you have any specialized training in this area?”
>>No, since I wasn’t implying any such thing.<<
Sorry to be unclear. I was not referring to you but to a comment by another poster. I guess I was just wondering why you would pick up on Kathy’s ad hominem remark about Wills and not on the ad hominem that was directed at her earlier.
F.C.,
Because David Gibson took care of it.
Not to change the subject or anything, but Grant, what do you mean by “You mean in Scripture.”
Of course Grant can elucidate on his own behalf, but I took his remark to be a reference to John 21:25, “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”
For that matter, the Gospels don’t exhaust NT revelation. There are also, for example, and by happy coincidence, the letters of St. Paul …
Oh, St. Paul, is that what he meant.
See how suspicions can get out of hand. I thought perhaps he was referring to a new revelation.
My mistake.
It is always better to cite the material written rather than to discredit the person. But I understand the frustration.
Of course, Han Kung is arguably the greatest theologian of the 20th century. He wrote the classic book “On Being a Christian.” Now he is a theologian. He even recommended that Ratzinger be hired at Tubingen.
Wills does know his Greek very well. Something that Augustine sorely lacked. That didn’t stop Augustine on commenting from soup to nuts in Scripture. It is alway precarious to quote Augustine, therefore.
Another simple thing Wills writes about is how Jesus said to call no one on earth father as your father is in heaven. You can give all the causistry responses you want but the monarchical church clearly disobeys the Lord on this one by ordering that priests be called father.
But there you go as to who does the will of the father. It is safer with the harlots and prostitutes.
One of the few things that’s clear to me, theologically, in a way that I don’t believe needs more nuance, is that upon seeing Him, we’re all going to smack our foreheads and say, “Oh!”