Can the bishops be wrong? (again)
Yesterday the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine issued a statement, signed by committee chair Cardinal Donald Wuerl, in response to the recent flap over their critique of Elizabeth Johnson’s Quest for the Living God (click here for all dotCommonweal posts on the subject). It’s called “Bishops as Teachers: A Resource for Bishops,” and you can read it here (PDF).
As with the aftermath of the bishops’ position in the the debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I find myself asking, “Can the bishops ever be wrong?” Following the health-care-reform debate, that question was asked in Commonweal by Daniel Finn (“Uncertainty Principle”) and Richard Gaillardetz (“The Limits of Authority”), and it’s worth going back to their analyses in the light of this new document. “Bishops as Teachers” defends at length the bishops’ special competence as authoritative teachers of the faith. But what if they make a bad call? Is anyone who says “I think you got this wrong” automatically undermining, or denying, the bishops’ authority to teach what is right?
Cardinal Wuerl offers an analogy:
In any sporting match, football, tennis, baseball, there are referees and umpires. The game can only proceed with the supervision of a referee. In a tennis match, it is not the player who calls the ball “out of bounds” but the referee. The player may object that it was not his or her intention to hit the ball out of bounds. He or she may even question whether the ball is out of bounds. But it is the referee who must make the call. Otherwise there can be no coherent game, no enjoyment of the match, no sense of progress in learning the sport: in short, the “tennis game” would devolve into a fruitless exchange of individuals hitting the ball at will.
Agreed. But what about the responsibilities of the referee? To quibble with a call is not necessarily to quibble with the legitimacy of rules and umpires in general. And sometimes referees do get it wrong — and many sports have adjusted their procedures in light of that reality. Not having rules and referees is untenable. But not holding referees accountable in any way is also detrimental to “enjoyment of the match” and “progress in learning the sport” and so on. When a referee makes a bad call, it undermines the trust of the players and spectators.
A recent example: St. John’s victory over Rutgers in the NCAA playoffs. The last play of the game was posted all over the internet, because the refs missed not one but two calls that would have turned the ball over to Rutgers and given them a chance to tie or win the game. ESPN’s Kieran Darcy reported:
CONTROVERSY: Justin Brownlee hurled the ball into the crowd after the last Rutgers turnover, and it appeared there was still time on the clock. Others say he also traveled, and stepped out of bounds. The Big East issued a statement, saying: “Two separate officiating errors occurred at the conclusion of the St. John’s vs. Rutgers game. Both missed violations should have caused the game clock to stop and a change of possession to occur prior to the end of the game. Neither error is reviewable or correctable under NCAA playing rules.”
Not reviewable, not correctable — but it was still a mistake. An obvious one. (Watch the video here.) At the buzzer the refs hurried off the court and away from accountability. But they did later voluntarily withdraw from officiating for the rest of the tournament, a tacit admission that their credibility had been dangerously undermined.
Wuerl returns to his analogy later, in a way that I think strains it past usefulness:
Once a theological work is published, however, it is ipso facto open to response. It is like the ball that has been hit in a tennis match. It is already in play. If it is called out of bounds, it is not an adequate response to say that the referee did not enter into dialogue with the player beforehand.
Obviously the cardinal is objecting to the complaint that the bishops failed to reach out to Sr. Johnson in any way before issuing their judgment of her book. But I think this analogy belittles the concern about a lack of collegiality and openness — those who have made this point (including the CTSA) are not questioning the bishops’ right to act as referees; they’re saying the bishops might have made a better call if they’d made more of an effort to understand what they were judging. This is where theology is not like hitting a tennis ball. If the bishops say “Sr. Johnson believes…” or “Sr. Johnson argues…” and it seems clear to others that those judgments are not grounded in a fair reading of the book, we have a problem beyond a general failure to recognize that boundaries exist and should be enforced.
Does the commission of Christ to teach with authority rule out the possibility of going back to the tape in a good-faith effort to get things right? Does the ruling on the field not only have to stand, but have to be defended, no matter what the cost? That doesn’t seem right to me — not in basketball and not in the church.
Tags: Elizabeth A. Johnson, USCCB
Fine post, Mollie.
Ditto–really nice job, Mollie.
It’s a silly analogy. Refs are supposed to be neutral arbiters–they aren’t supposed to have a stake in the outcome, which doesn’t describe the Bishops’ position at all. They’re on the other side of the court and also insisting they get to make the line calls. The choice of analogy also reveals their view of theologians as opponents–it’s a zero-sum game, where every shot over the net is viewed as an attack and vigorously defended against. What a shame.
Good post .. Maybe C. Wuerl should have used a more Roman analogy. The emperor’s thumbs up or down on the subject in the arena
I echo the praise for Mollie’s cogent analysis.
Peter and the Apostles would have laughed at all the pompous claims to infallibility that have transpired too often throughout the centuries. And would have cringed over the emphasis on being right over being good. As I have noted before–Jesus would have been condemned by a hierarchy which has become like the Scribes and Pharisees.
Clearly history shows how many mistakes bishops and popes have made. Whether collegiately or ex cathedra. Mostly these claims are a distortion of the gospel. The claim is always we are right whether we are good or not. Whereas Paul and other imitators of Jesus throughout the ages stressed behavior over dogma. Look at the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians which is typical. He takes everyone to task and notes how all are important, not just referees:
” For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 4For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 8Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.”
Cardinal Wuerl addressed his letter to the bishops. What status does it have with them? Is it anything more than his advice to them. We know that at least two dioceses do not adhere to the USCCB’s guidelines for handling charges of sexual abuse made against members of the clergy. Is Cardinal Wuerl’s letter any more “authoritative” than that set of guidelines?
Regrettably, there is no evidence that Cardinal Wuerl discussed his letter with any representative group of theologians. One consequence of his addressing himself to the bishops is that his letter can be taken to follow in the line expressed by Cardinal George recently when he urged bishops to emphasize their roles as governors of the Church.
As a blogger on NCR suggested, this letter seems to be something of a follow- up to Ex Corde Eccclesiae. Not a happy prospect for scholarship, I’m afraid.
Hi, Mollie and all,
Yes, I do think it’s conceivable that the bishops can be mistaken in their judgment of a theological work. To go back to the sports analogy – it happens sometimes in (American) football and baseball that, after a call is made by an official, the officials as a whole will “huddle up” and then reverse the call. There may even be instances where a coach on the sidelines or a manager in the dugout has been able to argue his/her case successfully, such that the official acknowledges that the initial call was incorrect and then reverses the call.
Btw, it’s noteworthy that Wuerl returns to the tennis analogy in the context of urging that theologians seek an imprimatur. It seems that canon law actually requires an imprimatur for any book that might reasonably be expected to be used, or that would be promoted for use, as a textbook. (Whether that requirement would apply to this book in question is still not clear to me.)
It also seems, on p. 7, that the document takes a bit of a shot at the academic discipline of theology – it seems to call into question whether vigorous and effective peer review is taking place. I don’t know enough about the academic profession to know whether a book like the one under consideration, which I believe was written for a popular audience, would normally be subject to peer review.
Well there’s something tto an analogy and analogies can be stretched too far. But it’ also clear the the refs are “calibrated” themeselves by others. They are not the last word and can suffer their own discipline:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2011/04/question-of-the-day-should-there-be-any-punishment-for-referees-when-they-blow-a-big-call.html
To that extent the analogy doesn’t hold. The “ultimate” arbiter is the sports fan, analogous to the parisioner. If the refereeing is perceived as unreliable and inaccurate the fan base will drop, and the sport will lose TV revenue. The players, team owners and referees all answer to a higher authority.
It seems that canon law actually requires an imprimatur for any book that might reasonably be expected to be used, or that would be promoted for use, as a textbook.
I went through a long phase in which, if I found a book had an imprimatur, I wouldn’t buy it. This was largely due, I think, to the suppression of Catholic Biblical scholarship until comparatively recently. I eased up on the practice when I saw works by people like Raymond E. Brown with imprimaturs. (I believe everything he wrote has an imprimatur.)
As someone who has worked most of his life in the textbook industry, I will say definitively that Quest for the Living God is not a textbook. I don’t want to knock textbooks, but they don’t contain (and aren’t supposed to contain) much in the way of original thought. This doesn’t mean they can’t be extremely fine books, but the purpose of a textbook is not to venture into new territory. It’s to sum up the basics of what is already known.
Thanks, Mollie – was struck by what Wuerl either did not say or twisted.
First, he makes no mention of the already decided protocol on this in 1983 which was years of work between theologians and the USCCB. He makes it seem as if that work needs to be suppressed and started over.
Second, he does come up with a “new” point – that published books used in 1st/2nd year theology or late high school theology classes need to be scrutnized for “orthodoxy?” He gives no details and says that is work to be considered. Yet, such a statement re-opens the whole debate which the Land of Lakes compromise tried to encompass. It is as if theologians can only think/discuss within and with their own specialty but need some type of episcopal blessing before their work can be used by the folks in the pews or classrooms.
Third, his constant “imprimatur” meme ……..he paints too black and white; he oversimplifies, and he ignores the current reality of publishing, etc. What happens when a bishop gives an imprimatur and another bishop or USCCB doesn’t agree? The complexity is always there.
He skips over many of the CTSA points in their response – and comes across as very defensive. Granted, bishops are teachers….but are they “pastoral” teachers or “policeman” teachers? The complexity around this is mind numbing. Again, he paints with a simplistic brush.
His tennis analogy – guess he doesn’t know the sport. There are linesman who call balls in or out of bounds; the referee is there to adjudicate when there are questions, differences.
Finally, his statement (like others) about “poor” catechisis since Vatican II is truly a meme (as defined by Ungidan). Any college teacher can tell you that he is painting again with a very black and white brush – you get students are on a continuum in terms of catholic knowledge, experience, spirituality, maturity, etc. He basically slams the reality that more Catholic kids attended higher education since 1970 than at any time in our history.
If Catholic students have trouble in theology classes because they are poorly catechized, then make Catholicism 101 a prerequisite for theology courses.
“First, he makes no mention of the already decided protocol on this in 1983 which was years of work between theologians and the USCCB. He makes it seem as if that work needs to be suppressed and started over.”
Hi, Bill, he does mention a document that he refers to as “Doctrinal Responsibilities”, which would seem to be “Doctrinal Responsibilities: Approaches to Promoting Cooperation and Resolving Misunderstandings Between Bishops and Theologians”. That document is listed (but is not available for viewing on the web) on the Secretariat for Doctrine’s web site as dating from 1989. Is that the same thing you’re thinking of, or is there another document as well?
The same – you picked up my point that he basically avoided it.
I find Card. Wuerl’s question lingering over this discussion, and have not seen any attempt at a response: why did Sr. Johnson not seek to initiate the dialogue with the bishops herself by seeking the imprimatur? Seems an easy enough thing to do, and then we don’t have to keep bleating on about “dialogue”.
So I ask the theologians: what responsibility do YOU have in this?
Congressman Landry: Imprimaturs are handled locally, not by USCCB committees (except when it comes to scripture translations).
Me thinks the analogy limps too much.
Cardinal Wuerl had to say something after CTSA criticized the Bishops and him also.
One thing not tolerated well by our hierachy is criticism , especially if it pertains to theri prerogatives as “authentic” teachers.
I love the word”authentic” which clearly does not exclude poorly done or even mistaken, but I think basically it means it’s my job.
I can think of lots of bosses who had “authentic” roles of policy setting and some did it well and some screwed up mightily.
The organizational problem is there is no listening and the call for”respectful dialogue” is boilerplate because there is constant rejection of criticism and call for other views.
All of this may bring exultation to the likes of George Weigel and his First Things friends who declared the years of Bernandin ended and the Kingdom of Law established on earth, or at least in the American hierarchy. But divisuion. polarization or Fr. Reese noted today, continued hemorghaging of members wit hlettle done to face the issue.
(Footnote to JL, did you read the cTSA statement and what do you think of it?
Did you read the Catholic moral theoogians take on this (presumable they are no tliberal/conservative) and what do you make of that?)
I think that Wuerl is as ambivalent about their assessment as Pope Benedict is as ambivalent towards Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment of Teilhard.
http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/pope-cites-teilhardian-vision-cosmos-living-host
The point is that Gamaliel’s advice to his fellow leaders of the Sanhredin as recounted in Acts is as true then as it is today.
Problem is that the Gamaliel’s of then as of now are rarely heeded.
Again? You mean Still, right?
That may be, Mr. Gallicho, but it doesn’t answer the query.
It is interesting that the statement is presented as a “pastoral resource” concerning the Committee’s recent statement on Sr. Elizabeth Johnson’s book. For it does somewhat resemble a set of “talking points” to be distributed to folks on the front lines who might not have been able to think the issues through for themselves–, like the vast array of pastoral resources prepared for the introduction of the new liturgical translations to the people in the pews.
But that that limping analogy with the referees surely did his audience no favors. (Only look at how easily many of the posts above demolished it.) And there is so much here to offend Catholic College students and their teachers, theologians, Scripture scholars, even perceptive fellow Bishops. My guess is that this is just the second in what will be a long list of efforts to re-frame the original response. Maybe ultimately they’ll work it out. In the fullness of time?
Continuing the sports analogy, I say dirty pool.
C. Wuerl *is*like a pool player — he is really directing his missile to object A (the CSTA) but he aims it at object B (the bishops’ conference), confident he won’t have to actually make contact with the CSTA. Fine for a game of pool, but that’s not his actual game.
“and then we don’t have to keep bleating on about “dialogue”.
Insult. Not conducive to listening, much less dialogue.
Mollie mischievously suggests the question that comes more readily to our lips these days: “Can Bishops ever be Right?”
Nice to see B16 quoting Teilhard: “Toward the end of a reflection upon the Letter to the Romans, in which St. Paul writes that the world itself will one day become a form of living worship, the pope said, ‘It’s the great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had: At the end we will have a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. Let’s pray to the Lord that he help us be priests in this sense to help in the transformation of the world in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.’”
In 1960 the Holy Office had a much more negative vision of Teilhard than the USCCB have of Eliz. Johnson.
There is no such thing as “dialogue” with referees. One can argue with them, but, in the end, the umpire always wins.
St Billy Martin, pray for us!
@Ann Oliver (8:45)
Not an insult,Ann, but rather an observation. The main objection seems to be that Sr. Johnson was not consulted before the Bishops issued their statement. I’m reading a lot about how there is no “dialogue” here; yet Card. Wuerl raised a cogent point: Sr. Johnson possessed the means for initiating such a dialogue by seeking an imprimatur (from her local bishop). That point is well taken, to me at least, although it doesn’t insulate the Bishops’ Committee from other points of criticism. The point has also not been answered.
The question lingers: what duty does the theologian have?
Jeff, the “main objection” is that the bishops misinterpreted and misrepresented what Johnson wrote — that they accused her of undermining the gospel without cause. Wuerl’s statement doesn’t address that directly, but it remains the actual main objection. The imprimatur tu quoque is a dodge — or, as Cardinal Wuerl would say, “not an adequate response.” But there’s another reason no one is picking it up here, and that’s because it was discussed at some length in the several previous dotCommonweal posts on this subject. The point has been answered. We don’t really need to do it again.
I have never sought an imprimatur for my books (they don’t appear to me to fall under the category required for such) but always send an inscribed copy to the local bishop on the off chance he might find it interesting.
According to Canon 827, books used in undergraduate theology courses are not required to have an imprimatur. Only catechisms and textbooks treating of sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or moral disciplines that are used on the elementary, middle and high school levels require the approval of the local ordinary. The canon does not even use the word imprimatur.
The question of an imprimatur seems irrelevant in the case of Prof. Johnson. Mollie is right that it is used as a “dodge.”
“and then we don’t have to keep bleating on about “dialogue”.\
Jeff ==
To say that people “bleat” is to say that they speak like whiney little lambs. That is demeaning. To put “dialogue” in scare quotes is to imply that the topic isn’t really dialogue, as claimed, but something else, which implies a certain duplicity or at least incompetence on the part of the speakers.
“Jeff, the “main objection” is that the bishops misinterpreted and misrepresented what Johnson wrote — that they accused her of undermining the gospel without cause. Wuerl’s statement doesn’t address that directly, but it remains the actual main objection. The imprimatur tu quoque is a dodge — or, as Cardinal Wuerl would say, “not an adequate response.” But there’s another reason no one is picking it up here, and that’s because it was discussed at some length in the several previous dotCommonweal posts on this subject. The point has been answered. We don’t really need to do it again.”
Pls correct my ignorance by showing me which posts I may read, because I have not seen this addressed specifically. Since it is Holy Week, and correcting the ignorant is an act of mercy, I’m sure you can oblige.
Regardless, my point is not whether these posts have answered it, but whether the CTSA has addressed the issue. I have not seen any such response on the part of the CTSA on why no imprimatur was sought. Again, it seems a simple matter, if we’re concerned about dialogue (scare quotes or not), then why can’t an individual theologian bear the burden of initiating such dialogue?
I should clarify that I do not think and am not arguing that the failure of Sr. Johnson to seek an imprimatur nullifies or prevents disagreeing with the Committee’s conclusions, or solves the matter. It seems to me that these debates are a bit like the political culture wars wherein both sides talk past each other, one side resting on authority, the other on the legitimate role of theologians in the Church. My question re: the imprimatur is driven by a curiosity as to whether we have a constructive process for dealing with these disputes that can or should be utilized.
The question of seeking an imprimatur is relevant, because it goes to state of mind. If a theologian has no appreciation for the benefit of an imprimatur or, God forbid, sees the lack of an imprimatur as a badge of honor in the faculty lounge, I think the Faithful are wise to be suspect.
What was that analogy about a bad tree being unable to produce good fruit?
Mark, what you are recommending is the presumption of bad faith. You may think it’s wise for the Faithful to take that approach, but I would caution you against projecting it onto the bishops. There is no reason, none at all, to presume that Sr. Johnson’s “failure” to seek an imprimatur in circumstances where doing so was neither required nor routine reflects badly on her intentions, attitude, scholarship, or disposition toward authority.
Mollie–
Methinks thou dost protest too much. It’s a stretch to impute bad faith to the subjunctive, and I didn’t even mention Elizabeth Johnson–there was no reason to, as I was speaking in the abstract. But, since you brought it up, has Johnson ever sought an imprimatur for any of her publications? If not, does that imply she sees little value in it? If so, shouldn’t that inform our opinion of her work?
Mark: how do you think an imprimatur works?
Grant–
Through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. But if you were trying to make a point rather than seek information, why not just make it?
Mark Proska,
There is a much simpler explanation that need not presume ill will on the part of any Catholic theologian who decides not seek an imprimatur. Most published works of theology do not require an imprimatur under the canon I cited above.
Poor Card. Wuerl: the traditionalists consider him an apostate, and the progressives consider him an authoritarian cad.
Alan C.—
No need for you to introduce ill will into the equation—theologians can have other much less nefarious motivations, I am sure. I’m afraid, though, with the phrase,“do not require”, you’ve failed to grasp the essence of my post, which was that it’s a revelation if a theologian would not have the caste of mind to humbly seek the imprimatur when publishing on controversial aspects of doctrine.
Mark, methinks thou canst stop being coy. I’m sorry this “imprimatur” question has you so perturbed; we won’t be pursuing it further here.
Jeff, I’ll thank you not to call the cardinal names — not even when putting them in someone else’s mouth.
Mark,
I know many of my colleagues who find it indeed humbling to publish a book. There is always so much more that one does not know even when one’s ideas make it into print. If it is humility you are after an imprimatur isn’t really necessary. Furthermore, getting an imprimatur does not guarantee humility.
“I’m afraid, though, with the phrase,“do not require”, you’ve failed to grasp the essence of my post, which was that it’s a revelation if a theologian would not have the caste of mind to humbly seek the imprimatur when publishing on controversial aspects of doctrine.”
Mark –
What about the bishops’ committee who, as C. Wuerl points out, “were not required” to discuss the book with Sister beforehand? What does not doing what is not required tell us about them?
Hmmm.
@Mollie Wilson O’Reilly:
I can’t help but be struck by a certain defensiveness in your tone in responding to some comments (perhaps I’m reading that into them, so correct me if I’m wrong).
First off, my comment re: Card. Wuerl was not “name-calling” as much as trying to highlight the unusual predicament the Cardinal finds himself in lodged between the two “sides” in these debates. Believe me when I say I’m a huge fan of anyone who manages to tick off both sides in a fight, and I’m a huge fan of the Cardinal personally for his approach to debates such as these!
Secondly, I might quibble with some of Mark’s tone and phrasing, but I think the issue of the imprimatur is relevant to this issue (and it seems to me that dismissing the issue and those raising it as abruptly as you do only serves to inflame things). As I’ve said before, I don’t think it rebuts or pretermits other criticisms of how Card. Wuerl and the Committee have handled this issue (I’m sensitive to the “mis-reading” argument), but it seems relevant to ask what role the imprimatur COULD play in handling some of these process issues.
I understand given some comments above that the imprimatur is NOT required for certain types of monographs. But I’d be interested in hearing from the theologians the reasons they do not seek an imprimatur or whether more of them should seek an imprimatur as a way of initiating the dialogue. It is a point of curiosity to me, not a line of attack against anyone’s bad faith.
Finally, isn’t there something slightly incongruous (shall we say), Mollie, of shutting down lines of inquiry and debate in a blog post which purports to criticize the bishops for doing the same thing? If you only want people who will agree with you on an issue to respond, perhaps you should just say so.
Jeff Landy,
I don’t think that many Catholic theologians give much thought to getting an imprimatur simply because it is not required for most books on Catholic theology. I doubt, too, that publishers are as involved in the process as they were forty years ago. One practical reason for both to bypass the process is the delay in getting the book published.
You may or may not know that bishops do not normally read the books they give imprimaturs to. They ask a priest in their diocese to read the book in order to advise the bishop in the matter. In that case it the Nihil Obstat and not the Imprimatur that pronounces the book as doctrinally sound. Once the process is so understood, the magic of the authority of the bishop as the sole teacher and the grace supplied by his office in this matter seems to evaporate, since it is a priest and not a bishop who actually reads the book. That also puts the presumed dialogue between the theologian and the bishop that is supposed to take place by means of the Imprimatur in a completely different light. In the past it was pretty much a pro forma process with no interaction between the bishop and the theologian.
I hope we can put the magical and largely unnecessary imprimatur to rest here.
Sorry Jeff, that should have been Landry.
Well this terribly unsophisticated Catholic will slink back to his pew, but it just strikes me that we need to find a process for handling these disputes. It seems that for 20 years or so every time these controversies flare up, people retreat to the same corners and little progress is made. My only thought on the imprimatur was that it might (wholly apart from the issue of its necessity and actual use) provide a potential process that avoids the PR bombs. I guess given today’s polarization, that is a truly magical belief.
But it’s actual use is precisely at issue.
Yes. Let’s look back at how this imprimatur meme entered into the discussion in the first place. From the letter signed by Cardinal Wuerl that accompanied the original statement on Quest for the Living God:
This line of thinking presumes — naturally enough, given the source — that the bishops were correct in their reading of Quest for the Living God, and that “clarifications” were and are necessary. In other words, given that the book contains many serious doctrinal errors about which the bishops were compelled to speak up, Sr. Johnson should have sought their advice before publishing so that they could have corrected her then. This suggestion, which is (like the “resource” under discussion here) a way of diverting attention away from the substance of the bishops’ critique and toward the subject of authority, has been picked up by those eager to presume bad faith on Johnson’s behalf. “Why didn’t she get an imprimatur, huh?” is a way of suggesting that Johnson was trying to sneak something past the bishops: she knew she was propagating error and she went ahead and did it anyway. There are plenty of forums where the presumption of bad faith is an acceptable starting point for discussing the work of theologians like Sr. Johnson. This isn’t one of them.
Of course, whether Johnson’s book indeed contains serious doctrinal errors is exactly what is in question. It is clear to all parties (the USCCB, Johnson, the CTSA, me…) that the bishops have a right and duty to speak up when someone misrepresents the truths of the faith. It is not at all clear that the bishops’ specific criticisms of this text are correct. In fact, many people — here at dotCommonweal and elsewhere — have identified many ways in which the bishops’ critique fails to back up its own case against the book. So invoking the imprimatur remains a dodge that avoids holding the bishops accountable. Given that it is not a required, routine, or expected step in publishing a book like Quest for the Living God, there’s no reason to think Sr. Johnson did something wrong in not seeking an imprimatur. Would it have been “helpful” for her to do so? Perhaps, in that it might have saved the Committee on Doctrine some embarrassment down the line. But I see no reason to believe Johnson should have anticipated that the bishops would read her book in this way.
Maybe more books submitted for approval pre-publication would help avoid controversies like this one. But since this particular controversy could have been avoided by a more rigorously fair reading of the book in question (and, if necessary, consultation with the author along the lines recommended by the bishops’ own guidelines), I don’t see any need for a change in procedure on the part of theologians. The bishops know better than anyone how the imprimatur actually works. (I’m grateful to Alan Mitchell for filling in some details for the rest of us.) The way Wuerl is talking now suggests he’d like to see a major increase in the number of non-catechetical texts submitted to the local bishop for approval. If that’s true, I hope his brother bishops are bracing for a lot of paperwork. But it’s hard to believe the Committee on Doctrine’s work in this particular case is likely to inspire many writers to enter into “dialogue” in the future — not if this is what they can expect.
I’m closing comments. Blessed Holy Week.