CTSA resolution on the Committee on Doctrine
As Tom Fox reports, last night the membership of the Catholic Theological Society of America voted on a resoultion expressing regret over the procedures of the Committee on Doctrine, which claimed Elizabeth Johnson’s book Quest for the Living God “completely undermines the gospel.” The statement further recommended that the USCCB establish a committee to evaluate those procedures.
Michael Buckley, SJ, a past president of the CTSA, brought the resolution to the floor. It passed by a vote of 147 to 1 (with a couple of abstentions). That was the first time in several years that a resolution had come before CTSA membership for a vote. (I’m at CTSA this weekend.)
The discussion was relatively brief. One member wondered whether the resolution added anything to the statement released by the board in April. Another noted that what’s new is that the resolution suggests the bishops form a committee to evaluate the Committee on Doctrine’s procedures. One member took issue with the April statement, because it takes up the substantive points of Johnson’s book, rather than focusing on procedure, as the new resolution does.
Just before the question was called, a member stood to support the resolution, reminding the assembly that in November of last year, representatives of the CTSA and the Committee on Doctrine held their annual meeting, which they’ve been doing fairly regularly since the early 1990s. At that meeting, no one from the committee mentioned that they were preparing a critique of Johnson’s book. (The review began early last year.) Needless to say, that left many CTSA members feeling betrayed. After all, the point of having such meetings was, at least in part, to head off precisely the situation in which the CTSA and the Committee on Doctrine find themselves.
Apparently the USCCB will take up the matter at its meeting next week. I’d be surprised if they followed the CTSA’s recommendation. Still, not all the bishops are thrilled with the way the Committee on Doctrine behaved. And, after reading Johnson’s withering critique of their statement, you can see why.
Tags: Elizabeth A. Johnson, USCCB
I have a question about bishops and procedures. Is the notion that a diocesan bishop, and that would include the pope, has an obligation to respect established procedures for dealing with disciplinary matters compatible with the apparently widespread view that each ordinary of a diocese has the authority to change the procedures at will, thus making them at most advisory? Cardinal Wuerl’s account of why the USCCB Committee on Doctrine did not follow the USCCB’s own guidelines would suggest that such guidelines are, at bottom, only advisory.
If this is the case, then the very notion of procedural justice seems to be inapplicable to episcopal practice. The mess on display in the handling of sex abuse cases lends some support to the suspicion that the notion of procedural justice is indeed not app0licable to Church practice, at least in many significant matters.
The CTSA, according to its web site, has over 1,200 members. Yet only 148 members voted. Why was that?
@Frank, Attendance/voting at the conference.
Of course you have to take anything you read on the “Rate My Professors” web site with a big grain of salt, but some of the student comments regarding Elizabeth Johnson are worth noting. One reviewer, who gave Sister Johnson high marks, had this to say, “Charitable, friendly, helpful during office hours, grades fairly. This feminist theologian is not “Catholic,” but is instead infected with modernism, indifferentism, panentheism, & syncretism.” This is a harsher observation than any made by the USCCB Committee on Doctrine.
Another student observed that Sister Johnson was “Very opinionated, and only her opinion counts.’ Yet another remarked “She teaches about being progreesive and liberal, but only her view counts”. A third student said she was “very prejudiced”.
To be sure, Sister Johnson had her share of positive reviews. But I found it interesting that serveral students implied that different points of view were not welcomed in her class.
Bernard,
The more I watch the arbitrary behavior of the Vatican and the American bishops the more I can’t help but feel a wicked pleasure when I watch how those absolutist Communist leaders in China treat the Roman Catholic Church. This week they’re threatening to have twelve more bishops consecrated without Rome’s approval, and Rome can’t do a damn thing about it. (hee hee)
In my more pious moments I say a prayer that Rome has finally met it’s match in despotic behavior and that Rome will finally realize the limits and evils of such behavior. Eventually (say in four or five hndred years?) the bisops in the fields might catch on too.
“but feel a wicked pleasure when I watch how those absolutist Communist leaders in China treat the Roman Catholic Church. This week they’re threatening to have twelve more bishops consecrated without Rome’s approval, and Rome can’t do a damn thing about it. (hee hee)”
Ms. Olivier, with all due respect, given the suffering of the faithful (non-complying) Church in China, many of whose bishops languish in dungeons, it is indeed a wicked pleasure you express. I know you are reacting to the perceived authoritarianism of the Vatican being beaten down by an even more authoritarian regime, but still. More here from Sandro Magister on the Church suffering in China:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1348237?eng=y
See especially the reports on what happens to those who resist the Chinese government.
many of whose bishops languish in dungeons
There are apparently two bishops in prison.
I say a prayer that Rome has finally met it’s match in despotic behavior and that Rome will finally realize the limits and evils of such behavior.
That’s not how it works, I think. Matching despotic behavior with despotic behavior is only confirming what they think are the rules of the game, thus reinforcing their mistaken beliefs in the necessity of dictatorial authority. On the contrary, behavior contrary to expectations is what might lead Rome to revise its assumptions on how things are done, and open the door to conversion. It’s the long way, and I don’t know if it succeeds, but by showing one’s vulnerabilities, by exposing ourselves to being hurt, by showing our cards on purpose, although we risk that the adversary will use that advantage to our detriment, we also create the chance that it will cause him to reconsider the logic (of despotism, for example) in the elaborate games in which he is engaged.
For an analogy, consider a couple where one spouse has an affair. The other spouse may then also have an affait, in the hope that the first culprit “will finally realize the limits and evils of such behavior” – or they may say: “you are hruting me, but I will stay faithful to you anyway”. Which reaction has a better chance of causing a change of heart?
Mr.Harden –if my pleasure was in the injustice to the Chinese bishops and other Christians that would indeed be wicked. But it is not. It is in seeing one bully meet his match, and that’s called poetic justice.
Can we focus on the topic of this thread, please?
Newsflash: Students pass resolution regretting that teachers grade them so tough. Ask teachers to form a Committee to lighten up.
Whether this comment fits Grant’s request, he’ll have to say.
I was not clear in my first comment. What i wonder is whether the notion that the ordinary of a diocese is a successor of the apostles has not led, erroneously, to a view that he is so fully in charge of disciplinary matters, as distinct from doctrinal matters, that he ought to regard all questions of procedural propriety as advisory rather than as imposing restraints on what he does. If the notion of “successor of the apostles” is so interpreted, then one has to ask for the theological warrant for such an interpretation. If there is such a warrant, then I ask that the theologians among us spell out just what it is. If there is no such warrant, then we all should know that fact.
What Bernard said, both times. Very important. Sure seems like the “advisory only” view is demonstrated in the letter to Fordham explaining/defending why the carefully worked out and agreed upon process wasn’t followed. Also seems that way given there was a deliberately missed opportunity to give a heads-up to CTSA at the regular meeting of CTSA and bishops’ committee.
Unrelated, but given Sr. Johnson’s facination with figurative language, so apparent in “Quest,” I love this quote from her Fordham page:
“I grew up in Brooklyn within sight of New York harbor. When people asked what I wanted to be when I grew up, I used to say a tugboat driver. I loved the way these little red boats would pull the great ocean liners and cargo tankers through the proper channels and nudge them into their home berths. When the ships were leaving, sometimes it would take half an hour, but the tugs would eventually get them away from the dock and turned around, on their way out into the wide world again. The tugs were jaunty, strong, useful, unpretentious – and beautiful. My desire to work one, however, met the rejoinder in the 1950′s that girls could not do that. Recently a friend encouraged me with the wise and funny idea that my wish had come true in an unforseen way.”
Claire –
I don’t know what will change the culture of the RCC hierarchy so that it will perceive obvious injustices the way normal people do. I’m thinkng of the njust ways it has treated the victims of sexual abuse and the way it has treated some theologians, including Sr. Elizabeth.
What does seem obvious is that criticism from outside of the hierachy has to a large extent fallen on deaf ears. I suspect that only criticism from the inside will force the self-criticism necessary for the hierarchy to see that they are not above the natural laws of fair play and common decency.
The history of the Church indicates that what we need are some reformist saints. But those are hard to come by.
Dissent – Good
Dissent from dissent – Bad
Bernard –
When you ask about the competence of bishops in “procedural matters” which sort of procedural matters did yoy have in mind? Determining orthodoxy? Establishing diocesan policy on liturgical or other matters? On everything? Or what?
Thanks, Bender!
We can turn off the lights now on this thread.
Bernard –
ISTM that it is clear that it is the primary function of bishops to teach and to be the primary teachers.
But I wonder — where is it said in tradition or in Scripture that it is their function to determine/discover what it is that must be taught? Yes, they and the popes define dogma as the official teachings. But does that imply that they are to do such definng apart from the authoritative teachings of theologians and historians?
Vatican II speaks of a charism of theologians in the process of discovery and teaching of dogma, but I find its statements rather nebulous.? Does it even mention Church historians?
Ann, do you want to take bets on how the USCCB will react to the theologians’ resolution? I see them as “petits chefs” (little chiefs, litterally), squeezed between the Vatican and the people, fearful, inwardly uncertain of their own authority, scared, and mean. I imagine that they did not engage in discussion with Sister Johnson because they were afraid that the outcome might not be the one which they had predetermined. They cannot be open because then everyone would see that they are losers, or at least, that’s what they think. They cannot have an honest discussion because the outcome has to be whatever they think will please Rome. They know that the Vatican has a particular obsession about gender, and they stick to what they understand to be the official Vatican line, with their eyes firmly shut to any possibility of anything else. They are ready to impose that by whatever means, do not feel bound by their own procedures, and we are lucky that they cannot have people flogged nor jailed.
So how will they react to that quasi-unanimous resolution? Maybe they will try to claim that everyone is in agreement, that, with the proper, “authentic” (their favorite word) interpretation, they followed the procedures, that they have great respect for theologians who do wonderful work but that the theologians are confused regarding procedures given certain texts, then they will quote some random titbits from here and there, some legal technicalities, and conclude with generic assertions of goodwill.
ISTM that it is clear that it is the primary function of bishops to teach and to be the primary teachers.
Isn’t the primary function of a bishop to administer a diocese? How much time does the average bishop or archbishop spend on scholarly pursuits (Biblical studies, theology, etc.)? I have no idea, actually, but I think of them more as men of power than as teachers. It seems to me that to be a really good teacher, you have to spend a great deal of your time learning and studying.
Fill in the blank. “If (Arch)Bishop _________ wrote a book on what it means to be Catholic in the 21st century, I would definitely want to read it.” I feel I have a great deal to learn from Benedict XVI, but I can’t think of any bishops whose next book I would pre-order on Amazon.
A great piece amplifying and explaining Claire’s prediction and related questions by Ann O. and David N. is “Bishops and the Beached Whale” by Eugene Kennedy, written on Benedict XVI’s arrival. It addresses the stresses on the hierarchy these days due to conflicts and confusion in their environment, leading to “the bishops’ worn down and worn-out condition”.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_1_42/ai_n16100775/
Claire–
I agree that the bishops are all afraid of Rome– witness the fact that not one single one of them aver called for the dismissal of Cardinal Law from his half-dozen positions of power in Rome.
But I don’t think there afraid of theologians in the least. And the rest of us count even less. What did that quote from the Council of Trent say? They’re little gods. ( Talk about heresy!!)
I bet you a nickel that if they do anything it will be to form another committee to study the committee procedures that allowed Sr. Johnson to be treated so shabily. The new committee will come up with essentially the same “guidelines” that allow them to proceed as they please. They’re not about to restrict themselves by any law, even one of their own making. Plus ca change . . .
Ann, if they form another committee, then they will appear to be following the CTSA’s recommendation: that is precisely what the resolution is calling for. My bet is that they won’t do it.
Jack, great link. I had read that text before, and, I guess, had partially assimilated it.
David N. –
The document of Vatican I Dominis Christus which is about bishops says at the very beginning that it is the function of the bishops to teach all nations. Obviously, by its prominent place, the Council saw this as a bishop’s
a primary duty.
Your questions and comments about our current bishops are, sadly, too true. Oops, I take it back — the lovely bishop who says Mass in my parish is said to be an excellent preacher. Perhaps there are others. But noted theologians? Who are they?
Oops– should be Vatican II.
.
David writes (06/11/2011 – 10:28 pm) :
Depends on what and whom you’re teaching. If you’re a theologian teaching theology to theological students who plan to become theologians, the more time you spend in the library, the better. But if you’re teaching practical theology to the ninety-nine percent of the rest of the Church, that’s not so important.
.
.
Jack writes: (06/11/2011 – 10:44 pm) :
From that:
Good heavens. Poor bishops, poor Pope. What’s to become of them if the American intellectuals are against them?
.
Regarding the function of bishops, individually and collegially, perhaps we might remember that today is Pentecost, and what Pentecost is all about?
If not that, then perhaps we ought to happily recall both the letter and spirit of the Second Vatican Council, called by Blessed John XXIII of happy memory, to, among other things, re-emphasize that the bishop is not merely some bureaucratic administrator, but is primarily a teacher and minister of the Sacraments –
20. . . . the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, (15*) as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ. . . .
24. Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfilment of the commandments.(161) To fulfill this mission, Christ the Lord promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and on Pentecost day sent the Spirit from heaven, by whose power they would be witnesses to Him before the nations and peoples and kings even to the ends of the earth. . . .
25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. — Lumen Gentium
The bishops, as successors of the Apostles, are guided in that teaching function by that same Holy Spirit who descended on Pentecost. A mere theologian is not. Especially a theologian who seeks not to teach Catholicism, that is, what the Church teaches, but to seeks to promote her own personal views of what Christianity is.
It is all well and good if one wants to be a generic Christian theologian. But if one wishes to publicly claim to have written Catholic theology, then it is not unreasonable to expect her to submit to those whom Jesus Himself has assigned the task of teaching, i.e. the bishops.
If a theologian chooses not to submit to the judgment of the bishops, then she can go stomp off in a huff like Charlie Curran or Hans Kung and sell her books on her own, without the approval of the Catholic Church.
Bender —
You rightly say that a bishop is *guided* by the Holy Spirit. But to guide does not mean to whisper answers to theological auestions in their ears. Being a bishop is not following theological hunches.
You say that “mere theolgians” are not guided by the Holy Spirit. However. Vatican II says that theolgians do have a special charism for theChurch, and, as I remember, charisma of all types are indeed influenced by the Holy Spirit.
The question is: just what is the charism of the theologians relative to the bishops’ functins/charism? I submit that that is not at all clear, though if you have some official teaching of long-standing (going all the way back to antiquity) I would certanly lve to hear it.
Can the blogger who gave the qutote from a document of the Council of Trent about bishops being little gods give us a citation , please?
That is a most extraordinary claim, so extraordinary that I hesitate to refer to it without having a citation.
I hope the bishops and theologians work this out soon. Regardless of who started it, it’s not a good for two such important constituencies of our church to be fighting it out so publicly. We’ve got enough divisiveness going on already.
Suppose you want to do something and you’re not sure it’s legal. For example, you want to hire an undocumented gardener, or keep a pit bull in your home. You could call your family lawyer and ask. And he’ll say: “No, you can’t hire an undocumented alien to tend your rosebushes, and pit bulls are illegal in this town.”
Or you could ask your neighbor, the law professor. He says, “Well, in a just society, people should be permitted to provide and consume goods and services however they like as long as it doesn’t harm anybody else. And your pit bull is much less likely to maim your neighbors’ children than their dachsunds are to maim yours. So you ought to be permitted to do both of those things.”
The bishop is like your family lawyer. He doesn’t need to be a brilliant theoretician; he just needs to know the law. You would hope the law professor would mention to you that in spite of his brilliant theoretical analysis, the law does not permit what he thinks it ought to permit. But even if he doesn’t, you could go to jail for hiring the gardener and the doggy could go to the gas chamber.
Imagine that you had been thoroughly indoctrinated in the divine right of kings while growing up in the palace and then those pesky revolutions came along. If you are lucky, the serfs console you with a few symbols of privilege, and they run the country henceforth (e.g., United Kingdom). More likely, the serfs run the country and leave you alone to wonder in puzzlement over why it doesn’t work the way it used to – now, when you decree, only a shrinking number of royalists bow and obey. (e.g., see Bp. Olmsted letter on authority to hospital, Nov 2010. Watch evolving correspondence among Sr. Johnson, USCCB Committee, and CTSA.)
Kennedy (link 6/11 10:44P) describes the “hierarchical syndrome” common among bishops, its fading evolution, and the consequences of trying to “act hierarchically in a fundamentally collegial world”. Bernard D.’s very apt question yesterday focusses in on a key related issue, important obligations of bishops more mundane than teaching and preaching, living in their dioceses, and having only one wife. If the “warrant” exists, is it more likely to be in canon law, which seems often to include procedural matters, than in more fundamental sources?
The question is: just what is the charism of the theologians relative to the bishops’ functins/charism?
The bishops are part of the Magisterium of the Church.
Unless they also be bishops, theologians, not even groups of theologians passing resolutions, are NOT a parallel magisterium.
The bishops, in union with the Pope, determine what is Catholicism and what is not.
Frank Gibbons,
One of the problems with Rate My Professors is that anyone can submit a rating, even people who are not students and were never in a given professor’s course. It is a very unreliable site.
oops, sorry, forgot that end tag for the italics
Bender –
The bishops do determine what shall be taught as the best understanding of what Revelation. But neither Scripture nor Tradition says that they are the ones who do the understanding in the first place — and when they misunderstand what Revelation, then what they teach is wrong. See usury.
The bishops have an obligation to find out what it is that the Church as a whole believes, and sometimes they are so far removed from their flocks that they don’t know, and then they are wrong. Yes, the have a duty to find out what the best interpretation of the Gospel is. But they can’t do it all by themselves. And make no mistake — Vatican II makes the theologians part of the process of uncovering what Revealtion is trying to tell us.
While it is the role of bishops to teach (among other roles), this is hardly a guarantee that it is done well.
I think the primarily role of the bishop is to serve his people in all his duties.
Someone mentioned Eugene Kennedy ‘ his piece on “Inquisition 2 at Fordham” is one view of how badly our hierachy can act/be.
We are caught up in this kind of discussion because we are operating within obviously two different views of how the Church operates.
Events in Detroit over the past few days underscore the divide,
Power assertions offer no help in bridging the gap.
I think there is broad consensus that Sr, Johnson was mistreated by bishopss exercicisng their role badly and the resolution rejects the contention that just because the bishop(s) said it is must be so,
The events of recent days show increasing strain on hierarchical credibility and makes the argument that because they say so it is seem much more circvular.
*I conclude with my (least) favorite news bit of the week from mother church: if Mass is offered in the Tridentine rite, altar girls are not permitted.
I guess that wil really hype “reverence.”)
Ann, yesterday evening you addressed a few questions to me. Here’s a stab at answering them.
First, I’m no theologian, so I do not pretend that I know how to specify the bishops’ teaching function and its scope. With that in mind, let me offer some observations.
By way of a prefatory note let me say that I do believe that the bishops in union with the pope have the divinely established responsibility to insure that the Church does not teach as true something that is contrary to divine revelation. Some of the things revealed are matters for belief. Others oar thing that ought to determine how we conduct ourselves. With that said, consider the following:
1. There is a distinction between teaching that avoids error and teaching that is effective in communicating the content of the teaching to the audience. So there can be an ineffective teaching even of the truths of the faith. I learned the Baltimore Catechism as a child. It was effective for me for the early years of my life. It wouldn’t do much for me today to have it be the sole expression of the faith that I was given.
2. It follows that even though the bishops have this divinely established responsibility, that they are also guaranteed to find effective means to proclaim the faith.
3. Anyone who has taught anything of any substance to people who are not small children know that, to teach effectively, they have to meet the students where they are. That is, they have to pay attention to the questions the students have and to be self-critical about how they present the teachings. We all know of lousy teachers who simply repeat their outdated notes.
4. Part of being appropriately self-critical is paying attention to competent scholars in the field. Of course, it is important that those who are purported to have competence actually have it. Paying attention is not the same as automatically endorsing, but this complex interplay between bishops and theologians ought to presume trust and respect on all sides.
5. Given our complex world today, procedures ought to bee in place to promote a healthy exchange among bishops and theologians concerning the effectiveness of the proclamation of the faith. We all know that both some bishops and some theologians have sometimes behaved in ways that are detrimental to such an exchange.
6. Besides these matters of revealed truths, there are any number of other disciplinary matters that bishops have to deal with. There are financial matters, personnel matters, practical matters connected with worship, etc. For none of these matters, so far as I know, a revealed “correct ” way of dealing with them. These are matters that affect the Christian community in multiple ways. Here, nobody has, by virtue of office alone, reason to think that he or she knows just what is to be done. Some possible policies or practices may be clearly foolish, but often enough there will be more than one sensible way to address an issue of this sort. Here again procedures are needed to promote the kind of consultation and self-criticism that promotes effectiveness and justice in determining what is to be done.
7. It is of the essence of clericalism to behave in a way that amounts to a denial that such consultation and self-criticism is always needed.
This is much too long, and probably nothing but a string of things all of you know. My apologies.
Ann is not responsible for my verbosity nor for any nonsense that I utter.
Thanks, Bernard, for a concise outline of a complex subject. Poor bishops. Considering how many things they must do — and do them wisely — no wonder some want ot hang up their robes.
I wonder, however, if, as you put it, “It follows that even though the bishops have this divinely established responsibility, that they are also guaranteed to find effective means to proclaim the faith” It seems to me that experience proves that though God provides the grace we need, He doesn’t guarantee that anyone can do their “jobs” as Christians perfectly, and that includes bishops.
Take a parent in the middle ages who truly wanted to raise his child right. :His culture told him that whipping the child when it was naughty was the best way to do that. Well, there is ample evidence now that whipping does work, but it’s not the best way to discipliene child. That parent *intended* to do the best possible for the child, but out of ignorance didn’t.
Tbat parent is analogous to a bishop, I think, who wants to do the best possible for his flock, but doesn’t really know how. Has the Holy Spirit guaranteed him effective means to do what needs doing? I”m not at all sue that He promises a guarantee in every case. For instance, I suspect that a good many of our current bishops really did think (originally) that covering-up the sins of the predators was the best course to take. It wasn’t. So where was the Holy Spirit for them in that matter?
It’s the assumption of a guarantee, I think, that gives bishops a lot of false confidence, and in some cases, turns them into tyrants, They think to themselves, “I’m guaranteed wisdom if I tell myself the truth. Therefore, when I truly believe that I’m right, it follows that *I must be right” because the Holy Spirit guarantess it”.
Bernard –
(Wish I’d seen that list long ago.)
For consultation to pay off, the intended beneficiary needs several things, at least in small quantities – humility in the face of ignorance, courage and wisdom to change his mind if warranted, and awareness that superior rank or position is not a guarantee of superior understanding about everything, as Ann just suggested. Some environments encourage these features, and some suppress them.
The material, social, theological, and political aspects of bishop seem all to discourage what I believe to be necessities for fruitful consultation. To the extent that is correct, a bishop would somehow have to rise above his ingrained inclinations to switch temporarily from a command outlook on life to a collaborative one to get significant benefits from consultation. The ability to do this seems to be highly variable among individuals. Others can describe where the Holy Spirit comes in.
Ann, you’re absolutely right. I failed to insert the negative. In 2 above, I meant to say that just because bishops have the responsibility to teach, it DOES NOT follow that they are guaranteed to find an effective way to do so. Thanks for catching me out.
Ann Olivier says: “The bishops have an obligation to find out what it is that the Church as a whole believes, and sometimes they are so far removed from their flocks that they don’t know, and then they are wrong.”
The Church as a whole includes a lot of dead people. Sometimes the bishops will find that all of the faithful now alive believe one thing, although the vast majority of the dead believed another. What should they do then?
Moreover, not every member’s opinion is equally valid. Sometimes the opinion of a few martyrs and saints should outweigh the opinions of a whole conference center full of self-satisfied, frumpy, tenured professors, don’t you think?
Not only tenured but frumpy and self-satisfied too? What could be more self-satisfied than a comment like that?
A cat may look at a king.
Quit leering.
“A cat may look at a king”–even if she’s all frumpy and he’s got a spiffy cappa magna? Jeepers.
I’m struck by the assemblage of adjectives in “self-satisfied, frumpy, and tenured professors.” Seems cheap and lazy as a ready put-down. I get “self-satisfied”; some truth in that, though I imagine it’s a charge leveled at most any group with whom one differs ideologically and socially. An interesting term. What would be its opposite?
But I’m really struck by the “frumpy” angle. What kind of argument is being made in that choice of term? I mean, seriously, is it an attack on the attractiveness and sexual magnetism of its referents? Is it a claim that tenured theologians should care more about personal appearance, now that they have reached that stage in their career? Or that they should have spent more time at the gym or at Macy’s instead of the library? Enlighten me please, someone.
The comment smacks of resentment–and ignorance.
Yes, it’s the kind of ill-mannered squawk that reveals the boorishness within. We are all capable of it, this thinking snidely about those who we set up as our foils, e.g, jocks vs nerds, pleasers vs rebels, etc.
But we should try to transcend our inner snark so that our language may manifest grace and empathy, n’est-ce pas?
You guys need to lighten up. Politicians are venal, lawyers are argumentative, professors are frumpy. Exceptions to all these rules exist.
I’ll simply ask my question again: what kind of cultural politics is being performed by these adjectives?
The onset of the transcendance of snarkery in a snidely oriented boor rigorizes further manifestation into stultified categories. See above. Tristement, c’est la vie.
I think what bothers me by when I could just “lighten up” is that “frumpy” is one of those loaded terms that smack of sexism. (Women) professors and librarians are frumpy. That dimension of the term troubles me. To the extent that “frumpy” signifies judgment against women who don’t measure up to accepted standards of appearance, I have a problem with the “jokey” term and am willing to perform the part of Mr. Stick-in-the-Mud.
Having said that, I can also agree that there is an element of the professoriate, male and female, that perform frumpy as a political statement. See how dedicated I am to my calling, I don’t “care” what I look like? I’m not bourgeois.
But name-calling is a low rhetorical art.
That was funny, Jack Barry. Touché!
Hey, Jack Barry, now we know the truth: you’re a pomobabble enthusiast! I must admit, however, that “snarkery” is a really neat word.
Very well, I withdraw the term “frumpy.” Let me assert instead that the beliefs of a few saints and martyrs should count for more than those of a conference center full of self-satisfied, well-compensated, tenured professors.
I don’t think this is “cultural politics” but my point was that Catholic martyrs in Pakistan and Sudan do not publish as many books as the CTSA, but they bear witness to the enduring power of the traditional doctrines of the Church. This is not a proof that the traditional teachings are true, just a reason not to discard them too cavalierly.
I am amazed that the same people who were telling me a few days ago that “a rectum is just a rectum” are making such a big fuss over a harmless adjective like “frumpy.” FWIW, when I used it I was definitely thinking of male professors too.
By the way, William (8:27 p.m.) the opposite of “self-satisfaction” is “scientific integrity.”
“Let me assert instead that the beliefs of a few saints and martyrs should count for more than those of a conference center full of self-satisfied, well-compensated, tenured professors. ”
I don’t believe we’re talking saints v. theologians in the present case.
One common put-down of people like me who insist on the importance of proper procedures to avoid injustices is that we’re “fussy,” or “nitpickers.” So be it. Rahner was described as “grumpy.” I’m obviously no Rahner. Nonetheless, my wife and I do tease each other about being “cranks.”
Trash talking can be fun, until the talker starts to assume that he or she has said something of significance.
And do only the Bishops preach and teach the Gospel?
When missionaries (usually religious men and women) went to missionary lands—they were the first ones there (one example is Francis Xavier—not a bishop). And those who teach young children, I beg to differ from statements above, do TEACH the gospel—-but it is taught on a level that a little one can understand. Usually these teachers are women (not always—but usually).
My point is—-bishops are not the only ones who teach the Gospel—nor were they in the past. The Letter to the Romans, by Paul, lists men and women who brought the Gospel to the people and united them in community.
If one examines the educational background of most of the bishops in the US—-they have backgrounds in Canon Law (not theology). Yes, and I am aware of those bishops who do have degrees in theology—but they are out-numbered by the Canon Lawyers. And sorry, but I know a number of bishops—-they are the administrative managers of the diocese. If one wants to learn theology, one would not consult a bishop.
But all the theologians have backgrounds in theology (of, course). So should not the bishops learn and listen to what the theologians have to teach—-and expand their own minds and backgrounds.
Off topic: I just found out about Jason Berry’s “Render Unto Rome.” The blurbs indicate that it’s important.
I don’t know whether Berry is a native Louisianian. If he’s not, he’s an “honorary “one. Ann and I are. We not likely to be surprised when somebody diligently “follows the money.” Nor reminds us that one’s being in a position of authority hasn’t had a high correlation with one’s high personal merit.
That’s not cynical. Just a recognition that all of us have clay feet, but some of us go to remarkable lengths to hide them.
Bill F., I find your point that the term “frumpy” often has sexist overtones fascinating–and convincing.
I’ve done a bit of research to learn more about the origins of the term, and find it is etymologically murky, but seems to originate in an Old Dutch/German verb that means “wrinkled.”
And then there’s this, which is very interesting: google the words “frumpy” and “Catholic” together, and you find a whole sub-universe of discourse on Catholic blogs about how women can manage to be modest without being frumpy.
How WOMEN can avoid being frumpy: underscoring your point, it seems to me. And demonstrating that, for some sectors of American Catholics, the word “frumpy” is, indeed, a loaded term that may be a marginalizing term for women in the academy, feminists, etc., who give a bad name (so these discussions seem to me to suggest) to femininity and feminine beauty.
I think you’re right to draw attention to that term as a loaded term, and one that seems to have a special significance for a certain sector of American Catholics today. Who knew?
Bernard, I believe Jason Berry may well be a native New Orleanian, and a graduate of Jesuit High in New Orleans. As the son of a Louisiana-born father, I, too, am proud to claim him as a Louisianan.
You can hear Berry discuss the book at length in a podcast at America.
In the middle, there is a an eloquent call for justice in the Church, still wrapped in its medieval processes.
Some nice remarks about fairness (as say aoposed to snarkery(?) here.
On reflection, t strikes me that the Sr. Johnson case, or Berry’s book are more continuing examples of not only justice bu thonesty problems that wil continue to go on in the Church.
These tensions will further divide and wound the body.
And so today we’ll hear more about the Bishop of Detroit and Fr. Wurm and the ACC liturgy or the Boston conflict on the planned liturgy at St. Cecilia’s.
These problems, as I”ve previously said are rooted in the command/control Church of distinctive Catholicism.
And Wednesday to Friday, what will we hear, if anything different, from USCCB?
Felapton – Out of respect for dead and living followers of Galileo, please note that “scientific integrity” consists, in essential part, of the characteristics noted above 6/12 1:30PM: “humility in the face of ignorance, courage and wisdom to change his mind if warranted, and awareness that superior rank or position is not a guarantee of superior understanding about everything”. Satisfaction is a consequence if you are lucky after working hard enough. Relevance is TBD.
Grant’s post relates to a vital current issue worth attention – the relations between pomo-bishops and everyone else, including theologians. (Thanks, Ann) The evident dynamic conflict between 19th century views (infallibility, Vat I, Syllabus of Errors) and 21st century views (n-way global communications, human dignity including democracy, Vat III) will resolve itself. Meanwhile, illumination might be helpful.
Jack B – I am as much an admirer or Galileo as anybody I know. My undergraduate degree is in physics. The formulation: “Galileo right, Church wrong” is simplistic and misleading. I know of no physicist who would characterize the question that way, unless he had a non-scientific agendum to push. If Galileo were living he would (as an epitome of scientific integrity) agree that a coordinate system centered on the Sun is not inertial either. And that the universe does not have a preference for any particular system of coordinates, inertial or otherwise, although some choices certainly make it easier to write down a solution in closed form. This is off the point.
Back on the point, I know of no question on which the sides are bishops (pomo or apomo) against everyone else. My point was that in many cases it is bishops plus thousands of dead saints and martyrs plus a substantial portion of the faithful worldwide on one side and a lot of self-satisfied, living, lay people in the developed world on the other. The latter may well be right. But they are not “everybody.”
There has been a fair amount of discussion here of the role of bishops. I’d suggest the pertinent responsibility is that of guardians and transmitters of the deposit of faith. Conceptually, I don’t have a problem with the bishops exercising that responsibility, even at the risk of dislocating the occasional theologian’s nose or, to continue in the sexist vein, mussing her hair. I’d have a much bigger problem if the bishops abdicated that responsibility.
Frederick Bauerschmidt, in Commonweal, suggested that what the Committee on Doctrine published was not so much a formal judgment as a negative book review. I’m not certain that publishing one book review among several is the most effective exercise of apostolic governance, but at least no limbs were lost, nobody was fired, nobody was censured. Possibly, more books were sold. CTSA voted to support its member, as extraordinary an event as the sun rising in the east.
“If one wants to learn theology, one would not consult a bishop.”
Ouch, ouch, ouch, Little Bear. Have you hit upon the most fundamental of the fundamental flaws fo the present Church?
I don’t doubt that the current bishops would like to know more theology, or more broadly, would like to know the Faith better. But they are overwhelmed with administrative duties. Given their control culture they’re incapable of allowing others to do the administering. There’s no exit, as Sartre might put it..
“There has been a fair amount of discussion here of the role of bishops. I’d suggest the pertinent responsibility is that of guardians and transmitters of the deposit of faith.”
Jim P. –
Your use of the word “guardian” here is a loaded term. It suggests that Catholic thinkers are looking for the opportunity to *steal or injure* the Faith. That’s nonsense, at least these days. If you don’t agree with Rome you can always start your own religion without fear of the stake.
Bob N. says wisely somewhere above that the bishops need to look around and see what people are actually thinking. It seems to me that *this* is the *first* obligation of bishops — to find out the truth of the Faith as it has been presented historically, including the present. Only after learning this (becoming educated in the Faith, in other words) is a bishop capable of exercising his teaching office.
To put it another way: a bishop can be badly catechized, and in my opinion, the American bishops are particularly susceptible to this criticism. Power without knowledge is usually disastrous. No wonder people look elsewhere for spiritual sustenance.
Can you give some examples of instances in which American bishops have demonstrated that they are badly catechized?
“Your use of the word “guardian” here is a loaded term. It suggests that Catholic thinkers are looking for the opportunity to *steal or injure* the Faith. ”
Hi, Ann, theft and intentional injury don’t exhaust the list of bad things from which authentic revelation must be safeguarded. More likely scenarios, it seems to me, are that things get inadvertently misstated (as when a parish catechist misunderstands something she reads in a book, and repeats it to her students), or when speculation and private opinion become indistinguishable from received truth in an undergraduate lecture.
Jim Pouwels,
Perhaps you have had the good fortune of hearing only well thought out sensible sermons that explained in terms accessible to reasonably well educated adults the doctrines of our faith, the understanding of the Bible that has been developed by solid Scriptural studies in the past 100 plus years, and discussions of morality that went beyond just do’s and don’ts. I have not been so fortunate.
I hope I’m wrong, but I have no evidence that bishops take much interest in what priests say in their homilies. I recently attended a parish retreat. Some of it was good, but some of it was appalling. Particularly disturbing was the discussion about prayer.
My hunch is that if a priest or deacon dishes out a steady dose of pablum, he won’t hear from the bishop. But if someone tries to speak about the doctrines that we all hold in a way that makes some people uncomfortable enough to complain, then that person may well run into a “safeguarder” ( bishop or pastor) who notices little other than that he’s hearing something unfamiliar to him and he has little interest in finding out whether what he hears about is valuable or not.
I cannot provide any firm evidence in support of my hunch and it would be very good if I’m wrong. Can you, or any of our fellow bloggers,provide such evidence?
An interesting Vat II statement involving bishops and listening shows up in:
THE PASTORAL OFFICE OF BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH CHRISTUS DOMINUS, Pius VI, 10/28/65
Chap. I Pt. II (on Curia) “10. … It is also desired that some bishops, too – especially diocesan bishops – will be chosen as members of the departments, for they will be able to report more fully to the supreme pontiff the thinking, the desires, and the needs of all the churches.
Finally, the fathers of the council think it would be most advantageous if these same departments would listen more attentively to laymen who are outstanding for their virtue, knowledge, and experience. In such a way they will have an appropriate share in Church affairs.”
Bernard – I’ve never heard of anyone in my diocese being hauled before a bishop for saying anything in a homily. I would be thrilled to have bishops take more note of what we’re preaching from Sunday to Sunday. Perhaps you are familiar with the late Bishop Untener’s program in the Saginaw, MI, diocese: he would have parish homilies videotaped, and then would gather with the clergy from the parish for some friendly and constructive critiquing. I understand that he didn’t exempt his own preaching efforts from the critiquing.
My own pastor gives us wide latitude on preaching. He has asked us to give him a heads-up if we plan to touch on any hot-button political topics so that he’s not blind-sided when the complaints roll in. Occasionally, I do talk about immigration or pro-life issues or something else of a controversial nature. More frequently, the readings or feast of the day take me in some other direction.
Personally, I try, probably fail, to not preach pablum. Everyone who preaches has an obligation to say what is right and what is true, to engage in reflection and research, and to fact-check his/her sermon.
A quick comment:
I not only have a problem withe guardian notion Anne mentioned but also the notion of the “deposit of faith” which has ben bandied about here and elsewhere on this blog to cover a multitude of things.
So today we have the pronlem of maximall magisterialism as someone once said as “the truth from the beginning.”
Here BTW I know pastors called up because of sermons.
But not always…
Last Sunday’s (Pentecost!) homilyw as on the dangers of “secular humanism” (another term facilely bandied about), and how the EU, the UN and most particulalry the government of Canada was attacking the righ tof Catholic voice.
I thought it a bit bizarre, but my bishop probably won’t mind.
I must say that quality of sermons in my experience went WAY up when I moved to the Episcopal Church. The past eighty or more I have heard since January of 2010 have been a marvel of relevance, clarity, organization, intellect and passion I had only imagined were possible to sustain.
Well, that’s not fair. The parish in Baltimore I attended for fourteen years, Corpus Christi (where Fritz Bauerschmidt is now deacon), spoiled me for typical Catholic parish homilies.
My parish is staffed by Redemptorists. Good preaching is characteristic of Redemptorist piety and so is ministry to the poor and marginalized. I have never heard an incompetent homily from any Redemptorist.
They use a lot of everyday similes (“The Holy Spirit is like GPS,” “Lent is like the Boston Marathon”), stories from their mission work, allusions to well-known movies and TV shows, traditional Catholic prayers and customs (the Prayer to one’s Guardian Angel, for example) and the more vivid stories and parables from the Gospels. No politics.
Most of the pew occupants have never been to college and many don’t understand a lot of English. The marginalized show up in force: the very old, the gravely disabled, the mentally ill and retarded. As far as I can see, everybody listens to the homily and everybody understands it.
My advice is: if you want to good preaching, try a Redemptorist parish.
@Bob Nunz, I think I know the parish you’re talking about. (Shall we say IC in LA?) And I agree, unless the pastoral staff has changed recently, it’s a pretty off-putting place. I recommend St. Anne’s Parish in Santa Fe.
Good preaching accessible to all is a great blessing.
Felapton ==
Many American bishops in my lifetime were taught that outside the Church there is no salvation. Many had no understanding of the vast injustices that segregation did to black Americans and saw no urgent need to change it. They were also taught that the Jews were Christ killers.
Make no mistake — Vatican II did change some teachings — and, miraculously because the Holy Spirit does remain with the Church, it was the Vatican II bishops themselves who did the changing. Unfortunately, the American bishops have yet to appreciate the Vatican II promotion of collegiality and the functions of other sectors in the Church spelled out in the documents.
I suspect that the current meeting of our bishops in Detroit might show that at least a good number of them are slowing starting to recognize that they have a right and duty as bishops to an independence from Rome when it comes to non-dogmatic questions. I’m speaking of their disgust with the behavior and de facto policies of Cardinals Law and now Rigali and their ilk. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear some of them start of criticize their brethren publicly. We’ll see. (I hope.)
Jim P. ==
“To guard” and “to safeguard” do not mean the same thing. The first has much stronger connotations than the second.
Ah, good preaching… After you have experienced being transfixed by the words, being frozen in your seat, pierced as though the preacher was reading his homily directly from some previously unknown place in your heart, revealing intimate and sometimes challenging truths that you recognize even though you had never seen them before (like in some descriptions of Newman’s preaching that were presented in this blog last year), you never want to go back to the routine. It gives you a glimpse of God’s hidden presence within yourself. It makes you long to change your life. It’s as memorable as good sex.
Sing it, Claire!
Has anyone seen a full transcript of Fr. Unni’s sermon at Boston’s St. Cecelia? Reports are his message of radical inclusion–ALL are welcome–was part of a fantastic homily.
@Ann Olivier, You said “A bishop can be badly catechized, and in my opinion, the American bishops are particularly susceptible to this criticism … ”
“are” instead of “were” implies the present. It isn’t quite fair to cite fifty-year-old examples.
However, I agree it is not wise to criticize living bishops too explicitly. They are powerless, but their self-appointed defenders are not.
Mary, I haven’t seen a transcript of Fr. Unni’s sermon (though a transcript could well be online somewhere).
However, at America’s In All Things blog today, Michael O’Loughlin offers a great precis of the sermon.
I’m struck by the fact that several articles I’ve read in the news today point to the power of words to move people to do justice as the bicentennial of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s birth comes around.
As a well compensated, tenured professor of theology I guess I can also plead guilty of being frumpy. My late mother regularly complained about my lack of attention to matters sartorial – she once remarked that I looked like a model for the Saint Vincent de Paul Society. I took pride in that ascription so I guess I am also self satisfied.
““To guard” and “to safeguard” do not mean the same thing. The first has much stronger connotations than the second.”
Hi, Ann, but if a “guardian” doesn’t “safeguard”, then who does – the “safeguardians”? :-)
Claire, you shouldn’t write things like that, knowing that some of us will read it with a mouthful of coffee, snort it out our noses and get our keyboards wet. :-)
Don’t interrupt Claire. She was only halfway through the great comparison when she paused.
Right. That’s what happens to frumpy tenured self-satisfied professors such as myself. We forget that some thoughts are best kept to ourselves, and then we’re an embarrassment to our teenage children.
I am flattered to be noticed by the formidable Professor Cunningham in any way. But I would like to point out that I officially withdrew the word in question, by which I meant to signify that I regret using it and won’t again.
Last week I put Mother Teresa and Uncle Pervy into the same sentence and there was not a squeak of protest. This week I made what I thought was a passing reference to a well-documented idiosyncrasy of the professional professoriate and the volcano of outrage has still not stopped erupting.
If this universe doesn’t start spontaneously consuming entropy pretty soon, we’re all done for.
Claire –
Any time you can associate the preaching with something attractive, stimulating, and rewarding, go for it.
For a good example of a clear, strong message with a memorable point and a call for action, desirable features of preaching, see Grant Gallicho in “Too Late for Apologies ….” 6/14/11at at Religion Dispatches.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4750/too_late_for_apologies%3A_three_steps_the_u.s._bishops_should_take_to_prevent_another_sexual_abuse_scandal
I just found a wonderful text on preaching, at http://www.usccb.org/plm/fiyh.pdf. I’m going to recycle a lot of it as guidance on teaching.