Prophetic Rhetoric in Cyberspace–A Question
Here’s my question. Who is Cardinal Stafford’s audience–and by extension, the audience of others who use prophetic rhetoric?
Whom does prophetic rhetoric convince? Whom is it meant to convince? Is it meant to strengthen the will of those who already agree? Is it meant to convince those who don’t agree? If so, how effective is it at the task?
My own hypothesis is that the rhetoric of prophetic indictment functions best to confirm those already committed to a cause, rather than to convert the uncommitted. It shores up those whose commitment may be flagging, those who are discouraged –gives them the strength to fight on. It doesn’t do well in convincing the unconvinced –in converting the opponent, that is to say. To the opponent, prophetic rhetoric just seems like insults.
My guess, therefore, is that Cardinal Stafford gave his talk to an immediate audience which was in large agreement with him –an audience who was discouraged about the election results. Prophetic rhetoric was used to shore up flagging spirits among pro-lifers, to convince them of the importance of fighting on.
It’s the reproduction of the talk outside that context that created the problem. The same thing, it seems, happened to the priest from South Carolina, who told Catholics who voted for Obama they had to go to confession. Strictly speaking, he was addressing his own parish–not the rest of us. But the rest of us sure heard about him.
So how should public figures think about the use of prophetic rhetoric in an era where they can’t be sure that their remarks won’t be you-tubed all over the world the next day?
On the one hand, I am (as most people who read this blog know) no fan of over-enthusiasm for prophetic rhetoric. On the other hand, I don’t want to see a world where all the of the rhetoric has been gently homogenized so as not to be startling, let alone offensive, to anyone. We don’t want to Kraft macaroni-and-cheesify our public discourse, either.
This is a great question. In the Old Testament, I don’t know that genuine prophecy sought primarily to convince – wasn’t it more of a call to repentence/conversion/obedience, on the authority that the prophet’s words were from God?
What we refer to today as “prophecy” is different – when it’s genuine, it would be more like Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would give us the words to speak when confronted by authority, as with Peter before the high priests in Acts 4. (Or is that different than OT prophecy?).
Cathleen, brilliant post and question. I think it obvious from the post I just made on the previous thread where I would stand.
I think you are absolutely correct about the audience to which Stafford was talking.
But he can’t just ignore the rest of society. He doesn’t know nor understand the power of the Internet. The British Bishop who criticised Catholics with university degrees is in the same boat.
Everything local, is also international (I left the capital off on purpose).
I would suggest if the Church were ever to convince legislators in the USA to criminalize abortion women with the help of men would physically attack Churches and priests. I think the Church leadership should view the reaction to Proposition 8′s passing with real trepidation.
Bishop’s like Stafford will find that success on their terms will bring with it a bitter pill, and as in France leave all Christians and Churches worse off.
See “The context of Cardinal Stafford’s stark language” by John L. Allen, Jr.
http://ncrcafe.org/node/2293
Cathy,
I mean this as a very serious question: Does Stephen Colbert engage in a type of prophetic rhetoric?
Take a look at this week’s The Tablet editorial
Life issues are indivisible
EDITORIAL
22 November 2008
Respect for life is a seamless garment, and the Church has to maintain it at all costs. It cannot be limited to one issue. For instance, it has become clear that several Catholic children’s societies in England and Wales have responded to new regulations which outlaw discrimination against homosexuals by loosening their formal ties to the Catholic Church.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/12300
As I noted in the previous thread, ther eis the new America editorial, not to mention the current Commonweal one.
Balance and perspective trump single-mindedness(or mindlessness).
Here is the link to the America editorial:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11244
Current Comment
By The editors | DECEMBER 1, 2008
No Common Ground?
“This is not a matter of political compromise or a matter of finding some way of common ground,” said Bishop Daniel Conlon of Steubenville, Ohio. “It’s a matter of absolutes.”
Here’s a fan:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=30665&page=2
John Borst: You said,
I would suggest if the Church were ever to convince legislators in the USA to criminalize abortion women with the help of men would physically attack Churches and priests. I think the Church leadership should view the reaction to Proposition 8’s passing with real trepidation
It is truly dispiriting that this kind of threat to physically attack Catholic churches and priests would be countenanced in a Catholic journal. Grant Gallicho, where are you? If I had said something like that I’m sure I would have received one of your emails requesting that I desist.
Kathy, I don’t think Stewart or Colbert are prophets–I think they trade in irony. They deflate prophecy.
It is truly dispiriting that this kind of threat to physically attack Catholic churches and priests would be countenanced in a Catholic journal.
Bob,
If I said that I would suggest that if France ever launched a nuclear attack against the United States, the United States would launch a counterattack, could I be accused of threatening either France or the United States?
Yes, Bob, you’re off base. The prediction you cite may be a bit hysterical, but it is just that — a prediction, not a threat, and not a particularly inflammatory one. Why would you assume that John Borst is endorsing this outcome? It seems pretty obvious to me he’s proposing it as something we would all like to avoid.
As for prophecy: it should challenge, not reinforce perceptions of division and persecution. Assuming the worst of your opponents can only convince you that you’re right to regard them as opponents. I grind my teeth whenever I see this sort of rhetoric lauded as “brave.” What’s brave about it?
David:
We are talking about Catholic churches and priests threatened with physical violence because of their political and moral duties as shepherds in His flock. If unborn children were able, perhaps they would physically attack the butchers who slaughter their unborn brothers and sisters. Unless they are pacifists…
What has all that to do with France attacking America? Besides, the French don’t have the b**** (Forgive me, I can’t remember the spelling of the more sedate Spanish word)..
It’s the reproduction of the talk outside that context that created the problem. The same thing, it seems, happened to the priest from South Carolina, who told Catholics who voted for Obama they had to go to confession. Strictly speaking, he was addressing his own parish–not the rest of us. But the rest of us sure heard about him.
I’m not buying this.
Disseminating such remarks to a wider audience didn’t create problems where none existed. It exacerbated them.
As I see it, these statements were problematic any way you look at them. Was George Allen’s macaca remark only bad because the national media got wind of it? Would it have been OK if he had not been exposed?
Good question.
1. I think there’s a difference between prophetic rhetoric and mere insults. Allen fell into the latter category.
2. Prophetic rhetoric can be morally problematic–I don’t mean to deny this at all. And I’m not saying this is NOT morally problematic.
3. I’m trying to isolate a separate issue about prophetic rhetoric. What I’m increasingly realizing (and partly through the Jeremiah Wright speech) that prophetic rhetoric really does establish a relationship between a particular audience and a particular prophet. So even prophetic rhetoric appropriate in one context will not, so to speak, travel well.
I certainly appreciate the assistance of those who have come to my defence in response to Bob Schwartz misreading of my post.
I suspect Bob was so incensed with the very thought of such a thing happening he lost sight of the context within which I was speaking.
As in all things political and managerial one can only push so far. One has to know when to push further will result in a backlash and you will be worse of than you began.
Gay rights is a perfectly good example. LGBT persons were making great strides with great sympathy and understanding until they hit the wall with same-sex marriage. At that point society particularly religiously back conservative society responded. One could make the claim they went too far or might have been better to concentrate in other areas gaining more support and understanding. Thus in many ways they are now worse off than before.
On the other side as advocates they may see it as a long campaign equivalent to the Black campaign for equality in the USA. Note too it is a largely American road block. It is a done-deal here, in Canada.
Under Bush W the Chicago school of economics went too far and we are seeing the result, society will now push back. The boys and girls in government didn’t think out the long term implications and anticipate the backlash that failure would cause. It happens on large and same scales.
The bishops didn’t figure out their actions in response to the sexual abuse issue. They by-and-large still haven’t and are still paying the price —literally in $.
Abortion is that kind of issue. Political realism must be part of every strategy.
We are talking about Catholic churches and priests threatened with physical violence because of their political and moral duties as shepherds in His flock.
Bob,
A prediction is not the same as a threat. He was clearly predicting. And do you honestly think the Catholic Church is going to convince the House and Senate to criminalize abortion?
3. I’m trying to isolate a separate issue about prophetic rhetoric. What I’m increasingly realizing (and partly through the Jeremiah Wright speech) that prophetic rhetoric really does establish a relationship between a particular audience and a particular prophet. So even prophetic rhetoric appropriate in one context will not, so to speak, travel well.
This is true. But what I’m trying to point out is what happens when the face presented to one’s supporters differs widely from the benign image presented for public consumption. I guess you might call this the Jekyll and Hyde effect. As such, I don’t believe this would apply to the priest’s remarks.
As far as I can tell (and like it or not), Jeremiah Wright never tried to temper his remarks to present a more conciliatory image to the public at large, as I imagine Cardinal Stafford might.
Question: Who here is willing to bring a case before the Supreme Court challenging the Court to PROVE that Life does NOT begin at conception and that a Child in their Mother’s Womb is NOT a Human Being , in other words, a person? That is the issue.
You know, as in Human Being, living member of the species Homo Sapiens, as in Human person.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Person- 1: Human, Individual
Nancy, it doesn’t work that way. In Roe, the Supreme Court held that a fetus was not a “person” under American law. It didn’t deny that it was genetically human. It said that personhood didn’t vest until birth.
The Court doesn’t have to PROVE, it DECIDES. To paraphrase President Bush, it’s the decider.
You can try to amend the constitution, but that’s a very cumbersome process.
In the 1970′s, early 1980′s, efforts were made to allow Congress to do an end-run around Roe, by declaring the fetus a person. They didn’t work–politically infeasible, and not likely to go anywhere with the Court–which has claimed authority (some say too much authority) to determine the meaning of the Constitution.
So what you really want is the SCT to overrule Roe, either tacitly or explicitly. Plenty of people have tried to take abortion cases to the Court. But the key thing is, in the vast majority of circumstances, the Court doesn’t have to hear the case. It decides which cases it wants to hear (it grants “cert” ==short, for certiorari.
“I’m trying to isolate a separate issue about prophetic rhetoric. What I’m increasingly realizing (and partly through the Jeremiah Wright speech) that prophetic rhetoric really does establish a relationship between a particular audience and a particular prophet. So even prophetic rhetoric appropriate in one context will not, so to speak, travel well.”
This is an interesting thought that bears further reflection. I think that all of us who speak or preach in public (I don’t know if I’ve ever risen to prophecy) need to be cognizant that our words may travel far from their original contexts and audiences. Look what’s happened to the words of Isaiah, Amos and Hosea :-).
(Un)fortunately, words can be wrenched from their original context, and (mis)edited, in the click of a mouse these days. All of us who speak publicly need to be aware of the possibility that what we say in a “friendly room” could become a search engine result later that same day.
Something I’ve learned over the years – there is a lot to be said for apologizing :-)
“I would suggest if the Church were ever to convince legislators in the USA to criminalize abortion women with the help of men would physically attack Churches and priests. I think the Church leadership should view the reaction to Proposition 8’s passing with real trepidation.
Bishop’s like Stafford will find that success on their terms will bring with it a bitter pill, and as in France leave all Christians and Churches worse off.”
I don’t think France is the correct analogy – I reckon the so-called triangle as addressed in Quas Primas and Dilectissima Nobis are better examples. But why should they feel trepidation? Even if the President Elect stood by and allowed his supporters to do this like the conspiracy of silence of old, which I think is not very likely, isn’t the blood of the martyrs still the seed of Christians and all that?
On the main topic at hand, I agree with Prof. Kaveny – the Cardinal’s rhetoric is meant to be inspirational to the highly dispirited pro-lifers. I reckon it was motivational to them. But is it prophetic? I, and forgive me if it is so and I missed it, didn’t see any claim of disclosing divinely revealed truth. I guess I go back to Jim P’s question at the beginning – what do we mean by “prophecy” these days.
Cathleen, I take it that means no?
You could do this, Cathleen.
It means three things:
1. No one can MAKE the Supreme Court hear a case –they choose what cases they want to hear.
2. Many pro-life activists don’t want to take abortion cases to the Court now, because they know they don’t have the votes to overturn Roe. Which means they’ll end up with another case affirming Roe in some form or fashion.
3. The arguments you raise have been raised before the Court before–they haven’t been accepted.
Cathy,
Daily and Colbert use humor in a “from above” manner: they believe they see through societal and especially political foibles and they call people on them. In other words, they have the prophetic perspective and they claim the moral high ground. Meanwhile, there is no one to point out the flaws in their arguments, or their own foibles, partly because no one else can talk as fast but mostly because the forum of “comedy talk show” is set up that way. They speak in front of adoring audiences who are inclined to believe them and who will clap regardless. They can, and do, make straw man arguments, which are acceptable in their very narrow contexts, that is, the live studio audience.
At the same time, Colbert (at least, and almost certainly Daily) has a real desire to change the world for the better–as he prophetically imagines “the better.” Here there is an important distinction between Colbert, and for example, The Onion. The Onion isn’t partisan; it doesn’t have a point of view except irony. This week it has the famous “I’m not one of those love-your-neighbor Christians” story but it also manages to make a feeble joke about the Holocaust Museum of all things. I’m not praising that, of course, but just to say, it’s an example of non-prophetic irony that aims at any subject that can raise a tickle. The Onion just wants to make you laugh.
Whereas Colbert has both an opinion and a mission. He’s seriously funny. So I still think the question deserves to be answered: besides the fact that it’s funny, in what way does his work differ from those you think speak prophetically? Could there be a need to define “prophetic rhetoric” more clearly?
“My own hypothesis is that the rhetoric of prophetic indictment functions best to confirm those already committed to a cause, rather than to convert the uncommitted. It shores up those whose commitment may be flagging, those who are discouraged –gives them the strength to fight on. It doesn’t do well in convincing the unconvinced –in converting the opponent, that is to say. To the opponent, prophetic rhetoric just seems like insults.”
This does not seem to be the case, Cathy. The essential part of prophecy is that those who are addressed usually stone or crucify the proclaimer of truth. People like Stafford are not so much prophetic as they are cultish, ungenerous and self serving. Shore up the support and donation base for the next round. When Jesus shouts: “Woe to you when others speak well of you” he is hitting a lot of nerves and the stones will come. How many people who have nurtured a lost person suffered criticism from other Christians or Catholics for mixing in with the wrong kind. And we know there is going to be a reaction from the words: “Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees who like to walk the streets in long robes… and devour the houses of widows?”
Prophecy is not ungenerous. It shouts for a life against all the vainglory of this world. Clearly, all the rhetoric, the celebrity craze, the star and glamour craze, the thirst for awards, the edifice building etc., etc.
More importantly, while prophetic rhetoric does seem like insults it does bear much fruit when we realize that someone from God is talking. Especially if that person is willing to wash our feet and invite us to come to him.
In Italy too a fetus becomes a person only after the birth, this since 1900
We now know about DNA.
Nancy–
If that first little cell containing your DNA was a single-celled person, why aren’t all the other single cells in your body with complete sets of DNA also persons?
Perhaps you need to know more about both DNA and what makes a person a person.
About “prophetic rhetoric” I too think we need to analyze oit whst seem to be some new meanings of the term.
(I also don’t know what “irony” means these days. But it eas always hard to defone. Extremely subtle. Sigh.)
I think both need to be defined, and have defined them in my academic writings on the topic.
I tend to define it more carefully as the a prophetic indictment, the word or God -or morality(as used in the American Rhetorical tradition, it’s moved beyond God) proclaimed against a practice or practices that threaten the very foundations of our compact together. Prophetic indictments tend to be inspired, directly or less directly by biblical language–the Jeremiad.
Prophetic rhetoric is not a pure form–it is a powerful form. A little bit of prophetic rhetoric in a carefully reasoned argument can “turn” or “control” or spice the argument.
Colbert tends to poke fun at prophets–lots of them in the Bush adminstration, because that administration did see itself on a mission from God. Irony, if I remember correctly, is to make as statement that has two meaining, by which the speaker creates community with one part of the community, and excludes another segment by demystifyin gor mocking it of it. So Colbert recreates the community with the audience, leaving the “prophet” outside it. They are thereby relativized or marginlized.
Ann, at Conception, there exists Dna that sustains the Human Person in their development, through all the various stages of Life, until the Body dies.
Is it possible that the Cardinal made his statements because he thought they were true?
“…the speaker creates community with one part of the community, and excludes another segment by demystifyin gor mocking it of it. So Colbert recreates the community with the audience, leaving the “prophet” outside it. They are thereby relativized or marginlized.”
This sounds exactly like a Bill O’Reilly tactic.
Limbaugh, the little I’ve been able to stand hearing him, uses irony, and Colbert is not above flashing his substitute-Sunday-school Catholic credentials.
I think further distinctions must be made.
Like what?
I must confess, Kathy, your point is lost on me. Limbaugh and Colbert. O’Reilly and whoever. Are you trying to say that the political blowhards are comedians too?
There are different rhetorical ways of marginalizing a speaker. Ironic mocking is one of them.
But I”ll try to be more precise in the book.
The other way of dealing with a prophet is ignoring him or her. It’s hard, but in the end it’s more effective.
I cant’ help thnk of Leni Riefenstahl’s film Triumph of the Will. Surely Adolf Hitler was a master of prophetic rhetoric. How about Benito Mussolini?
Cathy Kaveny’s observation that “a little bit of prophetic rhetoric in a carefully reasoned argument can “turn” or “control” or spice the argument” is true enough. But one of the main problems with Cardinal Stafford’s adoption of the prophetic mode is that he omits the reasoned argument. He was in Washington to speak on Humanae Vitae, a subject with which he has long been identified. Below you will find a link to a revealing and highly emotional piece idelivered on an earlier occasion in which he described his own experience during the months after the Encyclical was released.
Instead of giving a reasoned case in favor of assent to the document, he mentions the influence on him of a Catholic education, his father’s good example, and a moment of insight he seems to have experienced as a revelation concerning the connection between sexual activity and procreation. The reader may well fail to follow the immediate logic of what he says, but for Stafford these personal experiences suffice to provide absolute conviction that he is right.
What also makes the Cardinal’s account hard to sympathize with if you don’t already agree with him–and what often makes him hard to follow– is exactly the kind of rhetoric that has upset people in his recent remarks on Obama. His portrait of himself as a faithful disciple surrounded by traitors worthy of the wrath of God is part of a prophetic persona he assumes perhaps too easily, along with a vocabulary highly colored with violent, apocalyptic images: darkness, the abyss, labyrinths, pain, wounds, trials, torment, agony, grueling struggle, terrible tests, “whirlwinds where God’s wrath dwells.”
(Check out also his horrified picture of a conspiratorial Charles Curran organizing a late night task force of thuggish theologians to produce an alliance ready to dissent to Humanae Vitae.)
One real mystery is why Cardinal Stafford might have been tapped by Rome to serve as Penitentiary, one of whose duties is to deal with excommunications reserved to the holy see. A judicial temperament does not appear to be one of his most obvious gifts.)
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=675
Sorry, line 7 above, “idelivered” should be “delivered.”
Grant,
Sorry to be obscure; it wasn’t intentional.
I was trying to say quite the opposite: more or less, comedians are political blowhards too. Despite an incidental difference (humor) in his discourse, Colbert is very much a prophetic speaker. He condemns and dictates from on high.
Myanmar just sentenced 70 people to jail, including a comedian and a rapper, for their work against the regime.
I’m not trying to put down Colbert, or G. Trudeau, or even Garry Wills. I’m just saying that they think they’re right and have arranged unassailable platforms for themselves on what they feel is high moral ground. I say, let them talk. Let everybody talk.
Two “rules” for dealing with “prophetic” enunciations:
1. Beware of people who look for opportunities to be prophetic.
2. Be leery of “prophetic” utterances that cost the prophet nothing.
If “prophetic rhetoric” exists to create a bond with the base, then Sarah Palin is a prophet. (?) I am concerned that we demean our theological categories by using them too broadly; anyone who thinks he is God’s messenger and delivers a meanspirited address or demonizes his adversaries becomes a prophet. Bill Mazzella is right when he says “People like Stafford are not so much prophetic as they are cultish, ungenerous and self serving.”
Bernard, Amen.
I’m using the phrase as a rhetorical category, not a theological category, Rita.
I think there are false prophets as well as true prophets. And coming to grips with the way that form of discourse is rightly and wrongly used is important, in my view.
My Santa Clara Lecture, “Prophetic Rhetoric in the Public Square,” attempted to do just that.
It will be published soon, if I can get over this darn bug, and get back to work.
Bernard,
I agree with your 2nd principle much more than the first–at least in politics. Granted, the biblical prophet was customarily reluctant. But was MLK reluctant? Or Gandhi? However conflicted they may have been at times, they were enormously ambitious to make reality conform to their visions.
In a plurality such as ours, given the fundamental Constitutional value of freedom of speech, everyone will be everyone else’s gadfly, and some will shout. Everyone will claim to have been to the mountaintop. If we all speak and think and allow thought to flourish, it might be possible to find a way forward. But if people begin to demonize not only one another’s actions but one another’s rhetoric, I’m afraid we are on a steep slope down to Canadian draconian hate speech laws.
Kathy, I deny that there is political prophecy. As for Dr. King and Gandhi, I take it that what they promoted was an important truth. If, as I strongly believe King was, genuinely prophetic, his ambition was fro some good that he recognized. It was not focused on getting his vision actualized because it was his vision.
Cathy,
I strongly recommend some revisions to your proposed book. I understand you are defining rhetorical prophecy as opposed to theological prophecy. First I object that you are changing the language without clearly stating that you are changing the meaning of some terms. Further, why not call it false prophecy, charlatanism, fraud, opportunism, misdirected, liars or the like.
You are performing a real service by showing how many are abusing the term prophet by employing invective without the Spirit. At the same time you may be lending to the confusion as you may fail to adequately define the terms.
“She knows well who distinguishes well.” Should you not define more clearly and not change terms so readily?
It was not focused on getting his vision actualized because it was his vision.
I agree. But on the other hand, we all have our own version of utopia, and each vision, if we’re realistic, eclipses others.
What we really need is some skills in discernment and thought, or as I’ve said before, we must keep ourselves sober enough to judge well in particular cases.
Peace out.
Back to prophetic rhetoric, please. I do not believe Cardinal Stafford is a prophet. But I do agree that prophets do speak to a limited group and do try to “support, encourage, and rally the ‘troops’” If we look at the Book of Revelation (which is not a biblical crystal ball), the writer, John, is trying to encourage the persecuted Christians that some time. And it really was for them. Only, it has become a universalized promise to all Christians down through the ages, that that Resurrected Lord will return and all those who remain faithful to Him, will receive eternal reward.
But, Cathleen, I do think that you are on target here!
Bill, thanks.
I think prophetic rhetoric, in addition to being true, also needs to meet additional criteria in order to be helpful.
Kathy wrote:
I’m afraid we are on a steep slope down to Canadian draconian hate speech laws.
I must take exception to your characterization of such laws as draconian. Is suspect you have been reading too many American right wing wing-nut vilification of what is going on.
There is no doubt in the least that we are more sensitive to the issue of hate speech and have stronger laws than you do.
In my opinion, and I suspect I reflect a majority opinion, American freedom of speech is TOO broad. You have paid a great price for the right to express hate. Ask any Black person if he/she has experienced hateful epithets, or Hispanics or Gays today. How many more people have died violently in America because of it?
Why do you have more guns than people in America…and live in fear not only of Others of but of your neighbor. Rampant out of control HATE speech is too much a part of your political rhetoric. What is happening to Obama right now by your loudmouth Rush Limbaughs is fermenting hate. I truly fear for his life. I am simply holding my breath that he lives to see inauguration day.
If you really understood our system of laws and respected that not everyone in this world has to have the same laws as the United States you would understand that our courts will, just as you courts would, sort out what is and what is not hate speech. Only two cases have ever been successful, both against neo-Nazis.
So stop listening to Pro-life in Canada because they are scared to death that their rantings against homosexuals is going to get them into trouble and dam well it should. They are bigots hiding under the guise of religious belief. They give a bad name to the key foundational beliefs of Christianity.
Obviously, you got my dander up but sometimes American ignorance coupled with its own sense of arrogant superiority is enough to make one what to hate them…but I would never do that :) especially to another Commonwealer.
Ms. Gannon – thanks for the link to his 1968 incident and recollections. Sorry, but his memories are his memories – he equates his stance on HV as the truth. He seems to have the same self-righteous, unquestioning stance with our current election results……the parallels are unmistakeable and concerning. (BTW – it reminds me of the historical stories about the European student riots and the subsequent change in thinking of Ratzinger – he moved from liberal to conservative and mentions these events as transforming. My read is that these events created a climate of fear and his reaction was one of control, conservatism rather than embracing change and the viewpoints of the others.)
Your posting is an excellent, well-timed one. Prophecy – not sure I would decribe Stafford’s presentation as prophecy…agree with others that Allen’s attempt to put this into context is rather like those who put Pius XII’s actions into context and arrive at the conclusion that he did everything possible to speak out against Nazism/Fascism. His reflections do not start with an honest analysis of the issue – it starts with his pre-conceived and self-justified conclusion. He does not respectively address the other side; he does not weigh evidence, he just proclaims.
Went back and reviewed some of my old teachers – Bruce Vawter’s scriptural writings, Crossan’s exegesis, McBrien’s Catholicism. Would suggest that any definition of prophecy needs to look at how prophecy happened in our Jewish/Christian history.
a) One point Crossan & Vawter both made was that the OT prophet spoke to his own people and their faithfulness to Yahweh. The prophet speaks on behalf of Yahweh. Is Stafford’s presentation speaking for God or the Church or for certain elements in the Vatican?
b) Second point – you have the old truism…..one person’s prophet is another’s rebel or one person’s terrorist is another’s revolutionary. Reminded of 1968 but not the riots in our cities rather the Vietman war and those protesting that war. Interesting that Stafford makes no mention of this….for those of us facing the first draft since WWII and seeing that war as totally unjustified….we were looking for prophets e.g. Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg;
c) There are a couple of things that make me see a prophet……the Chinese use a term we translate as Fire in the Lake; a Crisis. For some, it is seen only as doom, apocalypse, failure; but for others it is Opportunity, Change, Movement Forward. It is this latter definition that scripture seems to capture in terms of prophets; they speak for God not out of fear but to point the way forward; it is a powerful, positive energy even if the prophet is faced with personal threat; a counter-cultural force that also changes the prophet;
d) So, as a child of the 50s-60s, and if a prophet is one who reads the signs of the times and allows revelation to emerge, my experience saw people such as the priests of Washington, DC; the theologians when HV was released; C. Curran’s actions then and now more as true prophets than Stafford’s current or past presentation. Are his words defensive, alarmist? Is he defending the status quo – how do his words show that he has changed? In fact, the link to the earler story about 1968 and his childhood justifications do not indicate that he changed at all.
For me prophets reveal:
– despite personal threat, speak to the times about God’s love and mercy;
– the prophecy must work for the common good and to build up the church – “supposed” prophecy that destroys unity is immediately suspect;
– one who speaks must also live the words spoken or it has no force……..(IMHO, celibate cardinals living in Rome have a very steep hill to climb when speaking out about HV or abortion when they have little to no contact with real life, real people)
– prophecy that has no visible connection with ordinary life also strains credibility – prophecy is NOT for display or attention;
– Prophecy is NEVER for just a few; it is always public and oriented to the whole community especially in this modern age and when you have a public position as a Cardinal of a Vatican dicastery.
Finally, there is very little definitive church teaching on “Prophecy.” That alone is interesting.
Bill DeHaas:
Brilliant analysis. Worthy of the best that Commonweal has to offer. many thanks for taking the time to compose that. Bravo!
Nancy,
You didn’t answer my specific question: how come all the single cells with the same DNA aren’t persons?
Cathleen –
Thanks for clarifying your meaning of “prophetic rhetoric”. It was the “prophetic” that mainly threw me off. Yourmeaning is close to the Biblilcal meaning but not identical, I think. It’s broader, since not all prophecy in your sense concerns God. We just have to accept the fact that words take on different meanings across time, and there is no one real meaning. All meanings are real, some are just more useful than others.
I never got into pragmatics, the studyy of how we use signs for non-verbal ends, especially how we use signs to change other people in some way, e.g. rhetoric affects feelings. I can see how pragmatics would be useful in law and especially in theology.
Prof. Gannon –
When I think of rhetoric I think of Huey Long. Dangerous man. Even FDR was afraid of him — he hought Long might be president one day because of his ability to play people’s emotions like a piano.
What worse? …being told by a conscience reading priest that you are not in a state of grace because of how you attempted to form your conscience and vote? Or, being informed by a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. (who wrote favorably of the conscience reading priest in past works) that 50%+ of the Catholics that voted for the “pro-abortion candidate” suffer from arrested development, engage in tribal voting, are “stupid” and suffer from “patterns of mindlessness.” (http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3627/pub_detail.asp)
Prophetic rhetoric? So much for God’s love and mercy; unity, etc. Thanks for your post Bill DeHaas (dare I say prophetic?) – interesting when I compared it to the aforementioned article.
Ann, thanks. There is a book, by James Darsey, that talks about how prophetic rhetoric from scripture gets extended in the American context and used by all sorts of people.
I suppose I think of prophetic indictments as akin to a declaration of war–a war of words–and I’m trying to come up with criteria for “just prophecy.”
Ann, are you seriously challenging the idea that a human being’s life begins when the sperm and egg fuse, or are you just giving Nancy a hard time about the way she has tried to articulate it?
Wow, OonefromTobit, that Weigel column you reference is…dispiriting. I am fascinated by what he identifies as “tribal” voting (a phenomenon not to be confused with Voting With Your Bishop, apparently), and by his claims that the term “Culture of Death” has been vindicated when, to me, the criticisms he cites seem more applicable than ever. Basically, everything he identifies as “clear” and “obvious” seems quite the contrary to me. I sure wouldn’t call that prophecy, but it’s impressive nevertheless.
A thread like this shows dialogue at its best. Many marvelous contributions.
Hello All,
Once more I am late in joining the discussion. It was a busy work week.
Upon reflection, I agree with what a number of participants here have already indicated in their posts. I think Cardinal Stafford’s lecture linked here is a confirming instance of Cathleen’s hypothesis in her original post:
My own hypothesis is that the rhetoric of prophetic indictment functions best to confirm “those already committed to a cause, rather than to convert the uncommitted. It shores up those whose commitment may be flagging, those who are discouraged –gives them the strength to fight on. It doesn’t do well in convincing the unconvinced –in converting the opponent, that is to say. To the opponent, prophetic rhetoric just seems like insults.”
But I think my reason for agreeing with others here has not been discussed yet. One of the cornerstone ideas Stafford uses in his lecture is one I have encountered many times in different contexts: The widespread falling away from our (obviously sound) moral roots (by all those OTHER people) was caused by a few specific conspirators (who tricked those unreflective OTHER people). Stafford repeats the story that the widespread rejection of Paul VI’s 1968 teaching is all the fault of Charles Curran and his fellow theologian conspirators. Without meaning to mock Stafford, here’s part of what I took from this lecture: “If only most people had simply been faithful, and not allowed themselves to be tricked by the wave of dissent caused by Charles Curran and his theologian cronies, we would not now be in this mess.” Does this sort of talk sound familiar to anyone else here? I’ve seen it again and again. To give only one other example, consider the recent book by David Linker, where he argues in effect, “If only so many people had not been fooled by Richard John Neuhaus and his fellow theocon conspirators, we would not now be in this mess.”. (The “mess” Linker discusses is not the same “mess” Stafford discusses.)
I for one never find this approach persuasive, and I suspect that the only people who do find it persuasive are those “already converted” people Cathleen refers to in the above quote.
An early wish for a Happy Thanksgiving to all here.
Mollie Wilson O’Reilly: I long time ago I concluded from the fact that Weigel thought JPII was a great pope that Weigel lacked judgment. In fact I also concluded that he tends to miss the obvious. You and I are, as they say, on the same page.
“…book by David Linker, where he argues in effect, “If only so many people had not been fooled by Richard John Neuhaus and his fellow theocon conspirators, we would not now be in this mess.”. (The “mess” Linker discusses is not the same “mess” Stafford discusses.)”
Not sure you are not mixing apples with oranges, Peter. The comparison seems very weak. Secondly I agree with Linker on his statement. Maybe you can develop your thought more fully.
Here perhaps is a way to pull this discussion together:
Visit this URL. It is about the Wisdom project put together by Bishop Desmund Tutu
http://www.wisdombook.org/
While there look at the samples from the book. Here is one sample by I think (You will know why I say I think when you see it) Dave Brubeck
“You have to be taught to hate.”
BTW, I love the age of the folks in the film :)
Hello Bill (and All),
I admit I included the example about Linker because I did not want to leave anyone with the impression that the tactic I attribute to Cardinal Stafford is used only by people from a right-wing perspective. But I’m not persuaded by the claim that so many of the ills of recent years, including especially the last eight years, that I think we both agree upon (at least one unjust war, for example) were caused primarily by Neuhaus and his colleagues. I think there’s a lot more to this story than their influence. (I also think there’s a lot more to the story behind the widespread rejection of the teaching of Humanae vitae than an alleged conspiricy by Curran and some of his theologian colleagues.) But since you think mine is a bad example, I’d be happy to be talked down because I am certainly no fan of Neuhaus, Weigel, Novack, and Campbell to name a few. But maybe this should be done in private correspondence because I think this would take us too far away from the discussion Cathleen started.
Got you, Peter. We are in sync now.
Matt,
No, I’m not trying to gove Nancy a hard time. Yes, I do cahllenge her view that the single cell formed by sperm and egg is a person.
Amazing. Thank you for clarifying. Do you admit that the zygote is a human being and deny that it is a human person, or do you deny that it is a human being? If the latter, when precisely do you believe a human being exists?
Okay, guys, cut it out. This is not an abortion thread. This is a rhetoric thread. All comments not on the rhetoric will be summarily deleted. And I mean it.
I’ve shut down the thread temporarily because Mr. Bowman isn’t obeying the rules and I don’t have time to sit here babysitting the thread deleting each post in turn.