Boston Globe Interview with Dick McBrien
December 28, 2008, 2:36 pm
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Interesting–even a question or two about why he thinks he is such a lighting rod. He seems to have particularly gotten under the skin of somenone named John Zuhlsdorf.
Sounds interesting, but I can’t get through.
Link fixed.
I cannot access the link above, either in firefox or explorer. Here is the Globe link in case others encounter this problem:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/12/28/a_talk_with_the_rev_richard_p_mcbrien/?page=full
The Globe’s Mike Paulson has a blog where he posts about the McBrien interview:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/12/an_interview_wi.html
The comments below both article and blog entry make clear why McBrien is a lightning rod to those who believe liberals are dissenting traitors to their version of Church. The discourse is disgusting, if I may be indulged an alliteration.
I had the great privilege of meeting and hearing McBrien at VOTF’s convention in Providence last year. He is fresh air and forthrightness, a source of hope. We are in for a bad patch, he said simply.
I went directly to the Globe. I agree with Richard McBrien that he is a centrist. I’m serious. I really don’s see why anyone would think otherwise. It’s sad that anyone would think otherwise.
Here are a couple of good links: McBrien’s own website, with lots of his columns and a video lecture he did for Boston College in its great Frontrow series. Check the Church in the 21st Century and the Catholicism categories in the BC drop down box for more good things. (Cathleen Kaveny even appears in one panel discussion in the series and does an impressive job.)
http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/mcbrien/
http://richardmcbrien.com/
The label “centrist” begs the question: the center of what? Is McBrien doctrinally at the center of issues? Which issues?
Does the center carry the day, the way the Aristotilean “mean” carries the virtue?
No, once again, it seems that we’re defining our Church in political and sociological terms, with “centrist” meaning not as far left as you can get, but certainly not conservative. There are some to the left and others to the right of McBrien. This is what a centrist is, correct?
As to why he is a lightning rod: he is an honest man, who isn’t afraid to tell the truth, and does so with great care. He’s hard to refute, and that must be frustrating to those who disagree with him. Carolyn is right. He is a breath of fresh air.
The center is not always correct. Even a majority can be wrong. But Fulton Sheen often looked for the “middle way.” Personally, I’d like to see more application of the Apostle Paul’s recommendation to “test everything, retain what is good”.
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf is an American priest who is also a consultant to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. He usually lives in Italy and was ordained for an Italian diocese. Fr. Zuhlsdorf is the author of a column on liturgical translation titled “What Does the Prayer Really Say,” published in the national Catholic weekly journal “The Wanderer”.
Reading the Boston Globe interview of Fr. McBrien one can’t help but notice that the word “centrist” is meaningless. McBrien begins by saying that he does not think in terms of liberal, or conservative but then proceeds to label all kinds of people that way.
McBrien’s view on the ordination of women seems identical to now excommunicated Maryknoll Fr. Bourgeois. The only difference between McBrien and Fr. Bourgeois is that Fr. Bourgeois resolved to take McBrien’s position to its natural conclusion.
Considering the vocation issue in the diocese of Hartford it might behoove the Bishop there to call McBrien home to parish work. Of course, if McBrien helps offer the now regular celebration of the Mass in the extraordinary form at Notre Dame it might be better to leave him there.
I belong to a online group that discusses monastic spirituality. A couple of years ago, a man who is a member of Opus Dei joined. I knew immediately that we were a group that he would clash with. He quoted Josemaría Escrivá a great deal. One day I quoted something Fr McBrien had written about catechesis. This man got very upset that I would quote McBrien. He sent me all kinds of private emails telling me how wrong McBrien was about things, etc. etc. I did not respond to this man so I guess he realized that I would continue to quote McBrien. Very soon after all of this he left our group. I think the McBrien quote actually helped. I am grateful for the important work Fr. McBrien does for the Catholic Church.
A few thoughts:
Of course the word “centrist” is meaningful -as we saw post-election – it means not being in the extreme as those who question it here seem to be.
As Fr. Zuhlsdorf writes for the Wanderer, I doubt he’s centrist.
I hate to keep harping on the problem of division -but the anger, almost outright hatred that Carolyn noted in “disgusting” posts underscore how the Church is suffering -suffering because folks have (all too often glibly) think its about the Truth, the Truth they have and others don’t. They lack insight into He who was the Truth told us the two great commandments – the love we’re called to that Paul spoke of as being kind and patient.
I guess on blogs, even here, it’s easy enough to vent our individual “wisdom.”
But I truly worry about the future of our faith if we’re going to keep on just thinking we are the ones who have it all.
Anyone who has incurred the wrath of Zuhlsdorf (Fr Z to those who care to read him) must be doing something correct! You go, Dick!
http://wdtprs.com/blog/
His “logo” seems to be this: o{]:¬) He’s one of the “biretta boys.”
I think the term “centrist” could use more fleshing out besides “not being in the extreme.”
Some possible rambling points for further argumentation and debate:
Being a centrist, in my view, at least, has less to do with one’s beliefs or orthodoxy and more to do with one’s approach to belief.
Some of us tend to be “extremists” in that, if we cannot act in an orthodox way all the time, we become discouraged and disassociate ourselves with the church. Or we may be extremists in wanting to bar others who are not wholly orthodox from full participation in the Church and its sacraments.
Others of us may be extremists in that, if we cannot live up to orthodoxy, or it seems to place us in an untenable position, that proves that orthodoxy needs revision. Or that voice that demand adherence to orthodoxy need to be quelled.
Perhaps being a centrist is the ability to uphold orthodoxy without conflating it with the unvarnished truth sprung from the Godhead without intervening human diddling. Perhaps being a centrist means sitting at the Table with our fellow sinners who are not perfect or complete in their daily lives. Perhaps it means being open to the notion that the Holy Spirit does not need to be protected from sinners.
Extremists on both sides strike me as unhappy souls who feel beleaguered and hemmed in by “bad” or “wrong” people.
Centrists are those who live in a Christ-centered way that allows them to feel caritas for those on both ends of the “extreme” spectrum.
Jimmy Mac, what does the symbol mean?
His motto seems to be “Slavishly accurate liturgical translations & frank commentary on Catholic issues – by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬) ”
So, what I would be curious to know is what is a “slavishly accurate” translation? And what is his view of translation-what would he think of the discussion on translation in the post below?
Cathy,
It’s a smiley man wearing a biretta (look at it sideways).
The current English sacramentary–I don’t think this is disputed by anyone–translates the Latin with a certain, shall we say, liberty. Fr. Zuhlsdorf has a column in the Wanderer in which he translates the prayers of the Mass more literally. These translations were the original basis of his popular blog, which still focuses on liturgy but nowadays has a lot of recipes as well, for some reason. Possibly just for the holidays.
He’s perfectly right about the prayers, too. I was looking through the Gregorian Missal today and was amazed at the difference, just in length, between the English (short) Prayer after Communion for Epiphany, compared to the long, complex Latin Prayer after Communion. That’s the opposite of normal: usually a line of Latin translates into a longer line of English.
Jean,
Isn’t Truth composite? That is to say, yes, some of it is diddled, and doesn’t some of it come pretty directly from God?
I would suggest that the anti-McBrien comments at the Globe site are no less vicious than those directed at Pope Benedict by many at this site.
(And the mocking comments already posted in this post about Fr. Zuhlsdorf)
But in some circles, some figures are protected by a shield of infallibility and indefectibility. And it ain’t the Pope.
Seriously, before anyone here get on their high horse about the “tone” in the comments box over there, take a look at the beam jutting out over here – and explain the acceptance of the double standard.
Regarding Faith and Morals, is the Pope extreme? Is the teaching of the Magisterium extreme in regards to Faith and Morals? Regarding left, right, center etc, what exactly is your point of reference?
Mark, good point, and right on target.
Mark: This is the closest to “mocking” I’ve found here in re: Fr. Zuhlsdorf: “Anyone who has incurred the wrath of Zuhlsdorf (Fr Z to those who care to read him) must be doing something correct!”
Do you honestly think that’s equivalent to this, re: McBrien: “There is nothing Catholic about you, You are simply just another card carrying member or dupe of the revolution against God and His Church… Your smug attitude will quickly turn to regret when Our Lady of Fatima is obeyed and God’s Mercy is exhausted and His Justice enforced.”
Actually, overall, the level of discourse there is actually higher than I expected — there are few things more discouraging than reading comments on a newspaper article. I think the discussion here is usually far more edifying — thank God for that.
I’d never heard of this “Fr. Z” until this thread, but his mocking, uncharitable, and ad hominem attack on Fr. McBrien–see the link below for Fr. Z’s annotated version of the Boston Globe interview of Fr. McBrien–goes well beyond disagreement with McBrien’s views on Church issues. I have no problem with constructive criticism of McBrien’s (or anyone else’s opinions), but Fr. Z reveals himself to be unnecessarily mean-spirited in his criticism.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/12/boston-globe-interviews-mcbrien/
Actually, the article claims that Fr.McBrien is “willing to sharply criticize Popes and Bishops” and Fr.McBrien claims that the Church is hostile to “homosexuals”. I would not call that constructive criticism. Perhaps Fr.Z has been hit by one of Fr.McBriens “lightning bolts”. I agree, one does not need to be mean-spirited to make a point.
I’m glad to see we agree, Nancy.
This is the one I found most unbecoming of a priest:
“Isn’t he [McBrien] just a great guy? sniff…I get all choked up thinking about the wonderful inspiration he has given to so many young people.”
Thanks Kathy. I guess my question for Father Z. would be, what would he say about the very interesting discussion between Joe K. and Bernard D. about what it means to translate well in the post below “Continuity and Discontinuity.”
What would he say to someone like Robert Fagles, who has dedicated his life to Latin at the highest levels, and who, as Bernard says, raises complex problems about translation in the intro to the Aeneid. And for that matter, what would Fagles say about the possibilities and difficulties of translating prayer–which would be in some respects analogous to translating poetry
I wonder if Reggie Foster knows Father Z. My guess is that he would balk at the latter’s use of the word “slavish.” No translation that is “slavish” could be good –Translation, like speech, is a fully human activity. IAt requires judgment, and knowledge. Incidentally, Reggie practices an inductive rather than a deductive approach to translation. Lewis & Short is required for his classes, , not the OLD, because it provides more sentences of the word used in context–the living language is the ultimate authority. The meaning, to invoke Wittgenstein, lies in the use.
This is true, but that does not change the fact that to be a Good Priest, you must be in communion with the Church from the start.
At any rate, one of the things I admire most about Dick McBrien is that he doesn’t let attacks like that make him bitter.
And I don’t think he reads blogs.
What was the purpose of posting the interview? Obviously, papers and columns look for division, anger, reaction; not unity in diversity or mercy in differences. These types of postings and, unfortunately, most of this thread is no different than what we have grown accustomed to in our US political lives.
Why waste time and energy posting, much less, commenting on something like the Wanderer or any of its columnists. (Italian priest writing for an ultra-conservative, reactive paper???)
Then, we have the sub-text and side issue on how best to translate Latin – that is a very important issue – keeps me up at nite. I have stopped blogging on a number of blogs when threads such as this descend to such ridiculous lows.
As Church, we face many critical issues currently – sorry, but the Wanderer, EWTN, Opus Dei, Letgionnaires of Christ, and their ilk only obfuscate and confuse faith with orthodoxy (as only defined by them) and do not contribute to faith growth, mercy, or the life of the ordinary Catholic.
Bill, I posted the interview because Dick McBrien is a longstanding and influential figure in American Catholicism. The interview was in the Boston Globe, not the Wanderer. Michael Paulson is a very well respected religion reporter, not a troll. And I thought that McBrien had interesting things to say–especially the part about not leaving the Church because it’s his home too.
I mentioned Fr. Z because I thought the reference was odd Paulson didn’t pull in a conservative peer of McBrien’s–an equally prominent fellow academic or a well-known American public intellectual (e.g., Neuhaus). His fifteen minutes of general fame are due to the prominence of someone he evidently hates. Poor guy. That must really burn him up.
Zuhlsdorf has referred to Reginald Foster many times on his blog, as at least an acquaintance, and perhaps as a friend – I am not sure about the latter, though. He has defended him from knee-jerk critics of Foster’s iconoclasm countless times.
Before judging Zuhlsdorf’s theory of translation, Cathy, you might want to take a look at the articles he posts about the matter. They are really quite interesting, even if one has no interest in retrieving the older form of the Mass. He is quite learned about ancient languages, their nuance and interested in sharing his knowledge. It would be pleasant if folks here could actually take time to go interact with those about whom their knees jerk rather than, well, just letting the knees jerk.
For example this:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/10/17/
“Most of you have heard the news that the in/famous Fr. Reginald Foster will not be allowed to teach his Latin “Experiences” at the Gregorian University. Various reasons are being offered about this. I have known Fr. Foster since the early ‘80s when I was in his first summer Latin experience, long before the days were divided into the Iuniores and Seniores. Talk about high impact! I did several of the summer Latin experiences, as a matter of fact. I also wound up frequenting the Fifth Experience for several years, simply because there was nothing beyond Fifth Experience. I had already had lots of Latin through grad school (major: Classical Studies), and it was interesting, but with Foster it started to turn into something else completely.
Fr. Foster is likely to say some rather shocking things. He likes to say shocking things and get reactions out of people. This is clearly not the thing to do in the environment he moves in, but he is simply too good to get rid of completely. He has experienced great pain at what he has seen in the Church over the last decades and in his own religious order.
I also recall one summer when I was laid up with a badly injured ankle and could not make it up the hill to the Teresianum for classes. He came to see me nearly every day and bring me ludi domestici (homework sheets). I have seen him sit down in a gutter and share his lunch with a beggar. I have seen him find rooms for people who came to Rome without a clue. This is a man with an admirable spirit.”
Bill DeHaas:
I must say I don’t agree with your criticism. You say, in effect, that this post and the comments were a waste of time and energy. How could you say that about – to take just one example – Jean Raber’s comment?
True, this isn’t the greatest thread in the history of the blog – but so what? It’s not necessary – is it? – for every single comment to be a home run. We can just skim over the weak ones till we get to the worthwhile ones, like Jean’s.
Thank you, Dr. Kaveny for responding to my question and for removing the two threads prior to my posting.
I know that the interview was in the Boston Post and I know who Mr. Paulson is. I have also studied under and read Fr. McBrien’s articles when printed; access his website and have used his course syllabus at times.
What was the point of the interview? Just because Paulson has a reputation does not make everything he does significant? Why did he bring in Zuhlman, Wanderer, etc. Sorry, still missing the importance and impact of this interview. Surprised that Fr. McBrien agreed to this “waste of time.”
Agree with you Mr. Palumbo but the threads that were deleted and some of Nancy’s continued comments can become frustrating. I will take your advice and just skim over those threads.
If Fr. Z appreciates the real goodness–I would say holiness–of Reggie, that speaks very well for him, in my book.
I would, in fact, like to know what his view of the translation issue are. And whether there is a different theory of translation operative in the case of liturgical texts. I went to the site, but his rubrics on the McBrien interview were quite off-putting. So I’m not going to dig for them through the blog.
But I did enable the thread to get taken in the wrong direction–it was meant to be a thread on the interview itself, not on Fr. Z.
My fault for the way I spun the initial comment. I apologize.
So I’ll shut it down now.