The Vatican levies further penalties on Roger Haight, SJ
Jesuit theologian Roger Haight, whose writings on Christology, especially in his 1999 book “Jesus: Symbol of God,” led the Vatican to bar him from teaching in Catholic institutions, has received a further punishment: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has barred Haight from writing on theology (he may continue a work in progress on Ignatian spirituality) and he is forbidden to teach anywhere, even non-Catholic institutions. That means that at the end of the coming semester Haight, who resides at America House in New York, will stop teaching at Union Theological Seminary in Upper Manhattan.
The CDF began investigating Haight, 72, in 2000, which led the Vatican’s education office to bar him from teaching at Jesuit-run Weston in Cambridge, MA. Haight began teaching at Union, a leading Protestant seminary, as an adjunct professor of theology in September 2004. A final negative verdict on Haight’s work from the CDF, reported by NCR’s John Allen in February 2005, meant the teaching ban at Catholic schools would not be lifted and Haight remained at Union.
The latest sanction takes the discipline against Haight to a new level. The news seems to have emerged first in a German Catholic news service report a few weeks ago; I saw it in a French agency report here, and the details were later confirmed for me by other church sources. Haight himself would not comment. One can only imagine what this action means to Father Haight personally, and I think even critics of the Jesuits or Haight’s work would have to give him (as well as other Jesuits, like Tom Reese) credit for the kind of obedience and graciousness that is too often overlooked in criticisms of the order.
Haight’s work has been critiqued and criticized, including in these pages by fellow theologians like John Cavadini and Luke Timothy Johnson. In a piece two years ago, Paul Lakeland defended Haight’s work. Clearly there is a legitimate range of opinion on Haight’s work, including tough questions from those who would be sympathetic to him and his larger project.
But the latest Vatican action does not address the substance of Haight’s work or provide any explanation as to what spurred the CDF to take such a drastic action now. “It appears to be purely punitive,” one Jesuit source told me. The notification was apparently issued last spring, but Haight only found out about it last summer. As usual, he has never heard directly from Rome, only through his superiors. He was not told why this action was taken, and his responses to the list of CDF criticisms during the earlier investigation have never been answered by Rome.
Some will see this as the institutional church being the institutional church, either doing what it needs to do to defend orthodoxy (or what it considers orthodoxy), or yes, doing it ham-handedly but, as Rome has always done. So don’t exaggerate, the reasoning goes: “Nothing to see here, just move along.” I also think there is a great—and unfortunate, in my mind—degree of habituation to this kind of Vatican action, which has become the norm over the past 30 years under John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict. There is in some corners a kind of “Stockholm syndrome” as well, as those who work within the church fold can come to identify with their overseers. Above all, I think this extends the “big chill” not only on Catholic theology but on all kinds of discussion and debate within the church. Conservatives often see themselves as a victimized minority, but in ways large and small, I see church officials and institutions shying away from hiring or inviting to speak anyone who might run afoul of Vatican sensibilities. Religious orders and the Catholic theological community itself seem to be finding ways to accommodate this dynamic, understandably, I guess.
But I think a few points regarding the latest penalty against Roger Haight are important to make:
One is the continuing lack of any due process or the merest nod at some kind of transparency in CDF procedures. “Draconian” is an overheated word. Would “extraordinary rendition” be a more apt and contemporary analogy? No hearings, no explanations, just harsh penalties communicated by indirect means. Wasn’t this was supposed to change?
Two, the ban on teaching even at a non-Catholic school seems particularly broad. Is that unusual? I know the Vatican often punishes Jesuits because they can—because the Jesuits have a particular relationship to the pope (which has been harshly reiterated in recent decades) that enables the pontiff to enforce orders that might be ignored eslewhere. But Charles Curran (a diocesan priest) and others teach at places like SMU without sanction. Moreover, as Union is a Protestant institution (though with a number of Catholic students), who is the Vatican protecting from Haight?
Three, while many will just dismiss this as “business as usual,” actions like these reinforce—and it is not an unfair impression—the view that the Catholic Church is unjust, that it is not a place where one can step out of line (or even know where the line is) without receiving a blind-side smack that comes off as mean-spirited. Does every injustice, like that against Galileo, have to wait five centuries to be rectified? That won’t wash with today’s Christians. Moreover, this kind of action seems to undercut Benedict’s focus on love and charity and the beauty of the Catholic faith. Catholics and non-Catholics will measure Benedict’s words against his actions, and many will see a disparity that can only hurt his credibility (and that of the wider church) in trying to point out the failings of the world beyond the Vatican precincts.
Read NCR’s 2005 analysis of the original Haight ruling here.
on January 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I had the privilege of studying with Father Haight at Weston, and am saddened to hear this news. He is an excellent teacher whose lectures were carefully prepared, always lucid and cogent. He never condescended to students and was modest and respectful even of those who had ideological disagreements with him. Father Haight taught me to think theologically, a gift I will always cherish. Even though he has become a straw man for people critical of his project of making Catholic theology coherent to a post-Modern world, he is clearly motivated by a commitment and service to the Church. I hope he will be comforted by the prayers of people at this time of his silencing. I can’t speak to what this means in terms of Church polity, but I am sorry that future students will miss such a dedicated teacher.
on January 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I agree both with David and Rachelle. Roger is a theologian who can raise provocative questions. But questions that should and must be brought up in today’s world. And nobody
can detract from his dedication to his students and his desire to see them develop their understanding to its fullest potential.
Apparently, thinking outside of the tight, little box that the Vatican builds around its intellectuals, is a major transgression. In past centuries, decades– thinkers, scientists, theologians, etc. could be silenced and most people would not know it. Today, that’s not the case. But the Vatican also seems to be unfazed by any criticism leveled at, not only its
fear of diversity, but also its methodology in achieving it. And although they would really learn much, I don’t believe that the Pope, or any one on the Curia—-or even most bishops bother to read Commonwealmagazine. And it is their loss.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 5:24 am
I had to register just to reply to the comment referring to the Church as a “tight, little box.” Thomas Aquinas to Thomas Merton, and more … no tight little box there. As for Galileo,
give that one a rest. Galileo continued to publish speculative works of science and remained in the Church to the end of his life. The magisterium has a duty and a right to protect the Catholic “brand.” I am sure that Father Haight and the Jesuit order is fully informed of the reasons for the judgement against him. The Congregation for Doctrine does not act lightly or without due diligence in theological matters and they have plenty of evidence in the form of published texts to work from.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 7:19 am
Roger Haight has to be one of the most creative contemporary theologians we have. I have great respect for him and deep appreciation for his work. What a shame the CDF is so terribly out of touch with contemporary faith and life.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
In the years following Vatican II, Paul VI, himself a veteran member of the Roman Curia, attempted to reform the Roman Curia. The first session of Vatican II had revealed, as the bishops struggled with schemas prepared by Curial officials, that the Curia had become a law unto itself, its members entrenched for years, outlasting even the Popes they “served”! Paul managed to change some of the curial offices and even the titles, e.g., “Holy Office” became the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
This latest move of the CDF against Fr. Roger Haight simply confirms that the “Holy Office” is alive and well, sadly with the protection of Benedict XIV. Is there a hammer inside the velvet glove?
How different things might be if we had Church leaders who emerged from the Pastors of the Church, rather than “office boys” from the Roman Curia! To paraphrase a catchy slogan about Christianity, “Vatican II has not failed; it is has never really been tried!
on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:28 am
Sorry. I meant Benedict XVI.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
“…because the Jesuits have a particular relationship to the pope.”
Maybe it’s time for the Jesuits to sever this “particular relationship to the pope.”
The theocons would be happy, and the Catholic — and wider — Christian community would be able to benefit from the insights of Haight and others who “think outside the box.”
In this instance and many, no doubt, like it, the word “obedience” can be translated as “enabling” — as in enabling continuing dysfunctional behaviors of a sick church.
Really, why should anyone be surprised by this Vatican treatment of a theologian???
on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 am
I’d venture a wild guess that if Haight stepped away from the priesthood and the Jesuits, he could teach anywhere he wanted to.
Why he continues in the priesthood – a role in which he, according to the Church in which he was ordained by his own free will, stands in a particular symbolic way for the person and ministry of Christ, particularly in offering the sacrifice of the Mass – all of which it seems he thinks is BS in the way the Church formulates it – is beyond me.
What I see in these Vatican efforts is very logical. The Christologists whose work is questioned are all priests – while I am sure there are Catholic laity doing similar work, perhaps even teaching in Catholic institutions.
I’m more interested in the troubles and tragedies afflicting those around the world – in Iraq, in China, and so on – who are dying and being persecuted because of their love for Jesus Christ – rather than this privileged fellow who seems to be using his position to parse the Gospel and its passion out of significance.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am
“The Holy Office is alive and well” Deo gratias!
I’ve long wondered why so many seem to be sidelining the Holy See by labeling her by her political name “The Vatican”. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider times you may have been pleased to see a similar action by the Holy See, e.g. Fr. Feeney.
Anyway – it may be religious theologians, themselves, who need these medicinal penalties the most. After all, their salvation is of concern to the Church, there is the risk of scandal, and it is they who best understand the virtue and their own vow of obedience.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
Jesus was not obedient to the authorities when they abandoned their principles. Prophets have always called for a return to spirit and will of God. Haight and other theologians and historians like him, Johnson, Schussler-Fiorenza, Kung, Curran, Radford, are really the concscience of the church. They are a reminder to other theologians that their charism is one of dedication to the truth, not irrelevant obedience.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
Thanks for an excellent post. Just one caveat. At one point you use this language: “the view that the Catholic Church is unjust”. This can only be the right way of putting the point if one totally identifies the Pope and the curia with the Catholic Church. I think we should resist this identification. It gives the Church a bad name. The arrogance of Rome has a long and unhappy history.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
It seems that Jesus modled obedience for us many times. He also obeyed the mosaic law though He, Himself, was not subject to it. The mystery we just celebrated on the Sol. of Mary/circumcision is a good example of this.
There are prophets in the Church today. Benedict XVI may be one of them. The solemnity just past referred to Anna, the prophetess who served in the temple and spent her time in prayer and fasting. It is a good thing that we have the Church to discern for us “between deception and truth” (Benedict XVI 2005). Recall the pope warned us about those who would treat us as children “toss(ing) (us) about by the waves and carr(ying) (us) here and there by every wind of doctrine” (2005). To the contrary, we should be and behave like adults in the Church by virtue of our confirmation – we should not be embarassed when “having a clear faith according to the Church’s creed is … labeled fundamentalism” (2005).
on January 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
Some yahoo writer published this letter to the editor in some not so yahoo Catholic magazine a few years ago. Rumor has it that the yahoo writer is unrepentant (you have to scroll down a bit to read the letter):
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5892792_ITM
on January 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
Whoops. For the entire letter, try this link:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Haight’s+Christology-a0146215333
on January 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Gar! One more try:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Haight’s+Christology-a0146215333
on January 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
I kept hoping against hope (words I deliberately choose) that the New Year would bring a sign of moving forward and healing division in the Church.
Three days in, another peg in the division along lines long discussed here.
Quick note to Lester: Leonard Feeney was many moons ago at a different setting; now BXVI and friends are bending over backwards to try to lure in the Lefevre folk.
I feel myself continually being pulled away more from a Church where leadership is out of balance -i say that both in my parish and for the Church in the US and in Rome.
I can appreciate what Joe G. is saying, the Church is far more than the curials and their adulators; and, as some of the comments here attest, there are still many thoughtful folk who care about our faith who will not drift.
Still, it would be nice to have some sign of hope….
on January 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
David,
I’m wondering if the Haight affair as presented here isn’t a bit slanted by what’s not being said.
I have it on good authority that CDF’s actions in this matter are not as punitive and unilateral as your post might lead us to believe. It’s my understanding that CDF’s actions are the culmination of a process that began among the Jesuits themselves, on the province level. Do you have information on that (Jesuit) process? Might your unnamed Jesuit source be able to shed some light?
on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“After all, their [Haight et al's] salvation is of concern to the Church.”
So these theologians have not — and will not — be saved by God???
The only thing of “concern” to the Church (read: Vatican here) is control. Nothing more, nothing less. (After all, WE are the Church.)
I have a growing suspicion that God is bigger and better than some of us give him credit for. I suspect God likes creativity in thought about his nature and his relationship to man. Indeed, I’ve told folks that in our secularist society, God probably appreciates the fact that we think of him at all!
“It seems that Jesus modeled obedience for us many times.”
Yes, and he also demonstrated common sense in the face of religious leaders who tended to read him the riot act for supposedly violating Jewish laws.
As for Benedict’s warning us about “those who would treat us as children,” those who live in glass houses should not throw stones!
on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
It is not the Catholic Church that is unjust. The Catholic Church is you and me, the millions of people who describe themselves as Roman Catholics, with Jesus as our head.
We are witnessing the unjust acts of a few paranoid men who hold as much power as we give them. I see a sort of sickness reigning in the Vatican — old men who are blind to the signs of the times.
But the Catholic Church is infinitely wider and greater than these few minds.
As long as we let them be unjust, injustice, fear, and cowardice will reign. Paul wrote that we have not been given the spirit of slaves, but that of God’s children… This remains to be seen. Hopefully some day soon, the Body of Christ will rise against the oppressors within. Until then…
on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Richard Smith: My understanding was that this came from Rome, as a further step in their investigation/trial against Haight. I talked to several people and all indicated that the province was informed after the fact. Naturally the Society went along with the Vatican decision. I will check further, as what I know is what I have written above. I am leery of efforts to deflect responsibility from the CDF, as that was a canard that was spread about to absolve Ratzinger/Benedict in l’affaire Reese, when in fact that too was direct from Rome.
Jude Gentile (be interested in the explainer on that pseudonym!): Aquinas was investigated by the church for questions of orthodoxy (and then his thinking fossilized by centuries of orthodoxy) and Merton was silenced six centuries later. Not sure how that absolves the Vatican in this issue. Yes, heavy-handed measures are part of the church’s history, but so was capital punishment, until the nineteenth century. I’m not sure we’d want to bring that back.
As for trusting the Vatican to know best, how does history or this particular case buttress that unsupported opinion? It would seem the oppostie to me.
Mark, as for you unsupported ad hominem attack, knock it off. Declaring Haight’s theology “BS” is out of bounds, and questioning his priestly vocation is way above your pay grade, I think it’s safe to say. In any case, you have a weak understanding of the sacrament of ordination if you think it’s something you change like underwear.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
…I withhold my contributions!
on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
The point that the Catholic Church per se is not unjust is well taken. Yet while I agree we are all the Church, I wouldn’t go so far as to declare us all more saintly than Rome, though I suspect we might be. What I said above, and what I think is undoubtedly true, is that the world–and many in the Church–equate Rome/the Vatican/the Holy See/the Pope with “the Catholic Church,” and so these episodes further that view.
It is also an impression we ourselves contribute to when we do not speak out on issues like these. Obviously many within the church cannot or will not. And many of those who could speak out have left or become dispirited or uninterested.
PS: Re “the Church,” this discussion–for another time–veers into the ecclesiological version of the Christology dispute over Christ’s nature, in that there is an indefectible Church (too often conflated with the institution, as Avery Dulles noted) and a very defectible Church (too often conflated with the institution, as Avery Dulles noted). Which one is acting when and where is a choice we all tend to make depending on our personal views on a particular matter.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Not even cut and paste works! So I shall retype.
“Pitty the poor Christian who makes the mistake of being inspired by Roger Haight’s “Christology from below.” For as John Garvey tells us in his review of Haight’s The Future of Christology (”Malnourished,” Commonweal, April 7) such theology would not move us “to cross the street for it, much less live or die for it.” Perhaps Garvey could explain what he means to those of us who find inspiration in the Didache, or “Rule of the Apostles,” the oldest noncanonical Christian text. Here we read of the ways of life and the ways of death, but we also read of Jesus who is called the “child” or “servant” in exactly the same way that David is referred to with these terms [addition to original: see Didache 9:2, if anything Jesus is subordinate to David in this verse]. There is no hint of “Christology from above” in this text, but the Christian life described is far from the “thin soup” that Garvey finds in Haight.
Garvey’s claim that Haight’s Christology cannot account for theosis is as much a non sequitur now as when Athanasius made the argument. The possibility of deification does not vanish when one employs “Christology from below.” Haight and others have forced us to confront the real possibility that an important change in meaning to place between the time when a Jew familiar with Psalm 2:7 called Jesus the “Son of God” and when a Greek-speaking Gentile who had no familiarity with the Jewish world also used the phrase to describe Jesus. If Garvey’s method of theology-as-insult is the best that high Christology can muster, then perhaps Haight’s work has a brighter future than some suggest.”
Joe Pettit, Baltimore
on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Mr. McKernan–
How do you reconcile Pope Benedict’s “clear faith” criterion with St. Paul’s insistence that in this world we see “as in a glass darkly”? This is not a rhetorical question. The claims of clarity from the Holy Office extend far back in Church history, and in my opinion these claims are at the root of the “liberal/conservative divide.
Where in Scripture.or Tradition are we promised clarity? (And is there a clear answer to this question?)
on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Speaking of Avery Dulles, I just read Richard McBrien’s tribute to the late cardinal in his latest column, which bears on this discussion. McBrien notes, in part:
on January 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
It’s not ad hominem. It’s a legitimate question – first, why priests are the target of CDF and not lay theologians – and secondly, how a priest who teaches that the Gospel is essentially a metaphor for God’s self-communication characterizes his own identity as an ordained priest and what he’s doing when he celebrates the sacraments.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Mark, don’t be disingenuous. Calling someone’s arguments BS and questioning his vocation are ad hominem.
As to why priests are a target, the answer in large is that they are within the Vatican’s jurisdiction in a way lay theologians are not. And Jesuits more than other priests.
Your characterization of Haight’s work, however deep or slight, does not address the issue of the Vatican’s treatment of theologians. Is this process a just one? A Christian one?
on January 3rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I agree with Anne about ’seeing in a glass darkly’.
Pope Benedict XVI has made it a major theme of his understanding of revelation that God acts in accordance with reason. He even criticized Dons Scotus for his (in Benedict’s mind) slight voluntarist drift.
If faith enlightened by reason has such universal appeal, then why does the Church need to resort to silencing, punishments, etc. , etc. ? Shouldn’t reason be able to carry the day ?
This current issue is a symbol and symptom of a larger issue. It is not so much the substance of Haight’s work which is at issue, IMO, it is the exercise of the Church’s power.
I think what the Church needs more broadly is a sustained postmodern critique of its power structure with respect the discourses (i.e. deposit of faith) it is guardian of?
Max Weber wrote about the development of bureaucracy as the most rational and just form of organization for the 20 the century. It corresponded, he believed, with the impulse of the Modern project in terms of rationality and reason.
Weber discussed power and authority and believed that force and threat of force were justified in order to maintain the bureaucratic structure which is, presumably, predicated on reason.
Maybe Weber is right and maybe he is wrong. But the question, for Christians, I would think is what was Jesus’ understanding of organization. He outlined it in Matthew 20:25 and other similar gospels.
Tension and difference is unavoidable. The issue, for leadership, is how to address it.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
George D–
True — reason can take us only so far. Logic guarantee only that IF our premiseps are true and IF our reasoning is valid then and only then can we be confident of our conclusions. As I see it, from a practical point of view reason is mainly useful in showing up contradictions in ourcown and other people’s thinking, that is, in showing us that something must be wrong with our premises somewhere.
It seems to me that Benedict, like John Paul II, claims that his views are rationale, but offers precious little evidence in support of those views. In other words he doesn’t t seem to see the necessity to warrant his premises.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I feel grateful to have been spared in my education the currents and cross-currents of recent theological work. I tend to rely on the Baltimore Catechism. [I keep the recent Catechism - not the Dutch one - for reading during dull sermons].
From what I can tell in the discussions here as elsewhere, Fr. Haight seems to have been caught up in a linguistic web, much as one might be caught in a rip-tide. I take but the one statement:
“[Fr.] Haight treats the Trinity and the preexistence of Christ as “symbols” of God’s activity, remaining tentative about whether they are actual persons or states of being”.
If that be the case, what does he thin k when he celebrates the Mass? Is the Host the Body of Our Lord, or not?
A little reading of Newman seems in order, for this as for the many posters who are dubious about the Holy Father, to whom, writes Newman, we owe in obedience our acceptance of his statements.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
As for Galileo, give that one a rest. Galileo continued to publish speculative works of science and remained in the Church to the end of his life.
Yes — under perpetual house arrest and forbidden to publish any scientific speculations having to do with Copernicanism or anything else the Magisterium believed was against Church doctrine. But at least the Magisterium didn’t see fit to protect the Church “brand” by subjecting him to the fate of Giordano Bruno. In any event, the comparison the the article seems quite apt.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Mark . . . Declaring Haight’s theology “BS” is out of bounds, and questioning his priestly vocation is way above your pay grade, I think it’s safe to say.
Leave aside the blatant misreading of Mark’s comment (which did not characterize Haight’s theology as “BS”). Would it also be fair to say that comparing the Vatican to 1) kidnappers (i.e., the reference to Stockholm Syndrome) and 2) torturers (the reference to extraordinary rendition) is above your pay grade?
on January 3rd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Mr.Austin–
Abput “acceptance of statements” — what does that mean?
One of my prized possessions (i keep it in my bank box) is my great grandmother’s Gaelic Catechism. Do I “accept” it’s statements?
And whose statements are they? The nineteenth century Irish bishops’? The Church’s statements? What does “the Church” mean there? Does “the Church” always mean the same thing? And here’s my favorite question about all this: does the Church always mean the same thing whhen it mskes a statement over and over?
Human language is so terribly complex it is very difficult to even talk about it. So it is np wonder to me at all at all that theologians should find discussion of the Word and His teachings terribly, terribly difficult and prone to error on all sides.
As to accepting what “the Pope” says in obedience, what do you mean be “the Pope”? There have been hundreds of them, and their teachings have not been cconsistent.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Mark seemed only to be describing his perception that to Fr. Haight, the traditional formulations of priesthood and the sacrifice of the altar are well – wrong. Mark’s indelicate language appears to carry less vitriol than that directed toward the Roman hierarchy by others here on the Commonweal blog.
Mark’s reference, while indelicate, carries some substance considering the Holy See’s evaluation of Fr. Haight’s work.
Thomas Rausch, (I wonder if he might be related to a late bishop of Phoenix) of Loyola Marymont, LA, describes Haight as having “a “unitarian” understanding of God” – this unitarian understanding of God would lead to a diminished concept of the Logos reducing Him to something metaphorical. Rausch also points out that Haight denied the preexistence and incarnation of the Word as well as the divinity of Jesus in “Jesus/Symbol”. The 2004 “Notification” addressed those areas but also considered the matter of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice and Haight’s position on that central dogma of our faith. The Church believes in “the universal salvific value” of the cross. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of this cross and we with Mark should wonder – what is the priesthood apart from the Holy Mass? If Haight really believes what he wrote in “Jesus Symbol of God” that “the idea of the death of Jesus as “a sacrificial death, an atoning death, a redeeming death” is merely the result of a gradual interpretation by his(sic) followers in light of the Old Testament” (cf. p. 85) than Mark is not too far a field in wondering just what Haight’s interpretation of the New Testament priesthood really is. At the very least it could not be a standard one because without the Trinity, without the preexistent Word, without the incarnation, without the divinity of Jesus, and without the sacrifice of the cross – what is left of one’s ministerial priesthood?
on January 3rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Without getting into the details of Haight’s theological works, would like to take a look at this response.
This is an unfortunate step. Would propose a theme that has been running across a number of the recent posts – torture via Bush presidency; original sin and Milgram’s research; etc.
Completed a recent book called Moral Clarity. The writer examined the works of Hannah Arnedt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, Milgram and Zibardo’s works, the Enlightenment thinkers on morality, good/evil. Allow me to briefly summarize:
a) Arnedt argued that 5% of evil is truly intentional, from people who are truly evil e.g. Nazis, pedophiles,etc.;
b) Makes a distinction between intended, deliberate evil and the morality of many human actions e.g. Nuremburg defense that we “followed orders” – intent may have been good; some may have done so to protect family, etc. but the end result was evil;
c) 90% of the time you must look at the situation that impacts the evil – despite good intentions, moral people, ethical people, evil exists and happens e.g. Nazism, Russian gulag, genocide around the world, Vietnam, Abu Grahaib as examples;
d) yet, she ends with the 5% of those remarkable individuals whose actions are truly good – they do not follow the crowd, they do not let the situation cancel their responsibility to do good e.g. Schindler, various thinkers/writers, could add some saints/theologians to her list. Somehow, good triumphs over evil even when the deck is stacked against it.
Given this interesting proposition of evil and morality, would suggest that we take a hard look at the church and its actions. Most would agree that the church tries to do good, attack evil and yet look at:
a) sexual abuse – pedophiles may be evil but the church has permitted, abetted, and at times protected the evil. Given this situation, are we, “the church”, complicit in evil because we do nothing. Bishops have justified that the reputation of the church came first; or that the church must be defended; or that priests must be given the benefit of the doubt. What happens to the victims? Are we, the people of the church, not also victims? How are we any different from a middle class German family in 1938?
b) Roman Curia, church politics, church finances – it appears that most church pronouncements defend historical dogmas, their version of tradition, power structures that have been in place for centuries. But, what does any of this have to do with the gospel call?
Some will say that I am over-reaching and that I miss the point. I wonder; am often concerned that by passively watching I enable evil (not deliberate, not intended, but evil nonetheless).
Will end with the final scenes in the movie Frost/Nixon. There you have Richard Nixon, obviously paranoid, blaming others, hypocritical, with his health failing, his mental abilities – well, probably the face of a mentally ill man. Finally, stating that as president he had the right to do criminal actions; and he refused to apologize for that. But, yes, in the long run he hurt American democracy and the people. I look at many retiring bishops and see the same type of face – etched with regret; hidden pains; almost like the face of someone grieving a death – their own mental/spiritiual death. All in the name of the institution.
Is Haight more like the 5% that Arnedt studied? Or will he be silenced and penalized by the institution because he did not show loyalty – is that the final good?
on January 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Ann O.,
“Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (KJV). Paul recognized that in this life there is always more that each of us can learn about God. Fortunately, as any Jesuit teacher would tell us, we are not left alone in this work and we need not worry about being carried away “by every wind of doctrine” because the Bible is read within the clear light of tradition under the guidance of our Magisterium.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I really think it time that most of us stop deluding ourselves that “we are the church,” Vatican II documents notwithstanding. I myself have repeated this bromide for way too many years, but, having eaten enough Catholic pudding, I have to come to see the truth hidden therein.
When it comes to discipline or doctrine, “we” have nothing to do with it! Our input is neither sought nor appreciated when offered (VOTF, anyone?) There is a clear Catholic Berlin Wall between the ordained and the rest of us. Even on the clerical side of the wall, there is a No Man’s Land, laced with minefields that are designed to disfigure and, if necessary, destroy those who haven’t trod a carefully (but not necessarily clearly) plotted path through an apprenticeship until ordination into the hierarchy has been attained. It’s like becoming a 33rd degree Mason, but not following so benign a path. By the time the few, the proud and the chosen reach the rank of bishop, they are such good little company men and are virtually harmless and not expected to be courageous. The few Geoffrey Robinsons and Thomas Gumbledons that do awaken from their slumbers are dealt with by means of shunning, at best.
The part of this all that is most shameful is that the current structure simply does not seem to fit what we know about how Christ treated his followers, nor how the early Church was organized.
“We” have no say in
1.who will command (I dare not say “lead”) us;
2.how they advance in their careers;
3.where they will be assigned;
4.how they will treat “us” when they are put in charge;
5.how we can get out from under despotic rulers;
6.how we can test what we think might be a vocation if “we” don’t match what “they” think constitutes membership in this ontologically favored society.
We neither have the opportunity to vote anyone into power nor to vote them out. We are, however, expected to be satisfied with taxation without representation! The ONLY vote we have is a financial one. However, most people left in the pews are those who are either resigned to the status quo or who don’t really care one way or another. One dollar a Sunday is a small price to pay to get one’s ticket punched for another week. Those who are serious about what they see as abuses are either slapped down or leave altogether.
“We” may be the People of God, but “we” are definitely NOT the Church!
on January 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Stuart,
Are you defending this statement by Mark in full?
To take a page from the book of several dotCom come-latelies: how many of the CDF’s defenders here have seen blog commentators refer to any of the pope’s writings, etc., as “BS”? I’m afraid I’ve lost patience with this tactic. Focus on the issue, or don’t bother commenting here.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Are you misreading that comment in the same way as Mr. Gibson did? That comment wasn’t referring to Haight’s writings as “BS.” Instead, Mark clearly wrote that judging from Haight’s writings, Haight himself seems to think of the Church’s traditional teachings about Christ as “BS.” In other words, the comment imputing a particular view to Haight (that the Church’s teachings are “BS”). I don’t think it’s possible to read that comment any other way.
Now such a comment might be too earthy for sensitive folks, but judging from the previous notification as to Haight, it does seem that Haight pretty firmly disagrees with Church teaching as to the nature of Christianity, the nature of Christ’s consubstantiality with the Father, the doctrine of the Trinity, the salvific value of Christ’s death, and more. Perhaps the CDF is all wrong (I suppose that’s a question that’s above my pay grade). Do you have a view that you could share?
on January 3rd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
see from my perspective and that being a convert to the Roman catholic faith from Protestantism, the Presbyterian church. Fr. Haight seems to be writing as I see from a Protestant view. In that they believe in Sola scriptura, they also decide for themselves what the Bible means. They have no authority and each denomination have deffierent beliefs. This and reading the fathers of the Church is why I converted. You can go into each church and find a different teaching and each person has different ideas. As some of my older Protestant friends say too many read to deeply into scripture. In fact a friend of mine who is 75 remainded me more folks need to have the faith of a child. The Pope and Magisterium are our authority from the Holy Spirit. I know that some have trouble with this teaching also but we each do not have the same understanding as the Pope and Magisterium. To some much is given and expected, our lives are not our own we belong to God and he will guide us. Sometimes we need to be reminded of this, Fr. Haight is a teaching authority in the Catholic Church he is then has a responsibity the CDF as the Pope has one to God as being God’s vicar on earth.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I’m only halfway through my happy-hour Great Lakes Christmas Ale (highly recommended), but I don’t see it. I see an egregious swipe at the man’s vocation–no textual grounding whatsoever.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
The vitriol is much more heated toward the Holy See than anything we’ve seen from any one here who appreciates the work of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We all know that references to the hierarchy, the curia, and “old men” are also references to our Holy Father who is head of the curia, part of the hierarchy and who is also an older man. Grant asked: How many of the CDF’s defenders here have seen blog commentators refer to any of the pope’s writings, etc. as “BS”? I don’t think anyone referred to Haight’s writings as “BS” but leaving that aside we’ve seen some vitriol here including:
1. the CDF is … out of touch with contemporary faith and life.
2. (Church leaders are) office boys” from the Roman Curia
3. Dysfunctional … sick church
4. (the) arrogance of Rome
5. the unjust acts of a few paranoid men
One could have some amusement and talk about arrogance from (tenured) theologians lay or clerical, the unjust actions carried out by those who give or withhold tenure, the “office boy” network within university departments, the possibility that tenured profs. are frequently out-of-touch with just about everyone and everything – but alas…that would not be charitable.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
re. # 5 the comment actually referenced “a few paranoid, sick, blind, old men” – I forgot “old” and “blind” in the original above.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Grant — you’re not seeing what? The antecedent of your pronoun is unclear.
In any event, it isn’t just Mark Johnson or the despised Vatican that has questioned Haight’s work. From the linked NCR article:
on January 3rd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
It might be worth while to consider the fact that Fr. Haight has not commented on this decision of the CDF and has apparently subjected himself to it in obedience. To question his vocation in light the way he has conducted himself in this matter is beyond the pale. The evidence shows that he is a loyal son of the Church, as he has always been. I wonder how many of his detractors in this post can imagine how difficult a moment this is for him and for the Society of Jesus. Any suggestion that the CDF’s action against Fr. Haight began in his own province, and that the CDF somehow or other acquiesced in the wishes of his superiors shows a profound lack of understanding of the Society of jesus, of religious life in general, and of the CDF itself. Perhaps it is best to leave this matter as personal to Fr. Haight and his fellow Jesuits and to show some simple respect.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Reference was made in a post above to one of Fr. Thomas Rausch’s comments on Fr. Haight’s book, “Jesus: Symbol of God.” As someone who has read and enjoyed many of Fr. Rausch’s books, I thought it would be appropriate to provide a link to the 2005 piece containing Fr. Rausch’s comprehensive comments about Fr. Haight’s book. As you’ll see, there are aspects of the book that Fr. Rausch admires and aspects that he is critical of.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3246
on January 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Mr.McKeenan–
First you appeal to tv clarity of faith, a clarity even St. Paul could not find. Now you appeal to the clarity of tradition. What clarity of tradition? It is even murkier than pronouncements of individual popes. Tradition is •History•. History is grounded on the accuracy and wisdom of historians, and, like the popes, they too contradict each other.
I’m not making a plea for theological skepticism. What I urge is that we all show proper humility in the face of our own intellectual and linguistic deficiencies, and I include the popes and bishopscand theologians of all stripes in that “we”. Yes, we have the means to some truths — the Scriptures and, Tradtlition. Yes, the Holy Spirit will help us see at least some of the truth the HS intends in thosd soirces. And will see it more clearly clearly than we would have seen it had we been left without such help.
As for Fr. Haight, from what I’ve read of his views, he certainly does seem to hold a number of quite heretical views. And I do not excuse his mistakes by appealing to his sincerity or holiness. But I also cannot believe that as an honest person as he seems to be has nothing at all to offer the Churcwe most assuredly can learn from mistakes, including I suspect, his.
What I don’t understand is the Vatican’s intellectual fears.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
If you say that Jesus is purely human but is God’s personification on earth, you do not invalidate God. The Eucharist is a celebration of our being reconciled with God through love of God and neighbor. It is not an adorational act but rather a celebration of God’s love for us through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The Eucharist is a celebration in which we practice humility and give all the credit to God and desire to serve others. The Eucharist is a celebration of God’s people, not a glorification of miters and red hats. This is what Haight is pointing out. Not the preoccupation, since the fourth century, of preserving a power structure which has practiced domination, not the humility the gospels call for.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
For imformation on the Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there are two great websites that explain these:
1. New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
2. Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J,THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html
They have many good aticles
on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Stuart: I don’t see your point. In other words: I think you’re wrong. But I’m not too interested in performing exegesis on Mark’s swipe. Or Lester’s scorecard.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Robin, I think everyone here is pretty well up on the Real Presence. And I believe your link is to the 1917 encylopedia, which has its limitations.
I am amazed, as always, at the reflex to attack someone’s arguments–in this case Fr. Haight’s–by attacking the person. How does that fit in with the Christian faith the these ostensibly “orthodox” critics espouse? At what point does someone’s arguments (in this case Fr. haight’s) give one license to unleash personal attacks?
Let me ask a simpler question first: There are many arguments for and against–probably many more against–aspects of Fr. Haight’s Christology. Does he deserve an explanation from Rome before he is barred from teaching anywhere or writing?
on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Jude, Mark, Lester — your attitude is exactly the reason why the CDF, like so many other persecutors of thought-crime, can proceed with impunity. The Church has always had its willing executioners.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
It is very obvious that the Vatican is in a rut where Christology is concerned. It has failed dismally to produce a convincing translation or articulation of the classical doctrines — and instead has been lashing out at anyone who tries to discuss the problem, ever since 1973 or so. Recall Schoonenberg, Schillebeeckx, Georges Morel (fired from the Jesuits for his fisking of Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity, Pohier, back in the time of Paul VI.
on January 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Grant — it still is completely unclear whether you disagree with my interpretation of how Mark used the term “BS” (that doesn’t seem likely, as my interpretation is the only conceivable grammatical interpretation); or with what the previous notification as to Haight said; or as to what your own magazine has said about Haight; or what. If you ever pin down a precise thought here, perhaps you could write it down.
David — I’d agree that Haight deserves an explanation from Rome, although I don’t see any evidence besides your say-so that he hasn’t gotten such an explanation. Am I missing something?
on January 3rd, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Mr. Gibson I apoligize I thought I was on a Catholic website, I should not assume. I was not attacking Father. I really did believe that Jesus was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow I guess the Catholic Catechism is wrong. It is amazing that I can have these conversations with my Protestant friends as they do not jump down my throat. We accually discuss these issues. Also where I come from in New Jersey the Priests even discuss issues with charity it is amazing. It can be interesting and we learn alot. Well God Bless and Happy New Year!!
on January 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Mr. Gibson I have been thinking about what you said, no some of the foot notes are from 1911. Since when did the truthes of our faith change? Please let me know, it was the protestant churhes that left Jesus’s Church and made thier own truthes after the reformation.
From New Advent:
APA citation. Pohle, J. (1911). Sacrifice of the Mass. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 3, 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
MLA citation. Pohle, Joseph. “Sacrifice of the Mass.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 3 Jan. 2009 .
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Joseph P. Thomas. In Memory of Fr. Joseph Paredom M.C.B.S.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can’t reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
on January 4th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Perhaps Mark should have used the word baloney instead.
on January 4th, 2009 at 1:25 am
When Jesus asks His disciples, “Who do you say that I am”, Simon Peter answered, “You are The Christ, the Son of the Living God.” To which Jesus replied, “Blessed are you Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven.” (Matthew 1:15)
Simon Peter did not say, “You are the symbol of the Living God.”
on January 4th, 2009 at 3:42 am
I was born in 1939 in Austria. I can still see my parents in the 1940s, hovering close to the radio set, listening intently to unintelligible words in a foreign language–forbidden words in a forbidden language. All of us were terrified. Any moment, the wrong person might open the door and we might be arrested because they had allowed forbidden ideas to be heard and considered. Years later, as I read of the Thought Police and thoughtcrime in Orwell’s 1984 I remembered those times, but I also came to realize that ironically the Vatican, intent on re-establishing the 19th century garrison church of enforced uniformity, has come to represent an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, squashing dissent, stifling freedom of inquiry, ferreting out thought-criminals, and doing so in direct violation of the magnificent principles of religious liberty and human dignity affirmed by the Second Vatican Council – but generally applied primarily to institutions other than the church itself. How tragic! Will we ever learn????
on January 4th, 2009 at 4:17 am
A lot of the problem is that most Catholics have a naive and literalistic faith and just cannot get a handle on theological language. The Vatican invests totally in that naive faith, and caricatures theologians systematically (as in the snide remarks on exegesis in the Pope’s Jesus book, or the utterly biased documents on Liberation Theology). An example of naive faith is provided here by this remark:
When Jesus asks His disciples, “Who do you say that I am”, Simon Peter answered, “You are The Christ, the Son of the Living God.” To which Jesus replied, “Blessed are you Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven.” (Matthew 1:15)
Simon Peter did not say, “You are the symbol of the Living God.”
Apart from the incorrect biblical reference, and the non-historicity of the scene (which is Matthew’s rewriting of a scene in Mark — a scene reflective of Nark’s theology), the words “Son of the living God” are here a Nessianic title, not a statement of ontology. The word symbol, again, need not have the reductive sense — Haight, I think, appeals to fellow-Jesuit Karl Rahner’s idea of a Real-Symbol developed in connection with the Sacred Heart.
The simple faithful do not of course read the theologians incriminated by the Vatican. They accept the Vatican’s ukazes and add their own pinch of zealous venom. It was ever thus. People line the streets to see heretics burnt in the past, and thought they were gaining merit thereby.
on January 4th, 2009 at 4:21 am
More naivety:
“Since when did the truths of our faith change? Please let me know, it was the protestant churches that left Jesus’s Church and made theer own truths after the reformation.”
Sad sectarianism, for which the ecumenical movement does not exist, nor John XXIII’s Vatican II programmatic statement, that the truth of faith does not change, but its expression, the timebound language and conceptuality used, does and should change.
This is what Catholic education attempted to remedy after Vatican II, and it did produce many enlightened and historically conscious Catholics. Since Humanae Vitae however the Vatican has been in panicky nanny mode and has replaced education with indoctrination again, or with brainwashing.
on January 4th, 2009 at 4:27 am
The way to correct bad theology is by open discussion in which the best comes to the top. The Vatican, instead, are stamping out such discussion. They should not be surprised, then, if incredible extremes of New Age superstition are running rife in the Church, alongside zany devotionalism and culture-war fundamentalism. If you cut off the oxygen you must expect people to die of suffocation and to twist and twitch horribly as they are doing so.
on January 4th, 2009 at 8:13 am
I think there are two separate questions:
1. Is Father Haight’s Christology adequate? Here, it seems to me that full and vigorous debate is important–John Cavadini raises important questions about it. That’s what academic theologians do. Discussion, debate, etc. are par for the course.
2. If the CDF concludes that a theologian’s views are not accordance with Catholic Christology, what responses are appropriate in the contemporary era, especially in a democratic society which values norms of free speech and inquiry?
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Gutiérrez, Segundo, Sobrino, Ellacuría
Latin American Liberation Theology
Two fundamental elements reflect the essential logic of liberation
theology. The first is negative experience, which leads to an
awareness of the dehumanized condition of large numbers of people.
The experience has three dimensions: a situation is wrong; we know it
could and should be different; the contrast fuels an urge to right
the wrong. What does Christian theology say to this situation?
The second fundamental element of liberation theology seeks to answer
that question. The response appears embryonically in Luke’s parable
of the Good Samaritan, which can be read as dramatizing the principle
that love of God is displayed as love of neighbor. The truth of the
principle is conveyed with climactic force by the shocking fact that
only the Samaritan had internalized it. Modernity adds a conviction
that beyond tying up the victim’s wounds, true love will make the
road to Jericho safe for all. With this addendum liberation theology
rewrites the parable for the whole world.
Lesson 1. Social practice is an intrinsic dimension of Christian
faith from which one cannot prescind. One of the deepest principles
liberation theology presents to the Christian community is that
action and practice are not just the consequences of faith, but the
intrinsic testimonial of its authenticity. As Ignatius of Loyola
postulated in his Spiritual Exercises, “Love ought to manifest itself
more by deeds than by words” (No. 230). For this love to be effective
and authentic, it must be directed against the causes of human
suffering.
Lesson 2. Social-ethical considerations are intrinsic to theological
understanding. Catholic theology has come to a new realization of the
social ethical implications of Christian faith. After a period of
separation between theology and ethics, theology has recognized the
necessity of accountability. In 1971 the essential link between faith
and justice was written into magisterial teaching when the World
Synod of Bishops wrote that “action on behalf of justice and
participation in the transformation of the world fully appear to us
as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the gospel” (Justice
in the World, Nov. 30, 1971).
~ Roger Haight,SJ, “America”, March 17, 2008
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Christology is a complex discipline. It requires an intricate
balancing act among assertions perennially in tension with one
another. One of my first theology teachers, Brian Daly, S.J.,
emphasized this point in a course tellingly entitled “The
Christological Controversies.” He noted how every orthodox
Christological claim tends toward one or another heresy and needs to
be complemented by other claims. Moreover, this process of
complementing and balancing involves more than rehearsing the facts
of church doctrine, for the language of faith often explodes like a
riot of color in a wild garden or a true poem. As such, Christology
involves evocation. Its arguments turn on the subtlest of metaphors.
And the work is always unfinished. Theology itself has to grow to
stay alive. Theologians betray their vocation if they simply repeat
word-for-word definitions taken from Scripture or doctrine, as if
formulas could contain faith or words exhaust mystery. Every age,
every culture needs to find access to Jesus Christ from within its
own distinctive language and worldview. But the future of theology
does not undermine the importance of its past. Theological growth
needs direction to remain authentically alive. It needs Scripture
(the normative witness to apostolic faith) and the Christological
dogmas formulated by the theologians of the early church.
However, the teachings of Scripture and tradition are not self-
interpreting. For this reason, Christology is not only complex but
dangerous. Even devout believers can lose their way in the thickets
of Christological reasoning. Even clear and apparently unambiguous
statements like “Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ”
need to be interpreted in relation to other statements. Taken in
isolation, without reference to the full humanity of Jesus, this
statement is misleading and potentially harmful. In contrast, the
classic formula developed at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451,
affirms the full divinity and full humanity of the one person, Jesus
Christ, “without confusion, without change, without division, without
separation.” And even this profound and balanced definition is not
the end of the matter, for inquiring minds want to know: How do we
make sense of this?
In the effort to make sense of the language of faith, the choice of
where to begin is crucial because it shapes the way we imagine Jesus.
This, I believe, represents the key difference between the
Christology of Jon Sobrino, S.J.*, and the logic of the Vatican
notification that criticizes his work. The notification implies that
theology should start “from above,” with the Nicene Creed’s
affirmation of Jesus’ divinity (”one in being with the Father”).
Sobrino, by contrast, begins “from below” where the synoptic Gospels
begin, with Jesus as he appeared to his contemporaries (”Is this not
the carpenter’s son?”). The one approach starts with doctrine. The
other begins in history.
On the surface, starting from doctrine appears to be the strongest
way to safeguard the faith. But throughout Christianity’s history, it
is the return to Jesus that consistently protects theology from the
greatest danger of all—the temptation to use its own logic to
misrepresent God. Concern for this danger lies behind the commandment
forbidding false images of God: God cannot be described by analogy to
what we think a god ought to be like. For his part, Sobrino is wary
of the assumption that “we already know what divinity is” when we
apply the term to Jesus. Rather, Jesus reveals what divinity means.
Starting with Jesus and moving from there to an interpretation of his
being the eternal Word of God unmasks the temptation to manipulate
his image (and thereby God’s image) for our own ends.
Furthermore, Sobrino begins with Jesus precisely to “make sense” of
Christian faith in a world burdened by “senseless” suffering,
especially the suffering that results from inhuman poverty and
violent oppression. Starting with Jesus and his scandalous love for
the poor provides the best way today to lead people to authentic
faith in Jesus Christ. It empowers Christians to live as disciples of
Jesus while confirming their claim to be advocates of a universal,
integral justice. Finally, it provides a credible way of holding the
tension between the divine and the human natures of Jesus. Sobrino
directs the imagination to that which is most easily imaginable:
Jesus as he appeared to his contemporaries. He then leads it beyond
its normal limits, as theology must, in order to give a complete
account of Christian hope.
The Vatican notification warns that Sobrino’s method might scandalize
believers who are not sophisticated enough to follow his subtle
theological ascent. If people begin by imagining Jesus in his
humanity, they might remain there, with a “merely human” Jesus. Of
course, a corresponding risk exists for those who start with the
Nicene Creed and utilize a dogmatic imagination. This approach can
lead simple believers into a heretically high Christology like
Docetism, in which Jesus, the Son of God, only appears to be human.
Christology wrestles with difficult questions. In-deed, its own use
of reason can be dangerous. But not every danger can be addressed by
authoritative pronouncements. More-over, while it may be prudent to
warn believers about the possible dangers of Sobrino’s Christology,
it seems equally necessary to call attention to corresponding dangers
in Christologies that begin with Jesus’ divinity. At the very least
it is a mistake to think that Christologies “from below” pose the
only or the greatest danger to Christian faith.
~ Kevin Burke, S.J.,
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Joseph, it seems strained to imagine a call to religious obedience as “persecution of thought crime”. I guess the responsibility of maintaining the integrity of our holy faith appears too remote for some of us to appreciate fully. There exists among some people a remarkably innocent confidence in the indestructibility of the faith – they forget that the promise made to St. Peter does not mean that the Church will not disappear in any specific region or organized sub group (religious order, apostolate, and ministry), or within any individual whether he be a cleric, a religious, or a lay student at an ecumenical seminary.
The “simple” faithful who “naively” hold to the tenets of the faith presented in the catechism or from our tradition strike me as similar to those with a “child-like faith” to whom the kingdom of Heaven belongs. Note that an admonition to avoid giving scandal to these simple faithful follows.
Joseph remarked about the good work of Catholic education after Vatican II that abruptly stopped with the publication of HV. HV was published in 1968 but V2 was only closed in 1965. It seems Joseph that you would grant that the good years of post V2 education lasted for a total of three years and definitely ended before the promulgation of the post V2 Roman Missal in 1969/1970. You would find many ultramontanist allies in your condemnation of most catechetical efforts from 1968 through the 1980s Joseph.
Joseph, you’ve also accused the Holy See (you used the political term “Vatican”) of “brainwashing” her faithful through “indoctrination”. The “indoctrination” you mention is probably a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is a liberal “sectarianism” dimension to your seeming condemnation of an authoritative catechism because the Lutherans and Reformed Protestants have their own catechisms that they use to educate their own adherents. The Anglicans also have a catechism attached to their Book of Common Prayer. This kind of liberal” sectarianism” that interprets religious education as “indoctrination” and “brainwashing” seems to run contrary to the goals of the ecumenical movement and neglects to consider that our adherence to the faith is voluntary. The dissent regularly made on this blog reflects this fact.
The “new age superstition” you reference seems to have come to the surface only in places where authentic Christian devotion and practice have been reduced. I’ve see this most notably among some women religious. Instead of grouping new age superstition alongside Christian devotion as something to be avoided I’d see the latter as the cure for the former.
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Ingrid
I really appreciate your observations about the Vatican thoughtcrime. Repression, regression and control seem to be modo Romano these days…..
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:49 am
If the CDF concludes that a theologian’s views are not accordance with Catholic Christology, what responses are appropriate in the contemporary era, especially in a democratic society which values norms of free speech and inquiry?
A deeper question would be why you’re referring to those norms here. Are we talking about the universal Church? And even within modern America, aren’t private organizations given quite a bit more leeway to decide how their message is going to be presented by official spokespeople? (Non-lawyers should know that the answer is most emphatically yes.)
Thus, pro-choice organizations, pro-life organizations, political activist groups of any stripe, the Boy Scouts, and — yes — churches, are all perfectly within their rights to ask spokespeople to present the message that the group wants, not to contradict that message. Indeed, such a principle, far from undermining “norms of free speech and inquiry,” actually furthers free speech. Free speech would be severely undermined if people weren’t free to form groups of like-minded individuals and then present a unified message to the public.
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:56 am
There is a third related issue from Cathleen”s post. That issue is does the Church even require a body (CDF, Holy Office) whose function it is to impose its form of Orthodoxy on the Christian community.
Pope John Paul II once wrote that unity is not uniformity.
It all goes back to vision of Church. (e.g. primarily organiation or primarily organism). If it is the latter, emergent evolution and some forms of process theology demonstrate that there are natural forms of organization that emerge from (as opposed to Greek forms imposed on) organisms.
As a biologist I am acquinted with likes to say ‘the organism is never wrong’. The CDF can certainly proclaim teach, clarify give its perspective on questions, serve as a critical counterweight but it should trust the entire body as it moves through history.
Scientific theories, constructions might be wrong (including those of the CDF or dare I say even Councils) – but not the organism.
I think it is very, very difficult for the Western/classical mind to grasp and be comfortable with that paradigm.
Simone Weil once said that it is better not to command when one has the authority to do so. I think that is wise advice for the Church leaders (indeed ANYBODY in any leadership position).
on January 4th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Joseph, you are right about the incorrect Biblical reference. Here is the correction:(Matthew 16:13-16)
As Pope John Paul 11 has explained, the synthesis of Mark’s Gospel is the proclamation that Jesus IS the Messiah. Pope John Paul pointed out that even the Roman centurion recognizes Jesus as the Son of God.
“Truly this man was the Son of God.” (MK.15:39)
The purpose of Catholic Theology is to explain and defend the Word of God, not misrepresent the Word. If you start with the Truth, you will always end with the Truth unless you add a false assumption.
on January 4th, 2009 at 10:02 am
That should read, John Paul II.
on January 4th, 2009 at 10:15 am
It is a myth that the ordinary faithful do not question the authority of Rome. A very large percentage, as everyone agrees, practises birth control and goes to communion every Sunday. Probably, twenty five percent of remarried Catholics receive without having an annulment and so on. (It sticks out in my mind that in the early sixties, as seminarians, we were so eager to share with our parents the enlightened theology of birth control, we were surprised to learn that they were way ahead of us in understanding what was to be done.) What is true is that most people choose to ignore priests and bishops rather than confront them.
Kerry Kennedy, daughter of Robert, (divorced wife of Andrew Cuomo) just published a book: “Being Catholic Now.” An interesting read but what jumped out was her mother Ethel’s dislike of the pompousness of the hierarchy, especially if it lacked the preferential option for the poor. Kerry relates how her mother would walk out of church with her whole clan (picture that) if a priest’s homily was longer than ten minutes.
So ordinary Catholics know the deal more than we realize. They dicovered long before it was made into a rallying cry that the people are the church.
on January 4th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Joseph:
“The way to correct bad theology is by open discussion in which the best comes to the top.”
Who decides and what is the criteria?
They should not be surprised, then, if incredible extremes of New Age superstition are running rife in the Church, alongside zany devotionalism and culture-war fundamentalism.
I repeat – who decides and what is the criteria?
on January 4th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Stuart, the word “appropriate” was meant to suggest that no particular response was legally required. The Vatican can certainly do what it did; it had the “right” to do so. “Appropriate” means fitting or useful, and conducive to long-term commitments and goals in a particular context. Like it or not, most western democracies place a high value on freedom of inquiry–and pursuit of truth by vigorous debate, not by silencing a voice one believes is dangerous.
Incidentally, you might want to reread Lumen Gentium. I continue to be surprised by your equation of the church with a mere voluntary association. It doesn’t see itself that way, and moreover, I continue to be surprised at your willingness to treat it that way in the context of American law.
on January 4th, 2009 at 11:04 am
The way to correct bad theology is to correct bad theology. Why did it take this long to correct the obvious incorrect theology of Father Haight? It appears that some have been sleeping in Gethsemene.
Personally, I would like to see something like an Official Seal of Approval coming from the Holy See. Just in case there is some confusion as to the Holy See, it does exist, it is not some sort of symbol, and it can be found here:
http://www.vatican.va/
on January 4th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Cathleen and all,
DH #11 makes it clear that there is no compulsion in our adherence to the Church:
“11. God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion.”
This is why it bewilders so many Catholics when those who’ve promised themselves to obedience in the Church and the safeguarding of the deposit of faith and the observance and preservation of the traditions of their own sui iuris ritual Church (e.g. the Latin rite) work to reduce that tradition or to excise definitive teachings of that Church. It is if it never occurs to them that they show little respect for the faithful who love the Church as she is and who revere the tradition of their own ritual Church as it is. There is much hubris in condemning the religious practice of generations of Catholics and millions of contemporary Catholics while confidently asserting to oneself that all that is being done to reduce that tradition is really for their own benefit anyway. Most work to undermine religious freedom is done with a clear conscience when we’ve convinced ourselves that our cause is a good one that benefits the adherents of that religion.
on January 4th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Lester McKernan,
It was I, not Joseph O’Leary, who called the Vatican persecution of supposedly “dissident” theologians an Orwellian strategy. Ten years ago, shortly before his death, I visited with the great moral theologian Bernard Häring, CSsR, at his home in Gars am Inn. In a voice reduced to a hoarse whisper by his battle with throat cancer he made it very, very clear that the doctrinal trial to which the Vatican had subjected him for years was more of a torture than the cancer. Read Häring’s MY WITNESS FOR THE CHURCH!
on January 4th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Having lived in Communist countries in Eastern Europe, I agree with those who are reminded of the practices of totalitarian states. The point is not debates in Christology but to make Haight intellectually dead, unable to write on his academic subject or to teach anywhere. On top of that the entire procedure steeped in bureaucratic anonymity evokes not only Orwell but Kafka as well. Shame.
on January 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I am confused. Are we saying here that we are to listen to our own minds without the Pope, deposit of faith, Magisterium, tradition etc. It seems to me that we then just become more Protestant Churches that are not Catholic. That each of us become the Church of whom ever our own name is. Is this correct? I believe that Mature Faith is surrendering ourselves to authority or is there no authority in our lives any more with faith. Then it seems to me why believe in any thing. If we don’t stand for the truth Jesus taught we will fall for any thing that comes along.
on January 4th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Prof. Kaveny —
Incidentally, you might want to reread Lumen Gentium. I continue to be surprised by your equation of the church with a mere voluntary association. It doesn’t see itself that way, and moreover, I continue to be surprised at your willingness to treat it that way in the context of American law.
I’m not “equat[ing]” the Church with a mere voluntary association. I’m saying, however, that even if the Church is far more than a voluntary association, it obviously should have AT LEAST the same associational rights that every other group in America has (down to the neighborhood Boy Scout troop).
Specifically, the notion of free speech and free inquiry does NOT imply that associations of like-minded people are acting wrongly when they try to ensure that their spokespeople are helping the association rather than contradicting it. The exact opposite is the truth: Free speech and freedom in general are furthered when groups of people (including the Catholic Church) exercise their right to speak — which necessarily implies some control over the spokesperson.
Indeed, given how vigorously (in two previous threads) you defended the acts of the Australian government in investigating a Catholic bishop there (for daring to lobby against a cloning bill), your appeal to “free speech” here seems wholly opportunistic.
on January 4th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
John Connelly,
THANK YOU! The central issue is not whether Haight’s Christology offers a “correct” interpretation of Christ (note, I wrote “a” not “the” – there are many potentially “correct” interpretations and they must be allowed to compete in the open forum of scholarship); the fundamental issue is the absurd, bizarre, yes, Kafkaesque position of Church authorities presuming that “the Church” is a dictatorship with the right/duty to enforce uniformity and exterminate “wrong” ideas by figuratively killing off dissenters by silencing or excommunicating – whether (currently) Roger Haight (Christology) or Roy Bourgeois (women’s ordination).
on January 4th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I would never send my son to a Catholic Unversity that dissents from Church teaching. The Priests that he has had for teachers are very upset with any one who does not teach Truth and further more he would would be also. This school is Catholic not right or left. Teachers need to teach Catholic Doctrine or get out I’m sorry the truth is the truth! Oh by the way the school is Seton Hall!
on January 4th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I don’t know anything more than I have read here about what has gone on between Fr. Haight and the CDF in the four years since it’s public notification. But someone did ask here what the points of issue might be. They were set out in unusally detailed form in the 2004 notification. You can find it at:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20041213_notification-fr-haight_en.html
on January 4th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Focusing in on the second of Cathleen Kaveny’s two points (the one about how the Church should deal with a theologian like Haight) is I think useful, and the crux of my orignal post–and the discussion most easily engaged. (I appreciate Michael Miller’s comments on Christology very much, though realize a fuller discussion would take volumes of blog space.)
In any case, what seems to “scandalize” people most about these “Kafkaesque” or “Orwellian” trials is how “medieval” (lots of scare quotes here) they seem to us moderns. The CDF procedures are completely out of step with modern notions of human rights and due process. (And Stuart Buck’s objection about limiting the vatican’s rights by forcing them to conform to our due process is not, as Cathleen said, what she was referring to. The Vatican can do as it pleases. The question is whether it is just and charitable and in conformity with Christian teaching.)
A central problem seems to be two-fold: First, we are in a new era of our understanding of human rights, the post-Enlightenment world, post Declaration of Independence, triumph of jurisprudence and universal human rights and such–which we all accept, Stuart Buck included!
Second, the Vatican does not operate by these norms; doesn’t have to, and frequently reminds us it is not a democracy. BUT…The Vatican also accepts and indeed promotes human rights and freedoms. It was one thing when the world promoted human liberty (if it didn’t always folo its norms) and Rome opposed those rights as heresies. In that context, what the Vatican did within its walls was in keeping with its rhetoric.
Now, the Vatican espouses (and has in many respects adapted to Church to) the more clearly articulated slate of human rights. But it does not (obviously) follow those within its walls. So the contrast is that much greater, and the justifications that much more tortured–so to speak.
Moreover, the view of the laity has also developed so that lay people are supposed to be able to make considered judgments based on faith and reason, and silencing Haight et al goes against that tenet.
As a coda, I am not an expert on canon law, but having fairly extensive experience covering the sexual abuse scandal, it seems to me that the Code of Canon Law provides due process for nearly every possible violation–even sexual abuse. But when it comes to cases like Roger Haight’s, there is almost a complete lacuna. True? Why?
on January 4th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
(And Stuart Buck’s objection about limiting the vatican’s rights by forcing them to conform to our due process is not, as Cathleen said, what she was referring to. The Vatican can do as it pleases. The question is whether it is just and charitable and in conformity with Christian teaching.)
I know full well that the question isn’t whether the Vatican has (in some political sense) the “right” to do what it has (seemingly) done, but whether its actions are just and right, etc. My beef with Cathleen is that she’s importing notions of “free speech” and “free inquiry” that are doubly irrelevant here, both because 1) it’s rather parochial (yes, I’m using that word with a touch of irony) for a Catholic to blithely assume that the Church’s positions and actions are judged by their accordance with 21st-century American values, and 2) in any event, the values of free speech and free inquiry, far from being undermined, are best served when private groups and associations are able to exert some control over the messages presented by their official spokespersons.
I’m still waiting for any evidence, by the way, that Haight is really without knowledge of the Vatican’s reasons. Even as a total outsider, my first guess would be that he refused to reconsider any of the unCatholic positions described in the CDF’s 2005 notification. And my further guess would be that Haight himself probably has a much better idea of what’s going on than I do.
on January 4th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I’m way behind here, but this seems to bear spelling out:
Stuart Buck, you wrote: “In any event, it isn’t just Mark Johnson or the despised Vatican that has questioned Haight’s work…” No, of course it isn’t. And David Gibson said as much in the post we’re discussing (”Haight’s work has been critiqued and criticized, including in these pages by fellow theologians like John Cavadini and Luke Timothy Johnson”). You seem to think it’s a “gotcha” to quote from a Commonweal article criticizing Haight. But who is claiming Haight should be protected from criticism? It’s exactly that sort of back-and-forth among theologians that I think most of us would like to see supported. The point here is that the CDF has done much more than “question” the validity of Haight’s conclusions.
on January 4th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I’m in agreement with those who find Haight’s christology thin and inadequate. It seems to me that he puts the cart before the horse: trying to make a christology that is suitable for dialogue.
But I realize that the question is whether the CDF is responding properly. I would like to ask whether and how people who professionally live in the extremely authoritarian systems of the editorial and academic worlds can think that censorship as such is automatically immoral. Is there any authority more draconian than an editor? Any process less transparent than peer review?
Every analogy limps, but David G., you continually frame this process in legal, punitive terms. Whereas it’s much closer to the editorial system than the legal.
on January 4th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Mollie — But who is claiming Haight should be protected from criticism?
Grant Gallicho, David Gibson, and Alan Mitchell. They’ve admitted that Haight’s positions can be criticized, but they have all expressed great offense that anyone would criticize Haight himself. But if Haight’s positions have been so rigorously criticized both here and elsewhere, why exactly is it so unfair even to broach the question whether he has taken positions that are inconsistent with his holy orders? Is Haight’s vocation the one repository of infallibility?
on January 4th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I’m not questioning Haight’s vocation myself, by the way. I’m just a bit confused by the priorities of those who allow all sorts of attacks on the Vatican (run by paranoid Nazis, to sum up some of the commenters above), but the one thing that gets them bent out of shape is if someone criticizes a Jesuit priest.
on January 4th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Stuart, the kind of personal criticism you would like to see is out of bounds here. For good reasons, I think. I could try to argue, for example, on the basis of your comments that you are not a Christian. Is that fair or just or constructive? Or even answerable? Except that you can defend yourself. And there’s the rub: You can defend yourself. Fr. Haight cannot.
As to your argument with Cathleen Kaveny, again you are missing the point: The Vatican can do as it likes. The question is, what should it do? Should it deal with these issues as it has? That is the question.
Kathy, as to your argument–it’s the emoticon of the day! ;-)
You say academic and and editorial worlds are “extremely authoritarian.” Not sure I get that. Isn’t Haight’s work being subject to that very open process here and elsewhere? Makes no sense to me.
In any case, I am amused that a defense of the Vatican is that its process is “extremely authoritarian”–and that’s a good thing?
on January 4th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
As to your argument with Cathleen Kaveny, again you are missin the point: The Vatican can do as it likes. The question is, what should it do? Should it deal with these issues as it has? That is the question.
No, you’re still missing my point, and so I’ll try again: In answering the question whether the Vatican should “deal with these issues as it has” — a question that I already admitted was on the table — the notion of “free speech” on a purely individual level (as if associations and groups have no speech interests) doesn’t provide helpful guidance.
on January 4th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
“I would never send my son to a Catholic Unversity that dissents from Church teaching.”
Welcome back, Robin. I guess you would have had problems with Jesus who corrected the church officials of his day (who had him killed).
And we should not forget the blatant neglect of children in the coverup of abusive clergy. Is that the leadership you adhere blindly to?
on January 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
David:
Your question is more complicated than even the Christological questions that prompted the CDF’s action.
Your question centers on issues of power and control.
Even our post-Enlightenment, post Declaration of Independence, triumph of jurisprudence and universal human rights inspired structures carry with them evident and disguised systems of control and power.
There does need to be much more of an open and transparent discussion of power related to knowledge in a postmodern world. For example, there have been discussions on Commonweal on Wikipedia which is very much a postmodern phenomenon in that anyone can edit or submit entries (although even that has been subject recently to some degree of editorial control). Still the premise is that a wide, diverse cross-section of the public can voluntarily share information in an encyclopedic format.
There were many Commonwealers, including, as I recall some who teach university who would not allow Wikepedia to be used as a reference because of reliability (or doctrinal) issues. However, it has been shown that Wikepedia is as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica!!.
Yet the submissions can come from anyone and the submissions are broad. The founder believed that entries, would at some point reach a state of consensus provided you allow for as much input as possible.
So, a student, could wonder what is the issue with using Wikepedia? But they have no control over that. There is not even any dialogue about it. It is the teacher who controls which references will be reliable and which will not.
Maybe the Wikepedia model is the way to go for the Church. Allow as many people to provide input and you will arrive at a sound consensus. Or, as I said trust the organism.
But many (most) academics and chairs of departments will not be comfortable with that. Nor is the Church.
on January 4th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Every analogy limps, but David G., you continually frame this process in legal, punitive terms. Whereas it’s much closer to the editorial system than the legal.
Kathy,
You are correct about the power of an editor and the lack of transparency in peer review, but no editor or no anonymous group of peers can prevent a scholar from taking his or her work to another publication or publishing house, and they certainly could not prohibit someone from teaching.
Little is known to the general public about Fr. Haight, since there is no Wikipedia entry devoted to him. :-P
However, it’s clear that he has had a very distinguished career as a theologian, author, and teacher, and now he is being told he cannot publish in the area he is most known for (Christology) and he cannot teach at all. I am sure there are many schools who would like to have him as a teacher, and many publishing houses and editors who would be very interested in publishing anything new he has to say about Christology, so I think your analogy is not very helpful.
I can’t think of a good analogy for the Catholic Church’s silencing of theologians. But it does make me think more of living under a repressive political regime than it does of being a teacher, scholar, or author. In this day and age, even if nobody will publish your work, self-publishing a book is quite easy, and setting up your own blog couldn’t be simpler. Even the most dissident of scientists or other scholars who could never get published in a peer-reviewed journal can still put their ideas out there for the world to see. This is not the case with silenced theologians, unless they choose to leave the Catholic Church.
on January 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“The Vatican can do as it pleases. The question is whether it is just and charitable and in conformity with Christian teaching”
The first sentence totally boggles the mind! That people in this church will agree with that is pathetic.
The second sentence should be the sine qua non of any action of any group that alleges to be following Christ.
on January 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Mr. Gibson – tried to post on your original stated question and not to drill down into the merits or limitations, errors with Fr. Haight’s actual writings. Thanks to both Ingrid and John who speak from actual lived experience under a totalitarian regime.
As I originally stated, this CDF announcement is an unfortunate step. Appreciate some of the posts around what obedience means, the role of Vatican II, educated laity vs. cathechism laity, etc.
A few points:
a) Fr. O’Leary has made some excellent points – the theological virtue of obedience is not giving over your own responsibility in faith to discover the truth…it does not mean blindly submitting to the Pope, Curia, catechism, etc. In fact, that is the opposite of the virtue of obedience. Obedience rightly understood commits one to the search for truth – live long search – and is best exemplified by some of the church’s saints – Ignatius of Loyola, Vincent dePaul, Louise deMarillac. Some of these saints actually disagreed and opposed papal authority; (appreciate your re-framing the thought process of Cardinal Dulles) – it is interesting but you can do almost the same with B16 – pre-1968 and post 1968)
b) catechism faith – IMHO, catechisms were developed and utilized because you did not have an educated laity or even priests. Cathecism for me is seen more as a “crutch” rather than a dogmatic book. Cathecisms change because the church’s truth remains constant but that truth is expressed and lived differently in different times, cultures, situations, threats. (BTW – the history of the Baltimore Catechism is that Vatican I required each national bishops conference to develop and publish their own catechism. Baltimore assigned a priest to lead this project – when the due date loomed, the priest had done nothing so he borrowed the French catechism, translated it into english, and had it printed in Baltimore – hence, the name Baltimore Catechism). If you compared national catechism, you would find the same truths but the expressions, rules, etc. would vary by national region);
c) to the Lesters, Nancys, etc. of this world – how do you reconcile the fact that in our history, popes have disagreed – in fact, the historical truth is that a 12th century pope (now a declared saint) said that infallibility was heresy; yet, 7 centuries later Pius declares it a dogma? So, what happens when popes disagree – who do we believe, the pope who is alive? what happens when a bishop in one diocese advocates a dogmatic interpretation that is different from his fellow bishop in the next diocese? Who is right? Where is the truth?
d) would have to support and agree with Fr. O’Leary – we must expect and demand more from Catholics in terms of their ability to handle and understand theological concepts, development, questions, right to free discussion without immedidately subjecting this process to heresy, truth, dogma, etc. This step seems to reveal and say more about institutional fear than a committed search and partnership to develop faith.
Obviously, my comments and sympathies lie with some of the works that have been published over the last twenty years by retired but very experienced bishops and cardinals. Think of works by Geoffery Robinson, John Quinn, Martini – all call for a radical change in the curia, the way the pope makes pronouncements, the role of dicasteries e.g. CDF, etc. Every church has the right to establish boundaries and rules but I question whether these steps against Haight are necessary in a church that tries “to be just and charitable and in conformity with Christian teaching.”
on January 4th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Anthony Kenny has an interesting review of Hans Kung’s memoirs which touches on Kung’s celebrated confrontations with the CDF and strikes me as being relevant to the Haight case. Kenny, long affilated with Oxford, knows all about the need for freedom of speech and contemporary norms. And as a non-Christian he shares many of Kung’s criticisms of the Church. Yet:
“Kung believes that he was treated outrageously by the Church and by his colleagues. The Roman proceedings against him were clearly a shambles, but the eventual outcome surprises not by its brutality but by its leniency. A church, no less than a political party or a professional body, has the right to determine what can and cannot be said and done in its name. The proceedings against Kung appear stately and generous by contrast, say, with Edward Heath’s instant dismissal of Enoch Powell after his “rivers of blood” speech, or the Royal Society’s swift reaction to one of its officers that intelligent design should be confronted in the science classroom.”
Kenny ends his review with an amusing anecdote, not directly relevant to the Haight case, but worth passing on:
“We may end with a joke that he (Kung) tells against himself. The story went round that during a conclave the cardinals reached an impasse; it was decided, in order to break the deadlock to inquire whether Kung would be willing to be drafted as Pope. ‘No way!’ he told the Vatican emissaries. ‘I don’t want to give up being infallible.’”
The review appeared in the Times Literary Supplement of December 10, 2008 and is available online only to subscribers.
on January 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
David G.,
Thanks for the emoticon.
David N.,
Editorial boards exert a LOT of pressure on the content of published thought. If someone doesn’t conform, they can’t publish in the highest journals, they can’t be tenured in the best schools, etc. Yes, you can have a blog, but that doesn’t exactly spiff up a CV like having multiple articles in Theological Studies, does it?
on January 4th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Stuart, don’t be ridiculous. Only a fool would say what you’ve imputed to me and others. It’s the Mark Whoever line that we’ve resisted. The targeting of Haight’s vocation, not his academic work. Why that distinction is lost on you is perplexing.
on January 4th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Friends, Fr. Haight’s position is NOT the same as Kung, as Kung can teach and write. It is not the same as editorial boards because Haight had found the analogical equivalent of a board willing to give the thumbs up to his work; namely, Union Theological Seminary.
A man who has been an academic theologian for decades is being told that he cannot teach or publish; cannot teach at a Protestant seminary, or even at a secular college or university; cannot publish with a non-Catholic press. The very idea that simply because he is a priest that some innocent lambs will think he speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church is absurd.
This is supression plain and simple. It is mind boggling that some seem proud that church leaders have taken this step.
on January 4th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Theology is not catechesis. Catechesis is, literally, an “echoing” of
the faith. Unlike theology, catechesis is for the potential member
(known as the catechumen) or for a newly initiated member of the
Church (whether a young child or an adult convert). Catechesis
teaches the faith by highlighting and explaining the main elements of
the faith-tradition and their relationships, as well as their
personal and pastoral implications.
The catechist’s task is not to invite potential or new members of the
Church to think critically about their faith, but rather to
understand and appropriate it in as clear and spiritually fruitful a
way as possible. The theologian’s task, by contrast, is critical. The
mature member of the Church is invited to think: critically, to
question, even to challenge certain elements of the faith tradition.
To judge the theologian’s work by the standards of the catechist’s is
to distort the work of both. Many, if not most of the complaints
about theologians from the more conservative segments of the Church
are rooted in this misperception. A theologian’s job, it is said, is
to teach “the faith.” And not only teach the faith, but to teach it
according to a particular understanding of it. In other words, the
theologian can only explain the faith by one theology—the critic’s.
~ Fr. Richard McBrien
on January 4th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
(Much) earlier in this thread, someone said that the Vatican is out of touch with mainstream Catholic theology. As though Roger Haight’s theology is “mainstream Catholic theology.”
This is exactly the problem that must be addressed. When a Jesuit priest says, “This is Catholic theology. It is perfectly consonant with the early councils, but it is more suitable for our times,” people tend to believe him. But he’s really, badly wrong. It’s not just that he goes beyond the catechism–he contradicts it. And he’s a Jesuit priest.
on January 4th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
cannot teach at a Protestant seminary, or even at a secular college or university; cannot publish with a non-Catholic press.
This is what confuses me too.
It seems to me to be an over-reach on the part of the CDF. They do have jurisdiction over him by virtue of his vow of obedience.
Not to get too Jesuitical (pardon the pun) here but what are the parameters of religious obedience. I understand Ignatius of Loyola likened it to a corpse being dragged around by another but I think there are other views not so stringent. I recall Fr. K writing something about that subject (ie Dominican and Jesuit interpretation of obedience) some time ago.
What is the responsibility of the Society of Jesus in all of this? doesn’t sound like they are prepared to “go to the mat” over this one but who knows.
If this is an abuse of power, he should have recourse.
on January 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Let’s say I publish a neo-con magazine. And one of my regular columnists starts writing like a liberal Democrat. Or the other way around. Let’s say I publish a liberal magazine and one of my columnists starts writing like a neo-con.
I would drop him. But what if he is inextricably associated with the magazine? What if I start getting letters to the editor complaining about this columnist, dropped months ago, but still apparently associated with my magazine in the minds of my readers? What if they cannot be dissuaded from thinking that our editors believe him to be correct.
Now let’s say my magazine is responsible for the salvation of souls…
on January 4th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Exactly Kathy and because you are responsible for souls and they are then led the wrong way. Maybe they won’t make it to heaven instead hell is the destination.
on January 4th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Kathy:
You could outline clearly the issues you had (as Cardinal Ratzinger did in the link provide by Fr. K).
People need not agree but at least they would understand.
But to say he can never teach anywhere even in a Protestant or secular seminsary seems to me to be a reach.
on January 4th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Catholicism is a religion in which the mind and heart lead and follow one another, dialectically. If the mind is closed off to some of the grandeur of God that the heart needs to know, in order to commit further to God, there can be a serious loss of the grounds of possibillity for spiritual growth.
In this case, istm that Fr. Haight leads would-be believing minds to disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
!!!
on January 4th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Kathy, do you know of any such magazine?
In any case, since there are no answers to the questions I and others have posed here, perhaps it’s worth starting another thread at some point with a different framework: what could be done to make the Vatican procedures better reflect the Christian teaching the CDF is supposed to protect and affirm? Is it possible? Or is it the nature of institutions to behave thus? Is it integral to maintaining orthodoxy? Is it reforming the Curia–or leadership at the top?
The role and purpose of theology, such as Michael Miller touched on a couple posts above, is another way to go.
on January 4th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
There it is, the fear card. Kathy, I am all for differentiating between good spiritual direction and support and bad spiritual direction and support, but to think that God Almighty is going to hold up the “Christology from Above” yard stick (meter?, miter?) to measure who is saved and who is not is just not credible. The one thing you cannot get Haight on is that his position is deeply theistic, deeply dedicated to promoting the love of God and neighbor. Maybe their are some rooms with view in heaven reserved for deeply committed trinitarians, but I think it is quite a stretch to say that unitarian theology imperils souls.
The very first theologian I ever read, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, got exactly this same treatment from Rome. Happily, he decided that the ban on publishing did not extend to ditto machines and so he wrote books that were circulated via mimeograph. Here’s hoping Haight comes up with his own loophole.
on January 4th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
David,
Why are you thinking only about Haight, and only about the theologians? What about the believers who don’t have the ability to see through bad theology? What are their rights?
The supreme law is the salvation of souls.
on January 4th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Maybe to be clear I should have written, “The one thing you cannot get Haight on is that his position is not deeply theistic, deeply dedicated to promoting the love of God and neighbor.” That is, Haight’s position IS these things, no matter how wrong you think he is on the Trinity.
on January 4th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
George,
I haven’t read his book in a while. In grad school I had a class exercise to review his article “The Case for Spirit Christology.” As I mentioned, his methodology to me seems backwards: suitability for dialogue was a foundational criterion for a contemporary christology. Not to disparage dialogue, but I don’t see how it can be foundational for developing a central aspect of a religion’s own self-understanding! More importantly, however, I thought that his characterization of Jesus as “divine” was too weak to be consonant with the early theological councils. Agreement with the councils was another of his criteria–but his christology did not account for the divinity to the extent that the councils did.
I don’t have my notes or books with me, and I’ve got to spend a week learning Gregorian chant in order to better teach the kiddies, so I’ve got to leave it at that.
Except, and I’ve said this before, I think our religion depends a lot on intimacy: the Trinitarian relations, our unity in Christ, the height and depth of our union with God in Christ, our new access to the Trinity because of the saving work in the two missions of the Son and the Spirit. Jesus said: See that you never despise one of these little ones. What I guess I’m saying is that I don’t think it’s even healthy for a man’s own soul to believe that he can teach a different Gospel to simple believers and just go about his business.
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
“What I guess I’m saying is that I don’t think it’s even healthy for a man’s own soul to believe that he can teach a different Gospel to simple believers and just go about his business.”
Well, now THAT is certainly massively insulting to any dedicated theologian. Come to think of it though, I have been catching a wiff of sulfer around the house lately.
I once played pool with a priest who told me that he sometimes wished he had a gun during confession because he knew that after absolution was given the person would just go and screw up again. Better he thought to send her or him off to heaven without delay while the soul was still clean. His arrogance amazed me, but it seems that such arrogance is an occupational hazard in his field.
A colleague once asked me if I could understand a word of what had been written by a certain Jesuit. When I confessed that I managed only minimal understanding she wondered if making God on a regular basis could go to one’s head.
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
John Connolly –
Your analogy of the CDF and Kafka is, sadly, an excellent one. The Castle is to Josef K as the Vatican is to contemporary dissident theologians.. AARGH!!!
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Stuart, don’t be ridiculous. Only a fool would say what you’ve imputed to me and others. It’s the Mark Whoever line that we’ve resisted. The targeting of Haight’s vocation, not his academic work. Why that distinction is lost on you is perplexing.
Grant — the mystery deepens. You’re clearly upset about something I’ve said. Apparently I’ve imputed a view to you, a view that you find foolish. Now as far as I can tell, the only view that I’ve imputed to you is that even if it’s OK to criticize Haight’s academic work, his priesthood is beyond question. But it seems to me that this is the exact same view that you’re reiterating in the third and fourth sentences of your comment here.
So it seems to me that there are only two logical possibilities: 1) Either I misread you, and you don’t mean to put Haight’s vocation beyond question after all; or 2) You completely misread me, and thought that when I said that you have “admitted that Haight’s positions can be criticized,” I was actually attributing the opposite view to you.
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
And it’s also mysterious why you think a “distinction” was “lost” on me, when it’s a distinction that I clearly made myself.
This is all rather tedious. Discussions are rather more useful when one side doesn’t keep having to say, “Wait, I actually said the opposite of what you’re claiming.”
on January 4th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
In chapter 3 of De Trinitate, Augustine invites the reader to consider what s/he writes and to differ if s/he must. Saying that the path of charity is most important. Can’t we do the same?
“Further let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes himself to be in error, there to return to me; wherever he recognizes me to be so, there to call me back: so that we may enter together upon the path of charity, and advance towards Him of whom it is said, Seek His face evermore. And I would make this pious and safe agreement, in the presence of our Lord God, with all who read my writings, as well in all other cases as, above all, in the case of those which inquire into the unity of the Trinity, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; because in no other subject is error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more profitable. If, then, any reader shall say, This is not well said, because I do not understand it; such an one finds fault with my language, not with my faith: and it might perhaps in very truth have been put more clearly; yet no man ever so spoke as to be understood in all things by all men. Let him, therefore, who finds this fault with my discourse, see whether he can understand other men who have handled similar subjects and questions, when he does not understand me: and if he can, let him put down my book, or even, if he pleases, throw it away; and let him spend labor and time rather on those whom he understands. Yet let him not think on that account that I ought to have been silent, because I have not been able to express myself so smoothly and clearly to him as those do whom he understands. For neither do all things, which all men have written, come into the hands of all. And possibly some, who are capable of understanding even these our writings, may not find those more lucid works, and may meet with ours only. And therefore it is useful that many persons should write many books, differing in style but not in faith, concerning even the same questions, that the matter itself may reach the greatest number— some in one way, some in another. But if he who complains that he has not understood these things has never been able to comprehend any careful and exact reasonings at all upon such subjects, let him in that case deal with himself by resolution and study, that he may know better; not with me by quarrellings and wranglings, that I may hold my peace. Let him, again, who says, when he reads my book, Certainly I understand what is said, but it is not true, assert, if he pleases, his own opinion, and refute mine if he is able. And if he do this with charity and truth, and take the pains to make it known to me (if I am still alive), I shall then receive the most abundant fruit of this my labor. And if he cannot inform myself, most willing and glad should I be that he should inform those whom he can.”
on January 4th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Stuart: Maybe my airport nightmare is clouding my reading. I’m thoroughly spun by your point. You don’t want to question Haight’s vocation, but you want to defend those who do? I want some bloody textual support for such “questions.” Too much to ask?
on January 4th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Well, what do you mean by “textual support”? I’m afraid that your cryptic style is setting things up for yet another wild misreading.
I’m doing nothing but repeating myself at this point, but here goes: I’m not personally questioning Haight’s “vocation,” whatever that would mean. If he’s a priest, fine; it’s no skin off my nose. At the same time, I can’t really understand why there’s such high dudgeon towards Mark’s comment, particularly given all of the much more vicious language that is tolerated about the Vatican (whose officials aren’t here to defend themselves either). In particular, if Haight is the kind of guy who is so far out in left field that even Commonweal writers say “to hell” with his depiction of Christ, then it shouldn’t come as a shock that someone might be moved to wonder how Haight could take those positions while making the professions required of a priest.
I do understand David Gibson’s wish that this point be dropped. I would indeed drop it, except for the fact that you called for me to repeat it.
on January 4th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
This is not only unbecoming of a Priest but it is a misrepresentation of the Articles of Faith.
on January 5th, 2009 at 2:36 am
I am editing a volume on contemporary European history which contains an article by an academic who happens to be employed by the Pentagon. He is free to express his own opinions, but we must print a disclaimer that these are his opinions as a scholar and not the views of the Pentagon.
Why is that not an option in a case like this?
The issue is not whether a Catholic university can teach Catholic thought, but whether a thinking human being (who presumably has gone through the agony of getting tenure) can communicate his thought. The crucial thing about this decision is that he is being denied permission to teach anywhere, not just at Catholic institutions.
Of course Haight could leave the Jesuits.
But as a student of Jesuits I do not take particular consolation in the fact that a person wanting to avoid intellectual death has the “freedom” to leave the Order. What is the message for those who remain?
on January 5th, 2009 at 3:03 am
Kathy and Robin: I hate to rain on your parades, but the salvation of souls comes about by grace from the Godhead and NOT (repeat … NOT) from priest, bishop, pope nor any action of the Roman Catholic Church!
on January 5th, 2009 at 3:11 am
“Joseph remarked about the good work of Catholic education after Vatican II that abruptly stopped with the publication of HV. HV was published in 1968 but V2 was only closed in 1965.”
I should say the close-down began in 1968 and got into full swing in 1978. The opening of the Catholic mind began with the announcement of the Council and the prominent declarations of John XXIII on aggiornamento, openness to the world, the signs of the times etc., at the start of the 1960s.
“Joseph, you’ve also accused the Holy See (you used the political term “Vatican”) of “brainwashing” her faithful through “indoctrination”. The “indoctrination” you mention is probably a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
That document was widely criticized by theologians for its fundamentalistic elements.
” There is a liberal “sectarianism” dimension to your seeming condemnation of an authoritative catechism ”
Criticism, not condemnation.
“because the Lutherans and Reformed Protestants have their own catechisms that they use to educate their own adherents. The Anglicans also have a catechism attached to their Book of Common Prayer.”
Of course Catechisms can be excellent. In fact the CCC was intended to clear away alternative catechisms that were too much in the spirit of Vatican II such as the Dutch Catechism and the Common Catechism.
“Instead of grouping new age superstition alongside Christian devotion as something to be avoided I’d see the latter as the cure for the former.”
I am not against devotion but against devotionalism — distorted and extreme forms such as Medjugorje.
on January 5th, 2009 at 3:44 am
Is Fr. Haight’s response to the original CDF/Ratzinger criticism available to the public?
on January 5th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Jimmy Mac since when does the salvation of souls have nothing to do with the Church, Priests or Pope etc. Even in families we are there to help each other get to heaven. Yes it is by God’s Grace we get there but WE ALL need to do our part. What you are quoting is Protestant doctrine not Catholic. Been there remeber I was a Trustee in the church I beloged to so I know what I am talking about as I have been on both sides of the fence! But if what you say was true we may as well go on our merry way and not belong to any church as there would be no need.
on January 5th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Antonio Manetti: The standard operating procedure for these inquiries is that all is kept secret, or confidential, if you will, and not even the accused theologian can gain access to his or her file. There may or may not be a face-to-face meeting in Rome with the CDF, but usually not. Generally the defendant does not know they are being investigated until late in the process, and they never know what outside expert has been assigned by the CDF to judge their work. The defendant may not speak about the process, and that would certainly hold true in a special way for Jesuits.
on January 5th, 2009 at 8:11 am
BTW, Bill Mazzella, many thanks for that fine excerpt from Augustine.
on January 5th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Stuart, we’re talking about a theologian who has been forbidden from working in his area. He can’t teach in systematics–or in any area. He can’t write in systematics. (Let’s hope he can at least read it.) So when Mark Whoever blithely declares what Haight thinks about his own priesthood as B.S., he ought to offer some reason for it, not simply a nod to the “questions” that have been raised about the man’s Christology. That is, he ought to show his math.
As for your affirmation of obvious distinctions, perhaps this comment of yours led to my confusion: “In any event, it isn’t just Mark Johnson or the despised Vatican that has questioned Haight’s work.” Then you went on to quote the Cavadini review, as though that sealed a point you were trying to make, when in fact no one had suggested that Haight’s theology should be free from criticism. (People: Commonweal publishes a range of views. Familiarize yourself with that fact before popping off on “what Commonweal says” or the “dissent” of Commonweal or its readers.)
No one has gone into high dudgeon. Although, given your usual snarky tone, one could be forgiven for getting testy.
on January 5th, 2009 at 10:05 am
I can’t really understand why there’s such high dudgeon towards Mark’s comment, particularly given all of the much more vicious language that is tolerated about the Vatican (whose officials aren’t here to defend themselves either).
I too am getting tired of this old song. When anyone suggests that the pope’s vocation, or personal commitment, to Holy Orders is false or even questionable, you can expect that comment to be called out of bounds.
on January 5th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Perhaps the question should be, why would someone, who professes to be Catholic ,want to misrepresent the Truth of our Catholic Faith? The only logical conclusion would be, they do not believe.
We can not transform Christ, it is Christ who transforms us.
on January 5th, 2009 at 11:15 am
If you don’t like snarkiness, maybe you and the other proprietors could try to set a higher tone, rather than indulging in constant snarkiness yourselves and tolerating constant derision from other commenters. When Nazi comparisons are being hurled about on one side, it’s a bit rich to hold the other side to Roberts’ Rules of Order.
As for your affirmation of obvious distinctions, perhaps this comment of yours led to my confusion: “In any event, it isn’t just Mark Johnson or the despised Vatican that has questioned Haight’s work.” Then you went on to quote the Cavadini review, as though that sealed a point you were trying to make, when in fact no one had suggested that Haight’s theology should be free from criticism.
The point I was trying to make there (talk about false imputations) was simply that there might be some basis for the Vatican to want Haight to stop saying what he has said, i.e., that there’s more to this issue than just the Pope being paranoid and mean.
Mollie — as far as I can tell, the standard you’re propounding for this website is:
1) Question the pope’s vocation: out of bounds.
2) Compare the pope to Nazis: OK.
I’m not sure I see why (1) is so much worse than (2) in your mind . . . do you have any actual reason for this distinction?
on January 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Stuart: throwing around “Nazi” in relation to Vatican officials (or pretty much anyone you disagree with) is idiotic and inflammatory… I feel foolish even typing out something so obvious, especially when the only person making that comparison is you.
on January 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Hmm. Did you miss Ingrid Shafer’s allusion upthread?
on January 5th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I think this thread has pretty clearly played out, and there is an update on the Haight case above, so let’s move discussion–of substance–up there. Thanks.