My Bad–and My Apologies
January 22, 2009, 9:33 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
I had a thread below on “Bush’s Catholic Advisors”–It’s now disappeared –inadvertently. I was attempting to post my own comment on my own thread, thought it took the wrong tack, and went to delete it. Instead, I inadvertently deleted the entire thread.
Yet another proof why I shouldn’t be a surgeon, pilot, or operate the computers that run the space shuttle.
I apologize to the entire blog community, and if Grant can reinsitate it, I would be very grateful.
I hereby promise to stay off the control page from now on.
Nope. That post is gone forever.
Ego te absolvo ….
Conviction without experience makes for harshness. Flannery O’Connor
I wondered what had happened. It’s good to know that such things can happen, as a caution never to approach the control room myself.
Does this mean you also lost the bit ,regarding Catholicism, that orthodoxy opposes heterodoxy, and that right, left, conservative, liberal, etc.,etc., have no meaning in regards to Catholicism? One is either orthodox or heterodox.
Well, Prof. Kaveny – given the last thread, something good came of your inadvertant deletion. Not sure “inadvertant deletion” is orthodox or heterodox, right, left, conservative, or liberal. But, it is a deletion, none the less.
Nancy:
I suspect that your definition of orthodoxy is a lot narrower than that to which many of us would agree. From what I have heard you say on many postings here, I get this impression about you:
Rules, glorious rules!
What wouldn’t we give for
That extra bit more –
That’s all that we live for
Why should we be fated to
Do nothing but brood
On rules,
Magical rules,
Wonderful rules,
Marvelous rules,
Fabulous rules.
(a mild adaptation of “Food, Glorious Food” from Oliver)
I, for one, think these definitions are more realistic:
Orthodoxy is not a synonym for obscurantism and repression, nor is it a completely arbitrary decision about what someone else ought to believe and teach. By drawing the boundary line of orthodoxy, the church has in effect declared the difference between a theological fair ball and a theological foul ball, but it has still left a vast space within which a ball is in play. Jaroslav Pelikan, “The Method of Theology: A Philosophical Dictionary”, (Harvard U. Press, 1988)
Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure. Reinhold Niebuhr.
Orthodoxy, in not always requiring the literal exegesis of religious texts, is broader in its parameters than is fundamentalism. Orthodoxy is not a straight line, but a circle drawn around a variety of permissible views, excluding other views. Jaroslav Pelikan paraphrased by Joseph A. Varacalli in his review of The Fundamentalist Phenomenon: A View from Within; A Response from Without, First Things, February 1991.
My ineptitude transcends the division between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.
“By drawing the boundry line of orthodoxy, the church has in effect declared the difference between theological fair ball and a theological foul ball, but it has still left a vast space within which a ball is in play.”
This is true. That does not change the fact, however, that there are some who do not see where the fair ball line ends, and the foul ball line begins.
Which is exactly why someone has to be the final referee.
Cathleen, keep your eye on the ball. I have no doubt that you have the potential to hit a home run.
Nancy-
You say that right and left have no meaning with respect to Catholicism. You are assuming that all questions concerning Jesus’ message have been answered and settled. Yourrgularly assert that this is because He promised us that theycwould be . But nowhere does Jesus say He will answer all of our questions. He says ONLY that the Holy Spirit will be with us. That sentence does not include the words Eill answer all you questions”.
It isone thing to accept the Word as the Son of God and Truth itself. It is another to put words into His mouth which He didn’t say to us.
Ann, what I am saying is that right, left, conservative ,liberal, are political terms and Catholicism is not about politics.
Jimmy Mac, bravo! :-) I confess I had never looked at Oliver! in quite this light before. I’m now picturing Governor Blagojevitch stomping through a snowy London, bellowing out, “Seat for Sale”, Bernard Madoff sashaying his way through “You’ve Got to Pick a Pocket or Two”, Rahm Emmanual clapping his arm around the President while reassuring him, “Consider yourself part of the furniture”, and realtors congregating in the early morning light, singing, “Who will buy my rehabbed Georgian, price reduced for the 6th time”
Jimmy Mac, as a child, we always loved that song, but found the words never quite lived up to the title. How could one possibly sing about Food, Glorious Food, and fail to mention chocolate? Our version went something like this:
Food, glorious food, lots of candy and chocolate-
While we’re in the mood,
ice ceam and hot chocolate!
Please more gumdrops and jelly beans…
Anyway, perhaps you can answer my question. Why would Christ, found His Church, and not ensure that His Word would remain consistent?
Jimmy? Jimmy? Heyyy Jimmy Mack-
this is no smack attack,
so are you listening?
Jimmy, Jiimmy? When are you coming back-
to answer my que es tion?