A Theologian’s Theologian
I just finished reading Stanley Hauerwas’s engrossing new book, Hannah’s Child: A Theologian’s Memoir, which was recently treated by Peter Steinfels in the magazine. As with most things Hauerwas, I am left feeling both inspired and troubled by his account of what it is to be a theologian today. He presents his life as fundamentally defined by the titular Biblical story of Samuel, whose mother Hannah prayed that if God would grant her a son, she would dedicate him to the Lord’s service. Hauerwas reports that his own mother prayed this same prayer while trying to conceive him, and as a result, his life has been in many ways defined by the task of trying to live into this narrative of a figure caught in a “time of transition.” Samuel found himself wrapped up in Israel’s evolution from a federation of tribes held accountable to the Law by their spiritual elders, as presented in the Book of Judges, into a unified political entity governed by kings. Hauerwas understands his own “time of transition” as defined by the slow, agonizing decline of a post-Constantinian church trying to move forward into an uncertain future, while mostly remaining paralyzed by the nostalgia for its supposedly once-great cultural and political relevance.
Given such a self-understanding of the man and his time, it is not surprising that the “Stanley Hauerwas” that emerges in the memoir is a character caught in a number of “in-betweens”: church and world, congregation and university, identity and relevance, modernity and post-modernity, Catholic and protestant, peace-lover and provocateur. In the end, though, I think the “Stanley Hauerwas” that Hauerwas re-members is primarily a theologian’s theologian. This is to say, that beyond any natural loyalties, which he admits that he does “disdain,” Hauerwas is committed to the craft of theology, which he calls “word work.” Influenced by Wittgenstein and Barth, Hauerwas understands his job as a theologian as helping Christians learn the grammar of faith, so that they might better describe what a reality might look like that is defined by the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Such a description is necessary before we even begin to say anything normative about how we ought to live in this reality. This is perhaps a strange self-understanding for a professional Christian ethicist, but Hauerwas says that “ethics is but a name for exposing the practical character of theological speech.”
It’s statements like these that have made his work so hard for some more pragmatically-minded interpreters to take. For example, it’s difficult to come up with a church position on same-sex marriage, when the resident theological ethicist wants to spend the whole time simply describing marriage itself. But this is what theologians love to do. It’s hard to say what it is to live a life defined by the Gospel. What does such a life even look like? For all his distrust of foundational theology, no one seems more concerned about the “quiddity” of Christian life than Stanley Hauerwas. He says several times that the work of theology takes patience, the patience of a bricklayer who slowly learns the tools of the trade and endlessly perfects his craft one brick at a time. This patience is connected to his commitment to pacifism, which is predicated on the eschatological idea that only God has the clarity of mind to be able to act with such definitive and efficient violence. We, on the other hand, must live a life of continual discernment, always ready to rebuild the whole wall if we notice that even one brick is out of place. And theologians love to build, tear down, and rebuild walls.
I think Hauerwas’s identity (if one could call it that) as a theologian’s theologian is best exemplified by the two poles between which he seems to navigate. On the one hand, he maintains that he is a church theologian. He claims to care more about what the church thinks than what he thinks, and he says, “I often learn what I need to say at Yale or Cambridge because I have visited the Church of the Servant King or preached at Nacogdoches.” On the other hand, he admits that he is decidedly a man whose institutional identity has been disciplined by the university. He writes enthusiastically of serving on appointment, promotion, and tenure review committees at Duke, confesses his desire for academic respectability, and says, “I cannot even imagine what my life might be if I were divorced from the university, and for that I am profoundly grateful.” So, which is it?
Of course, true to his reputation as a “contrarian,” it is neither. Yet, as one committed to nonviolent reconciliation, it must be both. That it is neither is clearly displayed in the two most contentious relationships that he describes in the book. The first is with Richard McBrien, whose appointment by Fr. Ted Hesburgh as chair of the Theology Department precipitated Hauerwas’s departure from Notre Dame. Hauerwas paints a very unflattering picture of McBrien as one interested in “Americanizing Rome” to further his own program to become “the first president of Roman Catholicism in America.” Hauerwas also mourns the paradoxical “narrowing” that came with this program, which involved a kind of re-Romanization of Notre Dame.
As a Roman Catholic, however, I think that one could propose a more generous reading of this shift. With regard to the democratization of the church, it seems plausible to think that McBrien, and others, were simply trying to find the kind of theological freedom and creativity that they enjoyed in the university, and that Hauerwas enjoys as both and university professor and a basically free-church protestant, at the ecclesial level. As for the seemingly paradoxical re-Romanization, Hauerwas seems to miss the subtle and perhaps sad political fact that, within the Church, the more creative you are the more orthodox you have to look. In this battle, however, Hauerwas presents himself as championing the purity of the small “c” catholic church over the democratizing identity politics of the university.
The second relationship, in which Hauerwas this time plays the independent university professor against the committed churchman, concerns a young minister who comes to replace the much-beloved pastor at a Methodist church Hauerwas attended. As is the case with most protestant denominations in America (as well as Catholicism), Methodism has been losing numbers, and the young pastor who was assigned to Hauerwas’s church was charged with the task of trying to grow the parish. She dutifully attended several church marketing seminars and came up with a plan to sell the services that the church had to offer. As Catholics, of course, I think we tend to find such protestant sales techniques a bit unseemly to say the least, if not theologically appalling. Hauerwas was clearly of the latter view, and let the pastor know that not only was she colluding with “economic modes of life incompatible with the gospel,” but also was a “profoundly embarrassing” graduate of Duke Divinity School, where Hauerwas teaches. In order not to “split the parish,” Hauerwas then began attending an Episcopal church more amenable to his theology.
Again, I feel a certain empathy with this pastor. I spent four years working with a high school youth group at a UCC church, and I certainly felt frustrated by the shameless way in which I felt we were catering our ministry to the adolescent tastes of our demographic. Yet, I also experienced deep moments of grace in the individual relationships that were formed during the seemingly banal pizza parties and movie nights designed just to get people in the door. I have a lot of respect for protestant pastors who do not have the theological luxury of being supported by the deep institutional pockets of the Catholic Church or the university. Lord knows there are some Catholic priests who could stand having to sing a bit for their supper. As a university theologian, however, Hauerwas is able to side-step a lot of these material pressures along with the question of “real” ecclesial accountability. In the book he mentions that as a theologian he is not “of a free mind,” and in a recent interview, he said that he felt accountable to his bishop. Yet, when the interviewer asked if he had ever refrained from publishing anything because of ecclesial prohibition, he admitted that he hadn’t.
So, “Stanley Hauerwas” is neither a church theologian nor a university theologian. Yet, he is married to a pastor, has published a book of prayers, and is enthusiastic about participating in the sacraments, while still having maintained close relationships with several university administrators and having sat on the board of Duke University Press. Hauerwas is certainly betwixt and between. He is accountable to many masters, and yet servile to none but One. He’s an anti-individualist who’s written a deeply personal memoir. He’s someone who’s studied the grammar of faith in order to become faithful. He’s a theologian’s theologian.
on July 25th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
What a remarkable rendering of this book by Stanley Hauerwas. I like the emphasis on the grammar of theology and the importance of choosing the right words for the delicate political dance that many theologians (as well as other professions) face as they serve their many masters. The difference is the One master that they ultimately serve. The story of Samuel seems to illustrate his points very well. Thanks you for these insights, Eric.
on July 25th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
“it’s difficult to come up with a church position on same-sex marriage”
If you are speaking of the Catholic Church, it’s not difficult at all: the Catholic Church opposes homosexual so-called “marriage”. If a theologian dissents from that teaching, that makes no difference to the “church position” whatsoever.
on July 25th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
P Flanagan. I think your missing the forest for the trees. Perhaps you might re-read the post. But for what it’s worth, the link I placed in the text you quoted is to another post I did a while back in which I referenced an article by Hauerwas in which he describes his involvement in discerning the place of same-sex unions in the Methodist church. So, no need to fire-up the stake yet, Hauerwas is not an official “dissenter.” While we’re at it though, I presume that the Catholic Church actually has theology to support its opposition, which suggests there are theologians who were involved in doing that theology, which suggests there was and is some kind of discussion somewhere about the issue. No?
on July 25th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Many thanks, Eric, for rasing interesting questions and especially for reminding of Peter’s great review which I unfortunately missed. Fritz B. has also mentioned Huerwas here as worthy of looking into. Maybe I’ll start with this memoir. I would also like to know what exactly the dispute was between Hauerwas and McBrien. Hauerwas certainly emerges as a complex person as a pacifist and affiliation with First Things. I am also intriqued how ND forced Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza to leave while they hire McBrien as chairperson of the theology department.
As I notice how well you and Peter S dissected and reflected on Hauerwas memoir and writing, may I suggest that either or both of you read James O’Donnells recent remarkable work on Augustine and blog it for our discussion and enrichment.
on July 25th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
I would like to know Stanley Hauerwas’s position on samesex marriage. I have just written a piece on “La theologie face au mariage homosexuel” and I agree there is a dearth of serious reflection on the subject. Is there a single theological monograph on the topic? I believe that we may expect one from the following theologian: http://www.dur.ac.uk/theology.religion/staff/profile/?id=2394
on July 25th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
I take it that Hauerwas sees marriage that is a life-long commitment with a procreative (or more widely creative) project as a counter-sign to capitalism that flourishes on short-term relationships and that is eating away at the integrity of marriage itself. I suppose he would have a differentiated attitude to the drive for gay marriage — if it is capitalistically or consumeristically motivated it is part of our degraded modern culture, but if it strives for the same values as true marriage it stands with it as a counter-sign to capitalism.
on July 26th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Thank you, Eric – that’s a marvellous summary with some good probing questions.
(Hauerwas has made some comments on same-sex relationships that have been reprinted in ‘A Better Hope’ – the original article had a response by Richard Hays that I wish had been included in the book – and in Sanctify Them in the Truth.)
on July 26th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Joseph, I think you basically have Hauerwas’s argument as it is presented in the piece Ian mentions in “A Better Hope.” Peter Steinfels also mentions an essay by Hauerwas on homosexuality in his article. There is a growing literature on the issue of same-sex marriage, but as with anything, it’s probably of varying quality. I can suggest “Blessing Same-Sex Unions” by Mark Jordan, a theologian at Emory, and a collection of essays he edited called “Authorizing Marriage?”. Also, there is a book coming out in August by Ludger Viefhues-Bailey, one of my teachers at Yale, called “Between a Man and a Woman?”. It is more of a critical philosophical analysis of the conservative rhetoric of Focus on the Family, but definitely worth a look.
Ian and Bill, thanks for your comments!
on July 26th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Correction: Mark Jordan is actually at Harvard now, not Emory.
on July 26th, 2010 at 10:56 am
“discerning the place of same-sex unions in the Methodist church.”
Thus, my preface “If you are speaking of the Catholic Church…” No stakes set up there by me.
“I presume that the Catholic Church actually has theology to support its opposition, which suggests there are theologians who were involved in doing that theology”
Involved only as advisors to the Bishops, who as Lumen gentium 20 points out*, are the successors of the Apostles. If the successors of Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, find the advice of theologians useful, they will incorporate that into the Magisterium. If the hierarchy finds the advice of theologians to be wrong, they will properly ignore it…as was done with theological opposition to Humanae Vitae.
Evidently, whatever theological advice has been offered in support of homosexual so-called “marriage” has been found to be wrong by the hierarchy, as the Catholic Church’s position against that erroneous understanding of God’s plan for us is indisputable.
* “Therefore, the Sacred Council [Vatican II] teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.“
on July 26th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
“Involved only as advisors to the Bishops, who as Lumen gentium 20 points out*, are the successors of the Apostles. If the successors of Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, find the advice of theologians useful, they will incorporate that into the Magisterium.”
P Flanagan –
This shows an unfortunately restricted view of what *both* the bishops and the theologians have as their functions in the Church. You immediately describe their function as seeking what is “useful” to the Church. As I understand Lumen Gentium their immediate function is to find what is *true*. Your criterion is that of a manager, not a truth-seeker, not a truth-declarer.
on July 26th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Eric,
Very preceptive piece on Hauerwas. He has always been pretty forthright in admitting his inconsistencies and I think you do a nice job of capturing how it is that he can embody those inconsistencies without (at least to me) coming across as a hypocrite.
on July 26th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
I would like to turn the discussion from the current hot button issue of some sex marriage, and have someone comment on the sentence: Lord knows there are some catholic priests who could stand to sing a bit for their supper.
on July 26th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Excuse my error above from some to same sex marriage!
on July 26th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I remember having a discussion with an Episcopal friend of mine who was struggling with the “then” issue of homosexual bishops in that church. She said she envied the “deep institutional pockets” of the catholic church because in her view we have a moral code and expectation missing in many protestant churches. That was a few years ago, and several families left that church to join our local catholic church. They have actually become quite active in our church.
on July 26th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Many thanks to P Flanagan for pointing out that the Church opposes same-sex marriage and that the bishops are the successors to the apostles.
on July 26th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
I don’t think it is acceptable to acknowledge your inconsistencies and not explain them. I am not talking in the sense that none of us are perfect. If we choose to participate in the public forum we have to give an accounting. So I doubt it can be said that he is accountable to many masters when he is not. A bit of cafeteria here. I am not saying that one should be accountable to any masters except the one. I may not be expressing this well. But contradictions are something we should not take lightly.
on July 26th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Is it not OK for the Church to have a position on same-sex marriage based on “natural law”? For years the Church’s rigid attitude toward sex trying to take the intimacy, pleasure, and fun out of it was immature, however, scratching below the surface of sexuality, is not procreation the substantive purpose of the sex act? Biblically (myth/inspiration dilemma) was not Eve the “suitable partner” for Adam? Should not the Church oppose same-sex marriage at least for those who profess to be Catholic? Or do we use the morality of “whatever brings you closer to God”?
on July 26th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
“As I understand Lumen Gentium their [bishops and theologians] immediate function is to find what is *true*.”
Lumen gentium contains the term theologian only three times, each in limited circumstances: twice in connection with Catholic doctrine on Mary and once in an ecumenical connection with the Orthodox Church. There is no mention whatsoever in this Vatican II document regarding theologians holding any position in terms of developing and propagating doctrine for the faith.
In response to your distinction between “usefulness” and “truth”, my reference to “useful” was not in the sense of utility, but in the sense of contributing to a deeper theological understanding of doctrines of the faith. Theologians may be a source for the bishops to consider, but theologians themselves have no magisterial authority.
“Many thanks to P Flanagan for pointing out that the Church opposes same-sex marriage and that the bishops are the successors to the apostles.”
You are most welcome, although it is sad that the need exists to reiterate such basic Catholic truths at a Catholic blog.
on July 26th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
P Flanagan: It never hurts to repeat the obvious. That is why we go to church each Sunday.
on July 26th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
P. Flanagan, I think you raise an interesting problem for the place of theology in the Church. You rightly pick out the traditional definition of theology as “faith seeking understanding.” The problem however is: what do you load on the side of faith such that you leave sufficient room for the seeking of understanding? If you over-determine “faith” by packing in everything that the Church has said about every issue then you don’t really leave any room for seeking understanding. You’re just asking theologians to rephrase all of the things the Church already understands, and there is no real constructive theology to be done. So, the question is: How much of what the Church teaches counts as the content of faith, and how much of it is itself a theological attempt to understand, explicate, and draw conclusions from that content?
Take for example John Paul II’s “theology of the body.” It is precisely a “theology” because it is an exercise in seeking understanding. It is itself not “faith.” As such a theology, it invites other theologians to contribute to the project of “seeking” on which it embarks. Those that choose to participate in the journey might find that seeking falls short of the proper understanding of the faith at various points along the way. And the theological corrections proposed might lead to an even richer understanding of the faith than John Paul II’s original attempt.
Bill: I think your concern is linked to Flanagan’s issue. Using another metaphor, that Hauerwas, himself the son of a bricklayer, uses, we might think of theology as the craft of building. A theologian is given the blueprints of faith as determined by scripture and tradition, and she is asked to render as best she can the building that the blueprints outline. In the process of building there are a number of people that might judge whether the theologian is actually staying true to the blueprints: the building inspector, the future inhabitants, curious by-standers, other builders, etc. The theologian as a “servant” of all of these “masters” must take their judgments seriously and address their concerns about the quality of the building and the degree to which it reflects the blueprint. Of course, some “masters” will be better able than others to tell her where she is going wrong, and depending on one’s ecclesiology, some will have more authority than others to shut down the whole project. And, of course, this is where Hauerwas’s sensibilities will clash with a Catholic theologians. Hauerwas is an “independent contractor,” of sorts, and the Catholic theologian is something like a “company worker.” So, in the end it comes down to how long you believe in the vision of the folks you work for.
on July 26th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Is it not OK for the Church to have a position on same-sex marriage based on “natural law”?
It is curious to note that natural law seems to forbid what people (including people in the Church) want to forbid anyway. I was interested to read recently, from a Catholic source I do not now recall, that polygamy is not against natural law. One would imagine it would be against natural law if it had not been practiced by some of the major figures in the Old Testament (David, Solomon, and of course Abraham, whose first wife was also his half-sister).
Unless I am mistaken, the natural-law arguments against same-sex marriage (and homosexuality in general) are rather closely related to the natural-law arguments against contraception. I am sure there are many married couples, though, who find the arguments against homosexuality much more convincing than arguments against contraception.
We could have the discussion again, if anybody wants to, about whether if the purpose of eating is nutrition, it is a sin to drink diet soda. It would be sort of the nutritional equivalent of masturbation.
For years the Church’s rigid attitude toward sex trying to take the intimacy, pleasure, and fun out of it was immature, however, scratching below the surface of sexuality, is not procreation the substantive purpose of the sex act?
The Church’s shift to asserting that sex has two purposes within marriage (procreative, unitive) is rather new (Pope Paul VI), and I believe given more time — let us hope it is not 2000 years — there will be further developments in the Church’s understanding on sexuality.
Why the Church must safeguard civil marriage in the United States is beyond me, since in perhaps the majority of cases, it is not even marriage in the eyes of the Church (e.g., the divorced and remarried). In fact, a large number of Catholics who are married in the Church are later discovered — when they seek annulments — not to have been married themselves, so you can never be sure.
Putting irony aside, for the moment, what if a couple marries and there are clear grounds for annulment at the time? Say the husband has absolutely no intention of having children. Or say there is an unintended pregnancy before marriage and the families pressure the couple to get married against their will. Or the bride or groom was drunk or drugged. One can think of any number of circumstances. Then, as the years go by, the man and woman stay together, have children, and grow to love each other deeply and maturely. Do they have a sacramental marriage? I think one can say they did not receive the sacrament of matrimony when they went through the ceremony. Can a sacrament take place retroactively?
on July 26th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
You are most welcome, although it is sad that the need exists to reiterate such basic Catholic truths at a Catholic blog.
P Flanagan,
Unfortunately not everyone was as well catechized as you and me.
on July 26th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
If an ignorant bishop rejects what a learned theologian tells him, is there a guarantee that the bishop is right?
on July 26th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
P Flanagan –
I didn’t re=read all of LG, but this is to be found in Sec. 11 of the Declaration on Christian Education (P. 736 of the Flannery translation):
The Church anticipates great benefits from the activities of the faculties of the sacred sciences. For to them she confides the very grave responsibility of preparing her own students, not only for the priestly ministry, but especially either for teaching in the institutes of higher ecclesiastical study, or the the advancement of learning by their own investigations, or finally by undertaking the even more exacting duties of the intellectual apostolate. It is the function also of these faculties to PROMOTE RESEARCH the different fields of sacred learning. THEIR OBJECT WILL BE TO ENSURE AN EVER-GROWING UNDERSTANDING OF SACRED SCRIPTURE BE ACHIEVED, that the inheritance of Christian wisdom handed down by former generations be more fully appreciated, that dialogue with our separated brethren and with non-Christians be promoted, and THT QUESTIONS DERIVED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOUGHT BE DULY SOLVED.
“Therefore the ecclesiastical faculties, having made such revision of their own statutes as seems opportune, should do all in their power to pronote the sacred sciences and related branches of learning, and by the employment of modern methods and aids THEY SHOULD TRAIN THEIR STUDENTS FOR HIGHER RESEARCH.” (emphases mine)
on July 26th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
“You’re just asking theologians to rephrase all of the things the Church already understands, and there is no real constructive theology to be done.”
Eric –
Well put. While it is true that it is not the funciton of any particular theologian to speak *for* the Church, it is certainly their function to speak *to* the bishops and pope, who do have the charism of saying, “This is the best the Church has to offer as we see it today”.
on July 26th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
” So, the question is: How much of what the Church teaches counts as the content of faith, and how much of it is itself a theological attempt to understand, explicate, and draw conclusions from that content?”
Eric –
Indeed. Vatican IIs Directory on Ecumenism (Sec. 74) distinguishes “revealed truth which requires the same assent of faith” and “theological doctrine”. The latter are apparently the interpretations of assertions of revelation which the Church has officially asserted to be true.
But it also talks about “a hierarchy in the truths of Catholic doctrine”, calling some of them more “central” then others. But what does this MEAN???? Does this mean that assent to these statements is somehow more or less true than the truths of revelation? Or, worse, that the doctrinal statements/”truths” are more or less true? That some statements are completely true but others are only sort of true? Or maybe true? Or more or less probably true? Or what?
I can understand assenting to *parts* of a complex expression, i.e., giving assent to part of the whole, I can understanding that what a statement is about is more or less *important* in some way. And I can understand being more or less *certain* of different statements (on the basis that there is more or less evidence for some of them). But being certain is not the same thing as assenting to truth.
It seems to me that this document is wrestling with some epistemological problems, and it’s losing.
on July 27th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Eric, that was very nicely put, regarding how much of the catechism and tradition is faith versus theology. There is also a practical point: the more one is asked to accept as a matter of “faith” — particularly as regards things that are deemed absolute but that have clearly been treated to different rules over time (celibate priesthood) — the more one is likely to question faith as a whole. I think we would all be better served if we were clearer about which concepts people can only accept “through a glass darkly” as a matter of faith (resurrection), and what concepts are open for rational exploration as growing out of that faith. The Church, unfortunately, IMHO, is going backwards in that regard.
on July 27th, 2010 at 10:02 am
In order for theology to be Catholic Theology, it must reflect our Catholic Faith.
That is why a source that claims polygamy is not against Natural Law cannot be a Catholic source, to begin with.
on July 27th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Prophetic theologians are gifted by God to provide the language for followers of Jesus to understand the Way, Christ Himself. The moral teachings of the Church are not the content of faith. This goes against infallibility but infallibility has only been used once, the Assumption of Mary, a faith issue. I have no problem with the Church speaking with certainty about faith issues (the Creed has everything I need to know), but morality is always about CHARITY. Prayerful theologians never seem to forget charity when they think, when they make God alive and present to the people of God. The lack of charity occurs when Church leaders forget they are PART of the people of God and not God, the ultimate Judge. The Church authority should teach what they believe will bring others to be truly human and salvation, and defend it philosophically methodically, but allow God to work, give Him a chance. That is the beauty of the Eucharist when the celebrant is prepared and the liturgy is planned and the homily draws the people of God to new heights. It is at the Eucharist that the priest shows Himself as a true theologian.
on July 27th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Mr. or Ms. Flanagan: there is no such need. And your snide tone is unwelcome.
on July 27th, 2010 at 11:43 am
That is why a source that claims polygamy is not against Natural Law cannot be a Catholic source, to begin with.
Nancy,
How about the Catholic Encyclopedia?
I think it is orthodox Catholic thought that polygamy is not intrinsically evil, and not against natural law, and was permitted by God under certain conditions, but is not permitted now.
on July 27th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
“Mr. or Ms. Flanagan: there is no such need. And your snide tone is unwelcome”
Mr. Gallicho: would the following be another example of a snide tone? Just so I can better understand the standards here. Thanks.
Posted by David Nickol
on July 26th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Many thanks to P Flanagan for pointing out that the Church opposes same-sex marriage and that the bishops are the successors to the apostles.
on July 27th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
P Flanagan,
I think my remark was more ironic than snide, but I apologize.
on July 27th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Apology accepted, Mr. Nickol and I will in the future attempt to avoid responding in what I perceived as the same tone. In reviewing the comments, it does appear that I was responsible for elevating any tone of snideness, for which I hope you will accept my apology.
on July 27th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Jim S: “I have no problem with the Church speaking with certainty about faith issues (the Creed has everything I need to know), but morality is always about CHARITY.”
In fact, the Magisterium of the Church has authority (and responsibility) to speak for faith AND morals. From Vatican II, Lumen gentium 25 (with my emphases):
“Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
Jim S: “but infallibility has only been used once, the Assumption of Mary”
Actually, twice, also in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. But you speak only of extraordinary infallibility. The magisterial doctrines of the Pope and the bishops in council is also infallible, termed “ordinary” infallibility. See “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium“:
“The Ordinary and Universal Episcopal Magisterium is infallible as it relates to a teaching concerning a matter of faith and morals that all the Bishops of the Church (including the Pope) universally hold as needing to be accepted by all the faithful.”
Jim S, I agree with your beautiful closing assertion regarding the primacy of the Eucharist, which is truly the source and summit of the Christian life.
on July 27th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
“If an ignorant bishop rejects what a learned theologian tells him, is there a guarantee that the bishop is right?”
David, continuing from Vatican II (Lumen gentium 25), we read: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility…”
So an individual bishop could certainly be in error, as you suggest. However, no individual bishop should be involved in proclaiming doctrine, should they? Are we not concerned here rather with an individual bishop making an imprudent or erroneous application of doctrine? For example, in the recent Phoenix hospital case, an argument can be made that the bishop acted imprudently in his application of the doctrine and canon law related to excommunication.
But that is not doctrine in the sense of theologian involvement, rather it concerns prudent or imprudent shepherding by a bishop…it seems to me. In that sort of instance, then, I suppose the input of a theologian regarding the application of doctrine would be very helpful in discerning prudential action, for the consideration of the bishop.
Is this not also the case made here in regard to opposing the USCCB position on ObamaCare (sorry, I cannot recall the official legislation acronym off hand, I do not mean to be pejorative): that the opposition expressed was not opposition to the church teaching on abortion, but rather on the bishop’s evaluation of whether or not the legislation in fact contradicted church teaching opposing the funding of abortion? In other words, an issue, not of doctrine, but of application of doctrine?
on July 27th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
““The Ordinary and Universal Episcopal Magisterium is infallible as it relates to a teaching concerning a matter of faith and morals that all the Bishops of the Church (including the Pope) universally hold as needing to be accepted by all the faithful.”
P Flanagan –
Since nobody knows what every single bishop has thought about every single issue, no one can say whether or not they have ever “universally held” anything, So what are those infallibile truths they have all supposedly held? How do you *KNOW* that they all held them. And most especially, how could Rome ever say that all the bishops through all the ages agreed about infallibility, especially since many left vatican I without voting because they disagreed with the proposition.
It amazes me how Rome distorts history.
on July 28th, 2010 at 10:00 am
P Flanagan – I am not minimizing the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (1854) or any other teaching – but only once has the doctrine of infallibility (1870) been imposed (the Assumption- 1950) – and of course we can say it was implied (”grandfathered in”) since Peter – great! I get back to my point which is CHARITY. Is is the “teaching” of the Church to deny small children a Catholic education if they belong to a same-sex family? Or to deny a former priest the opportunity to teach in a Catholic school or bring communion to the sick? Does not the practical application of the Church’s teaching have to be charitable? The teaching makes no sense if the practical application is distorted and that has been done by Church authorities. One of the the marvelous things about Canon Law is at the very end somebody slipped in what the Canon Law was all about: “prae oculis habita salute animarum, quae in Ecclesia suprema, lex esse debet” (having only before your eyes the salvation of souls, which in the Church, must be the supreme law.”
on July 28th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
“how could Rome ever say that all the bishops through all the ages agreed about infallibility, especially since many left vatican I without voting because they disagreed with the proposition.”
Again, there is a distinction between extraordinary infallibility that was promulgated at Vatican I and the concept of ordinary infallibility that was restated, very forcefully, at Vatican II in the section of Lumen gentium quoted above. That excerpt from Vatican II is itself, ironically, a declaration under ordinary infallibility as it was decreed by the bishops in council.
on July 28th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
“Is it the “teaching” of the Church to deny small children a Catholic education if they belong to a same-sex family?”
No, the teaching of the church is that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. The application of that teaching has been made differently by different bishops (Denver vs Boston) based on those shepherds’ prudential decision. The teachings are static, indeed eternal…but the application is dynamic to allow for the charity you rightfully call for.
“The teaching makes no sense if the practical application is distorted and that has been done by Church authorities”
The teaching is never wrong, but its application can certainly be imperfect. Distortion, though, may be in the eye of the beholder, I think. In your example, for someone who faithfully holds to the Church teaching against homosexual acts, avoiding the scandal of appearing to condone homosexuality by allowing same-sex Catholic school parents would not seem distorted at all, but rather the deepest form of charity: that geared toward the eternal truths revealed by God in His church, with the ultimate goal of our eternal salvation. The point is to retain the teaching in all cases, and find the most charitable means to apply it that do not abandon the teaching. We are to conform ourselves to God’s will, are we not? Not try to shape him to fit our conscience, sincere though it may be.
on July 28th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Again, CHARITY! That is the commandment of Christ; that is basis of moral law. It is charity alone that will bring people to Christ. Per your example, avoiding scandal comes before charity. Is that not the premise behind the pedophile scandal?
The young people in my World Religion class have the lowest opinion of the Catholic Church when compared to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism because of the lack of charity of the priests and the older Catholics they encounter. Christianity is not a religion of a book; it is about an encounter with the living Christ. It is arrogant to stand with the Law (teachings), tell everyone the Church cannot be wrong, and then act uncharitably in its application. The Church (the faithful followers of Jesus) in its fullness includes theologians who have insight and gifts to offer. Perhaps the leaders should listen. By the way, the new beginning of the Church will have to begin in the seminary formation. We don’t need married priests; we need holy and poor and humble priests, and ones who can preach.
on July 28th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
“Again, there is a distinction between extraordinary infallibility that was promulgated at Vatican I and the concept of ordinary infallibility that was restated, very forcefully, at Vatican II in the section of Lumen gentium quoted above. That excerpt from Vatican II is itself, ironically, a declaration under ordinary infallibility as it was decreed by the bishops in counci”
P Flanagan –
This is just a comment on the purported history of “infallibility” of popes and bishops. It doesn’t answer my questions: how does the Vatican (or how did the Vatican) get all of that information — that all the bishops through 2000 years agreed about anything? And especially with regard to Vatican I and infallibility, many bishops who did not vote (they left the council before the vote) were not in favor of it at least before the vote was taken.
It astounds me how conservative Catholics can look at those facts and say things like “an infallible belief is one that all the bishops have held, and the doctrine of infallibility is an infallible belief”.
on July 28th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Ordinary infallibility was not “restated” at Vatican II; the infallibility of the bishops (the ordinary magisterium) was a tenet of Roman theologians that was first adopted as church teaching at Vatican II, in what may have been a less than helpful attempt to counterbalance the papal infallibility first dogmatized at Vatican I.
“That is why a source that claims polygamy is not against Natural Law cannot be a Catholic source, to begin with.” But it is well known that Thomas Aquinas held polygamy to be compatible with natural law.
on July 28th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
What Jim S. said.
on July 29th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
“The young people in my World Religion class have the lowest opinion of the Catholic Church when compared to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism because of the lack of charity of the priests and the older Catholics they encounter.”
If your students have a superficial understanding of Christianity as uncharitable based on some anecdotal encounters with uncharitable individuals, then I can only imagine what their uncharitable opinion must be of Muslims. Or is the lack of charity of some Christians more slanderous, somehow, than the lack of charity of some Muslims slaughtering thousands in the name of Allah?
Sorry, but anyone who looks at the uncharitable actions of a some Catholics and also the “uncharitable” acts of quite a few Muslim terrorists and has a lower opinion of the Catholic Church is someone who should certainly not be quoted in any rational argument.
on July 29th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Their encounters are not anecdotal – these are real people with real feelings – they are not superficial in their understanding. These are smart, sensitive kids who cannot find anyone who is kind – and guess what, neither can I and I am 58 – I know priests are tired and I know there are good ones, but overall it’s not been a good experience – is that OK that I feel this way?? I was not happy last year when my friend was on his deathbed and the priest showed without his oils! or the Eucharist = thought he could just say a prayer – When I was in Mississippi, the parishes pay $1,000 for each of their students of the parish who attend Catholic High School – the pastor stated I did not contribute enough – I was raising three sons, teaching CCD, bringing communion to the sick, and paying $1100 a month for tuition which was more than my mortgage – he even asked if I owned a boat or had a vacation home – he also wanted to see my W2s –
I love the Church, those who quietly follow Christ every day – please, please, be more sensitive.
on July 30th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Jim–The actions you describe speak to parts of this post that encourage priests to take their jobs more seriously and conscientiously. I have not been able to attend daily mass this summer or even Wed. evening mass because the priest feels he’s overworked. We had an assistant who took the summer off, and I really don’t think he thought about the repercussions of that.
on July 30th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
“The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts.” (John Locke) – and beliefs?
I guess we can only judge Christianity by the good things people do rather than the totality of actions that grow out of one’s alleged belief.
Nice trick if you can get away with it.
on August 4th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Eric–
Thank you for your read of Hauerwas. Perhaps those who wonder whether he is contradictory or not, or why Catholics might go study with this man, will observe the bitter and unproductive flame war that erupted in the comments. Hauerwas’ work is about a thousand times more interesting as an attempt to be faithful in a difficult age than such debates.