Conversation in the Bronx (Update)
This past weekend, a glorious one weather-wise, I had the pleasure and privilege of being present at a gathering sponsored by the “Fordham Conversation Project.”
The initiative brought together young professors of theology to discuss their emerging role in the Church and university at a time of evident polarization. In this regard the undertaking bears resemblance to the Common Ground Initiative launched by the late Cardinal Bernardin and Monsignor Philip Murnion.
“Keynotes” were given by Peter Steinfels and John Allen — with their accustomed clarity, elan and insight. And then, the “elders” having been dismissed, the seventeen or so young theologians withdrew in conclave for spirited dialogue and discernment.
Here is how one participant describes their intense two days together:
Seeing divisions in the Church through the ideological lens of left/right, red/blue, liberal/conservative, etc. was seen by practically everyone at the FCP as totally inadequate: both for the complexity of the issues which face us and for the tradition in which we work. They also seem to becoming more and more inadequate for our students…and (especially in light of John Allen’s talk) for those who hold the future energy of the Church: the people of the global south.
Despite many of us clearly having differing views on hot button issues like authority, sexuality, women in the Church, liturgy, and more…the natural friendship produced by the weekend (which, because many of us didn’t know each other, started with the presumption of good will required by intellectual solidarity) created a safe space to express some of these ideas. The concept of friendship, which obviously has a long theological history, was perhaps the central idea of the weekend. If those who disagree actually make conscious choices to engage in practices to create the space to be friends then the disagreement is far less likely to fracture the relationship. And sometimes understanding grows in such a way that the disagreement fades away…or at least is much better understood.
I think the focus on junior people allowed both of these ideas to flourish in our discussions because ‘our generation’ (1) hasn’t been formed by the culture wars of the 60s and by Vatican II and its aftermath and (2) generally haven’t yet fought the battles that define one’s self in opposition to another person or idea. This allows friendships to flourish across divides.
Further reflections (and pictures) here.
Update:
Those who have expressed interest in the Fordham undertaking might be interested in John Allen’s report and further thoughts:
it’s important to concede that the Fordham Conversation Project – and the broader post-ideological instinct it represents among many younger Catholics – is swimming against two powerful cultural tides, one in American society and one inside the academy. First, many Americans today are addicted to ideology the way some people get hooked on booze or pills, and they’ll have to “bottom out” before they’ll be ready to think differently. Second, especially as tenure reviews start to roll around, these younger theologians will be propelled towards thinking more about their obligations to their discipline than to the broader church.
For at least two compelling reasons, therefore, the Fordham Conversation Project may be a long shot to actually change the culture of the American church. Yet at least for one gorgeous weekend in the Bronx, it still felt a lot like hope.
The rest of Allen’s post is here.
Am I permitterd a moment of justifiable pride in seeing so many familiar faces of Notre Dame PhDs in the mix?
With all due respect Father Imbelli, seeing divisions in The Church through those who assent to The Truth and those who dissent from The Truth, is the reason why there is polarization to begin with. Those who assent to The Truth and those who dissent from The Truth will never be in communion. The Truth is not a matter of opinion.
This unity gives me hope. Coming to the table in the spirit of friendship is essential to discuss the Church.
Larry,
justifiable, indeed! I learned much from all the participants.
These types of initiatiatives are so needed in an age when politics trumps everything, including the church.
Nancy,
Speaking about truth with the language of assenting and dissenting to propositions is one way. But we can also speak about truth with the language of “pursuing.” For theology, which is always “trying” to make sense of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, the language of pursuing truth may be more appropriate.
It is very much in the tradition of St. Augustine to look at truth as a communal pursuit, if you would let me share one of my favorite quotes of his about the pursuit of truth: “To talk and laugh and do kindness to one another; to read well-written books together; to make jokes together and then to talk seriously together; sometimes to disagree, but without any ill feelings, just as one may disagree with oneself, and to find these disagreements make our general agreement all the more pleasant; to be sometimes teaching and sometimes learning; to long impatiently for the absent and to welcome them when they return to us.” (Conf. IV.x.13)
I agree with Andrew but would only add that, following Saint Anselm, the word should be “seeking” – faith seeking understanding. My old professor Bernard Lonergan spoke of “reaching up to the mind of Aquinas” – that was a fine (and humble) way of thinking as a theologian – reaching up, seeking, pursuing to the only one who could say “I am the Truth.”
Nancy –
If i say “I know Nancy Danielson” does that mean that I know everything that “Nancy Danielson” includes? Of course not. There are many aspects and part of you that are completely unknown to me and other aspects that we just don’t know very well.
When I say, Christ is “the Truth”, does that mean that we know everything that “the Truth” includes? Of course not. There are many aspects and parts of the Truth that are completely unknown to us and other aspects what we just don’t know very well.
So it really isn’t accurate of you to talk as if the Church has *ALL of the Truth EXPLICITLY *. The Church doesn’t understand *all* of the Truth. Theology is the process of trying to find out more of the Truth. Because theologians (even bishops and popes) are only human they can make mistakes about theology, and they even disagree among themselves. So the state of Church dogmas isn’t so simple as you present it.
Ann: I would add to your fine comment this: In Col 2:3, St. Paul speaks of “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” and of them he says that they “are hidden in Christ.” Two things strike one: that they are said to be “hidden”, and that it is “in Christ” that they are hidden.
“Culture is the expression of the identity of a community of people. It expresses their understanding of reality; of the truth about human life generally and themselves in particular. This expression is essentially political, that is, it takes the form of customs or laws that epitomize the community’s judgment with respect to what is true and false about life and there what is right or wrong, good or evil. Custom governs the imagination and creativity of the community through the rules and limitations of its language, and thus language serves as an excellent analogy for understanding how culture works. That is why literature is such a good example of culture. A “culture war” properly speaking, is a conflict over truth, over reality and its meaning. But because culture is about how we live, what we do and not just what we think, a culture war is also a political war. Political stability depends upon agreement not about whether or not a particular action is right or wrong, but about how to judge it. Politics is always partisan, and there are always winners and losers. There can be considerable disagreement within a culture, but so long as there is agreement about what is real, so long as there is a common language, the culture remains intact and partisan conflict can be carried on in speech. When the disagreement is about reality itself, however, language becomes a useless means of disputation and the only resolution is victory in combat.”
A book review by Sarah Baumgartner Thurow of Beyond The Culture Wars, First Things, August/September, 1993.
Jesus founded a church, not a school or a magisterium, and he organized a college of apostles, not of rabbis, and he proclaimed love, not torah. John McKenzie, S.J.
I was sorry to see the discussion here focus on Nancy’s simplistic post.
I smell the fine hand of Peter and Charles (as this is a Fordham project) and they deserve genuine credit for providing an effort to revive the centrism exemplified in NPLC.
My friends in New York have told me that in the last times of the late Phil Murnion, that effort was being undermined in the divisive Church climate.
Old issues of Church, listing contributors, contained the names of more than a few hiererachy; i wondered how many hierarchs supported the Fordham effort? And, sans such support, and some real effort as resolving the theological impasse among major theological societies, i wonder how much this effort will succed in the short range?
In the long range, of course, theree will be some reshaping by our young and less divided theologians hopefully, but will continued toxicity in the present undetmine some of that effort?
It is refreshing to see this conversation taking place again. Are there any intentions on opening up this dialogue and inviting others to join or is this just an initiative of a group of local theologians who intend to keep it as an in-house thing?
Nancy’s views are not “simplistic” and they are worth the time to respond – everyone’s spirituality is different – reading her comments over the past few months, she loves the Church and wants what is best for the Church. She respects everyone’s view.
Regarding the Fordham Conversation Project I trust the participants are enriched by the meeting. I wonder if notes were taken or if it was taped. I would enjoy just listening. Perhaps Fr. Imbelli can give us some morsels.
Sorry, I did not mean to appear rude by not responding. As Catholics, we believe that all that Christ Has Revealed to us that is part of The Deposit of Faith handed down through Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Teaching of The Magisterium, is True, for we all know that in Christ, there is no lie.
One cannot be pursuing the Truth while dissenting from The Truth, simultaneously. This “Theological impasse” is man made, for we are called to rejoice in The Truth, not to agree to disagree. For this reason, all viewpoints are not worthy of respect, and, although one cannot disagree with oneself, one can change one’s mind.
Nancy –
If I say, “I have a birthday present for you”, and suppose I really do. If I do, then that statement is the truth about the matter. But just because *I* know what I have for you, that doesn’t imply that *you* know what I’m thinking. You’ll have to wait until your birthday to ifnd out. And it’s the same with “the Truth” that Jesus has for us.. Jesus knows *all* that “the Truth” means. The rest of us don’t. So we try to interpret His words and sometimes we have to disagree because we can be wrong, and that includes bishops and popes..
Ann, Jesus is The Truth and He Has Revealed Himself to His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, The Catholic Church.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew28.htm
Nancy, John 16:12: “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth.” We are being guided to the truth, but we’re not there yet, istm.
This is in reference to Christ’s Death, Resurrection and Ascension and The Holy Spirit Who will continue to guide us in Truth to The Truth, and thus to His Father’s House.
“I have called you friends because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father.” -Christ
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john15.htm#1
“The truth of a thing is the feel of it, not the think of it.” Stanley Kubrick.
“We want to know for sure, and to say that we know; or we want what lies beneath this sense of “knowing for sure” we want to feel that we are on the right track in some way we can check out by referring to an external referent, some certain way, a polestar. This, very often, will separate us from others and is even intended to do so; we are not like the Muslim in this, nor like Jews in that, nor like fundamentalist Christians in another way; we are at pains to show that we are not conservatives, nor liberals; or we search for a positive criterion, like the Bible, or a church which cannot make mistakes, either because the church’s ‘long haul’ or tradition is a reliable guide (as Orthodox believe), or because the church has a guaranteed source of infallibility in a magisterial protected from error (as Catholics believe). Or we look for political and social correctness as a criterion for what really matters, religiously whatever the vehicle is, as unimportant: nearly anything will do, so long as it persuades us that we are on the right track.”
John Garvey, “ If You Had Been There” Commonweal, 12 21 90.
“The fullness of Christian truth lies in the future.” Rosemary Radford Reuther.
“It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill luck, people understood each other, they would never agree.” Beaudelaire.
“The drastic curtailment of intellectual plurality makes it hard for a person to choose a way to relate to Being, to the world, and to himself. Culture and information controlled from the center narrow the horizon against which people mature. The demand for unquestioned loyalty forces people to become bit players in empty rituals.” Vaclav Havel, source unknown (quoted by Jean Bethke Elshtain in NOR, October 1991).
I’m intrigued by the quote from John Allen about tenure reviews — is he saying that theologians who are more committed to the Church or more traditional would have problems getting tenure? I hope not — we need lots of different voices.
What the future holds is uncertain (obviously) but a centrist revival has a hard row to hoe, istm.
I thought the apology of the pastor in Oak Park, Ill.(at America “In All Things”) to women (driven by the departure of several women minisyetrs in his congregation) for Vatican “insensitivity” “harshness” underscores the pastoral problem apart from theological dialogue.
The comments there show how deep the divide is.
I also think the ABC News Report on how BXVI is leading the Church back is both accurate and underscores the problem of trying to be centrist.
And, finally, there’s the whole subject of “truth” so easy to be facile about with our own predilections when spin matters so much more in our world as a tool of power…..