Can one be progressive, yet orthodox?

[Catholic2003]

Brendan:

What is concerning me here is the reliance on theologians, either orthodox or not.

That’s the way the Church works. First, the theologians study an issue, with the Bishops watching over the discussions. At some point, the Bishops feel there is enough information to promulgate an official teaching.

For the issue of the infallibility of the teaching on contraception, we are still in the first stage. This is why you will not find any Magisterial statements stating the infallibility of Humanae Vitae, as there are for the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Theologians, even though they have no authority as Bishops do, are nonetheless an essential element in the development and understanding of Church doctrine. For details, see the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian.

The Church isn’t about power, it is about service. Focusing only on the power, to the point of completely dismissing those who don’t have power, is missing this vital point of how Jesus set up the Church.

 

[Matt16_18]

Lux_et_veritas:

Even the media have used these terms. They talk about Fr. Richard McBrien, they call him a “progressive”. They talk about Pope Benedict, they call him “orthodox”.

There are those in the “media” that call murder in the womb a “women’s right to privacy”, and self-murder “the right to die”. Just because some in the media are engaging in a propaganda war by twisting the meaning of words – that is no reason for you to do the same.

“Progressive” does not mean “dissenter”. It would be accurate to call Fr. Richard McBrien “heterodox” and Pope Benedict “orthodox”.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I think you can be “progressive” (what that really means I have no idea. I think it is Liberal’s attempt to avoid being called liberal) on social issues and be orthodox on doctrinal ones. There is alot of latitude within Catholic doctrine regarding society and how they are run and maintained. For instance, Catholicism denounces unfettered capitalism, socialism, communism, despotism. However, a semi-social/semi-capitalist system seem acceptable. The church recognizes private ownership of property, and rejects communal assignment of government owned property.

However, if you mean “progressive” on doctrine, i.e., supporting women’s ordination, artificial contraception, polygamy, same sex unions, etc. There is a name for that, its called heterodoxy, because it directly refutes established doctrine (not disciplines). YOu can argue for married priests within the Latin Rite. Celebacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. Women’s Ordination is forbidden by doctrine. John Paul in his encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotalis states that the CHurch CANNOT ordain women, even if everyone in the church wanted it. The ordinations could never be valid. Period, end of story. There is no wiggle room for debating the issue.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Scott_Lafrance:

However, if you mean “progressive” on doctrine, i.e., supporting women’s ordination, artificial contraception, polygamy, same sex unions, etc. There is a name for that, its called heterodoxy, because it directly refutes established doctrine (not disciplines). YOu can argue for married priests within the Latin Rite. Celebacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. Women’s Ordination is forbidden by doctrine…

Now this is an interesting perspective and gives me much to ponder. I am have not studied political systems very much, but it introduces something new. Maybe I will just start using the term, “dissenting” when referring to people who do these things.

However, I do believe that when the term progressive is used in most circles today, regardless of its technical meaning, the label has become a substitute for heterodox from what I can see. Fr. Benedict Groeschel had this to say about McBrien and his book, Catholicism.

In describing the current situation, Groeschel gives us clear-eyed judgments that confirm what many of us have long suspected and experienced. He points to the root of the Church’s problem as a culture of dissent fostered by an inadequate theology distant from genuine spirituality and mentions Father Richard McBrien’s work Catholicism as a prominent example.

ncjohn then raises this issue:

“Progressive” also legitimately means one who seeks growth. Those whose increased understanding brought them to the understanding of the Trinity were “progressive”.

So, yes I can see applications of where “progressive” has various meanings and I would agree that those who stood on the side of the Trinity may have been looked upon as progressive.

But in today’s world, when do people typically use the label “progressive” when discussing Catholics? Matt and John both have problems with my reference to media, but I should clarify, I was indeed referring to the use of the word frequently in forums like this, and in today’s public circles, including the media & blogs, not as it would have been looked upon in centuries past, or when viewing things like political systems.When this expression, “progressive Catholic” is used today, I’ll bet in 90% of the cases names such as these will crop up as they did in my google search:

McBrien, Hunt, Gumbleton, Mahony, Greeley, Weakland.

I look at McBrien. He is hardly a ringing endorsement of pro-life issues. He is hardly a staunch supporter of the Churches teaching on Women’s Ordination, or on homosexual issues. These are doctrinal, so yes, I was referring to “progressive” in this frame.

Here is an example:

Hunt, the theologian, calls the church’s doctrinal logic on women, which deals with such matters as who was present at the Last Supper, “intellectually embarrassing” and desperately in need of reassessment. And as for the prelates who continue to categorize homosexuality as a disorder and a sin, she says simply: “All they do is quote themselves over and over again. They don’t pay any attention to the social sciences.”

Naturally, progressive Catholics in the United States want little to do with the church’s discrimination, whether it concerns women, homosexuals or anyone else. So as the church moves into its third millennium, they hope to see the practice of discrimination rejected once and for all.

I look at Gumbleton, whose resume on the Archdiocese of Detroit website boasts of membership with organizations such as New Ways Ministries, Dignity, Call to Action, and Triangle Foundation, some of these of which he serves on the board.

As for Weakland, who falls among those people cite as “progressive”, there are numerous examples :

Archbishop Weakland is a co-founder of the AIDS Resource Centre of Wisconsin /Milwaukee AIDS Project (ARCW/NIAP). His name has appeared on official letterhead and he has solicited funds - even donating archdiocesan funds to ARCW/MAP…The organisation distributes AIDS education brochures including instruction on “safe sex” which, apart from advocating condom usage, suggest…mutual masturbation, oral sex and other activities… Additional literature distributed by ARCW/MAP carries advertisements for X-rated gay movies, … In 1987, Weakland was asked by a group of lay Catholics to resign his position as co-chairman of the Board of Trustees of ARCW/MAP, but he declined to do so.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Lux, this is a good thread because it hits to a matter that has always bothered me. Ideas matter and for ideas to be communicated, words matter. When someone uses their own definition in a discussion contrary to the proper definition, confusion abounds and people end up talking around each other because their words don’t mean the same thing. The non-Catholic definition of the word “faith” is something very broad and encompasses concepts that Catholics communicate using the words “hope”, “love”, and “charity” in addition to “faith”. So when a Protestant claims that “faith alone” is sufficient they mean something that includes not only the common, dictionary definition of faith but also the concepts of hope, love and charity.

Progressive and heterodox is miscontrued similarily. Orthodox is defined as conforming to the established doctrines. When applied as an adjective of a Catholic, it means one who conforms to the teachings of the Church.

Heterodox is defined as opposing the established doctrines. When applied as an adjective of a Catholic, one who is a heterodox opposes the teachings of the Church. In my mind, it is virtually impossible to call a Catholic a heterodox as it would mean that this person opposes ALL Catholic doctrines. Heck, it is impossible to put this moniker on even a Protestant as they accept SOME of the Church’s teachings.

For this reason, I react whenever one calls anyone either a heterodox or orthodox as it denotes definitively one either opposes or conforms to all teachings which is nearly impossible for anyone to be at either extreme. For those of us who desire to follow the Teachings of the Church, we can assert we aspire to be orthodox but to call ourselves orthodox infers we accept everything (even which we don’t know).

Furthermore, when people generalize it is usually an example of intellectual, semantic laziness (is this a generalization? ) and usually creates more confusion than clarity to a discussion. These are serious issues and thus the choice of words should be taken seriously.

What I think is appropriate is that orthodox or heterodox be applied to a particular idea, ie this position is orthodox or heterodox and not make it personal.

But progressive/liberal or traditional/conservative are words that can be applied to people as it addresses a general outlook but neither necessarily are orthodox or heterodox. For example, I might advocate that there are appropriate adaptations to the liturgy to adapt to the local culture (inculturation) and such a view would be rightly considered progressive. However, the adaptation might be orthodox or heterodox. Similarily, one who advocates a universal traditional liturgy which would preclude local cultural adaptations would be rightly considered conservative. Most times such a view would be orthodox. However, if one advocated absolute universality w/ no cultural adaptation, this person would be advocating a position that is currently heterodox.

In summary, the use of the words in each discussion needs to be carefully chosen to properly articulate clearly. Too often, the choice of words lead to confusion and ultimately to misrepresentation of both ideas and a description of other people. And as Catholics, we all consider misrepresentation to potentially be “bearing false witness” which is a grave matter.

 

[ncjohn]

Lux_et_veritas:

But in today’s world, when do people typically use the label “progressive” when discussing Catholics? Matt and John both have problems with my reference to media, but I should clarify, I was indeed referring to the use of the word frequently in forums like this, and in today’s public circles, including the media & blogs, not as it would have been looked upon in centuries past, or when viewing things like political systems.When this expression, “progressive Catholic” is used today, I’ll bet in 90% of the cases names such as these will crop up as they did in my google search

Hi Diane,

I don’t deny that there is common terminology that is thrown around, just as there is with terms like “feminist”, but I didn’t understand your original question to be whether the commonly-used terminology was correct or adequate. The same argument can be made with the negative connotations that are often used for the term “traditionalist” but they don’t eliminate its perfectly valid positive definitions. Here was the part of your original question I was addressing:

Lux_et_veritas:

If there are theologians who could be considered progressive, yet orthodox, please provide supporting information.

My point is that a currently valid definition of “progressive”, even if it is not the one people like to throw around in labeling people, would be used to describe many of the theologians who have been responsible for much of, if not MOST of the growth in theological understanding throughout the Church’s history.

As such, the only conclusion I can come to in response to the thread’s question is: yes, one can be progressive and orthodox. Further, as I said below, in that context of “progressive” meaning to seek growth, I feel that we should *all * be striving to be progressive and orthodox.

Peace,

 

[Brendan]

Catholic2003:

That’s the way the Church works. First, the theologians study an issue, with the Bishops watching over the discussions. At some point, the Bishops feel there is enough information to promulgate an official teaching.

For the issue of the infallibility of the teaching on contraception, we are still in the first stage. This is why you will not find any Magisterial statements stating the infallibility of Humanae Vitae, as there are for the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Next question.

When all the bishops, in union with the Holy Father, teach the same thing on a Matter of Faith and Morals, what level of Authority does that teaching have?

(hint Read Lumen Gentium #25)

Theologians, even though they have no authority as Bishops do, are nonetheless an essential element in the development and understanding of Church doctrine. For details, see the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian.

Yes, I am well familar with that document. I’m a theology student myself.

Second question. When one reads of a theologian who differs from a promuglaed teaching of the Pope on Faith and Morals, to which, to we own “submission of mind and will”

The Church isn’t about power, it is about service. Focusing only on the power, to the point of completely dismissing those who don’t have power, is missing this vital point of how Jesus set up the Church.

If someone mentioned ‘power’ in this thread, I missed it. I myself was talking of Authority, which is an entirely different thing.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brendan:

When all the bishops, in union with the Holy Father, teach the same thing on a Matter of Faith and Morals, what level of Authority does that teaching have?

(hint Read Lumen Gentium #25)

That depends on a number of factors, including whether the “thing” is contained in the Deposit of Revelation, whether the bishops have taught this “thing” as definitively to be held, and the extent to which the agreement of the bishops is diachronic across the entire history (including the future history) of the Church. From Lumen Gentium 25 (bold added):

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. …

From Archbishop Bertone (bold added):

Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only synchronically, but also diachronically. This means that a morally unanimous consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles.

If you would care to assess these factors with respect to the Church’s teaching on contraception, you are more than free to submit an article to Theological Studies (where much of the debate has been taking place) or to whatever other journal you prefer.

Brendan:

Second question. When one reads of a theologian who differs from a promuglaed teaching of the Pope on Faith and Morals, to which, to we own “submission of mind and will”

I don’t see a question here.

 

[dumspirospero]

The very simple and bare bones answer to your question is “NO”…one cannot be progressive and orthodox.

 

[AquinasXVI]

After looking at this for quite a while…we really have to understand the nature of progressive and heterodox for it is being mistaken as one for the other.

Progressive is utterly sterile if the point of departure and the destination is not stated…progressive is the apparent movement from the begining point to its intened end. So the word progressive as far as my feeble logic is concerned doesn’t mean anything until the beginning and the end are clear.

Heterodoxy on the otherhand at least in Catholic terms is simple…it’s not orthodox; not universally held nor confirmed as true but passed by some as true.

Thanks for indulging my hapless attempt at being Webster.

in XT.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

From Archbishop Bertone (bold added):

Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only synchronically

, but also diachronically. This means that a morally unanimous consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles.

Here is more from that piece:

“If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2 It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal and binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in ages past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a later era.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

From the same Archbishop Bertone letter (emphasis is mine):

1. Second, these considerations are highly significant regarding adherence to the teaching of Veritatis splendor and *Evangelium vitae, *of *Ordinatio sacerdotalis *and also of the *Responsum *and the Letter of the Congregation on the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried members of the faithful: since these documents deal with teachings not proposed or confirmed by the Magisterium in the form of a definition (solemn judgement), there is a widespread idea that these teachings can be revised or reformed at a later date or perhaps in another pontificate. This idea is totally groundless and betrays a mistaken understanding of the Catholic Church’s doctrine on the Magisterium.

Actually, I regret not reading more of Archbishop Bertone’s letter sooner. There are many things I could have pasted here from that letter which would contradict the idea that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis could be overturned in a later pontificate.

 

[pnewton]

Yes. In fact progressive theologians have performed great service for the Catholic Church, most recently in Marian doctrine. It is through dialogue on these topics that the church grows in its understanding. God just didn’t zap in the doctrine of the immacualate conception and the assumption.

Now perhaps the fate of unbaptized infants may be taken up. Perhaps Limbo may be renewed as an idea or something else. We may even have one of have an infallible dogma some day. It will not happen though if it is never discussed.

These are good examples of where progressive theologians can help the church. Many of the other examples are heterodox progressives. It is the heterodoxy that is to be avoided not progression.