Controversial Notre Dame priest accused of plagiarism…again

[EtienneGilson]

I am sad to see that I have not made the list of dissenter heretics like those who support married priests…opps that is a whole branch of the Catholic Church, the Eastern branch.

That and it is obvious that the author of the website has little to no techinical theological training since Fr. Rahner and Fr. Schillibeeckx are considered heretics for their transfinalization/transsignification views…views not condemned by Pope Paul in Mysterium Fidei. Rather, Pope Paul noted that it is ont proper to claim that the only thing occuring at consecration is those things to the exclusion of transubstantiation.

DreadVandal, I could care less about yuor dislike of Fr. McBrien’s popular writing. I never claimed he was a leading intellectual nor that I care for his writings, but rather that he has some good points and insights (infrequently in his more recent writings) and that he should not be dismissed, ignored or worse, libeled (which is what frequently occurs on this site by people likely never having read a word of his). As to the USCCB statement, look at it closely and you will see that he/it isn’t condemned for heresy

Summary and Conclusion

Catholicism poses pastoral problems particularly as a textbook in undergraduate college courses and in parish education programs. The principal difficulties with the book lie not only in the particular positions adopted, but perhaps even more in the cumulative effect of the book as a whole. The method is to offer a broad range of opinions on every topic with the apparent intention of allowing or stimulating the reader to make a choice. This places a heavy burden on the reader, especially since some of the opinions described do not stand within the central Catholic tradition. The reader who is a theological beginner could easily assume that all the authors cited are equally a part of the mainstream Catholic conversation, whereas some of the authors are closer to the margins. While the book could be a helpful resource to theologians looking for a survey of opinions on some question, it might well be bewildering and unsettling for Catholics taking undergraduate courses in theology.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5286

I should also remind those who dismiss him that he HASN’T ben condemned. In an era which saw the silencing of Charles Curran, Eduard Schillibeeckx, Hans Kung, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and all the liberation theologians…it would have been easy to silence the head of Notre Dame, arguably the most important Catholic University in the New World.

Furthermore, I will give an incomplete list of Catholic theologians who have found themselves on the wrong side of at Papal or Magisterial reprimand…St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis of Assisi, Peter Abelard, Peter Lombard, Roger Bacon and in the modern era Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Johan Adam Mohler and Luis Olivier Duchesne. All the last theologians were later vindicated and their views became orthodox views expressed in the Second Vatican Council.

 

[fix]

EtienneGilson:

I am sad to see that I have not made the list of dissenter heretics like those who support married priests…opps that is a whole branch of the Catholic Church, the Eastern branch.

That and it is obvious that the author of the website has little to no techinical theological training since Fr. Rahner and Fr. Schillibeeckx are considered heretics for their transfinalization/transsignification views…views not condemned by Pope Paul in Mysterium Fidei. Rather, Pope Paul noted that it is ont proper to claim that the only thing occuring at consecration is those things to the exclusion of transubstantiation.

DreadVandal, I could care less about yuor dislike of Fr. McBrien’s popular writing. I never claimed he was a leading intellectual nor that I care for his writings, but rather that he has some good points and insights (infrequently in his more recent writings) and that he should not be dismissed, ignored or worse, libeled (which is what frequently occurs on this site by people likely never having read a word of his). As to the USCCB statement, look at it closely and you will see that he/it isn’t condemned for heresy
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5286

I should also remind those who dismiss him that he HASN’T ben condemned. In an era which saw the silencing of Charles Curran, Eduard Schillibeeckx, Hans Kung, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and all the liberation theologians…it would have been easy to silence the head of Notre Dame, arguably the most important Catholic University in the New World.

Furthermore, I will give an incomplete list of Catholic theologians who have found themselves on the wrong side of at Papal or Magisterial reprimand…St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis of Assisi, Peter Abelard, Peter Lombard, Roger Bacon and in the modern era Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Johan Adam Mohler and Luis Olivier Duchesne. All the last theologians were later vindicated and their views became orthodox views expressed in the Second Vatican Council.

From your link:

The problem is further aggravated because Catholicism gives very little weight to the teaching of the magisterium, at least where there has been no explicit dogmatic definition. At many points the book treats magisterial statements on the same level as free theological opinions. On a number of important issues, most notably in the field of moral theology, the reader will see without difficulty that the book regards the “official church position” as simply in error.

One big problem with folks like McBrien is that their audience is often the laity. If he were simply arguing his points to other academics in scholarly pursuit of the truth that would be one thing, but it seems he often targets the non theologically trained laity and puts forth arguments that do not lead to a greater understanding of the faith, but an understanding that is at odds with the faith.

 

[MrS]

EtienneGilson:

I should also remind those who dismiss him that he HASN’T ben condemned. In an era which saw the silencing of Charles Curran, Eduard Schillibeeckx, Hans Kung, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and all the liberation theologians…it would have been easy to silence the head of Notre Dame, arguably the most important Catholic University in the New World.

.

:banghead::bigyikes::whacky: :nope:

 

[frommi]

fix:

One big problem with folks like McBrien is that their audience is often the laity. If he were simply arguing his points to other academics in scholarly pursuit of the truth that would be one thing, but it seems he often targets the non theologically trained laity and puts forth arguments that do not lead to a greater understanding of the faith, but an understanding that is at odds with the faith.

And the same standard applies to people on the opposite side of some of these issues. Often unsuspecting laity end up hearing a point of view that while scholarly, is confusing.

I mean, years ago, a group in my hometown took out an ad in the local paper calling the Bishop a heretic…do you know how long it took to reeducate people who were convinced it was true because it was in the paper?

Just because his audience is mostly lay does not mean the Fr. McBrien should be silenced.

Again, I do think he illuminates certain issues from different perspectives, and often calls out those who make statements that are incorrect about the faith.

 

[fix]

frommi:

And the same standard applies to people on the opposite side of some of these issues. Often unsuspecting laity end up hearing a point of view that while scholarly, is confusing.

I agree. If error is proclaimed in some way it ought to be corrected, but it often is not.

I mean, years ago, a group in my hometown took out an ad in the local paper calling the Bishop a heretic…do you know how long it took to reeducate people who were convinced it was true because it was in the paper?

I agree again.

Just because his audience is mostly lay does not mean the Fr. McBrien should be silenced.

His errors should be corrected publicly. If he refuses he should be silenced. How are souls served if they are led astray?

Again, I do think he illuminates certain issues from different perspectives, and often calls out those who make statements that are incorrect about the faith.

We need to evaluate this carefully.

 

[EtienneGilson]

fix:

From your link:

One big problem with folks like McBrien is that their audience is often the laity. If he were simply arguing his points to other academics in scholarly pursuit of the truth that would be one thing, but it seems he often targets the non theologically trained laity and puts forth arguments that do not lead to a greater understanding of the faith, but an understanding that is at odds with the faith.

I agree. I was actually thinking of posting earlier that I concider Fr. McBrien to be liberal Catholicism’s (for lack of a better phrase) equivalent to another popularizer in conservative Catholicism: Peter Kreeft.

Both write with an obviously practical and didactic purpose directed primarily at “the laity” (not only laymen and lay women but also many non-scholarly inclined religious).

DreadVandal speaks of Fr. McBrien the same way I feel about Peter Kreeft, Christopher West or Janet Smith. I just don’t take every opportunity to bash them…nor do I claim that they are weasels, frauds, parasites, wicked…all words used to describe him in this thread. Nor do I say that they are hellbound, that those who follow them are hellbound, that they act like Satan, ruin souls, they have the devil for a father… I do not claim that they have made their pledge of allegiance to fundamentalism or superstition (the inverse of moral relativism) nor do I call their opinions kooky psychobabble…more charitable descriptions of a priest and theologian of the Holy Catholic Church.

Why must every post with the name McBrien in it lead to this? Just like every post with Cardinal Mahony leads to more of the same.

If the allegations do prove well founded though, it is a very sad statement on the current state of scholastic affairs.

 

[fix]

EtienneGilson:

I agree. I was actually thinking of posting earlier that I concider Fr. McBrien to be liberal Catholicism’s (for lack of a better phrase) equivalent to another popularizer in conservative Catholicism: Peter Kreeft.

Both write with an obviously practical and didactic purpose directed primarily at “the laity” (not only laymen and lay women but also many non-scholarly inclined religious).

DreadVandal speaks of Fr. McBrien the same way I feel about Peter Kreeft, Christopher West or Janet Smith. I just don’t take every opportunity to bash them…nor do I claim that they are weasels, frauds, parasites, wicked…all words used to describe him in this thread. Nor do I say that they are hellbound, that those who follow them are hellbound, that they act like Satan, ruin souls, they have the devil for a father… I do not claim that they have made their pledge of allegiance to fundamentalism or superstition (the inverse of moral relativism) nor do I call their opinions kooky psychobabble…more charitable descriptions of a priest and theologian of the Holy Catholic Church.

I do not want to veer off topic, but could you give me an example, from one of the authors you list, that proclaims something that contradicts the faith or at least is intentionally nebulous in relating a teaching of the faith?

Why must every post with the name McBrien in it lead to this? Just like every post with Cardinal Mahony leads to more of the same.

IMO, because those two people often appear to be promoting theologically questionable positions and no correction, or clarification, is ever seen publicly.

If the allegations do prove well founded though, it is a very sad statement on the current state of scholastic affairs.

Yes, in the academy whether left or right, if such things prove true the sanctions should be severe.

 

[MrS]

EtienneGilson:

DreadVandal speaks of Fr. McBrien the same way I feel about Peter Kreeft, Christopher West or Janet Smith. I just don’t take every opportunity to bash them…

Why must every post with the name McBrien in it lead to this? Just like every post with Cardinal Mahony leads to more of the same.

If the allegations do prove well founded though, it is a very sad statement on the current state of scholastic affairs.

Putting these three in the opposite camp from McBrien is really a good thing… they have given more worthwhile teachings to the Church on a bad day than McBrien or Mahony often do on a good day.

 

[Brendan]

EtienneGilson:

DreadVandal speaks of Fr. McBrien the same way I feel about Peter Kreeft, Christopher West or Janet Smith. .

That’s interesting. Dr. Smith was the one of my Moral Theology professors (at Sacred Heart Major Seminary)

Everything she taught was in perfect accord with the teachings of the Church.

The same cannot be said for Fr. McBrien.

Dr Smith took great care to explain exactly why the teachings in Humane Vitae, Evangelium Vitae and Vertitas Splendor are the consistant teachings of the Church and in perfect accord with the Gospel.

All Fr. McBrien can seem to do is pathetic attempts to explain away their teachings to suit the whims of a secularized culture.

 

[irenaeus1]

EtienneGilson:

I agree. I was actually thinking of posting earlier that I concider Fr. McBrien to be liberal Catholicism’s (for lack of a better phrase) equivalent to another popularizer in conservative Catholicism: Peter Kreeft.

Both write with an obviously practical and didactic purpose directed primarily at “the laity” (not only laymen and lay women but also many non-scholarly inclined religious).

DreadVandal speaks of Fr. McBrien the same way I feel about Peter Kreeft, Christopher West or Janet Smith. I just don’t take every opportunity to bash them…nor do I claim that they are weasels, frauds, parasites, wicked…all words used to describe him in this thread. Nor do I say that they are hellbound, that those who follow them are hellbound, that they act like Satan, ruin souls, they have the devil for a father… I do not claim that they have made their pledge of allegiance to fundamentalism or superstition (the inverse of moral relativism) nor do I call their opinions kooky psychobabble…more charitable descriptions of a priest and theologian of the Holy Catholic Church.

Why must every post with the name McBrien in it lead to this? Just like every post with Cardinal Mahony leads to more of the same.

If the allegations do prove well founded though, it is a very sad statement on the current state of scholastic affairs.

It really doesn’t matter how you FEEL about them if you’re talking about writing style, personalities, etc. What is at issue here is people claiming to be Catholic publicly teaching something that is not faithful to the official teachings of the Church. So, rather than listing names of people whom you claim make you FEEL the way others speak of Fr. McBrien, let’s be fair and point out where these people that you have listed have publicly and openly taught something that is contrary to the faith. Also, if they have stated something that is somewhat ambiguous and may appear to contradict the faith, it would be interesting to see whether they would accept correction, unlike McBrien.

Again, to be fair, please provide evidence upon which your FEELINGS are based.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[DreadVandal]

EtienneGilson:

I agree. I was actually thinking of posting earlier that I concider Fr. McBrien to be liberal Catholicism’s (for lack of a better phrase) equivalent to another popularizer in conservative Catholicism: Peter Kreeft.

Both write with an obviously practical and didactic purpose directed primarily at “the laity” (not only laymen and lay women but also many non-scholarly inclined religious).

DreadVandal speaks of Fr. McBrien the same way I feel about Peter Kreeft, Christopher West or Janet Smith. I just don’t take every opportunity to bash them…nor do I claim that they are weasels, frauds, parasites, wicked…all words used to describe him in this thread. Nor do I say that they are hellbound, that those who follow them are hellbound, that they act like Satan, ruin souls, they have the devil for a father… I do not claim that they have made their pledge of allegiance to fundamentalism or superstition (the inverse of moral relativism) nor do I call their opinions kooky psychobabble…more charitable descriptions of a priest and theologian of the Holy Catholic Church.

Why must every post with the name McBrien in it lead to this? Just like every post with Cardinal Mahony leads to more of the same.

If the allegations do prove well founded though, it is a very sad statement on the current state of scholastic affairs.

For the record, I’m not terribly fond of Peter Kreeft either and I just haven’t spent enough time look at Janet Smith and Christopher West to say much of anything. Bioethics is not really an area of interest for me. I did listen to Janet Smith give a lecture on moral philosophy once, on EWTN. It was terrible. Both she and Kreeft have no clue as to what Kant is actually saying. Both of them seem to be good at creating straw men.

Yes, I must say that I really don’t care for Peter Kreeft at all and I have no problem saying that I think much of his work is flaky. It is a shame that there is a general lack of good popularizers out there. Now, I understand that popularizing very difficult, abstract thought is quite difficult. I teach philosophy to undergraduates so I know this firsthand. But it seems to me that the kind of sloppiness found in the writings of people like McBrien, Kreeft, and some others is simply inexcusable. Especially, since they are Ph.D’s. So, I still stand by what I said about McBrien: that he shouldn’t be taken seriously. But I would also say the same thing about Kreeft.

 

[DreadVandal]

And by the way, I agree that saying that people have the father as their devil and so forth is a bit over the top. Criticizing a position as being flawed or even heretical is one thing, but making someone the devil incarnate is another.

 

[DreadVandal]

Brendan:

That’s interesting. Dr. Smith was the one of my Moral Theology professors (at Sacred Heart Major Seminary)

Everything she taught was in perfect accord with the teachings of the Church.

The same cannot be said for Fr. McBrien.

Dr Smith took great care to explain exactly why the teachings in Humane Vitae, Evangelium Vitae and Vertitas Splendor are the consistant teachings of the Church and in perfect accord with the Gospel.

All Fr. McBrien can seem to do is pathetic attempts to explain away their teachings to suit the whims of a secularized culture.

Dr. Smith does a nice job at articulating the basis for humane vitae and I’m sure she probably knows her Aquinas just fine. But the lecture I heard, in which she rambled on about Kant as the founder of moral relativism, was just complete nonsense.

 

[EtienneGilson]

Since the thread is about scholarship and not faithfulness to the magisterium, all the complaints about McBrien being a heretic are moot, off topic and demonstrate that the posters who responded did not take the time to evaluate what was being said. Iraeneus pointed it out well

It really doesn’t matter how you FEEL about them if you’re talking about writing style, personalities, etc. What is at issue here is people claiming to be Catholic publicly teaching something that is not faithful to the official teachings of the Church.

Um, no…what is at issue is scholarship, not fidelity.

In fact, the only person who seems to have understood what was beeing said was the person who made the most on-topic comment on Fr. McBrien, DreadVandal.

I hope DV that you think I wasn’t implying that you agree with Kreeft/Smith/West, but rather showing that the measure of scholarship here on this board is not actual scholarship but rather faithfulness to the magisterium.

Am I a big fan of McBrien?..no. Did “Catholicism” have some interesting passages (especially discussing other views of Catholicism, like Schillibeeckx, Kung, Curran)…yes.

I am not a big fan of Kreeft, but I do not take every opportunity to bash him nor do I dismiss all his writings because they emminate from his pen.

I just think that because the posters here on the forum dislike McBrien’s theological liberalism, they automatically impute the worst on him and his scholarship. They dismiss him off-hand and display such a lack of charity that any outsider would have trouble believing that this is a Christian forum.

BTW I think Dr. Smith’s pamphlet on Humanae Vitae is simply terrible.

 

[bones_IV]

EtienneGilson:

Since the thread is about scholarship and not faithfulness to the magisterium, all the complaints about McBrien being a heretic are moot, off topic and demonstrate that the posters who responded did not take the time to evaluate what was being said. Iraeneus pointed it out well

Um, no…what is at issue is scholarship, not fidelity.

In fact, the only person who seems to have understood what was beeing said was the person who made the most on-topic comment on Fr. McBrien, DreadVandal.

I hope DV that you think I wasn’t implying that you agree with Kreeft/Smith/West, but rather showing that the measure of scholarship here on this board is not actual scholarship but rather faithfulness to the magisterium.

Am I a big fan of McBrien?..no. Did “Catholicism” have some interesting passages (especially discussing other views of Catholicism, like Schillibeeckx, Kung, Curran)…yes.

I am not a big fan of Kreeft, but I do not take every opportunity to bash him nor do I dismiss all his writings because they emminate from his pen.

I just think that because the posters here on the forum dislike McBrien’s theological liberalism, they automatically impute the worst on him and his scholarship. They dismiss him off-hand and display such a lack of charity that any outsider would have trouble believing that this is a Christian forum.

BTW I think Dr. Smith’s pamphlet on Humanae Vitae is simply terrible.

Only in delusion land.

 

[irenaeus1]

EtienneGilson:

Since the thread is about scholarship and not faithfulness to the magisterium, all the complaints about McBrien being a heretic are moot, off topic and demonstrate that the posters who responded did not take the time to evaluate what was being said.

That may be true if we were talking about him being a professor of the Math Department and McBrien’s specialty was complex variables and perturbation techniques. But why do you present such a false dichotomy when there is none? One would think that in this particular case, scholarship and fidelity to the magisterium have much overlap if not nearly synonomous. Why?.. You have a Catholic priest teaching in the Theology Department (supposedly teaching Catholic theology) at a Catholic university - where else do you think scholarship should take you?

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

EtienneGilson:

BTW I think Dr. Smith’s pamphlet on Humanae Vitae is simply terrible.

Do you think that Humanae Vitae is simply terrible?

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[Libero]

EtienneGilson:

Since the thread is about scholarship and not faithfulness to the magisterium, all the complaints about McBrien being a heretic are moot, off topic and demonstrate that the posters who responded did not take the time to evaluate what was being said. Iraeneus pointed it out well

Um, no…what is at issue is scholarship, not fidelity.

I agree with you. O’Brien is clearly a very intelligent man, his academic status, and ability to understand theological matters are clearly not in question, he should not be discreditted because of his viewpoint.

 

[MrS]

EtienneGilson:

Since the thread is about scholarship and** not faithfulness to the magisterium,** all the complaints about McBrien being a heretic are moot, off topic and demonstrate that the posters who responded did not take the time to evaluate what was being said. Iraeneus pointed it out well

BTW I think Dr. Smith’s pamphlet on Humanae Vitae is simply terrible.

The plagiarism concerns his work about the

LIVES OF THE POPES…

so it would not suprise me if, in your own mind, you are right… the charge of his stealing had nothing to do with “someones” idea of what the magisterium might be… :whacky:

*BTW I think Dr. Smith’s pamphlet on Humanae Vitae is simply terrible
*
why… did she plagiaris it??

 

[FiremanFrank]

irenaeus1:

That may be true if we were talking about him being a professor of the Math Department and McBrien’s specialty was complex variables and perturbation techniques. But why do you present such a false dichotomy when there is none? One would think that in this particular case, scholarship and fidelity to the magisterium have much overlap if not nearly synonomous. Why?.. You have a Catholic priest teaching in the Theology Department (supposedly teaching Catholic theology) at a Catholic university - where else do you think scholarship should take you?

In Christ,
Irenaeus

**BRAVO irenaeus!

BRAVO!**