Dissent in my parish bulletin-baptism, McBrien, Original Sin

[Oscarthecat]

Hello, all

I saw this blurb in my parish bulletin this weekend and wanted some advice about what some of you would do or say. I know the topic of Fr. McBrien’s dissent on original sin has come up in other places in this forum-I’m more interested in addressing the fact that the author of this blurb decided to use a parish bulletin to question whether baptism removes original sin. I think that the use of the bulletin for this kind of comment is completely inappropriate because many parishioners won’t take the time to investigate the truth, they will (and in an ideal world, should) expect that they can trust their parish to offer good and accurate information in the bulletin.

***In the News…
Pope, Vatican Council eliminate concept of Limbo
Pope Benedict XVI and a Theological Council have eliminated the long standing Catholic concept of Limbo. In April, the Vatican made a statement following their decision that there are “serious” grounds to believe that children who die before being baptized will go to heaven. Limbo, a common Catholic belief for hundreds of years, has been thought of as a “neutral” state where these children, stained with Original Sin, stayed in a permanent state of grace; they were not believed to be deserving of God’s paradise, but not fit for the fires of hell. Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, suggests that the purpose of Baptism is to initiate one into the Church, not to rid them of Original Sin (defined as the consequence of the first sin and the hereditary stain we are all born with as descendents of Adam).
Do you have further questions or feedback on this article? More information is available at the below links. If you would still like to comment on this, please email: email address removed for this post
This information was compiled thanks to the resources at:

1. usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-** popelimbo_N.htm?csp=34
2. newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
3. The New Catholic Answer Bible, published by Our Sunday Visitor,*

 

[clmowry]

Well I guess at best it’s poorly written. Hopefully not intentionally misleading.

The implication in the blurb is that Vatican’s decision has something to do with Baptism not ridding one of Original Sin.

If it was a news paper a retraction would be in order. Maybe they’d toss in a clarification in the next bulletin?

Chuck

Hello, all

I saw this blurb in my parish bulletin this weekend and wanted some advice about what some of you would do or say. I know the topic of Fr. McBrien’s dissent on original sin has come up in other places in this forum-I’m more interested in addressing the fact that the author of this blurb decided to use a parish bulletin to question whether baptism removes original sin. I think that the use of the bulletin for this kind of comment is completely inappropriate because many parishioners won’t take the time to investigate the truth, they will (and in an ideal world, should) expect that they can trust their parish to offer good and accurate information in the bulletin.

In the News…
Pope, Vatican Council eliminate concept of Limbo
Pope Benedict XVI and a Theological Council have eliminated the long standing Catholic concept of Limbo. In April, the Vatican made a statement following their decision that there are “serious” grounds to believe that children who die before being baptized will go to heaven. Limbo, a common Catholic belief for hundreds of years, has been thought of as a “neutral” state where these children, stained with Original Sin, stayed in a permanent state of grace; they were not believed to be deserving of God’s paradise, but not fit for the fires of hell. Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, suggests that the purpose of Baptism is to initiate one into the Church, not to rid them of Original Sin (defined as the consequence of the first sin and the hereditary stain we are all born with as descendents of Adam).
Do you have further questions or feedback on this article? More information is available at the below links. If you would still like to comment on this, please email: email address removed for this post
This information was compiled thanks to the resources at:
1) usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20- popelimbo_N.htm?csp=34
2) newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
3) The New Catholic Answer Bible, published by Our Sunday Visitor,

 

[promethius95945]

The article was taken verbatim from a newspaper. No retraction is needed because McBrien SAID that… he’s wrong, but the newspaper didn’t mess up his quote.

I would write a letter to the priest pointing out the careless mistake in the copied article and suggest, kindly, that he should mention the mistake during masses and correct the error.

 

[SPH1]

Baptism removes all sin (actual and original) and also is entry into Christ and the Church.

All the current controversy/discussion involves is whether babies, who have original sin but no actual sin, can achieve the fullest level of Heaven.

Nothing suggests that the Church has renounced the idea of Original Sin.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Here is what I wrote to the contact listed in the bulletin article, I tried to be charitable, and am open to critiques:

Hello,

I am writing regarding the blurb on Limbo in the bulletin from Sunday, May 13, 2007.

I don’t know who wrote this article, but I hope, especially if they are Catholic, that they are simply guilty of poor research rather than an attempt to advance dissent in a public forum. Even more, I am disappointed that such an inaccurate and scandalous statement was approved to be published in the bulletin. The parish bulletin is not the venue for proposing untested and divisive theological trends.

I am concerned with the article’s implicit approval of the idea that Baptism does not remove Original Sin, or the popular secular notion that Original Sin does not exist, as well as the unqualified quote from Fr. McBrien, who is well known for his dissent on numerous teachings of the Magisterium (see the list attached list below).

The timing of this is particularly unfortunate because I just attended St. Luke’s Baptism preparation class last Tuesday evening, and was impressed that the lay instructors presented reasonably accurate information. Now, those who were in attendance with me, but who may not have the benefit of any graduate level education in Catholic Theology, might be confused that the same parish that accurately taught in one venue how Baptism both takes away Original Sin and initiates the individual into the Church, turned around and taught inaccurately in another venue that Baptism does not remove the stain of Original Sin. It is exactly this kind of scandal, ambiguity and inaccuracy that damages the faith and makes people complacent about the teaching authority of the Church.

Suffice it to say, without further need to discuss intent or blame, damage has been done. Regardless of the source or intention of the information provided, the fact remains that this information was presented in an irresponsible way using a medium from which parishioners have a right to expect a higher degree of doctrinal orthodoxy.

I am sure you don’t need me to provide a comprehensive treatment on the clear teaching on the history and effects of Baptism from the Church Fathers, but I at least encourage you, or whoever wrote and approved of this blurb, to review the CCC, paragraphs 1273-1284, with particular attention to paragraph 1279, which states, “The fruit of Baptism…is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.”

Also, please look at CCC 389, which states “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

I hope that, at the very least, you print a clear and unquestionable retraction in the upcoming bulletin to clarify that the Church does teach, as it always has and always will, that Baptism removes the stain of Original Sin. Ideally, the priests offering mass this coming Sunday will correct your error in the course of their homilies or during an announcement before or after mass.

Thank you,
Luke McGuire

I have attached the following list to help put perspective on Fr. McBrien’s history of dissent, courtesy of catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0507fea4sb.asp

 

[promethius95945]

1. calling something a blurb sounds okay, but it’s conversational and MAY come off as offensive. I would replace that as “section”
2. The tone is attacking. For example, instead of:
   “I am disappointed that such an inaccurate and scandalous statement was approved to be published in the bulletin. The parish bulletin is not the venue for proposing untested and divisive theological trends.”
   You would probably make A LOT more headway by rephrasing it this way:
   “I am disappointed that such an inaccurate and scandalous statement managed to slip by the notice of bulletin editors. Though this is understandable because of how busy those who organize the bulletin are, I am sure you will agree that untested and divisive theological ideas should be edited out of parish publications.”
   Coming from this angle, you gain a couple advantages: you don’t put them on the defensive by presupposing that they DELIBERATELY approved the article’s mistake. Second, you use language (I’m sure you will agree) that places the psychological method that any rational person should agree with your conclusion… furthermore reenforcing that you think this must merely be a slip in editing and that (if they are sensible) a retraction could be made tosolve the problem.