I should like to meet one of your second year theology students… perhaps geniuses in your estimation. But considering there are not a few full-fledged theologians out there already, many of whom are bishops and cardinals themselves that have taken issues with certain statements from the pope, they would seem to disagree with your assessment; with all the theologians/bishops/cardinals re-interpreting Pope Francis’ words to appear more orthodox, or questioning some of his more controversial statements, or explaining away various ambiguities in many of the pope’s utterances, or certain requests to the pope himself for clarifications… would seem that these theologians/bishops/cardinals should have sat under your tutelage (or perhaps at least under one of your second year theology students as a teaching assistant) to hone in on their expertise. You (or they) could deconstruct any of their critiques, piece by piece, and hand it back to the offending theologian/bishop/cardinal so that they too could be enlightened.
No. They were hardly geniuses…although I had the student here and there who would qualify for that.
Rather, this thread deals with the text of the general audience on Wednesday June 1, 2016. As I went through the thread, it is very evident that so many of the comments are actually based on the story published and not what the Pope actually said. That is a fundamental methodological failure.
A first year student where I was, on the other hand, completes an introduction to theological methodology course so that they know when they can use secondary source material, and to what advantage, and when they need to instead to turn to a primary source. Meaningful comment on this thread presumes that one has actually read the pope’s own text and not what others are reporting about it.
To your next point, bolded by me, issues discussed among bishops and among theologians are formulated by us according to the science of theology – which I don’t encounter in the formulations I am reading here. Quite the contrary, actually.
In the meetings I have been attending in the wake of certain documents, yes, my peers have raised interested points for discussion just as they have made interesting additions to the discussion from their insights as experts in theology. I have not encountered that experience yet with one non-theologian.
It is rare, relatively speaking, that I encounter critiques from Cardinals about the Pope…as there are only some 200 of them, I can name those I have heard in one breath…as opposed to the total number of critics I have encountered – the majority of whom I encounter very quickly evidence a paucity of theological background to rest their critiques upon.
I think my point is well made by one of the moderators who, on one of the threads, posted this warning:
Also, if your are going to engage in discussing a formal document or a formal theological position, then we suggest that you do so using formal theological language and formal systems, not your language and your personal system of analysis and reasoning.
That is well said.
As for your third comment, I am not going to dignify that with a response. I will leave that judgment to a moderator, whom I ask to examine your statement since, more than offensive to me, it is actually offensive to the Cardinals and the Bishops who are served by theologians.
I hereby ask for the examination in light of the rubric articulated by one of the moderators, to wit:
*Making any negative statements about our bishops, deacons, priests, sisters or religious brothers is not allowed. Speaking to anyone of them in an inappropriate tone while on the forum is not allowed. *
With that said, I would submit that it should not take a second year theology student to understand the pope’s teaching to the masses in general. I would not wonder in amazement why an average pew-sitter Catholic may question why the pope appears to say one thing which sounds somewhat different than what they were taught in CCD or RCIA or catechism/bible study classes.
No actually. Theology of the Body, for example, derives in large part from a series of the lectures of Pope Saint John Paul II delivered at the Wednesday audience, subsequently further developed. This is now its own area of theological specialisation in which one may complete a doctorate through, for example, the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Life, affiliated with the venerable Lateran University.
Is that to say that someone who only listened or read did not “profit” – no. Of course not. Can they meaningfully explain it and then relate to the entire body of theological knowledge…or plum the actual depths that are there? That is another matter entirely. As is the ability to attempt to critique or say what could be problematic about it. For one without theological expertise? That is absurd, frankly.
A master’s degree programme on the theology of Joseph Ratzinger has just been initiated in Rome via the Augustinianum. To understand and be enriched by the thoughts of Ratzinger – before and after his elevation to the papacy – certainly occurred with hearers and readers at every educational level. To understand it at in its depth and richness and to be able to actually critique and analyse it in a meaningful and purposeful way as a non-theologian? That is quite a different matter all together.
I have a certain familiarity with the programme and one who completed it would certainly be better positioned to analyse and critique his thoughts…though the person would be better equipped with a doctorate in theology, frankly.
ncregister.com/daily-news/want-to-earn-a-masters-degree-consider-romes-new-joseph-ratzinger-studies-a/
