Franciscan University blasphemy accusation

[prayerrider]

Eminent Catholic scholars and theologians including Scott Hahn and John Bergsma have condemned Carrere’s book. That would be more than enough for me even if I hadn’t read any if the loathsome excerpts myself.

 

[pnewton]

Eminent Catholic scholars and theologians including Scott Hahn and John Bergsma have condemned Carrere’s book. That would be more than enough for me even if I hadn’t read any if the loathsome excerpts myself.

I don’t see the point is that the book should not be condemned. That is a given. The point is that disease is studied in medicine, and sin in theology. The better point is that FU erred on the side of caution, or the professor did, and pulled the book before the criticism for its use came out. So why is this an issue? The article is calumny and gossip.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here is an article in First Things from the FUS English professor at the heart of the controversy. Just compare the tone of his article to that of the Church Militant piece.

Why I Assigned The Kingdom | Stephen E. Lewis

We rarely endorse everything we read. Sometimes we read works with which we strenuously disagree.

www.firstthings.com

 

[prayerrider]

I try not to confuse “tone” with “truth.” Compare the honeyed tones of Satan in Genesis and in his temptation of Christ with the righteously accusatory tone of a Jeremiah, an Isaiah, John the Baptist…and even Christ Himself.

 

[TheLittleLady]

We have only written words. We can know the meaning of the words and their context, but, we do not know the tone in which they were spoken.

Same way that people are misunderstood on forums or social medial threads, words cannot adequately express tone.

The famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is said to have been delivered not in the “typical” hell-fire and damnation tone used by many evangelical preachers but in an almost monotone manner.

Jeremiah may have delivered his words in a soft voice, we do not know.

 

[prayerrider]

I’ve heard that Jonathan Edwards had a kind of speech impediment, wasn’t a dynamic preacher at all. Not in style, anyway.
No way of knowing what the fiery prophets of old sounded like. We just have their very uncompromising words to go by.

 

[pnewton]

I commend him for such a well reason response. Those that only read that which is agreeable will never learn anything new. That is true of politics and theology. Yes, Catholics do need to learn something other than Catholicism in order to be witnesses to the Gospel, just like an English-only speaker must learn Spanish to witness to Spanish-only speakers. Catholic seminaries have long taught the great atheist, agnostic, and pagan philosophers.

 

[exnihilo]

His tone and everything about the article is exactly as I’d expect. The article is long and in the end doesn’t say very much. I don’t think anyone assumed there was nothing redeeming or good in the work assigned. The issue was that it also contained gross blasphemies. So the issue, still fundamentally unaddressed by the author, is why that particular book with its blasphemies is warranted.

 

[pnewton]

So the issue, still fundamentally unaddressed by the author, is why that particular book with its blasphemies is warranted.

From the article:

The aim was not to shock, but to edify. I share the revulsion Catholics rightly feel toward lewdness and blasphemy, but in the end I decided that my students could benefit by reading this text.

This is why. Agree or not, the question is whether there might be a better assignment. I do not know what other choices might have been better.

I think the bigger point is that there were five students that read this due to his assignment. How many read the same blasphemies because of the gossip around his choice. Do not the websites that perpetuate blasphemy deserve an overwhelming and proportional criticism?

 

[exnihilo]

This is why. Agree or not, the question is whether there might be a better assignment. I do not know what other choices might have been better.

But that isn’t really an explanation. We already knew he thought the kids would somehow benefit. So the question is what specific to that book is so great? What can’t be found elsewhere? And why does he think the good he sees in the book outweighs the bad? He did include stories of how people benefited from the book, but again, that isn’t in question. The book isn’t problematic for the good stuff. It is problematic for the bad. At the end of the day it may be a judgment call, but then he can’t claim that his judgment is the right one and everyone else’s wrong.