It is time to defend the Catholic Church!
Is there anyone who can explain Modern Theism, etc., as found in this document by the Committee on Doctrine, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops?
It’s a thoughtful critique–a good starting point for discussion, I think. Unfortunately, I haven’t read Sr. Johnson’s book, and I know that she’s complained that the bishops have not contacted her directly before issuing their condemnation and that they have misrepresented her seriously. Their failure to engage her in dialogue undercuts their pastoral effort by running the risk of condemning views she does not in fact hold. With that caveat, here are some thoughts on the statement itself:
- A false alternative: “modern theism” or radical reconstruction of the idea of God
I certainly think that this is a common approach by contemporary theologians–set up a straw man and then present a radical alternative. And if that’s what she’s doing, the bishops are right to object. The “modern theism” she criticizes is alive and well, unfortunately, and I think the bishops are too quick to deny that it has contaminated Catholic theology. But if she doesn’t address the patristic doctrine of God’s impassibility, that’s a serious flaw.
For some reason you omit perhaps the key issue raised in the document: Sr. Johnson’s claim that all language for God is metaphorical. I’d like to hear her side of this, but certainly the position described by the bishops “cuts the Gordian knot” of a very difficult issue. The question of how language about God can be true given God’s transcendence and infinity is one of the most difficult ones in Christian theology. It seems to me that there are two major answers: those of Thomas Aquinas and of Gregory Palamas (the latter being rooted in the Cappadocian Fathers). In the first approach, which is assumed by the bishops and is the dominant one in Western Catholicism, language about God is seen as “analogical,” a third thing between literal and metaphorical. I’d like to hear more about whether and how Sr. Johnson engages Aquinas’s understanding of analogy.
The other view, which I’d like to see Western Christians take more seriously, is the distinction between God’s essence and energies. According to this view, God’s essence is in fact unknowable, but His uncreated energies are not. All language about God is in fact speaking of the uncreated energies.
If Sr. Johnson is really simply bypassing these two orthodox alternatives in favor of a flat denial that any language about God really says anything about God at all, then that’s a huge problem. But given her complaints and the huge complexity of this issue, I wonder if the bishops are representing her accurately here. One point they make that I’d like to see further examined is that (allegedly) she rates different language about God not by how it relates to the unknowable reality of God but purely by its effects in this world. That’s certainly a tendency that I observe in much contemporary liberal theology–I’d like to hear her answer to the charge.
I rather suspect that the bishops are unfairly attributing to her the view that all metaphors are equally inadequate. The theologians I’ve read who think that all language about God is metaphorical certainly do not believe this–I’d be surprised if she does.
As the bishops note, Sr. Johnson presents this as “metaphor.” As such, I would defend it.
In a thoroughly apophatic view, language about God is purely metaphorical in its positive sense, but may still be regarded as literally true in its negative sense. (This is something that the bishops don’t seem to address). In this case, that means that it might be true that God does not suffer in the sense that God doesn’t literally suffer as we do. But suffering might still be a good metaphor, and it might be even truer that God is not untouched by our suffering.
Here’s another way of getting at this: think about which of two examples found in creatures is more like the reality of God. In this case, consider these two examples:
- A person who compassionately feels the sufferings of others as if they were the person’s own, or
- A person who can see another suffer and feel nothing.
Which of these two is more like God? Surely the former. That does not mean that God literally suffers, but the bishops admit that she isn’t claiming that.
There’s a lot more here, obviously, but I’ve gone on quite a bit already. . . . if I have time I’ll come back to the other points later.
