Modern Theism, etc., Re: Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson

[grannymh]

Contarini, thank you for your thoughtful comments and provocative questions. The way you discuss Sister Dr. Johnson’s work is exactly how it should be discussed, and how we do it in academe. We don’t do it by issuing a magisterial public critique signed by seven people.

StAnastasia brings up an important topic that of the difference between modern academe and Catholicism regarding different forms of discussion. (refer to post 20)

It should be noted that using the adjective “magisterial” to describe a public critique signed by seven people is not the same as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. However, it also needs to be noted that a Doctrine Committee and the Magisterium both have the same goal, which is to protect Catholic Doctrine. Yes, I know “protect” is an hair-raising word so I recommend reading the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, for an understanding of how “protect” is used in Catholicism.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

StAnastasia brings up an important topic that of the difference between modern academe and Catholicism regarding different forms of discussion. (refer to post 20)

It should be noted that using the adjective “magisterial” to describe a public critique signed by seven people is not the same as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. However, it also needs to be noted that a Doctrine Committee and the Magisterium both have the same goal, which is to protect Catholic Doctrine. Yes, I know “protect” is an hair-raising word so I recommend reading the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, for an understanding of how “protect” is used in Catholicism.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

The first thing one should consider is that an organization has the right to determine its own policies.

The Catholic Church is described in many ways. For the purpose of this thread, it will be considered a visible organization on this earth. You may laugh, but it is important to remember that one of the purposes of the visible Catholic Church organization on earth is to preserve Divine Revelation guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit

For Catholics, Jesus Christ is Fullness of all Revelation. Practically speaking, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit. Therefore, it remains for the Church to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. (Please refer to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 65-67)

Catholic history is full of agonizing discussions regarding its doctrines which refer to Divine Revelation. The usual protocol is to resolve disputes at major Church Councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Declared doctrines are then used as the base for Catholic teaching.

Does all this end theological discussion? Definitely not. All one has to do is to check the Catechism’s footnotes or its Index of Citations to learn about the many ways theology is discussed and practiced.

In this tradition of constantly probing the sacred depths of Divine Revelation, Sister Johnson added her voice. The issue is not her right to speak out. The issue concerns the content and the question of conformance to particular doctrines. Remember that the Catholic Church, like other organizations, has the right to define its
tenets of Faith and determine how it operates.

In an era of multi-cultures, we are accustomed to many expressions of theology. Usually, these theological expressions stand on their own as in academe. However, the Catholic Church, as an organization, has the right to determine which theological expressions are in keeping with its own doctrines of Faith. Regarding the theological work of Sister Johnson, it is common sense that a committee would be formed to review her work since she considers it to be Catholic.

Blessings,
granny

The Gospel of John, Chapter 14

 

[StAnastasia]

Regarding the theological work of Sister Johnson, it is common sense that a committee would be formed to review her work since she considers it to be Catholic

And because she is guilty of DTWT*. I know two male scholars who have written works directly contradicting doctrine, and the bishops did not dare to critique them.

StAnastasia

*Doing Theology without Testosterone.

 

[grannymh]

And because she is guilty of DTWT*. I know two male scholars who have written works directly contradicting doctrine, and the bishops did not dare to critique them.

StAnastasia

*Doing Theology without Testosterone.

Interesting.

Would you like to comment on this issue?
StAnastasia brings up an important topic that of the difference between modern academe and Catholicism regarding different forms of discussion. (refer to post 20)

 

[StAnastasia]

Interesting. Would you like to comment on this issue?
StAnastasia brings up an important topic that of the difference between modern academe and Catholicism regarding different forms of discussion. (refer to post 20)

I don’t know why the bishops did not critique their book. Perhaps they did, but my google search did not turn up anything about it. The book is this:

amazon.com/Brief-Liberal-Catholic-Defense-Abortion/dp/0252073975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308689308&sr=8-1

If the authors had been female, I’ll bet the bishops would have attacked them in a moment.

 

[grannymh]

Of course, there are related issues which don’t require knowledge of what Sr. Elizabeth actually wrote. For example, should an imprimatur be required for texts used in college theology courses? If so, who should require it: the professor, the university, the bishops conference etc? If a formal imprimatur is not to be required, should theologians be encouraged to submit their works to their national bishop’s conference for informal vetting and recommendations? Would doing so put a damper on theology and academic freedom?

It is my understanding, that there are a number of college theology courses which do not teach Catholic theology per se. History of Theology would probably include a brief summary of Catholicism which would not fall under the Imprimatur classification.

Here is the usage of Imprimatur. Thank you. “The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book is considered to be free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat or the Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.”

Given today’s intellectual climate, I doubt that anyone or any group would be able to mandate an Imprimatur. However, I can see individual professors choosing books with an Imprimatur for their courses. It has been 20 years since I was somewhat involved in getting an Imprimatur. At that time, an author applied to her local bishop or to the diocese where the book would be published. To see a statement come from a national committee surprised me. Thus, I am unsure of current protocol before a book is published.

Obtaining an Imprimatur would put a damper on theology which was pretending to be Catholic based. That is its purpose.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I don’t know why the bishops did not critique their book. Perhaps they did, but my google search did not turn up anything about it. The book is this:

amazon.com/Brief-Liberal-Catholic-Defense-Abortion/dp/0252073975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308689308&sr=8-1

If the authors had been female, I’ll bet the bishops would have attacked them in a moment.

This is an unfair statement about the bishops, and why they didn’t officially critique the book is perhaps related to the two authors not being theologians.

In this “modern theism” the difference between the Deposit of Faith and Sr. Johnson’s book is that what has been handed down is a further elucidation of an incomplete truth, this being our understanding of Divine Revelation, and Sr. Johnson’s “blank slate” beginning based on God being unknowable. The incomplete truth we have already does not mesh with the contents of the book in question according to the bishops and I believe rightly so.

What we have in today’s Church is a secularization of churches and theology by those who do not have supernatural faith, the varying levels in Anglicanism from orthodoxy to apostasy show this secular, faithless inroad into religion.

 

[nordskoven]

*If God says He’s angry, He’s angry. Better we should ask, “Why are we able to be angry?” Because we are made in the image and likeness of God. We can grasp all things divine. We can know God. Christ said Heaven is unknowable. How’s that? End of discussion. “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love Him.” It’s a good surprise, though, and Jesus did say there were many mansions there and He would return…and we should be found at work when He comes.

Anybody who says that all lingo for God is metaphorical is sucking all the meaning out of Holy Writ. This is Gnosticism. It is best seen in the Kabbalah. The “tsohar” of Noah’s Ark is enlightenment from above instead of a skylight? It’s technical language describing a hole in the roof that lets light in, here metaphorically denatured into “enlightenment.” Western science, that has back-engineered the creation of a cogent God, was not built on the metaphorical Bible.

God is. Stop there. He never says He is unknowable. If it were important, He would have mentioned it. God’s ways are not man’s ways. You and I will not be second-guessing His actions. God is paradoxical. But God is knowable. Essence as unknowable and energies as knowable is Gnostic duality and even parallels Gnostic lingo. God is not created. Creatures have attributes. God is.

Better we should look at the Great Ox, Thomas Aquinas, for his evaluation of his brilliant theological work which, after his beatific vision, he: declared to be “dung”; and said God’s “system” if that’s an appropriately encompassing term, is infinitely simpler than anyone imagined. So recourse to the smokescreen of “complexity” is a red flag, a klaxon horn of warning. It’s just creating more slithery wiggle room to keep ever debating and never coming to a conclusion, Bible-wise. It is institutionalized temporizing for those who prefer to talk about rather than do. It is treating God as a de facto metaphor for the NY Times crossword puzzle of time killing. If that seems harsh, I did not have recourse to Christ’s phrase, " whitewashed tomb."

Modern tenured theologians prefer to strain at gnats and swallow the camel of the knowable issue confronting shepherds and sheep: in America alone, a crisis quantified by three billion in hush money to victims of priestly pederasts. Gender baiting, suggesting that this female theologian was upbraided while erring males got a pass, is less likely in this Catholic corporate culture than the possibility that homosexual favoritism is at play. That’s why talented nuns have been marginalized at every level, and pious priests have been relegated to the boondocks. Meanwhile, bloviating intellectuals try to throw another lasso on the wildly profitable Gnostic media cash cow. “The Last Temptation of Christ” from the book of the same name. “The DaVinci Code.” “Doctor Sister: The Movie.” We suffer because God suffers and sanctified same; and when Christ returns for His Bride, the Church, we will exult in unity. Most High God, enlighten the eyes of our hearts.
*

 

[grannymh]

*If God says He’s angry, He’s angry. Better we should ask, “Why are we able to be angry?” Because we are made in the image and likeness of God. We can grasp all things divine. We can know God. Christ said Heaven is unknowable. How’s that? End of discussion. “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love Him.” It’s a good surprise, though, and Jesus did say there were many mansions there and He would return…and we should be found at work when He comes. *

*Anybody who says that all lingo for God is metaphorical is sucking all the meaning out of Holy Writ. This is Gnosticism. It is best seen in the Kabbalah. The “tsohar” of Noah’s Ark is enlightenment from above instead of a skylight? It’s technical language describing a hole in the roof that lets light in, here metaphorically denatured into “enlightenment.” Western science, that has back-engineered the creation of a cogent God, was not built on the metaphorical Bible. *

*God is. Stop there. He never says He is unknowable. If it were important, He would have mentioned it. God’s ways are not man’s ways. You and I will not be second-guessing His actions. God is paradoxical. But God is knowable. Essence as unknowable and energies as knowable is Gnostic duality and even parallels Gnostic lingo. God is not created. Creatures have attributes. God is. *

*Better we should look at the Great Ox, Thomas Aquinas, for his evaluation of his brilliant theological work which, after his beatific vision, he: declared to be “dung”; and said God’s “system” if that’s an appropriately encompassing term, is infinitely simpler than anyone imagined. So recourse to the smokescreen of “complexity” is a red flag, a klaxon horn of warning. It’s just creating more slithery wiggle room to keep ever debating and never coming to a conclusion, Bible-wise. It is institutionalized temporizing for those who prefer to talk about rather than do. It is treating God as a de facto metaphor for the NY Times crossword puzzle of time killing. If that seems harsh, I did not have recourse to Christ’s phrase, " whitewashed tomb." *

Modern tenured theologians prefer to strain at gnats and swallow the camel of the knowable issue confronting shepherds and sheep: in America alone, a crisis quantified by three billion in hush money to victims of priestly pederasts. Gender baiting, suggesting that this female theologian was upbraided while erring males got a pass, is less likely in this Catholic corporate culture than the possibility that homosexual favoritism is at play. That’s why talented nuns have been marginalized at every level, and pious priests have been relegated to the boondocks. Meanwhile, bloviating intellectuals try to throw another lasso on the wildly profitable Gnostic media cash cow. “The Last Temptation of Christ” from the book of the same name. “The DaVinci Code.” “Doctor Sister: The Movie.” We suffer because God suffers and sanctified same; and when Christ returns for His Bride, the Church, we will exult in unity. Most High God, enlighten the eyes of our hearts.

Are parts of this post quotes? From whom and where? Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

This is an unfair statement about the bishops, and why they didn’t officially critique the book is perhaps related to the two authors not being theologians.

In this “modern theism” the difference between the Deposit of Faith and Sr. Johnson’s book is that what has been handed down is a further elucidation of an incomplete truth, this being our understanding of Divine Revelation, and Sr. Johnson’s “blank slate” beginning based on God being unknowable. The incomplete truth we have already does not mesh with the contents of the book in question according to the bishops and I believe rightly so.

What we have in today’s Church is a secularization of churches and theology by those who do not have supernatural faith, the varying levels in Anglicanism from orthodoxy to apostasy show this secular, faithless inroad into religion.

May I add to these good insights.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Jesus Christ is the fullness of Divine Revelation. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” With Him, Revelation is complete. What is difficult to understand is that even though Revelation is complete, it has not been made completely explicit. (CCC 65-67) There is no new Revelation; only the deepening of understanding.

Catholics have the complete truth. We have always had the complete truth. It is our own human understanding which needs to be completed. And our understanding will be completed with the Beatific Vision.
Am I being clear?

There is a difficult line between Catholic theology in which the Catholic base is the guiding light and other theologies which alter the base to suit a particular agenda such as modern science or modern feminism. An overview of the Bishops’ statement shows both sides of that line.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16

 

[StAnastasia]

There is no new Revelation; only the deepening of understanding.

Dr. Johnson and I and thousands of our fellow Catholic scholars agree with this.

Catholics have the complete truth. We have always had the complete truth. It is our own human understanding which needs to be completed. And our understanding will be completed with the Beatific Vision.

 

[StAnastasia]

In this “modern theism” the difference between the Deposit of Faith and Sr. Johnson’s book is that what has been handed down is a further elucidation of an incomplete truth, this being our understanding of Divine Revelation,

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Sr. Johnson’s “blank slate” beginning based on God being unknowable.

This is false. Read her book.

The incomplete truth we have already does not mesh with the contents of the book in question according to the bishops and I believe rightly so.

False. Read the book before you blather about it.

 

[grannymh]

[q/uote]

The bishops have misrepresented Elizabeth Johnson’s book. She does not say what they claim she says, as you would recognize if you actually read her work.

I am still studying the Bishops’ statement…
However, since you used the book in your class – did I remember that correctly-- and you are the professional theologian --Would you please look at one of the Bishops’ misrepresentations and then at their explanation and then give us the book’s statement which would conform to the correct theological point? Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

Elizabeth Johnson’s core Catholic theology is firmly grounded in scripture and Catholic tradition. That’s why Catholic theologians at the CTSA affirm her scholarship.

But that is not what concerns the Bishops. Reread the statement, please.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

May I add to these good insights.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Jesus Christ is the fullness of Divine Revelation. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” With Him, Revelation is complete. What is difficult to understand is that even though Revelation is complete, it has not been made completely explicit. (CCC 65-67) There is no new Revelation; only the deepening of understanding.

Catholics have the complete truth. We have always had the complete truth. It is our own human understanding which needs to be completed. And our understanding will be completed with the Beatific Vision.
Am I being clear?

There is a difficult line between Catholic theology in which the Catholic base is the guiding light and other theologies which alter the base to suit a particular agenda such as modern science or modern feminism. An overview of the Bishops’ statement shows both sides of that line.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16

This and the post preceding it perhaps forgets the necessary distinction between natural knowledge and supernatural knowledge.

Supernatural knowledge comes from God, a gift of the Holy Spirit, for which we have the potency to accept. A natural desire for God, in Aquinas, is given to us in the desire for truth and in the desire for happiness, but not in a natural appetite for God which cannot be satisfied naturally, as food is to hunger or sex is given to our natural desire for procreation. (This last has many more varied desires inherent in it but I am only using the procreation aspect here). Since we have no natural potency for God, He must give it to us as a gift. This is the controversy Henri de Lubac caused in his book “Supernatural” and the question of the gratuity of God’s Grace.

The natural knowledge of God is totally different in species from the knowledge of Him that He gives to us, as God is different than His Creation but we put this knowledge into our words and concepts which are inadequate to the reality. It is in Sr. Johnson’s book that what has been given in Sacred Tradition is passed over for a new beginning based on this purely natural “unknowableness”. Why put pantheistic views of God in oriental religions in service of what God has revealed as transcendent? I believe it is a loss of the sense of the supernatural affecting many today.

I think that this lack of explicitness that is why it is incomplete. The fullness of faith is the Catholic faith but it will be complete when it is completed in heaven, “all things new” and all. We have the fullness compared to others here, but the Church Triumphant has the true fullness. Natural and supernatural differences again perhaps.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

Elizabeth Johnson’s core Catholic theology is firmly grounded in scripture and Catholic tradition. That’s why Catholic theologians at the CTSA affirm her scholarship

But that is not what concerns the Bishops. Reread the statement, please.

The statement refers to Sister Johnson as a prominent Catholic theologian. The statement is concerned about the importance of the topic and the method proper to Catholic theology. It then examines the various topics following the order of the chapters. (refer to the first page of the statement)

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

You have no idea what you are talking about.
This is false. Read her book.
False. Read the book before you blather about it.

If you understood what I talking about, you would agree with the USCCB Committee on Doctrine in this matter. The problem seems to be that you are on shaky theological ground. Now I don’t know this but that someone goes against the Bishops of the Church on matters of theology then they are metaphorically sailing in a rough sea in a very small boat. This metaphor is drawn from the Church being the Barque of Peter, a rather large vessel and one secure in rough (theologically unsound) seas.

 

[StAnastasia]

t is in Sr. Johnson’s book that what has been given in Sacred Tradition is passed over for a new beginning based on this purely natural “unknowableness”.

Your statement is false.

Why put pantheistic views of God in oriental religions in service of what God has revealed as transcendent? I believe it is a loss of the sense of the supernatural affecting many today.

 

[StAnastasia]

If you understood what I talking about, you would agree with the USCCB Committee on Doctrine in this matter. The problem seems to be that you are on shaky theological ground.

No. The bishops’ critique of Sister Elizabeth Johnson is preposterous, based on a misreading of her excellent and highly regarded work. She is being affirmed and supported by the 1,200 members of the Catholic Theological Society of America (of which I’m a member), the 1,500 members of the Catholic Biblical Association, and the 900 members of the (Catholic) College Theology Society.

 

[grannymh]

No. The bishops’ critique of Sister Elizabeth Johnson is preposterous, based on a misreading of her excellent and highly regarded work. She is being affirmed and supported by the 1,200 members of the Catholic Theological Society of America (of which I’m a member), the 1,500 members of the Catholic Biblical Association, and the 900 members of the (Catholic) College Theology Society.

Then, it would be reasonable for you to quote from her book.