Notre Dame theologian Rev. Richard McBrien, known for popular books and liberal stands, dies

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
*2 Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be found out.
11 Since everything is to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought (you) to be, conducting yourselves in holiness and devotion,
12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved in flames and the elements melted by fire.
13 But according to his promise we await new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
14 Therefore, beloved, since you await these things, be eager to be found without spot or blemish before him, at peace.
15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.
18 But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.)
http://evergreen.loyola.edu/brnygren/www/Honors/lj.jpg
 
We can’t judge the man. His soul is known to God, who knows the full extent of his public ministry, and no doubt his private ministries. That said, based on only incomplete information on his public ministry, I would make some observations.

He received enormous prominence for his views in the secular society, especially, from the secular media, whose views he almost always agreed with. Granted, he had gifts, and hard work, in writing, speaking, and teaching. But there were other writers, speakers and teachers in his time who may have had the same level of gifts and hard work. Their views did not agree with the secular culture, specifically the media. They were largely ignored, did not become “prominent”, though they may have had the same measure of wisdom as Fr. McBrien.

One may argue that a theologian has a responsibility to challenge, sometimes to dissent. I am not aware that Fr. McBrien dissented much from any other institution besides the Church. There are some theologians able to dissent from the secular media. Fr. McBrien couldn’t do that.

There are atheists, Protestants, Jews, and others willing to go on record in disagreeing with the Catholic Church. The Media does not contact them for a quote; and does not contact theologians likely to agree with the Church. Rather the media contacts a short list of Catholic theologians described as prominent and , who they know will give them the dissenting quote they are looking for. In our media culture, when someone is described as “prominent” all that means is that they coincide with the media often.

I don’t mean his views should have been ignored. I simply point out the spiritual danger in becoming “prominent”. After he became “prominent” he got invites to speak at many conferences because he was now famous. Other potential speakers, who may have given talks more valuable to the listeners because they could bring up unfamiliar ideas, did not get invited. When a priest is a religious, he ideally should be getting direction, guidance toward obedience, and reminder of humility. I don’t know if that still happens when someone becomes “prominent”. I never met Fr. McBrien, don’t know what happened in his religious community. I can say if he had agreed with the Catholic Faith, and disagreed with the secular media, probably a much smaller number of people would have heard of him.

Again, I only comment on his public ministry, cannot in any way judge the man. RIP.
 
So, now he will finally find out the truth. Can’t say I will miss him, it was due largely to him that the American church went off its rails in the 70s-80s. The liberials will be crying their eyes out, just watch.

Yes, he will need all the prayers he can get.

Linus2nd
:sad_yes:
 
So, now he will finally find out the truth. Can’t say I will miss him, it was due largely to him that the American church went off its rails in the 70s-80s. The liberials will be crying their eyes out, just watch.

Yes, he will need all the prayers he can get.

Linus2nd
Agreed. :sad_yes:
 
From the article:

McBrien was often a critic of the church, speaking in favor of the ordination of female priests and optional celibacy for priests. He also had liberal stands on artificial contraception.

University President Rev. John Jenkins says that while McBrien was often controversial, his work came from a deep love of and hope for the church.

Those are mutually exclusive.
 
So, now he will finally find out the truth. Can’t say I will miss him, it was due largely to him that the American church went off its rails in the 70s-80s. The liberials will be crying their eyes out, just watch.

Yes, he will need all the prayers he can get.

Linus2nd
Indicating that it was largely due to him would seem to indicate that you were not there then. There was a multitude of issues that caused problems in the Church during that time, many of them reaching back to the 1940’s and 1950’s. While some of his work no doubt contributed in some ways to the chaos, I can think of any number of theologians who were problematic and much more influential. Go look at the roster of those who signed the letter published in the news paper rejecting Humanae Vitae for a good start.
 
From the article:

McBrien was often a critic of the church, speaking in favor of the ordination of female priests and optional celibacy for priests. He also had liberal stands on artificial contraception.

University President Rev. John Jenkins says that while McBrien was often controversial, his work came from a deep love of and hope for the church.

Those are mutually exclusive.
Well, actually not. Too many critics seem to think that if anyone strays from the Magisterium, that individual must hate the Church. That is pure poppycock conjecture.

Love and hope for the Church is not a guarantee of fidelity.

And by the way, he most definitely was not my hero. But unless you knew him personally, judging that comment is outside your expertise.
 
Well, actually not. Too many critics seem to think that if anyone strays from the Magisterium, that individual must hate the Church. That is pure poppycock conjecture.

Love and hope for the Church is not a guarantee of fidelity.

And by the way, he most definitely was not my hero. But unless you knew him personally, judging that comment is outside your expertise.
Love is exhibited and shown in obedience and fidelity. Claiming you “love” the Church, while rejecting her teachings is falsity.
 
Love and hope for the Church is not a guarantee of fidelity.
True. I would also add “good intentions” to that list.

P.S. I just remembered something Cardinal Arinze said many years ago: If sincerity was all that matter, then all children would get 100 on their math tests.
 
Want to know about any influential dissident in the Church? Read his sure-to-be supporter, the National Catholic(?) Reporter: ncronline.org/news/people/fr-richard-mcbrien-theologian-has-died
From that link …
Notre Dame President Holy Cross Fr. John I. Jenkins called McBrien "a leading theologian and commentator on the Catholic church” in a statement released Jan. 26. “While often controversial, his work came from a deep love of and hope for the Church. We pray for eternal rest for his soul,” Jenkins said.
Re: the “controversial …” part. A less effusive summary of Mc Brien’s “deep love and hope for the church …” was recounted by other Catholic analysts.

projectsycamore.com/bulletins/091027.php < October 25, 2009
**FATHER MCBRIEN’S CHURCH
**
One Notre Dame scholar’s version of Church has been well publicized over the years by Father Richard P. McBrien, former Chair of the Theology Department, prolific author and frequent commentator on religious issues.
His view of the appropriate relationship of the University to its bishop seems to have taken hold at Notre Dame:
Bishops should be welcome on a Catholic-university campus. Give them tickets to ball games. Let them say mass. Bring them to graduation. Let them sit on the stage. But there should be nothing beyond that. (Chronicles of Higher Education Nov 22 1996)
Now he has ***weighed in against Eucharistic Adoration.

Five years ago dedicated students, with the support of some faculty and priests, secured approval to re-establish the Notre Dame tradition of an annual Eucharistic Procession. Along with Eucharistic Adoration, the Eucharistic Procession has grown impressively.
Oddly, Father McBrien finds it “difficult to speak favorably about the practice [of Eucharistic adoration] today.”
In a recently-published article, Father McBrien asserts that for
“literate and well-educated Catholics Eucharistic adoration…is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward.”
Presumably his reference to “well-educated Catholics” would include the students and the priests and faculty members who support and encourage them.
***Certain editing, and color highlighting above are mine. ***



Pope Francis leading a Eucharistic Adoration

I’m currently looking for a picture of a Eucharistic Adoration led by Fr. John I. Jenkins, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh or Fr. Richard Mc Brien. So far Google is stumped.
 
Love is exhibited and shown in obedience and fidelity. Claiming you “love” the Church, while rejecting her teachings is falsity.
You have neither the wisdom nor the insight to determine whether or not he loved the Church.

That he was in error of any number of things I have no question at all.

But you are not in a position to judge him, and your comment does just that. Claiming you love the Church while in error does not show that you do not love the Church; it only shows you are in error. It is for God to judge to judge his heart, not you.
 
You have neither the wisdom nor the insight to determine whether or not he loved the Church.

That he was in error of any number of things I have no question at all.

But you are not in a position to judge him, and your comment does just that. Claiming you love the Church while in error does not show that you do not love the Church; it only shows you are in error. It is for God to judge to judge his heart, not you.
:hmmm: "If I admonish a judger … have I judged too … or merely offered counsel?

If the “judger” was rather a “counselor” evaluating a situation to the instruction of others - would my scolding that person be proper?

:confused: In print, without hearing a tone of voice, its sometimes difficult to tell. 🤷

As per …* “he was in error of any number of things …” *let me “third” that seconded motion.

And add a slightly shorter sign off line in an abbreviated quote:
It is for God to judge to judge his heart …
:sad_yes: to which I can say “AMEN” :imsorry:
 
You have neither the wisdom nor the insight to determine whether or not he loved the Church.

That he was in error of any number of things I have no question at all.

But you are not in a position to judge him, and your comment does just that. Claiming you love the Church while in error does not show that you do not love the Church; it only shows you are in error. It is for God to judge to judge his heart, not you.
Nonsense. A person can’t claim to be a NY Yankees fan and love the team, and then wear Boston Red Sox t-shirts every day.

Constantly undermining clear Church teaching is blatant manifest evidence of a lack of love for the Church. All the talk and feelings in the world are meaningless if you actively work to undermine the Church.

What we can’t do is judge if Rev McBrien is in Heaven or hell. That is God’s call. But we most certainly CAN judge if he loved the Church or not, when the evidence of it (or lack thereof) is so manifest. Maybe he repented of his many sins before he died, but during his life, his actions were those of someone who did not love the Church.
 
Nonsense. A person can’t claim to be a NY Yankees fan and love the team, and then wear Boston Red Sox t-shirts every day.

Constantly undermining clear Church teaching is blatant manifest evidence of a lack of love for the Church. All the talk and feelings in the world are meaningless if you actively work to undermine the Church.

What we can’t do is judge if Rev McBrien is in Heaven or hell. That is God’s call. But we most certainly CAN judge if he loved the Church or not, when the evidence of it (or lack thereof) is so manifest. Maybe he repented of his many sins before he died, but during his life, his actions were those of someone who did not love the Church.
His actions were those of someone who you think did not love the Church; since you have zero personal knowledge, you have no grounds on which to speak. Not only do you have no right to judge his heart - that is, whether he is in heaven or hell, you also have no right to libel him. And what you are doing is exactly that.

You may try to argue that there is no distinction between loving the Church and being in error, but you have nothing more than your personal opinion to back that up, which is based on no knowledge of the man other than what you have read elsewhere.
Someone who knew him personally has said that McBrien loved the Church; you are calling that individual a public liar, and you most certainly are judging McBrien, saying that he intentionally tried to destroy the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top