Richard McBrien and the Church

[stanley123]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!
… Should their parents be allowed to kill them?

I was willing to take time to sort through the misphrasing of issues and I have tried to answer this question conscientiously as to the best of my ability within the framework of the ethics of prolonging life by extraordinary means of sustenance. But I am afraid that my time is limited and although the problem here is a serious one, I will have to consider taking part in discussions where the level of seriousness is a bit higher than what we have here.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catholic Culture

How darn close to the edge must we be with this priest before his head is silenced? How long will this festering boil be allowed to cause infection?

He’s a human being, not a festering boil - if we think of people whose opinions we deplore as being something less than human, there is the danger of our treating them as less than human. That’s why love is so important - it does not depersonalise people, and is not discouraged by their short-comings.​

C.S. Lewis has a very good essay called “The Trouble with X” - one point he makes is that, while we may be complaining to God about others, they may be doing the same about us. Father McBrien may be a trial to some of his critics - but some of his critics may be an equal trial to him.

Do his critics pray for him and for his priestly ministry ? Only they can answer that. If we prayed more for those we criticise, and criticised them less - given that we are not in a position to do very much about the clergy we criticise - they might be more as they should be, and we might be much sweeter-tempered.

A snippet from that essay: a.ghinn.btinternet.co.uk/the.htm ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

JKirkLVNV:

I think that, at the very least, the Holy Office (sorry, the name’s easier) should start by issuing a statement that what McBrien teaches is contrary to the Church’s teaching, etc., then they could give him every chance to back peddle before ratcheting it up until they finally excommunicate him. I hope he comes back, but what he teaches tears at the fabric of the Faith.

Why not call it the SCDF - that’s accurate, and leaves in the** S**.​

 

[contemplative]

## He’s a human being, not a festering boil - if we think of people whose opinions we deplore as being something less than human, there is the danger of our treating them as less than human.

I’ll easily cave in to this and say yes…Fr. McBrien is not an infected boil.
but the discomfort and infection associated with the trouble he arouses feels like a boil.
This very thread is a by-product of Fr. McBrien. Wouldn’t our time be better spent inspiring each other to praise God and praying for those who cause turmoil?

If we prayed more for those we criticise,

You are right. This thread could take a turn in the direction of prayers for the shortcomings of people like Fr. McBrien.

 

[contemplative]

contemplative:

You are right. This thread could take a turn in the direction of prayers for the shortcomings of people like Fr. McBrien.

and prayers for all those who are like the white cells in the Church fighting infection…who by the Grace of God are white cells.

This might sound far out but you know we are one body.

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. (Romans 12:3)

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Corinthians 12:27)

Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
(Ephesians 4:15-16)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

stanley123:

I am a bit confused here. In support of your position, you are quoting the Angelus of the SSPX. Weren’t all the bishops of the SSPX excommunicated by the Pope? Whereas Father McBrien is in good standing with the Pope and the Church? I thought that a Catholic was not supposed to go along with schismatic groups. Remember, their bishops have been excommunicated. Catholics are supposed to go along with the Pope and with the local bishop in full communion with the Pope, such as our Cardinal Roger Mahony who publishes the column of Father McBrien each and every week in the diocesan newspaper the Tidings.

This thread is getting very strange - to quote a much-heard slogan, “The Church is not a democracy”. So, if that is the case, people should stop complaining about bishops: it is the bishops who rule in the Church, and not the laity.​

So, it is Father McBrien’s bishop who rules in the diocese in which they both serve as ministers. Not the laity. And apparently, Father McBrien’s bishop does not regard Father McBrien as not being a priest in good standing. Therefore, Father McBrien is,* if *only in some minimal sense, a priest in good standing with his bishop. Neither of them has been tried for heresy, let alone convicted of it; and neither is a schismatic. Therefore, both Father McBrien and his bishop are Catholic priests of the Roman Rite & Church.

So it is very odd to go to sources which are from persons not only not in union with Rome, but even reject parts of what Rome teaches. That they do so is a fact - why go to sources from people who do exactly what Father McBrien is alleged to be doing (he has not yet been found guilty of rejecting doctrine, because he has never even been tried for so doing) ? If they do what he is said to have done - why treat what they say any differently from how his alleged errors are treated ? Shouldn’t they be attacked as much as he is ?

I think we are living at a time of conservative anti-clericalism - a reaction, perhaps, to the enormously high status formerly enjoyed by the clergy (among other things). ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

contemplative:

I’ll easily cave in to this and say yes…Fr. McBrien is not an infected boil.
but the discomfort and infection associated with the trouble he arouses feels like a boil.
This very thread is a by-product of Fr. McBrien. Wouldn’t our time be better spent inspiring each other to praise God and praying for those who cause turmoil?

No disagreement there ​

You are right. This thread could take a turn in the direction of prayers for the shortcomings of people like Fr. McBrien.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gilbert Keith:

gottle of geer

I said:
The Church needs to hear the laity when the laity are fed up. And the bishops who are afraid to discipline their priests ought to take courage from the laity who vigorously demand it.

You said:
## Maybe so - but it is not for the laity to tell the clergy what to do: the bishop governs the diocese - not the laity. So it would be wholly wrong for us laity to presume to do what we have no authority to do. ##

For the record, I am not telling the clergy what to do. I am expressing a view that I think needs to be heard. The bishops are entirely free to ignore what I or other laity say. But you seem to be one of those Catholics who would take freedom of speech from the laity when they are every bit as Catholic as the bishops, and in some cases even more so. The laity do not govern the Church, but they have a voice and they should be heard … rather than told, as you seem to be saying, to shut up and mind their own business.

But - people do keep saying, “The Church is not a democracy”. If that is so, then people who say that cannot with any consistency complain when the clergy don’t act as they might like. Maybe you aren’t among them.​

There does seem to be a good deal of conservative anti-clericalism around; and that I find disturbing. It may be, in part, an after-tremor from the “seismic shift” which occurred at Vatican II, which we have been living with ever since. The problem is that the bishops do govern in their dioceses; and the notion that priests could be criticised more or less vanished during the 400 years between Trent & Vatican II. That’s what can happen if the status of the priest is emphasised without a compensating emphasis on the status of the people - their respective positions get out of balance.

The result is that two approaches to being Catholic seem to have collided: the one which tells the laity to shut up and not complain against Divinely-constituted authorities in the Church (it can be supported by Numbers 16 & Acts 20); and the approach which sees the laity almost as duty-bound to rebuke error by superiors (which can be supported by the passages in the Prophets, & Galatians 2). One sees the Christian faithful as an obedient army; one as rebuking wrong in high places. The difficulty is to put both approaches together in such a way that they are complimentary, instead of colliding: and that may not be entirely possible. We will probably have to live with this untidiness, this lack of consistency between these two imperfectly-suited ways of being Catholic, for a long time yet. Which is why patience with each other is so necessary. ##

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

stanley123:

I was willing to take time to sort through the misphrasing of issues and I have tried to answer this question conscientiously as to the best of my ability within the framework of the ethics of prolonging life by extraordinary means of sustenance. But I am afraid that my time is limited and although the problem here is a serious one, I will have to consider taking part in discussions where the level of seriousness is a bit higher than what we have here.

Peace be with you!

I was being completely serious. McBrien was quoted as saying that the feeding tube that Terry Shiavo had was an extraordinary means of life support and that removing it was not an immoral act. You seemed to agree with his assertion. So I asked a serious question.

Catholi2003,
Richard McBrien does not celebrate Mass (to my knowledge). I have never seen him wear priestly attire in any photo. He does not even refer to himself as a Catholic priest unless he’s being quoted by the liberal media. He is not a priest in good standing with anyone with a knowledge of the Catechism, as his teachings contradict it and other Church doctrines. Richard McBrien is not a theologian in good standing, or did you not read the posts by RyanL and I where we explained that he refused to obtain permission from the Vatican to teach theology?

Gottle of Geer,
No one here is suggesting that the Church become a democracy. I have no anti-clerical sentiments…my uncle is a priest and a darn good one too. I know many priests, two of whom I am good friends with and I have a profound respect for everyone who feels called to the priesthood. What we are calling for is not that the bishops teach whatever we want them to teach, but that they teach and enforce what THE CHURCH officially teaches and that they pay attention and take action upon those who dissent from those teachings, especially clergy-members. Priests who preach something contrary to Church dogma are putting the soles of their parishiners in jeopardy. What I do have are anti-heresy sentiments. Richard McBrien is, by his own definition of the word, a heretic. His teachings on abortion, women priests, gay marriage, assisted suicide, the Virgin conception and birth, the Church and the Sacraments are all contrary to the authoritative teachings of the popes and the Church. Keep in mind that all these things are DOGMAS and the definition of a heretic is someone who makes a formal, post-baptismal denial of a dogma of the Catholic faith.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[RyanL]

Rand Al'Thor:

His teachings on abortion, women priests, gay marriage, assisted suicide, the Virgin conception and birth, the Church and the Sacraments are all contrary to the authoritative teachings of the popes and the Church. Keep in mind that all these things are DOGMAS and the definition of a heretic is someone who makes a formal, post-baptismal denial of a dogma of the Catholic faith.

Rand,

Don’t forget about when he went on national television and stated that the Resurection of Christ was only “spiritual”. That was nice; really made me proud of Our Lady’s theology department. Oh, and he wore his clerics then - as he always does when he publically renounces Church teachings (or teachers). Otherwise, he doesn’t seem to care for them.

To stop any possible protestation that Prof. McBrien should be left to his Bishop for “handling”, it should be noted that the Bishop of Ft. Wayne / South Bend (Bishop D’Arcy) doesn’t approve of Prof. McBrien’s teachings in the slightest. Unfortunately, since Prof. McBrien’s home diocese is Hartford, CT, Bishop D’Arcy can’t do much about it (as ND is also run by Holy Cross). As for Hartford…well…they have other fish to fry. Prof. McBrien, 1000 miles removed, isn’t exactly their top priority.

What’s a layman priest-believer to do?

And as for anti-clericism, I am humbly obedient to Fr. Coughlin, a professor of Law here at Our Lady’s University, and an orthodox and brilliant man. He is what a priest should be, and I willingly submit to his teachings. Take a look at his credentials, and then let me know if he has a right to disagree with Prof. McBrien’s teachings.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[ncjohn]

## But - people do keep saying, “The Church is not a democracy”. If that is so, then people who say that cannot with any consistency complain when the clergy don’t act as they might like. Maybe you aren’t among them.

There does seem to be a good deal of conservative anti-clericalism around; and that I find disturbing. It may be, in part, an after-tremor from the “seismic shift” which occurred at Vatican II, which we have been living with ever since. The problem is that the bishops do govern in their dioceses; and the notion that priests could be criticised more or less vanished during the 400 years between Trent & Vatican II. That’s what can happen if the status of the priest is emphasised without a compensating emphasis on the status of the people - their respective positions get out of balance.

The result is that two approaches to being Catholic seem to have collided: the one which tells the laity to shut up and not complain against Divinely-constituted authorities in the Church (it can be supported by Numbers 16 & Acts 20); and the approach which sees the laity almost as duty-bound to rebuke error by superiors (which can be supported by the passages in the Prophets, & Galatians 2). One sees the Christian faithful as an obedient army; one as rebuking wrong in high places. The difficulty is to put both approaches together in such a way that they are complimentary, instead of colliding: and that may not be entirely possible. We will probably have to live with this untidiness, this lack of consistency between these two imperfectly-suited ways of being Catholic, for a long time yet. Which is why patience with each other is so necessary. ##

Michael,

This is one of the more thoughtful posts I have seen since I’ve been in these forums. It is very much in line with my constant call that we need to recognize each others strengths and weaknesses–along with the different gifts we bring to the Body of Christ–and work together for the good of the Kingdom rather than eyeing each other suspiciously and labeling each other or considering each other “less Catholic” just because our approaches might differ a little.

contemplative:

and prayers for all those who are like the white cells in the Church fighting infection…who by the Grace of God are white cells.

This might sound far out but you know we are one body.

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. (Romans 12:3)

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Corinthians 12:27)

Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
(Ephesians 4:15-16)

Combined with this from contemplative , we could have some real progress in bringing peace within our Church, which we so desperately need if we are going to bring it to the rest of the world.

Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with* us*.

 

[Catholic2003]

Rand Al'Thor:

Catholi2003,
Richard McBrien does not celebrate Mass (to my knowledge). I have never seen him wear priestly attire in any photo. He does not even refer to himself as a Catholic priest unless he’s being quoted by the liberal media. He is not a priest in good standing with anyone with a knowledge of the Catechism, as his teachings contradict it and other Church doctrines. Richard McBrien is not a theologian in good standing, or did you not read the posts by RyanL and I where we explained that he refused to obtain permission from the Vatican to teach theology?

I did indeed read those posts. However, it is for the Vatican to decide what the consequences of refusing to obtain a mandatum will be.

Once ordained, someone is a Catholic priest in good standing until his Bishop (or higher authority) revokes his priestly faculties.

Similarly, once a person receives the S.T.D. degree from a Vatican-accredited university, that person is a Catholic theologian in good standing until the CDF (or Pope) revokes those credentials.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Catholic2003:

I did indeed read those posts. However, it is for the Vatican to decide what the consequences of refusing to obtain a mandatum will be.

Once ordained, someone is a Catholic priest in good standing until his Bishop (or higher authority) revokes his priestly faculties.

Similarly, once a person receives the S.T.D. degree from a Vatican-accredited university, that person is a Catholic theologian in good standing until the CDF (or Pope) revokes those credentials.

Peace be with you!

So if you read our posts of McBrien’s heretical teachings, then you should see that he has warrented an automatic excommunication upon himself. Why are you defending the teachings of a heretic? He denies dogmas of the faith! While *technically *he has not had his theology “license” revoked and may technically may still be in “good standing” (by definition of the term in context only), the fact is that he is still teaching HERESY. And yet you and stanley are defending his heretical teachings with which he is putting in jeopardy all the souls he teaches at Notre Dame and by reading his columns.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Catholic2003]

Rand Al'Thor:

So if you read our posts of McBrien’s heretical teachings, then you should see that he has warrented an automatic excommunication upon himself.

I don’t have an S.T.D., so I’m not qualified to make that judgment. Since the CDF, which is qualified to make that judgment, has not judged those teachings to be heretical, I’m going to side with the Church on this issue.

You and Father McBrien have a lot in common. Each of you think that you know more about running the Church that the people who are actually in charge. Just don’t try to pull me in to your way of thinking.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Catholic2003:

You and Father McBrien have a lot in common. Each of you think that you know more about running the Church that the people who are actually in charge. Just don’t try to pull me in to your way of thinking.

Peace be with you!

That was a cheap shot. I don’t think I know more about running the Church than the people in charge and I never said that. I am simply looking at what McBrien has said and teaches and comparing it to WHAT THE CHURCH OFFICIALLY AND AUTHORITATIVELY TEACHES. It’s not my personal opinions or beliefs I’m comparing it to here. It’s Catholic Church dogma.

And in any post I’ve made, please point out to me where I have stated something contrary to Church dogma. Feel free to check…I never have. Let’s look at my beliefs compared with McBrien’s, shall we?

Item: The virginal conception and birth of Jesus and Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Rand: Yes, I believe this dogma.
McBrien: No, I deny this dogma.

Item: The Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ.
Rand: Yes, I believe this dogma.
McBrien: No, I deny this dogma.

Item: The pope, when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, is infallible.
Rand: Yes, I believe this dogma.
McBrien: No, I deny this dogma.

Item: Abortion is homicide and gravely immoral, as it breaks one of our Lord’s commandments, and thus should be illegal.
Rand: Yes, I believe this dogma.
McBrien: No, I deny this dogma.

Item: Women are incapable of performing the consecration, and therefore cannot be ordained priests.
Rand: Yes, I believe this dogma.
McBrien: No, I deny this dogma.

I have yet to see any of McBrien’s defenders address the things that he has said. Please clarify for us how these teachings are not heresy. He is denying Church dogma. Heresy is the denial of Church dogma. God gave us reason, people.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[ncjohn]

It’s always good to start with correct definitions, distinguishing between dogma and doctrine.

 

[Catholic2003]

Rand Al'Thor:

McBrien: No, I deny this dogma.

McBrien: No, I deny this dogma.

McBrien: No, I deny this dogma.

McBrien: No, I deny this dogma.

McBrien: No, I deny this dogma.

The problem is that these are not direct quotes from Fr. McBrien. Instead, they are words that you have made up and attributed to Fr. McBrien.

When the CDF was investigating Fr. Curran before they removed his theological credentials, they asked him point blank questions along similar lines, and waited for the responses before condemning him. Is there some reason that you don’t think Fr. McBrien deserves the same consideration?

 

[Catholic2003]

ncjohn:

It’s always good to start with correct definitions, distinguishing between dogma and doctrine.

Exactly.

For example, according to then Cardinal Ratzinger, the Church’s teaching on women priests is not yet a dogma, although one day it may progress to the point where it becomes a dogma. From the CDF Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread is now closed.