Richard McBrien and the Church

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

I was just wondering if anyone on here might have any insight as to why Richard McBrien has not been fomally defrocked and excommunicated. I realize that with his theology and teachings he is a heretic and has excommunicated himself, but why has Rome, or at least the Conference of Catholic Bishops (who stated that his book, Catholicism, was unfit for instruction in the Catholic faith being that it is theologically unsound) not officially done this. Certainly Rome must know of this man. McBrien is doing SO much harm to the Church by being allowed to continue calling himself a Catholic priest.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Joe_Kelley]

He is but one of a long list that I wonder about.

I think it is because the Magisterium has chosen to be pastoral rather than disciplinarian. It prefers to talk rather than act. Possibly because that brings fewer nasty headlines and op-ed pieces in the New York Times etc.

I am reminded of the college that had an Honor System - The administration had the honor and the students had a system.

 

[contemplative]

I read this today from Anthony Chiffolo’s Advent and Christmas with the Saints

Thus was I taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly hold myself in the faith as I had before understood it, and that I should seriously believe that all manner of things would be well, as our Lord at that same time had showed me. For by the great deed that our Lord shall do He shall save His word in all things and He shall make well all that is not well–though how it shall be done no creature below Christ knows or shall know until it is done. This is what I understood from what our Lord communicated to me at this time. Saint Julian of Norwich (1342-141?)

 

[Strider]

I read an interview he gave on this very topic, I think it’s on one of the forums here. He said that, unlike Charile Curran, he has tenure at ND and was theology department head (God help us).
As Dr. de Sousa says, “Beatsmewhy,” but, and I’m not judging him, that’s not my job, I’d hate to face the Just Judge in his shoes.
I pray for him and his ilk daily. I must. Our Lord said so.

 

[contemplative]

If the words of St. Julian didn’t do anything for you (post # 3)…
try this medical advice



Boils may heal spontaneously after an initial period of itching and mild pain. More often, they progress to pustules that increase in discomfort as pus collects. They finally burst, drain, and then heal spontaneously.

Boils (furuncles) usually must drain before they will heal. This most often occurs in less than 2 weeks. Boils that persist longer than 2 weeks, recur, are located on the spine or the middle of the face, or that are accompanied by fever or other symptoms require treatment by a health care provider because of the risk of complications from the spread of infection.

Warm moist compresses encourage furuncles to drain, which speeds healing. Gently soak the area with a warm, moist cloth several times each day. Deep or large lesions may need to be drained surgically by the health care provider. Never squeeze a boil or attempt to lance it at home because this can spread the infection and make it worse.

 

[rwoehmke]

Rand Al'Thor:

why has Rome, or at least the Conference of Catholic Bishops (who stated that his book, Catholicism, was unfit for instruction in the Catholic faith being that it is theologically unsound) not officially done this.
In Christ,Rand

It was my impression that his book was not so much heretical as it was “nuanced” in some parts to the point that a neophyte to theology might be led astray. Therefore not a good book for use by students, although I think that was his purpose in writing it. His column appears in our diocesin paper and is called theology, but it seems to me to be more a commentary on what he doesn’t like about what is going on in the Church, more sociology and not theology. In the last few years mostly useless.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

I was just wondering if anyone on here might have any insight as to why Richard McBrien has not been fomally defrocked and excommunicated. I realize that with his theology and teachings he is a heretic and has excommunicated himself, but why has Rome, or at least the Conference of Catholic Bishops (who stated that his book, Catholicism, was unfit for instruction in the Catholic faith being that it is theologically unsound) not officially done this. Certainly Rome must know of this man. McBrien is doing SO much harm to the Church by being allowed to continue calling himself a Catholic priest.

In Christ,
Rand

If he is a priest in good standing, then it is no business of ours to say otherwise. We are not bishops. We are not his bishop. We have no competence to say that he is anything but a Catholic priest; he has not been excommunicated, and if he is treated as in communion with the rest of the Church, then that is the end of the matter. As for the USCCB - the Conference as such has (AFAIK) no authority to try ecclesiastical cases; it is not a court of law: that is for individual bishops to do.​

A book can be theologically unsound, without the author being in any way outside the Church. It is, after all, not priests who are infallible: and Father McBrien is a priest. If his bishop has no problem with him or his assertions, so be it.

He can be criticised - we all can be: but it is not for us to play prosecutor, judge, and jury against him. If people don’t like what he says or writes, then they should ask him what he means by it, and not attack him behind his back. The approach in Matthew 18.15-17 is best: it has the great advantages of not encouraging gossip, and of not letting problems become better-known than they need be. ##

 

[stanley123]

Rand Al'Thor:

I realize that with his theology and teachings he is a heretic …

I read an article by Father McBrien recently in the local Catholic diocesan newspaper, and he gave his definition of heretic as one who formally denies a dogma of the Catholic faith, which he claims he does not.
Do you disagree with his definition and why have you declared him to be a heretic?

 

[contemplative]

## If he is a priest in good standing, then it is no business of ours to say otherwise. We are not bishops. We are not his bishop. We have no competence to say that he is anything but a Catholic priest; he has not been excommunicated, and if he is treated as in communion with the rest of the Church, then that is the end of the matter. As for the USCCB - the Conference as such has (AFAIK) no authority to try ecclesiastical cases; it is not a court of law: that is for individual bishops to do.

A book can be theologically unsound, without the author being in any way outside the Church. It is, after all, not priests who are infallible: and Father McBrien is a priest. If his bishop has no problem with him or his assertions, so be it.

He can be criticised - we all can be: but it is not for us to play prosecutor, judge, and jury against him. If people don’t like what he says or writes, then they should ask him what he means by it, and not attack him behind his back. The approach in Matthew 18.15-17 is best: it has the great advantages of not encouraging gossip, and of not letting problems become better-known than they need be. ##

Yawn
I do not understand these soft as cottony words of yours. The seats of the pews are hard and I am getting sick and tired of sitting there listening to people like you and McBrien.
Try reading Case of Terry Schiavo was morally clear-cutby Fr. McBrien ( who wears a Roman Collar only when he feels like looking like a priest) Then get back to this thread.
You need to wake up and know that what you are smelling is not roses…but rather something very stinky.
I too want to know why a McBrien and many others have not yet been defrocked.

 

[contemplative]

stanley123:

Do you disagree with his definition and why have you declared him to be a heretic?

Try VOTF! He belongs to this dissident group. Is that enough for you or do you want more?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

gottle of geer

If people don’t like what he says or writes, then they should ask him what he means by it, and not attack him behind his back.

I know exactly what he means by it. I never have to ask him what he means by it because he is always such an obvious fellow and I always attack him in public. Isn’t that what this is … a public forum?

Is it your view that priests are above being attacked for their views by the laity and that only other priests or bishops can publicly disagree with them?

McBrien’s column has been dropped from one diocesan newspaper after another. It would not surprise me if much of that dropping wasn’t helped along by a vigilant laity complaining in Letters to the Editor of his so-called nuanced theology.

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.

 

[contemplative]

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.

 

[stanley123]

Try VOTF! He belongs to this dissident group. Is that enough for you or do you want more?

Like I said, according to his article in the Catholic diocesan newspaper, the definition he gives of heretic is one who formally denies a dogma of the Church. This is not the same as a dissident, according to him. I don;t see your definition of heresy and how it disagrees with his. Unless, you claim that belonging to a group of dissidents means that you are a heretic. But where would you come up with this definition?
The mere fact of belonging to a particular group like the one you have mentioned does not qualify, under his definition as heresy or of formally rejecting a dogma of the Catholic faith.

 

[stanley123]

Gilbert Keith:

The Church needs to hear the laity when the laity are fed up. .

That may be true. But does a layperson have the right to change the definition of heresy on his own? According to the theologian from the Catholic university of Notre Dame, a heretic is one who formally rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church.

 

[contemplative]

In 1981, the first edition of McBrien’s book Catholicism was published. Almost immediately the doctrinal committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out serious problems with it and asked him to make revisions. When those revisions had not been made by the time of the third edition, the conference finally released a statement indicating that the work was not a reliable guide to Catholic teaching and should not be used in theological instruction. The bishops said that Catholicism reduced the Pope’s and bishops’ teaching to “just another voice alongside those of private theologians” and that it minimized Catholic teachings and practice. “On a number of important issues, most notably in the field of moral theology, the reader will see without difficulty that the book regards the official Church position as simply in error” (Today’s Catholic, May 5th, 1996).

Not everyone gives McBrien the benefit of the doubt. A guest editorial in The South Bend Tribune called him “a priest who consistently takes an adversarial position to the Catholic Church in any public forum the press will give him.” A separate writer in the same edition of that paper complained: “While our Church leaders and lay religious organizations are trying to deepen our faith, McBrien is planting doubt and dissent. While priests are supposed to represent Jesus in humility and obedience, he is showing arrogance and disobedience. While religious leaders are supposed to warn us against enemies of the Church, he leads the critics.”

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, puts it slightly differently: “The Magisterium, (according to McBrien] is Fr. McBrien and others whom he recognizes as belonging to the sacred college of academic theologians.” Regardless of how it is phrased, the problem is that McBrien likes his ideas better than those of the Church. (McBrien’s willingness to question the Church’s teaching on abortion has even caused two pro-life organizations to call for his excommunication.)

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?

 

[stanley123]

contemplative:

How darn close to the edge must we be with this priest before his head is silenced?

He may be close to the edge, but still, I don’t see where he has formally rejected a dogma of the Catholic Church? Does a layperson have the right to call him a heretic if he has not formally rejected a dogma of the Church?

Also, he has rather impressive credentials according to

http://www.nd.edu/~theo/faculty/mcbrien.html

“
**Richard P. McBrien
**(A.A., St. Thomas Seminary, Bloomfield, CT, 1956; M.A., St. John Seminary, Brighton, MA, 1962; S.T.D., Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, 1967)
Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology

McBrien’s scholarly interests are in the areas of ecclesiology, the relationship between religion and politics, and the theological, doctrinal, and spiritual dimensions of the Catholic tradition. The first is reflected in almost all of his writings, including some of his earliest books, such as Do We Need the Church? (1969), Church: the Continuing Quest (1970), and The Remaking of the Church (1973); the second area is reflected in his Caesar’s Coin: Religion and Politics in America (1987); and the third in his Catholicism (1980; rev. ed., 1994), Lives of the Popes (1997), and Lives of the Saints (2001), as well as The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995), of which he was general editor. He has been president of the Catholic Theological Society of America (1973-74) and winner of its John Courtney Murray Award “for outstanding and distinguished achievement in Theology” (1976). He has written a syndicated weekly theology column for the Catholic press since 1966, and is a frequent on-air network commentator for Church-related events. “

 

[contemplative]

stanley123:

He may be close to the edge, but still, I don’t see where he has formally rejected a dogma of the Catholic Church? Does a layperson have the right to call him a heretic if he has not formally rejected a dogma of the Church?

Also, he has rather impressive credentials according to

http://www.nd.edu/~theo/faculty/mcbrien.html
“

Pooh-pooh to his credentials

and again

A couple of Pro-Life organizations feel McBrien has already crossed the line.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, puts it slightly differently: “The Magisterium, (according to McBrien] is Fr. McBrien and others whom he recognizes as belonging to the sacred college of academic theologians.” Regardless of how it is phrased, the problem is that McBrien likes his ideas better than those of the Church. (McBrien’s willingness to question the Church’s teaching on abortion has even caused two pro-life organizations to call for his excommunication.)

Catholic Culture

 

[stanley123]

contemplative:

Pooh-pooh to his credentials

The people who are criticising him as being a heretic, don’t seem to have the same credentials that he has.

 

[contemplative]

stanley123:

The people who are criticising him as being a heretic, don’t seem to have the same credentials that he has.

They don’t need a degree from Harvard or Yale to pooh-pooh his credentials and religious teaching.

 

[RyanL]

Hi! I attend Our Lady’s University, where Richard McBrien is a faculty member. His TA’s from this year and last year (and possibly others…) routinely complain about the difficulty of having to be the assistant of someone who is openly contemptous of the Magisterium. Is he a heretic? Let’s take a look:

The idea that the Pope or the body of bishops could define something or authoritatively proclaim something which is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the faithful is a theological fiction. The Magisterium is not above the community. It exists to provide the community with guidelines for its own self-understanding and to be a channel for the community’s convictions and beliefs (pp. 224-5).

                   The Magisterium              must try, as always, to reflect the actual consensus of the Church.              And if the Pope and bishops are convinced that the consensus of the              Church is moving in the wrong direction, they have the obligation              to attempt to create a new, countervailing consensus. If the Spirit              is with them, the new consensus will eventually win the day. But the              Pope and bishops never have the right to impose their own views on              the Church, without such an organic process. If, by chance, they do              attempt to impose such a position, the Church itself will, and must,              reject it (p. 227).

The conclusion must be . . . that infallibility applies only to the Church as a community, and to the Pope as spokesman of the community and symbol of its unity . . . personal papal infallibility, as understood by post-Vatican I theologians, and admittedly by Pope Pius XII himself, is a theological fiction and cannot be supported or sustained (pp. 187-8).

*Do We Need the Church? *(New York: Harper and Row, 1969)

    So here we see that Divine Truth is determined by popular vote, and the outright rejection of Papal Infallibility (as dogmatically defined).

More?
How about McBrien’s ridicule of Pius XII’s infallible declaration of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven (Munificentissimus Deus, 1950)? He writes:

"Not only was it an unwise gesture (the ecumenical implications were clear enough), but it theologically unjustifiable

" (p. 187)
He sure seems to like that phrase, doesn’t he?

Still want to read about Prof. Richard McBrien’s heresies? Check out what the schismatics have to say about him.

God Bless, and Go Irish.
RyanL