US bishops warn of errors in feminist sister's book

[pnewton]

I said nothing about EWTN or the bishops being liars; those are your words.

I did not mean to accuse you of this and if you not, I did not. You speak of the need to read what people really say, so please note this. I simply do not understand what you can possible have meant when you say it was not her book they reviewed when the evidence seems so overwhelming that it is precisely her book review that is under discussion.

FYI - I appreciate the role that theologians, including liberal theologians, play in the Church. (I speak in the classic sense of “liberal”, not the political). However, the other side to exploring new theological ground is the check of traditional theological understanding. Any theologian that wishes to push the limits must understand that they risk going beyond what the Catholic Church, in which the authority resides only in the bishops, not the theologians, is going to teach (or should be teaching). The one benefit I can see to this incident is that it does illustrate this system that has worked so well for centuries. Perhaps in this modern era of information and transparency it does not work so well. If you note, no comment was made about the Sister, only her book, this one book.

Our Church is facing the same dangers in academia that all non-Catholic seminaries also face. It may well be time for us back off some on exploring new theologies to avoid some of the pitfalls that they have fallen into. We do not need to fuel the heresies that some Catholic groups have fallen prey to in this modern world. If the Holy Spirit is leading the Church back to a more traditional path, then who is any sister, theologian, or bishop to “kick against the goads”?

 

[StAnastasia]

I simply do not understand what you can possible have meant when you say it was not her book they reviewed when the evidence seems so overwhelming that it is precisely her book review that is under discussion.

What Sister Johnson means is that the USCCB statement in some instances so distorts what her book is saying that the bishops might as well have been reading a different book. Attacking outright misstatements of fact means that it is not her own words that the bishops are attacking. They are falsely criticizing her for things she herself did not write. Read her response and compare it carefully with her own text in Quest for the Living God, and with what the bishops claim she wrote.

However, the other side to exploring new theological ground is the check of traditional theological understanding.

 

[pnewton]

Can you show in specific instances how she is “pushing the limits”?
.

No, nor did I say she did. As with the other comments I made, they are addressing something more than I said, making it personal to Sister Johnson, when I specifically was more general. This is but one reason why I believe the opinion of the bishops over posters here. I was basing my statement the role of liberal and traditional theology upon the bishop’s evaluations.

And yes, I do think modernism and secular society has given rise to movements like women priests and gender neutral language in addressing God, contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Dale_M]

women priests and gender neutral language in addressing God, contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Certainly female priests are contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, however I am not sure the same can be said for gender neutral language in addressing God. Yes, in the divine liturgy of the Mass such language is forbidden, but I don’t think the prohibition extends to less formal situations.

 

[StAnastasia]

This is but one reason why I believe the opinion of the bishops over posters here.

What about the false accusations against Sister Johnson?

And yes, I do think modernism and secular society has given rise to movements like women priests and gender neutral language in addressing God, contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Language is ever changing. If you find it spiritually helpful to conceive of God exclusively as a cosmic male, fine. Not all Christians find it useful.

 

[StAnastasia]

Certainly female priests are contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church,

Correct.

however I am not sure the same can be said for gender neutral language in addressing God. Yes, in the divine liturgy of the Mass such language is forbidden,

 

[Dale_M]

Most people in our parish do not say “For us men and for our salvation” in the creed; they say “For us and for our salvation.” Is it sinful to omit the word “men”?

Sinful? I’m not sure. But it seems contrary to instructions from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. This is from the 2001 document Liturgiam authenticam

1. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the “inclusive” sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word ’adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.

1. In particular: to be avoided is the systematic resort to imprudent solutions such as a mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. Such measures introduce theological and anthropological problems into the translation

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html

Such as prayer and spirituality?

That is my sense, although I may be wrong. As far as I know, a prohibition on gender neutral or non-traditional terms has only be issued in reference to the Mass.

 

[StAnastasia]

Sinful? I’m not sure. But it seems contrary to instructions from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

I’m not a great experimenter, but I can’t see the sinfulness of omitting “men” from “for us men and for our salvation.” “Us” does the trick without adding “men.” In our parish both usages can be heard. Also, some left-handed people almost imperceptibly omit “right” from “He is seated at the right hand of the Father.” Presumably the divine throne seating arrangement is side-neutral.

As far as I know, a prohibition on gender neutral or non-traditional terms has only be issued in reference to the Mass.

 

[StAnastasia]

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=29304 years later…I’m willing to bet there is more books out there then Sister’s that have errors.

The very title of this thread is false: Sister Johnson never “ripped” the USCCB critique of her work. She responded in a carefully detailed manner.

 

[Dale_M]

The very title of this thread is false: Sister Johnson never “ripped” the USCCB critique of her work. She responded in a carefully detailed manner.

I’m puzzled why our responses are being tagged with the “ripped” heading you mention. The official title of this thread is “US bishops warn of errors in feminist sister’s book,” and that is what appears in the heading of my response while I am drafting it. So I am not sure how or why the heading gets changed to a more inflammatory title.

Edit: oops… now we seem back to normality. Thank goodness!

 

[pnewton]

What about the false accusations against Sister Johnson?

I know of no accusations made against Sister Johnson.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, in the divine liturgy of the Mass such language is forbidden, but I don’t think the prohibition extends to less formal situations.

Yes, and in holy Scripture. I think the distinction needs to be made that the Church has spoken against the use of gender neutral language only in the context of God. It is not because God is viewed as “cosmic male”, but rather because God Himself has been revealed to us as Father. It is not our views or our comfort that matters, but rather divine revelation that matters. God is not Father and Mother, Father and It or It, Father and Mother. God is Father. We do not conform God to our standards but rather we conform to His revelation.

 

[Corki]

Most people in our parish do not say “For us men and for our salvation” in the creed; they say “For us and for our salvation.” Is it sinful to omit the word “men”?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html

That is my sense, although I may be wrong. As far as I know, a prohibition on gender neutral or non-traditional terms has only be issued in reference to the Mass.

If someone in the congregation ommitted a word, I don’t think it would be sinful, although it would still be wrong if they knew the correct wording. If the priest did it or encouraged it, I think it would fall into an area where sin could definately be involved. One of the priest’s responsibilities is to follow the text of the Mass as approved. It would be hard for any modern day priest, with the extensive training and modern communications tools, to claim he didn’t know what the right words were.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Just wait until the “new” liturgy arrives which is a literal translation of the original Latin mass.The Usual Suspects will have heart attacks.

 

[StAnastasia]

God is not Father and Mother, Father and It or It, Father and Mother. God is Father. We do not conform God to our standards but rather we conform to His revelation.

“God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God.”

 

[Dale_M]

“God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God.”

The quote is from section 239 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

The quote is from section 239 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

But you see Sister and StAnastasia know better than the Catechism-after all they are theologians and thusly impeccable and from the tone of some posts some may consider themselves infallible and certainly brighter than those dusty old Bishops.
Gee the Pope was a Bishop once does that make him a hick when it comes to theology?I suggest you start reading the trilogy of Jesus if you want to see brilliant theology StAnastasia.

 

[pnewton]

“God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God.”

Yes, and His holiness can be addressed as fire and Jesus can be expressed as a chicken. The key phrase is “expressed by the image of…” However, that is not what the Almighty is called. He is called Lord. He is called I AM. He is called Father.

By the way. God is male in a unique way, unless we either do not believe in the incarnation or do not believe that Jesus is God. God is not male* only*, any more than he is human only. Thus, female hens can be used as images of God.

Here is the link to that section of the Catechism from which you made that selection. I think the sentiment is quite clear if read in broader context.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#I

God is like a mother but He* is *Our Father.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Yes, and His holiness can be addressed as fire and Jesus can be expressed as a chicken. The key phrase is “expressed by the image of…” However, that is not what the Almighty is called. He is called Lord. He is called I AM. He is called Father.

By the way. God is male in a unique way, unless we either do not believe in the incarnation or do not believe that Jesus is God. God is not male* only*, any more than he is human only. Thus, female hens can be used as images of God.

Here is the link to that section of the Catechism from which you made that selection. I think the sentiment is quite clear if read in broader context.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#I

God is like a mother but He* is *Our Father.

 

[FCEGM]

Yes, and His holiness can be addressed as fire and Jesus can be expressed as a chicken. The key phrase is “expressed by the image of…” However, that is not what the Almighty is called. He is called Lord. He is called I AM. He is called Father.

By the way. God is male in a unique way, unless we either do not believe in the incarnation or do not believe that Jesus is God. God is not male* only*, any more than he is human only. Thus, female hens can be used as images of God.

Here is the link to that section of the Catechism from which you made that selection. I think the sentiment is quite clear if read in broader context.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#I

God is like a mother but He* is *Our Father.

:yup: That’s the difference between metaphors and similies. While God is not male Scripture most suitably employs male metaphors for Him, while on occasion employing female similies for Him. There is a basic distinction between the two, with "simile/comparing (mother) and metaphor/naming (father), and the meanings they convey. . .Whereas similies compare, metaphors predicate or NAME [emphasis mine], “Language for God and Feminist Language, a Literary and Rhetorical Analysis,” Roland Mushat Frye, Interpretation, A Journal of Bible and Theology.

Perverting the metaphor corrupts the Catholic understanding of Creation. God is not some sort of pantheistic earth-mother, but the Living God Whose own prerogative - not any necessity - initiated all Creation while not being a part of that Creation (until the Second Person becomes Man). Thus the usage of metaphoric male as the Initiator, not the receptor (woman) of Creation (which is feminine in relation to Him - as is the Church to Christ).