You may be listening to someone who has implied, in the past, that I need to present a paper to a special science group before I can believe in certain Catholic dogmas.
A blatant and calumnious lie.
Of course.
Sadly, it is becoming more and more clear that modernists might be better served in another Church. Since the Catholic Church cannot and will not compromise on revealed truth, and authoritatively chooses not to make the Church more worldly, such members will never be at peace within her. A Franciscan Brother who posts here recently made that suggestion and, after pondering it, I believe that he is correct. If one simply cannot remain in obedience, trusting in the Church, as it is constituted, to lead them to eternity, then, that person has an obligation to themselves to seek their peace elsewhere. The modernist’s continuing presence can only lead to further dissension, and impeding of the Church’s mission.
Seriously, I am glad about the bishop’s warnings. A four-minute glance at a 28-page link was enough for me to consider that the warnings might be warranted.
Obviously, I am not passing judgment on the book itself.
Seriously, I am glad about the bishop’s warnings. A four-minute glance at a 28-page link was enough for me to consider that the warnings might be warranted.
Obviously, I am not passing judgment on the book itself.
Did you note the qualifier?
thank you. I was not referring to that which was clearly posted. I was referring to this statement;
The USCCB’s statement spelled it out pretty clearly. For more information, you can Google her. I especially found the reviews of one of her other books, “She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse” to be enlightening regarding her “point of view”.
Sister is a self-identified feminist. Sister claims to teach “Catholic” theology. Sister wrote her own book, with her own apparently unorthodox views on Catholic theology. Sister desires that the Church accept and approve of her ideas, as implied by her submission of the book for consideration of the imprimatur.
Is there anything wrong with that?
No, she claims to teach Catholic theology. Scare quotes are not needed. And apparently part of her employment is to teach Catholic theology.
Of course, the Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine said that, and she disputes their findings. This is the topic we are discussing.
I’m not sure that is true. Cardinal Wuerl’s March 30th letter to the US bishops stated that although an imprimatur is not required, it would have been helpful if Sr. Elizabeth had applied for it.
You have offered no evidence to show that Sr. Elizabeth has an agenda.
I think so. Are you a masculinist? Why not, if there’s nothing wrong with that?
Sorry if I scared you. My bad.
The dispute is not between equals. The Bishop’s committee has studied and has spoken. IMO, Sister needs to ponder her viewpoint and her continued membership in a Church that she disagrees with.
Is not the genesis of this controversy the fact that she did apply for the Imprimatur?
Certainly not in your view. Here is how an ignoramus sees it: Sister has been extensively trained in Catholic theology. She is extremely knowledgable in areas of Catholic doctrine. She has diverged from, if not what she was taught, then from what the Church authoritatively teaches, with knowledge that she is at variance. She is pressing forth her personally held ideas as legitimate if not authoritative. She has written, published and introduced a book to the end that her ideas are introduced into Catholic awareness - to an audience that is of a cognitively malleable age. Her position of authority at a Catholic school implies that her teaching is in line with authentic Catholic teaching. The Bishops committee has determined, after lengthy study, that her ideas are at variance with the Magisterium of the Church, and she has been advised of where and why, yet she persists in unrepentantly fostering her personally held ideas along unchanged.
Would you care to elaborate why being a feminist is a bad thing. particularly in regard to Sr. Elizabeth?
I’ve never heard the term before. What does it mean to you? Do you identify as an masculinist?
I think you are painting the dispute in more apocalyptic terms than is warranted. The US Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine issued an extensive critique of her book. Their statement did not call for any sanctions against her. Indeed, Cardinal Wuerl then invited her to make a written reply to the critique, since they had not consulted with her during its drafting. Her reply was sent to the committee one week ago.
I’m not aware of that. Do you have a link?
I think she would strongly protest that characterization. And I have to wonder, how do you know her internal private thoughts? Or are you saying that she has publicly stated that she knows her views are at variance with the Magisterium?
Most university professors do, its part of the nature of the scholarship.
Yes, I think that is what the bishops’ committee said.
The committee, regrettably, did not consult her before making their conclusions public. She was not given an opportunity to defend her views and the interpretations reached by the bishops. Only after the fact was she given that opportunity. We seem to be at the dialogue stage of this controversy, not at its conclusion.
The term “feminism” does not exist as an idea within Church teaching, so let us agree that is is a secular term. Thus, Sister self-identifies with a secular concept. Secular feminism is distinctly anti-Catholic in many fundamental areas of belief (i.e support for abortion, women’s ordination, support of divorce, re-defining marriage) and other areas. So, since many of these beliefs run counter to Catholic teaching, let’s go out on a limb and say that it is not good for a prominent Catholic, teaching at a Catholic university, to adhere to a philosophy which opposes Catholic teaching.
You are joking, right? I coined the term for a point of discussion. It is intended as the complementary philosophy to secular feminism. Ask yourself: why is feminism so normal and natural to accept, yet the opposite term concerns you?
Apocalyptic? A little extreme, doncha’ think? Sister, for all of her human dignity, intelligence, education and tenure, has made herself an example of the heterodoxy that is currently being medicinally addressed by the Church. And, some pills are bitter medicine.
satodayscatholic.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bishops-committee-says-professors-book-misrepresents-catholic-faith/ It appears that Sister did not seek the Imprimatur. So, the book came to the Bishop’s attention via other means. Can we all agree that the Imprimatur is a good thing for a Catholic theologian who teaches at a Catholic University?
Thoughts are sometimes revealed by actions, don’t you agree? If you are attacked, beaten and robbed, is it not reasonable to assume that the perpetrator was thinking about assaulting, beating and robbing you? If Sister does not know Catholic Theology, then what on earth is she doing teaching it? And, if she knows it, she certainly must know when and where her views differ.
For most, yes. Since she is Catholic, is it then her job to challenge the teaching of the very Church that she vowed to obey at her consecration?
Regrettably, Sister chose, for her own reasons apparently, to bypass what is normally the most important review of a Catholic publication - the review by the Bishops. Two possibilities: Oversight or design.
I think that is true for every Catholic, whether they are laity or are religious. We all have more dimensions than simply being Catholic.
I can understand some wariness on seeing the term feminism, but feminism is a very wide topic with a wide range of positions. A feminist doesn’t necessarily support what you have mentioned. Rather than simply criticizing Sr. Elizabeth on the basis of strawmen, perhaps it would be good to find out her actual positions on those issues.
erm… okay. But what is your point?
It doesn’t concern me, other than that you raised the issue and I wondered what you meant.
This statement is a little less dramatic than your previous post, but I still think it is a bit of an exaggeration. The bishops are rightly concerned that her book will mislead. Sr. Elizabeth says they have misconstrued her writing. So we are at a stage of discussion. It is unfortunate that this discussion is taking place before the public eyes, since it really should have been done in private. Only after the discussion is over will we know if any bitter medicine is involved.
I can see advantages to that. However, since an imprimatur is not required the matter really is up to the judgment of the university, or the professor teaching the course, or the author herself.
I have not read the book in question, nor any of her writings. However, her position is that her views are consistent with Catholic theology.
I think that is a very good question, and no doubt lay in the minds of the bishops’ committee. Of course, a classroom text is read with the guidance of the instructor, who shapes the discussion and understanding. Still, the question remains, can a professor other than the author explain her views as well as Sr. Elizabeth and in a way which does not leave the impressions which the bishops came to.
You do not need books to win your bet. A few CAF posts will do. Fortunately, there are CAF members who understand real Catholic theology and are willing to defend it.
Dr. Johnson notes:
What if you are right? I don’t think you are, but what if? What if the Bishops misinterpreted Sister’s writings? All the more reason for a cautionary warning. This book is being marketed for classroom use. If trained theologians like our Bishops so easily misunderstood the material, what hope do college kids have?