US bishops warn of errors in feminist sister's book

[po18guy]

I just noticed you referred to secular theologians. I have used secular theology and a reader wasn’t sure what I was talking about.

Since she is not a nun who is cloistered, she is in the world, and thus, secular.

 

[grannymh]

Btw, my dear StAnastasia, I was not the first to coin that phase, “in the name of the Mother, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. This term was actually introduced to me about 12 years ago from the “sisters” who run Our Lady of Peace Catholic school in San Diego. The vibe from this school, as it was described from me, was reminiscent of the excerpts I read from her book. They were also feminists who pushed for women ordination.

Since you are pretty familiar with the sisters beliefs, what are her thoughts on women’s ordination, contraception, gay marriage, the Liturgy, etc? Also, feel free to post the relevant areas of her response that address this “*dominant images of God as father, lord, and king” *issue/problem/phenomena/fact?

Wasn’t there some movement to change the formula for Baptism to reflect better language skills?

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Sister Johnson rips USCCB critique of her work
June 09, 2011
Fordham University theologian Sister Elizabeth Johnson has written a 38-page letter defending her 2007 book Quest for the Living God against a recent critique by the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“Ideas are taken out of context and twisted to mean what they patently do not mean,” she writes. “Sentences are run to a conclusion far from what I think or the text says. False dilemmas are composed. Numerous omissions, distortions, and outright misstatements of fact riddle the reading. As a work of theology, Quest for the Living God was thoroughly misunderstood and consistently misrepresented in the committee’s Statement. As a result, the Statement’s judgment that Quest does not cohere with Catholic teaching is less than compelling. It hangs in the air, untethered by the text of the book itself.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10602

 

[grannymh]

Since she is not a nun who is cloistered, she is in the world, and thus, secular.

I was referring to the popular kind of secular theology which depends on science to determine the origin of our two first parents. From what I am reading, secular theology takes its cues from current culture. My description pales in comparison to StAnastasia’s. Only she does not appear to like the term secular theology. However, because of the principle of updating, it is my intention to wait until StAnastasia speaks for herself. I do hope she shares what she learns from Elizabeth Johnson. Then some of us worry bugs will be able to sleep at night.

 

[ricmat]

Then some of us worry bugs will be able to sleep at night.

My recommendation. Be afraid, be very afraid.

 

[Samuel63]

It appears the defenders of this work are largely from the National Catholic Reporter. This in itself indicates there are issues.

I will do some more checking and comment later.

 

[valentino]

I think the usccb is capable of deciding what she is saying in her workk.

 

[Corki]

But, theologians serve only under the authority of the Bishops. Here (bolding mine), you seem to intimate some type of equality between secular theologians and ordained Bishops. I note that, as the successors of the Apostles, and within their ordained sacerdotal role, they function as Priest in sanctification; as Prophet in teaching, and as King in their governance.

Rhetorical: Do you not see a problem in your unflinching allegiance to Sister, and your diminution of the Bishops?

Equality? Yes, of course.

You see yourself and Sr. Johnson as equal to a Bishop?!? Wow. Equal in humanity, yes. Equal in role (as teacher or leader) or in authority - NO WAY.

 

[Sarika]

If the USCCB gave a negative critique of her book, it almost certainly is a correct one. It would really take some heavy duty bad stuff for them to even consider doing this, much less actually bothering to write a critique which might make them look bad to the press.
Hmmm. Maybe there IS some hope for us afterall.
Now, if they could only address music for worship…

 

[manygift1spirit]

I haven’t read the Sister’s book, but from reading the criticism of it, and this rebuttal of hers, it is pretty clear there are exactly two options.

First is that her theology is indeed deficient, and she is being quite prideful in not heeding the corrections.

Second is that she is simply a really really really bad writer. If the critics misunderstood her book so badly, imagine how disasterous using it in a theology class would be.

And I should point out these options are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Dale_M]

Didn’t the church maintain a list of all questionable and/or banned books?

I think you are referring to the old Index of Prohibited Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum). The last update to it was in the 1940s and it was abandoned altogether in the 1960s.

It wasn’t what some imagine it to be. For example, Mein Kampf was reviewed, but not banned. However, an important part of the process is that an author would be allowed to defend their work, and revise it if necessary.

Unfortunately, in the case of Sr. Elizabeth’s book this defense was not allowed to take place before the bishops’ committee made their public judgment. I’m not sure why the rush was necessary since the book had been in circulation for a few years. But as it is now, the author is being given the opportunity to defend her work. I’m not sure it is healthy for this process to play out in public, rather than behind the scenes, but that seems to be the situation we are in.

 

[Corki]

Unfortunately, in the case of Sr. Elizabeth’s book this defense was not allowed to take place before the bishops’ committee made their public judgment. I’m not sure why the rush was necessary since the book had been in circulation for a few years. But as it is now, the author is being given the opportunity to defend her work. I’m not sure it is healthy for this process to play out in public, rather than behind the scenes, but that seems to be the situation we are in.

I think it’s important to mention that the normal and recommended process to enter into a discussion is to submit your work to the bishops and seek an imprimatur. When an author does that, the bishops present questions, if any, enter a dialogue and the author is given the opportunity to make corections or clarifications in his/her work before it is pubished. Sister chose not to do this. If there was no dialogue or defense, the responsibility is, at least partly, on Sister for going straight to press and by-passing the Bishops in the first place.

FWIW, I would hope that universities require that theology texts have imprimaturs. You would think that would be the bare minimum for educational responsibility. I know that doesn’t happen, but I can dream, can’t I.

 

[grannymh]

I think you are referring to the old Index of Prohibited Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum). The last update to it was in the 1940s and it was abandoned altogether in the 1960s.

It wasn’t what some imagine it to be. For example, Mein Kampf was reviewed, but not banned. However, an important part of the process is that an author would be allowed to defend their work, and revise it if necessary.

Unfortunately, in the case of Sr. Elizabeth’s book this defense was not allowed to take place before the bishops’ committee made their public judgment. I’m not sure why the rush was necessary since the book had been in circulation for a few years. But as it is now, the author is being given the opportunity to defend her work. I’m not sure it is healthy for this process to play out in public, rather than behind the scenes, but that seems to be the situation we are in.

I believe that the process for an imprimatur is far better. I especially like the English explanation which accompanies the Latin at the front of a book. However, as has been pointed out, many authors do not apply for this process.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

I haven’t read the Sister’s book, but from reading the criticism of it, and this rebuttal of hers, it is pretty clear there are exactly two options.

First is that her theology is indeed deficient, and she is being quite prideful in not heeding the corrections.

Second is that she is simply a really really really bad writer. If the critics misunderstood her book so badly, imagine how disasterous using it in a theology class would be.

And I should point out these options are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Dale_M]

I think it’s important to mention that the normal and recommended process to enter into a discussion is to submit your work to the bishops and seek an imprimatur.

I’m not sure that is true any more. Granted, it was so a few decades ago, but as you mentioned universities don’t require it and StAnastasia has said that most theologians don’t seek it.

Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of Catholic theology books seek an imprimatur. But there does seem to have been a big drop-off in imprimaturs in the past 50 years.

 

[StAnastasia]

Jesus was confronted with baseless assertions, and he paid a much higher price than Sister Johnson. Perhaps this is her cross, provided to her so like Christ, she could learn obedience and humility.

Sister Dr. Johnson is a very obedient and humble person – why do you think she bothered to respond to the bishops, rather than blowing them off, as others might?

Demanding that things be fair is inconsistent with God’s plan for us.

 

[Corki]

I’m not sure that is true any more. Granted, it was so a few decades ago, but as you mentioned universities don’t require it and StAnastasia has said that most theologians don’t seek it.

Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of Catholic theology books seek an imprimatur. But there does seem to have been a big drop-off in imprimaturs in the past 50 years.

As Archbishop Wuerl mentioned in his letter, it’s not required but it is recommened. As a theologian she would know this. My point was only that since she freelly chose to by-pass this step, it is not fair for her to complain now about a lack of prior dialogue.

 

[StAnastasia]

Since you are pretty familiar with the sisters beliefs,

I am familiar with what she has to say in Quest for the Living God. You would have to read other books to find out about other theological views.

What are her thoughts on women’s ordination, contraception, gay marriage, the Liturgy, etc?

 

[ricmat]

Jesus was confronted with baseless assertions, and he paid a much higher price than Sister Johnson. Perhaps this is her cross, provided to her so like Christ, she could learn obedience and humility. Demanding that things be fair is inconsistent with God’s plan for us. IMO it is a symptom of envy. Like Christ, perhaps she should offer up her acceptance of this “unfairness” as a redemptive act for the sins of us all.

Just a thought.

Sister Dr. Johnson is a very obedient and humble person – why do you think she bothered to respond to the bishops, rather than blowing them off, as others might? Who ever said she demanded things to be “fair”? That’s just you making up a despicable and baseless accusation again. More from your fevered imagination, ricmat. You are either deliberately bearing false witness against Sister Johnson, or you are making stuff up in your confusion. She never said anything about “unfairness.”

My post above was based on several posts in this thread, and was just as much addressed to Sister Johnson’s defenders as to Sister Johnson. And based on the comments of those defenders, it seemed possible to me that Sister Johnson could have been treated unfairly, whether she thought so herself or not.

If she has been treated unfairly, it seems reasonable to accept this suffering (and it is suffering), and offer up that acceptance as Christ did. We are all called to offer up our suffering as a redemptive act for our own sins and the sins of others. If we fail to accept it, it festers and eats up our souls. I know, I’ve been there.

Obedience is often the hardest thing to accept, especially where pride is involved. I know, I’ve been there. Rather than fight the Bishops (war galleon or not), it seems to me that true humility would be to obey without question.

This theme of obedience and suffering has been much on my mind lately. Ask Sister why that might be. She might know the answer, even if you don’t.

 

[AnotherVoice]

I haven’t read the Sister’s book, but from reading the criticism of it, and this rebuttal of hers, it is pretty clear there are exactly two options.

First is that her theology is indeed deficient, and she is being quite prideful in not heeding the corrections.

Second is that she is simply a really really really bad writer. If the critics misunderstood her book so badly, imagine how disasterous using it in a theology class would be.

And I should point out these options are not mutually exclusive.

I certainly agree these are the two options; it should be noted that both are rather grim for the students that used the book as their base document for theology.

However, in our age the good sister has almost guaranteed that she will be invited to give commencement addresses at any number pseudo-catholic institutions next summer.