US bishops warn of errors in feminist sister's book

[grannymh]

Oh, if that is what you are looking for Google Books can come to the rescue. Here is what the The Word of God: Jesus Christ by C. Jack Brinkman (copyright 2002) says:

books.google.com/books?id=we4I7t9KzFsC&pg=PR7&dq=nihil+obstat+imprimatur&hl=en&ei=Ynv1Ta7IMY-y0AHEo_3qDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=nihil%20obstat%20imprimatur&f=false

here you go.

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book is considered to be free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat or the Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

Thank you both.

What looks like two simple sentences actually proposes a different and better concept than the old “Index”.

 

[grannymh]

“We are greatly disturbed that the Doctrine Committee did not follow the approved procedures of [the 1989 U.S. bishops’ conference document] ‘Doctrinal Responsibilities,’ which advocate that an informal conversation be undertaken as a first step,” the CTSA board statement read.

“The CTSA statement further charged that the Doctrine Committee’s assessment of Johnson’s book was “deficient” because it misrepresented thinking presented in the book.”

In other words, the bishops acted less than honestly in misrepresenting Elizabeth Johnson’s work. That is the basic complaint of the CTSA, rather than the content of the doctrinal investigation.

Shall we discuss this on a fair playing field?

I noticed the plural “procedures”. Please provide the link you are using so that in the spirit of open discussion, one can understand the context. What was the complete statement that had the word “deficient”?

I am not attacking the CTSA, which has the right to free speech. I want to give their position a fair hearing.

 

[grannymh]

No, she’s not out to sell books. As a religious, she would inot profit from royalties.

In many places, religious work in order to support their order or their community. I assumed that Sr. Johnson is generous, especially in these days where religious communities have a large proportion of elderly.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you both.

What looks like two simple sentences actually proposes a different and better concept than the old “Index”.

 

[Dale_M]

Shall we discuss this on a fair playing field?

I noticed the plural “procedures”. Please provide the link you are using so that in the spirit of open discussion, one can understand the context. What was the complete statement that had the word “deficient”?

StAnastasia seems to be quoting from this article in the * National Catholic Reporter*:
ncronline.org/news/theology/theologians-express-regret-over-bishops-rebuke-johnson-book

That article discusses two slightly different things. One is the letter sent by the board of directors of the CTSA back in April. The other is the resolution approved by the annual CTSA conference.

Here is the letter from the CTSA board.
ctsa-online.org/johnson.html

I do not have a link to the actual resolution which was approved. However, if the NCR article is correct, the language the language of the resolution closely follows that of the letter.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia seems to be quoting from this article in the * National Catholic Reporter*:ncronline.org/news/theology/theologians-express-regret-over-bishops-rebuke-johnson-book.

Dale_M, thank you for posting the NCR online link., I don’t have the actual resolution with me.

 

[StAnastasia]

In many places, religious work in order to support their order or their community. I assumed that Sr. Johnson is generous, especially in these days where religious communities have a large proportion of elderly.

She is indeed, otherwise she would have become a lawyer or a physician rather than a member of a religious order. The reality is that academics do not become rich from publishing theology books; I have yet to see a penny from my 2008 book.

 

[StAnastasia]

She surely has the right to appeal and clear up any misunderstanding, but in the most favorable light the best that can be said is that the work is confusing and not suitable for teaching.

Elizabeth Johnson’s Quest for the Living God is not confusing to anyone capable of reading and understanding theology (which includes most of my undergraduate students). The book is being used successfully in hundreds of theology courses in the U.S., and abroad. Admittedly, it does include some four syllable words, but I require my students to use dictionaries while reading it, and such words become springboards for rich class discussions. This matter of episcopal censure is a tempest in a teapot, probably manufactured to distract us from more serious issues.

 

[StAnastasia]

If the Sister intended it to be a critique on the Church, and trying to speak about God as other than revealed by the Church … then she is just flat out wrong, and being corrected by the Magisterium.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Read the book.

The problem is that this book specifically was being used in undergrad formation classes.

No, it is not being used in “formation classes” – you don’t know what you are talking about.

As shepherds, the bishops needed to be clear that some of this book’s teachings and views are non-Catholic, and opposed to the faith.

Again, you don’t know anything about this.

This is not a book that holds Catholic teaching, nor should it be taken as such, that’s merely what the bishops announced.

A statement made in ignorance of the book. Read it!

The Sister can theorize about modern view of religion,

Another statement made incomplete ignorance of the book. You are not entitled to critique something if you haven’t read it.

 

[manualman]

This seems very simple to me, though I admit to not having read the particular book in question. There is a process authors can go through in which they can receive private and confidential feedback on their work before publication. (Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat). This author chose not to use that process. Her choice, I presume no one prevented her from using it, yes?

Instead, she published the book and apparently it is used in a number of universities. Having been brought to the bishop’s attention for alleged problems, they had someone look into it and summarize the concerns.

The author insists that it is inappropriate for the bishops to publicly censor her work without consultation with her first. This is an intellectually dishonest objection. It is the bishop’s VOCATION to guide and protect the faithful. If a work is already published and in widespread use, but on its face presents serious defects in church teaching, then the bishops would be negligent in their vocation in NOT informing the people of the problems.

The author had her chance for a private review and chose not to take it. At this juncture, the bishops had to choose between the pride and reputation of the author and the wellbeing of those faithful being instructed by religious claiming the authority of the Church. They obviously made the correct choice. As I noted earlier, there are OBVIOUSLY real problems with the book. If educated bishops read it and believe it contains erroneous ideas, then one can hardly claim that undergraduates are secure from taking the same “misunderstanding” away.

It is the job of theologians to study, reason and advise the bishops. It is the job of the bishops to reflect, pray, listen and disern between truth and error in teaching.

I know who I’m going to listen to.

 

[Dawnia]

For those of us with very little theological understanding this whole debate comes down to who do you trust. Do you accept the teachings of a nun who sidesteps the Church to publish a book that she claims is within Church teaching. Or do you believe the bishops who are tasked with the authority to teach what is and isn’t Church teaching that claim her book is outside of Church teaching? Personally, I will stick with the Bishops.

 

[grannymh]

StAnastasia seems to be quoting from this article in the National Catholic Reporter:
ncronline.org/news/theology/theologians-express-regret-over-bishops-rebuke-johnson-book

That article discusses two slightly different things. One is the letter sent by the board of directors of the CTSA back in April. The other is the resolution approved by the annual CTSA conference.

Here is the letter from the CTSA board.
ctsa-online.org/johnson.html

I do not have a link to the actual resolution which was approved. However, if the NCR article is correct, the language the language of the resolution closely follows that of the letter.

Shades of the past.

Years ago in our parish, a Catholic revert spotted modern errors in a book used in R.C.I.A. One of the reasons he returned was the prevalence of feminism in Protestantism.

Doing a bit of checking, it was discovered that the Imprimatur had been removed from the latest editions of this popular R.C.I.A. book. If my memory is somewhat accurate, the Imprimatur may have been removed because of the book’s treatment of original sin
and not necessarily because of a feminism agenda. However, feminism and “new age” were hot topics in our area.

Interesting – when I was checking the publications of Sr. Johnson, I came across this book, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (1992)
My guess is, due to a poor memory, that I reviewed that book. For me, reading that book or a similar one, feminist language per se was not a big deal. In our human search for descriptions of God, we should use all our human resources. Nonetheless, there were a couple of places in which the commentary made me pause. I wondered what was really being said.

The point is that I was intuitively looking at this book from the current perspective of the Imprimatur. Whether or not, the God descriptions were pleasing was not the real issue. The real issue concerns the presentation of doctrinal or moral error.

In fairness to Sr. Johnson or whomever was the author, I was not too sure about all the issues connected with these kinds of books so I did not go any further.

As I start to read the provided links, thank you, it appears that the CTSA issues go back to 1980. In my humble opinion, CTSA has the right to be concerned on behalf of Sr. Johnson.

However, the real issue for the average reader is the very real question regarding the presentation of doctrinal or moral error.

I need to listen to other posters before I can continue on this topic. Thanks to posts on 21st century contemporary theology, it is obvious that some theologians
have shifted to a more secular, i.e., non-Catholic approach.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Do you accept the teachings of a nun who sidesteps the Church to publish a book that she claims is within Church teaching.

For starters, she didn’t “side step” anything. No one is obligated to submit their writings to any bishop or committee and while more are doing so as of late its hasn’t been very common in the last 30 years or so.

Or do you believe the bishops who are tasked with the authority to teach what is and isn’t Church teaching that claim her book is outside of Church teaching? Personally, I will stick with the Bishops.

Its amazing the swings that take place on this forum. When a USCCB committee says something people don’t like they’re quick to point out the committee has no actual authority and that its simply an opinion. When an individual bishop says something people don’t like they say until it comes out in a Vatican document then its simply that individual bishop’s opinion.
But if people like what is said, well then, he’s a successor of the apostles!

So let’s just say that the bishops aren’t infallible in interpreting a book but that they also did a good faith effort to get things right. People are free accept the Bishops statement on its face or to read Sr’s book and make up their own mind…

 

[StAnastasia]

Or do you believe the bishops who are tasked with the authority to teach what is and isn’t Church teaching that claim her book is outside of Church teaching? Personally, I will stick with the Bishops.

The clerical-pedophilia cover-up has eroded the trust we once had…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The clerical-pedophilia cover-up has eroded the trust we once had…

I’m not sure how that’s connected to this…

 

[grannymh]

The clerical-pedophilia cover-up has eroded the trust we once had…

Interesting point. However, as I start to read the Catholic position, I find that the actual issues concern doctrines proclaimed centuries ago and not the very serious sins of today.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m not sure how that’s connected to this…

Dawnia asked whether I would trust Sister Johnson or a panel of bishops. I have never known Sister Johnson to conceal the truth, so I trust her. But the bigger issue is that of all the people on this thread commenting about Sister Johnson’s theological work, I seem to be the only one who has even read it. I find no error in it, and neither do any other theologians I know. READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU CRITICIZE IT!

 

[StAnastasia]

Interesting point. However, as I start to read the Catholic position, I find that the actual issues concern doctrines proclaimed centuries ago and not the very serious sins of today.

Granny, have you read the book? Read it before you criticize it!

 

[Dale_M]

This seems very simple to me, though I admit to not having read the particular book in question. There is a process authors can go through in which they can receive private and confidential feedback on their work before publication. (Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat). This author chose not to use that process. Her choice, I presume no one prevented her from using it, yes?

One of Sr. Elizabeth’s complaints, and one central to the complaint of the Catholic Theological Society of America, is that that the US bishop’s Committee on Doctrine did not follow the procedures spelled out in the USCCB’s 1989 statement Doctrinal Responsibilities: Procedures for Promoting Cooperation and Resolving Disputes Between Bishops and Theologians. The complaint is that this document states that private negotiations would take place before any public criticism.

180 faculty members of Fordham University sent a letter to the bishops which made a similar complaint. In response, Fr. Thomas Weinandy (executive director of the doctrine committee) wrote to the department of theology. In the letter he said “this might be a time to review" the 1989 document. Among the benefits of the review might be to "see how well its provisions are understood and applied.”
ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/bishops-committee-reaches-out-catholic-scholars

 

[grannymh]

Elizabeth Johnson’s Quest for the Living God is not confusing to anyone capable of reading and understanding theology (which includes most of my undergraduate students). The book is being used successfully in hundreds of theology courses in the U.S., and abroad. Admittedly, it does include some four syllable words, but I require my students to use dictionaries while reading it, and such words become springboards for rich class discussions. This matter of episcopal censure is a tempest in a teapot, probably manufactured to distract us from more serious issues.

Your evaluation is appreciated as are your other posts in other threads which explain the kind of contemporary theology which is more secular than Catholic.

However, as silly as it may seem, Catholicism is sticking to those doctrines proclaimed centuries ago under the promised guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

While Bishops as individuals cannot claim infallibility for themselves, they do claim there are infallible doctrines due to the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
granny

John Chapter 14