The term “modern theism” seems to belong to Sr. Elizabeth Johnson. At least according to the bishops’ critique of her book. In her rebuttal, Sr. Elizabeth doesn’t take issue with the term, so I suppose she accepts ownership.
No. Elizabeth Johnson does not accept “modern theism.” If you will take the time to read what she herself says rather than relying on other people’s misquotation and misrepresentation of her, you will discover that she critiques it as very inadequate.
Please provide the correct link for Sr. Johnson’s response. Thank you.
Although I understand that Sr. Elizabeth does not accept the critiques made by the bishops’ committee, I do not understand why you say that she does not accept the term “modern theism.” She devotes an entire section of her rebuttal to the committee regarding that term. In that section she even states that it is a term she uses:
ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/johnson-letter-us-bishops-doctrine-committee
Dale_M, can you show me where I said that?
It refers to the fact that I am leaving this thread.
I said: “No. Elizabeth Johnson does not accept “modern theism.” If you will take the time to read what she herself says rather than relying on other people’s misquotation and misrepresentation of her, you will discover that she critiques it as very inadequate.”
Here is what you said in post #256
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7987615&postcount=256
Granny, I can’t figure out what the bishops don’t understand. Elizabeth Johnson’s writing is crystal clear to me, and should be accessible to people with a modicum of theological knowledge and historical perspective. Her understanding of Christian theism is precisely what we know as the deep and living faith of the Catholic Church, reflecting its Patristic and Scholastic roots. There is nothing radical about reaffirming the deep Catholic faith that had been eviscerated by the Enlightenment
Since Sister Johnson’s writing is crystal clear to you. Please enlighten us. What are Sister’s main issues. Thank you in advance.
It’s curious indeed that amember of the laiety would present such an opinion (I won’t grace it by calling it and argument) that is based on …well…personal opinion.To classify the Bishops the majority of whom have doctorates in theology and are the protectors of the Faith as lacking ''a modicum of theological knowledge and historical perspective" is at once both mind boggling and mirthful.
Now c’mon… that isn’t what StAnastasia said. She was perplexed that the bishops’ committee reached the interpretations which they did because she thought that the book was straight forward, accessible even to those without advanced degrees or training. She did not question the bishops theological training or their role as guardians of the faith.
I think we need to tread carefully here. Questioning the reasoning of the bishops’ committee to gain a better understanding of their point of view seems reasonable. And part of this understanding requires that we consider the author’s insistence that they have misinterpreted her work. Humility is definitely required. However, I think we can also have a thoughtful discussion of the issues which may deepen our appreciation of both sides of the controversy.
You are asking StAnastasia to produce a theological paper for your consideration. It seems a large request for an online forum.
This is what StAnastasia said in post 17. Emphasis mine.
This is the thing that has frustrated me from the beginning. Sister Elizabeth’s suporters say that her message is soooo deep and nuanced that the Bishops just can’t understand it despite their formal training and years of theological practice. Yet at the same time, they defend the book being used in undergrad theology classrooms and read by teenagers with a bare minimum of theological training.
That does seem to be a contradiction, and await St. Anastasia’s explanation.
There is a large body of orthodox work which the bishops find no fault with. Perhaps you should assign some of that to your students instead.StAnastasia said:
Colleges, and educators, and theologians should not be in the business of selecting reading and discussion materials on the basis of what students enjoy. Students, especially young ones, enjoy all kinds of things which are not healthy for their body and spirit. If your classes are anything like your posts, you seem to cast a lot of doubt on all things orthodox, and then fail to provide (in the sense of “I really believe this”) the orthodox answer to those doubts. You leave much doubt, and add nothing.StAnastasia said:
Yes, very strange isn’t it?This is the thing that has frustrated me from the beginning. Sister Elizabeth’s suporters say that her message is soooo deep and nuanced that the Bishops just can’t understand it despite their formal training and years of theological practice. Yet at the same time, they defend the book being used in undergrad theology classrooms and read by teenagers with a bare minimum of theological training.
And she doesn’t specifically talk about Catholic so much as a broader Christianity. If this is the case that she is talking Christianity in general and not Catholic specifically, then I don’t see what the Bishop’s are complaining about. But if she is espousing these ideas as Catholic thought then the Bishop’s are justified in calling her out on them.All I say is please hang on to the book. After reading a few of StAnastasia’s posts over the years, it becomes apparent, in my humble opinion, that there is now a theological language similar to Newspeak (George Orwell, 1984).Is this book not meant to be a specifically Catholic book? I’ve begun reading it and it doesn’t strike me as Catholic. She uses information from a Lutheran theologian in the very first chapter.
It also seems to me that she has this idea that new is better and that Revelation as taught by the Church are stale ideas. Luther espoused new ideas in his time. That does not make his ideas Catholic.
I am glad I borrowed the book rather than purchasing it because I really can’t see the point of reading any further.
I’ve wondered about this for a long time. What exactly must a theologian do to “make a name” for him/her self? To explain something better than has already been done over and over by Doctors of the Church and others must be quite difficult, or impossible given the length of time the Church has been around. Sometimes one might be able to integrate traditional teachings in a more clear fashion than others have done.