US theologians call for dialogue with bishops [CNAU]

[grannymh]

That was meant to be ironic.

I knew that.

Yet, I could not resist giving my position from the trenches.

From what I see, a lot of younger folk may use the “language of change” in imitation of some “theologian” writers at the same time they appear to be clueless as to basic doctrines of Catholicism. My other observations would be considered off topic. My apology for that.

 

[manualman]

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/07/sr-margaret-farley-and-dissent

Rusty Reno weighs in on the issue at First Things. He does a nice job of acknowledging that there IS value at one level of exploring and pressing against doctrinal teaching in order to assure moral cohesiveness throughout Tradition. Taken in that light, the work of people like Farley is not without value (even though her conclusions are utterly wrong).

But like I said earlier, the problem with these theologians is that they fail to see how their work can be used to create utter spiritual and moral anarchy in the pews (or more precisely, in the people that cease to occupy them after embracing phony definitions of conscience enabled by careless theologians).

 

[po18guy]

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/07/sr-margaret-farley-and-dissent

Rusty Reno weighs in on the issue at First Things. He does a nice job of acknowledging that there IS value at one level of exploring and pressing against doctrinal teaching in order to assure moral cohesiveness throughout Tradition. Taken in that light, the work of people like Farley is not without value (even though her conclusions are utterly wrong).

But like I said earlier, the problem with these theologians is that they fail to see how their work can be used to create utter spiritual and moral anarchy in the pews (or more precisely, in the people that cease to occupy them after embracing phony definitions of conscience enabled by careless theologians).

I think that their intellectualism has caused them to view the fence around the sheepfold as confining rather than as protecting the sheep. Yet, when one views their beliefs and teachings, do we see any difference at all between what they are hold to, and the secular world in general? That is not holiness. It is worldliness. Worldliness is always and everywhere opposed to the Church. No matter the letters that follow one’s name on the masthead.

 

[fix]

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/07/sr-margaret-farley-and-dissent

Rusty Reno weighs in on the issue at First Things. He does a nice job of acknowledging that there IS value at one level of exploring and pressing against doctrinal teaching in order to assure moral cohesiveness throughout Tradition. Taken in that light, the work of people like Farley is not without value (even though her conclusions are utterly wrong).

Like many of the commenters after his piece I find his position confusing and hard to defend.

 

[manualman]

Maybe I’m oversimplifying Reno’s argument, but what I got out of it is that without intellectual challenges to historic interpretations of Tradition, we can never produce doctrinal development. Such probing and challenging have their place.

But I would assert that the public square is NOT that place. Probably 99 times out of 100 new ideas are found to be wrong, such as is the case with Farley’s text. But if people stop making attempts to gain new insights in favor of unilluminated obedience, we never gain deeper comprehension as a faith people. I think the healthy place for such exploration is the rarified air of academia, confined to a small pool of people truly qualified to conduct it. Because when every Joe Sixpack thinks his conscience is special and trumps ‘that old mysoginist in Rome’ we’ve arrived at nothing less than spiritual anarchy.

In short, there are two errors to make in regards to experimental theology:

1. Ban it for everybody.
2. Encourage just anybody to engage in it.

Both are harmful to the long term health of the Church.

 

[po18guy]

It all gets back to what Fr. Groeschel said: there are no guarantees that theologians have any faith, hope or love. In the past century, there is substantial evidence to the contrary, actually.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe I’m oversimplifying Reno’s argument, but what I got out of it is that without intellectual challenges to historic interpretations of Tradition, we can never produce doctrinal development. Such probing and challenging have their place.

But I would assert that the public square is NOT that place. Probably 99 times out of 100 new ideas are found to be wrong, such as is the case with Farley’s text. But if people stop making attempts to gain new insights in favor of unilluminated obedience, we never gain deeper comprehension as a faith people. I think the healthy place for such exploration is the rarified air of academia, confined to a small pool of people truly qualified to conduct it. Because when every Joe Sixpack thinks his conscience is special and trumps ‘that old mysoginist in Rome’ we’ve arrived at nothing less than spiritual anarchy.

In short, there are two errors to make in regards to experimental theology:

1. Ban it for everybody.
2. Encourage just anybody to engage in it.

Both are harmful to the long term health of the Church.

It all depends on what is meant by doctrinal development or experimental theology.

If doctrinal development or experimental theology means that an existing doctrine is further explained without changing the basic doctrine, then doctrinal development is in order. If doctrinal development or experimental theology means tweaking a doctrine so that it fits one’s modern conceptions of sexual activity, then that tweaking itself has to be discerned in regard to the original doctrines regarding human nature and morals.

From the link in post 1.
“Farely’s positions on masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage and the problem of divorce and remarriage “contradicts,” “is opposed to” or “does not conform to” church teaching, the Vatican notification said.”

In my humble opinion, the issues sound more than tweaking experimental theology here and there.

 

[manualman]

Well, yes. Reno agrees that Farley blew it in her conclusions.

What he stops short of doing is condemning the PROCESS of rethinking traditional interpretations of Tradition and doctrine just because 99 times out of 100 it results in a dead end (like Farley’s text). That 1 of 100 is where doctrinal development actually comes from.

Let me put it another way. If 150 years ago, an obscure Polish priest proposed a novel way of looking at human sexuality based on a personalist view of Creation, he’d have been laughed at and ignored because that’s just not the way catholics think about sex. IMO, it was precisely because the larger culture started wholesale rejecting the historic rationale for church teaching on human sexuality that the bishops recognized the genius of Karol Woj…(can’t spell it!) and made him Pope John Paul II (few of us laypeople know that he provided feedback to Paul VI just before he wrote Humanae Vitae).

So even if the endeavor is impossible hard and the failures are far more common than successes, systematic theology is a crucial servant to the Church. They just need to recognize that they are SERVANTS, not lords.

 

[St_Francis]

…But like I said earlier, the problem with these theologians is that they fail to see how their work can be used to create utter spiritual and moral anarchy in the pews (or more precisely, in the people that cease to occupy them after embracing phony definitions of conscience enabled by careless theologians).

The biggest problem with theologians today is that they do not recognize the way in which their exploratory and challenging works will be used to sow confusion and thus they become complicit in that disaster…

I have to disagree with you. I think these dissenting-Catholic theologians know *exactly *what they are doing.

 

[manualman]

It’s always easier to ascribe evil motives to those who don’t agree with me than it is to see things from their point of view and comprehend where they are still coming from.

I concur that the end product of Farley’s textbook is evil in that it teaches moral evils to be morally neutral or even moral goods. But it’s not because she sold her soul to the devil for fame and honors. She just blundered off the track at some point. It seems to be an occupational hazard for professional theologians and the honest error explanation seems a lot more plausible to me than the conspiratorial fifth column explanations do. Maybe it’s because I have people much like her in my own family and can readily see that it’s not a conscious embrace of evil, but a sincerely mistaken notion of the nature and character of God.

 

[grannymh]

I have to disagree with you. I think these dissenting-Catholic theologians know *exactly *what they are doing.

Without pointing to an individual or an individual book, I am sure that the majority of dissenting Catholic theologians knew exactly what they were doing. This was evident from reading a number of CAF posts a few years back. However, please note that recently, there has been a shift in posters contributing to CAF due to the fact that a number of previous posters are no longer posting or have given up posting on certain topics.

 

[fix]

Well, yes. Reno agrees that Farley blew it in her conclusions.

He calls her dissent loyal, correct? I read that and thought where does the Church teach rejecting sexual morality is loyal simply because one claims their conscience is supreme?

What he stops short of doing is condemning the PROCESS of rethinking traditional interpretations of Tradition and doctrine just because 99 times out of 100 it results in a dead end (like Farley’s text). That 1 of 100 is where doctrinal development actually comes from.

Let me put it another way. If 150 years ago, an obscure Polish priest proposed a novel way of looking at human sexuality based on a personalist view of Creation, he’d have been laughed at and ignored because that’s just not the way catholics think about sex. IMO, it was precisely because the larger culture started wholesale rejecting the historic rationale for church teaching on human sexuality that the bishops recognized the genius of Karol Woj…(can’t spell it!) and made him Pope John Paul II (few of us laypeople know that he provided feedback to Paul VI just before he wrote Humanae Vitae).

But, the traditional teaching on sexual morality stands. JPII work cannot contradict what came before. I see his views as perhaps deepening what She teaches, not rejecting it.

So even if the endeavor is impossible hard and the failures are far more common than successes, systematic theology is a crucial servant to the Church. They just need to recognize that they are SERVANTS, not lords.

Well yes but they cannot start from a blank slate or claim the Church got it wrong.

 

[St_Francis]

Without pointing to an individual or an individual book, I am sure that the majority of dissenting Catholic theologians knew exactly what they were doing. This was evident from reading a number of CAF posts a few years back. However, please note that recently, there has been a shift in posters contributing to CAF due to the fact that a number of previous posters are no longer posting or have given up posting on certain topics.

I am confused… I was referring to those mentioned in the article, not anyone at CAF.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s always easier to ascribe evil motives to those who don’t agree with me than it is to see things from their point of view and comprehend where they are still coming from…

…Maybe it’s because I have people much like her in my own family and can readily see that it’s not a conscious embrace of evil, but a sincerely mistaken notion of the nature and character of God.

I see what you are saying, but I also see a huge difference between a trained theologian and members of one’s family, who are not usually trained theologians (so I assume the members of your family that you are referring to are not!).

I certainly hope that the training of Catholic theologians has not declined so much in quality that they have never been exposed to the fact that the Church does not change Her teaching and why that is so, nor to the teaching that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.

I concur that the end product of Farley’s textbook is evil in that it teaches moral evils to be morally neutral or even moral goods. But it’s not because she sold her soul to the devil for fame and honors. She just blundered off the track at some point. It seems to be an occupational hazard for professional theologians and the honest error explanation seems a lot more plausible to me than the conspiratorial fifth column explanations do.

Did I say she sold her soul for anything? No, but I do think that if she at some point ran across those two not-all-that-rare ideas I mentioned above, there should have been some point at which she noticed the divergence in her thinking from that of the Church, and yet chose to continue.

Look at what the CTS itself wrote: “…we urgently encourage Catholic bishops and theologians to improve the ways in which they communicate with each other, and to collaborate in developing better structures and more transparent procedures to discuss theological differences in a more just and respectful manner.”

First of all, these are not “theological differences,” this is truth on the one hand and dissent on the other.

Secondly, they are accusing whomever at the Vatican evaluated the book of being *unjust *and *disrespectful. *And what prompted this? Those at the Vatican who are charged with types of evaluations having evaluated the book and finding it to *not *be in conformity with Catholic teaching.

Thirdly, they wrote: "certain theological positions in her 2006 book, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, are different from those currently taught by the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.’ So, not only do they understand that Dr Farley has deviated from Church teaching, but they insinuate that the fact that the Church “currently teaches” something doesn’t mean She will continue to do so.

Fourthly, they wrote: “To heal the divisions in our polarized Church…”

I am sorry. The so-called divisions in the Church are between those who follow the teachings of the Church and those who view the teachings of the Church only as what is “currently taught.” These people have for well over 40 years, if not over 100 years, dissented from Church teaching and confused the faithful to the point where many of them simply left the Church.

Moreover, they used a very common trick of the left, to gain control by mentioning areas of agreement: “In many ways, I think we share a lot of common commitments. So one of the questions is, How do we work on those common commitments?” [Dr Yocum]. Bring the other member of the dialogue around to where they already agree, and then say, ah good, we agree! And then let the area of disagreement slide.

For example: Obama in the 08 election, talked about “whatever our views on abortion, how we can all agree that there should be fewer unwanted pregnancies.” As Dr Kreeft pointed out (I think it was him), yes, but one way of reducing pregnancies is *through *abortion.

There is no point in discussing areas of agreement–that would be like a mutual admiration society. The *point *of discussion or “dialogue” is to sort out *differences. *In this case, it seems the CTA is trying to minimize the fact that Dr Farley has written a book which apparently justifies the commission of moratl sin, which imperils the eternal future of souls. If she *doesn’t *know what she is doing, I don’t know why anyone would call her a Catholic theolgian. My 6-year-old knew Catholic theology better than that!

 

[grannymh]

I am confused… I was referring to those mentioned in the article, not anyone at CAF.

Correct.

CAF happens to be a source of information. This source has changed recently. That is all I meant. My apology for the confusion.

I agree with you that dissenting theologians know what they are doing.

 

[kompaz]

Well yes but they cannot start from a blank slate or claim the Church got it wrong.

Well, if theology is science, then this very thing is expected.

This about it this way. Assume objective truth exists. If so, someone starting from first principles, should derive a theology which is compatible with the existing one. The very fact that someone (assuming his reasoning itself is sound) can arrive at conclusions which are incompatible serves as a huge red flag. Because if his reasoning is indeed correct, then the existing theology is incorrect. Oops.

If it was a normal science, then both parties would probably launch detailed investigations, and someone would finally discover who erred and why, and a new version would be agreed upon by everyone.

In my opinion, the Church has entered a counter-reformation period. Arguments are settled from the position of authority, dissenters are forcibly silenced, and blind obedience is revered and anti-intellectualism rules. Such periods are dark periods.

I have little doubt that CDF and the bishops will win this fight, however I am not convinced that it will be a good thing… Oh well. Time will tell. We’ll see in 100 years or so.

 

[St_Francis]

Welcome to CAF.

I see that you have not listed a religion and am wondering if you are Catholic? I shall assume that you are not, then my comments will be more comprehensive.

Well, if theology is science, then this very thing is expected.

This about it this way. Assume objective truth exists. If so, someone starting from first principles, should derive a theology which is compatible with the existing one. The very fact that someone (assuming his reasoning itself is sound) can arrive at conclusions which are incompatible serves as a huge red flag. Because if his reasoning is indeed correct, then the existing theology is incorrect. Oops.

If it was a normal science, then both parties would probably launch detailed investigations, and someone would finally discover who erred and why, and a new version would be agreed upon by everyone.

The Catholic Church sees the sources of theology as being the teachings of Christ as carried through Tradition (the teachings which are not found explicitly in Scripture, such as the Triune nature of God), the Bible as approved by the Church, and the Magiterium, the teaching authority of the Church held by the popes and the bishops.

Catholic teachings are in line with all three, and cannot contradict any of them. In this way, Christ has given to His Church the sets of priniciples and teachings necessary to be able to teach His truth.

So, from the Catholic point of view, we have the information needed to make this investigation–in fact, the investigation has been made, and the ideas expressed by Dr Farley have been found to be wrong.

Sr Farley wrote a book which uses a completely different understanding of sexual activity and which completely ignores perennial Church teaching on these issues. As a “Catholic” theologian, her work will be considered differently by non-Catholics than it would be if she were not currently considered a Catholic theologian; additionally, Catholics can be confused by these deviations written by a “Catholic” theologian. IOW, the book has a Catholic identity because of her title (Sister) and her work as a Catholic.

Since the work seems to be under the auspices of the Catholic Church, it is quite right for the Church to examine the book and see if it is in accord with Catholic teaching, and as a nun, Sr Farley has vowed to be obedient to her superiors in the Church.

If I were a prominent Democrat, say, Ted Kennedy, and I were to write a book espousing Tea Party principles and market it as a Democrat book, wouldn’t that confuse people? Might the Democrat Party not feel that these ideas should *not *be taught under their banner?

In my opinion, the Church has entered a counter-reformation period. Arguments are settled from the position of authority, dissenters are forcibly silenced, and blind obedience is revered and anti-intellectualism rules. Such periods are dark periods.

You misunderstand the Catholic position in this type of situation. If I were a mathematician who wrote a book proposing that it is not good that triangles have only three sides, and that mathematicians should allow triangles to have more than three sides, it would be absurd, wouldn’t it?

In the same way, to propose that there is some sort of legitimate way to turn Christ’s teachings completely upside-down is also absurd.

However, the Church understands that not every Catholic fully understands all the nuances of the Faith, and so protects people from situations in which they would assume they are reading something in accord with Church teaching when it is not.

The bishops actually do have the Christ-given authority to do this, and it is no more “anti-intellectual,” than it is to suggest that it is unjust that triangles are allowed only three sides.

 

[manualman]

I see what you are saying, but I also see a huge difference between a trained theologian and members of one’s family, who are not usually trained theologians (so I assume the members of your family that you are referring to are not!).

Actually, the one I especially have in mind HAS been so trained, at a US diocesan seminary ~20 years ago where they had this sort of theolgian as professors. Same M.Div that priests typically receive before ordination.

My point all along here is that you don’t witness effectively to such people (or to the fence-sitters) by demonizing the person putting forth the faulty moral reasoning. You advance the truth by counter their faulty arguments, identifying their flaws and offering them corrections.

This is precisely the course the CDF has taken with Farley. They haven’t banned her from teaching or calling herself a catholic theologian, they’ve identified the places where she has jumped the tracks. Amusingly, it is her defenders that have resorted to name-calling against the CDF in response, since they have weak reasoned arguments.

I think Reno’s point in calling her (not her dissent) ‘loyal’ is that she puts forth her ideas, but isn’t doing a Curran-style PR job of actively undermining the Magisterium. It remains to be seen if she will continue to earn the ‘loyal’ adjective based on where she goes from here on the CDF ruling. She’s at a crossroads. I think Reno was trying to tell conservatives to quit pushing her towards the active undermining side of the fork in the road.

 

[St_Francis]

Actually, the one I especially have in mind HAS been so trained, at a US diocesan seminary ~20 years ago where they had this sort of theolgian as professors. Same M.Div that priests typically receive before ordination.

Oh, oops! Who woulda thunk it!

But seriously, getting a Master’s Degree involves a lot of courses, a lot of learning. Did they somehow manage to teach *all *those courses without exposing the students to little things like *truth cannot be changed, *and *the Catholic Church teaches the truth as handed down by Christ Himself? *Have these Masters of Divinity just never *noticed *the contradictions they are holding?

When I think of all the saints who managed to love God, even tho they were not well-educated, it boggles my mind that people with Master’s degrees can be so far down the wrong road without any idea of the fact that they are doing bad things!

My point all along here is that you don’t witness effectively to such people (or to the fence-sitters) by demonizing the person putting forth the faulty moral reasoning. You advance the truth by counter their faulty arguments, identifying their flaws and offering them corrections.

And I would not say those things to someone whom I was witnessing! Not that I am trying to talk behind their backs or anything, but I do not think that we should talk with *other *people as if we were witnessing when we are instead commenting.

I could be wrong; I have already had to think a bit about this after reading your comments and then about a repentant criminal, but I do feel that continually avoiding calling a spade a spade, continually speaking euphemistically when discussing these issues, simply compounds the problem.

I mean, if no one ever says, “There are those who want to destroy the Catholic Church and this is one of the ways in which they are doing it,” then what’s the big deal? If everybody is just “making mistakes” and “getting carried away” and we don’t say, Hey!!! There are evil people who want to destroy the Church and this is one of the ways they are doing it!!! then we will continue to just wander along humming to ourselves and then wonder why the Church is in a shambles! Why the abortion rate is just as high among Catholic women as it is among the general population, why people think that all they have to do is to “be good people” and they’ll get to Heaven, or even that all people *will *go to Heaven, why so many Catholics support SS marriage, etc.

This is precisely the course the CDF has taken with Farley. They haven’t banned her from teaching or calling herself a catholic theologian, they’ve identified the places where she has jumped the tracks. Amusingly, it is her defenders that have resorted to name-calling against the CDF in response, since they have weak reasoned arguments.

Agreed.

I think Reno’s point in calling her (not her dissent) ‘loyal’ is that she puts forth her ideas, but isn’t doing a Curran-style PR job of actively undermining the Magisterium. It remains to be seen if she will continue to earn the ‘loyal’ adjective based on where she goes from here on the CDF ruling. She’s at a crossroads. I think Reno was trying to tell conservatives to quit pushing her towards the active undermining side of the fork in the road.

I guess if one is speaking personally with someone, then they might try to send a message to others not to interfere… I can see that.

I don’t know. I guess maybe I just cannot comprehend why someone who was *in *the Church would want anything other than to be fully united with Her. So if I said something, and someone said, Well, that’s not Catholic thinking, then I would seriously re-consider my position. I have changed my mind on various things as the result of people explaining the true, Catholic position.

And her thought processes might be different from those of the organization “supporting” her…

I appreciate your taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my posts

 

[grannymh]

I speak from the trenches and not from the ivory tower of this thread. Perhaps it is time for smart Catholics to figure out how to reach ordinary folk and give them the tools needed to practice Catholicism. That means that homilies need to be on the guts of Catholicism. And that means that all kinds of wolves in sheep’s clothing need to be unmasked. And that means that dialogue has to leave the ivory tower in order to reach the trenches.