US theologians call for dialogue with bishops [CNAU]

[manualman]

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!

I get you loud and clear, believe me. I’m inclined to let out a cheer when the shepherds actually get wolf blood on their croziers myself.

But we can let that zeal go so far that we forget that it isn’t PEOPLE that are the enemies of the church. Only Satan is truly the enemy. Everybody else is just a potential convert. It’s too easy to forget that and allow ourselves to be carried along by ‘us vs them’ tribalism.

Another poster characterized this as an ‘ivory tower’ issue of no relevance in the trenches. That staggers me. It’s precisely in the trenches, err, pews that you will encounter the sorts of people that have bought into flawed theological fads. Not only that, but it’s not unlikely that your parish DRE or adult formation director is one. Is it really useful to stand up, point and shout “heretic!” ? Or is it better to recognize the goodness of the person while standing firm against their sincerely held, but inconveniently egregious error in doctrine?

I don’t disagree that in the past several decades the church has allowed chaos and confusion to reign. I do disagree that our ‘fix’ for that should be to have a heretic hunt and throw them out without giving them the dignity of knowing that we heard them first, then told them the truth and only then if they are obstinate about their errors get into disciplinary actions. Again, I think the CDF is behaving exactly that way. Sr. Farley may yet grab a pitchfork and call for rebels to man the barricades. But she hasn’t yet. And that’s something that should be recognized.

 

[St_Francis]

I get you loud and clear, believe me. I’m inclined to let out a cheer when the shepherds actually get wolf blood on their croziers myself.

But we can let that zeal go so far that we forget that it isn’t PEOPLE that are the enemies of the church. Only Satan is truly the enemy. Everybody else is just a potential convert. It’s too easy to forget that and allow ourselves to be carried along by ‘us vs them’ tribalism.

Another poster characterized this as an ‘ivory tower’ issue of no relevance in the trenches. That staggers me. It’s precisely in the trenches, err, pews that you will encounter the sorts of people that have bought into flawed theological fads. Not only that, but it’s not unlikely that your parish DRE or adult formation director is one. Is it really useful to stand up, point and shout “heretic!” ? Or is it better to recognize the goodness of the person while standing firm against their sincerely held, but inconveniently egregious error in doctrine?

I don’t disagree that in the past several decades the church has allowed chaos and confusion to reign. I do disagree that our ‘fix’ for that should be to have a heretic hunt and throw them out without giving them the dignity of knowing that we heard them first, then told them the truth and only then if they are obstinate about their errors get into disciplinary actions. Again, I think the CDF is behaving exactly that way. Sr. Farley may yet grab a pitchfork and call for rebels to man the barricades. But she hasn’t yet. And that’s something that should be recognized.

I talked with a friend about this and I realized I do have trouble because there’s a balance that I have not yet achieved, esp when it comes to people who say the sorts of things that have (apparently) led my family members astray.

It is really extremely hard for me to be patient about some things! But the Church looks at this through the lens of centuries.

Oh!!! And I totally forgot this thought that I had the other day, while sadly thinking about what sometimes looks like the wreckage of the Church today (not actual wreckage, I know), and realized that it might be like the battle of Jericho (Oh, I hope I have that right!) where God only let him take 30 men into battle, and then it was really clear that the battle was won through God’s help.

Thank you, Manualman, for helping me over this barrier in my path

 

[manualman]

Thank you, Manualman, for helping me over this barrier in my path

Just do my a favor and remind me of how enlightened I am next time I go on a rant. It’s bound to happen…

 

[St_Francis]

Just do my a favor and remind me of how enlightened I am next time I go on a rant. It’s bound to happen…

I know exactly what you mean!

 

[grannymh]

Another poster characterized this as an ‘ivory tower’ issue of no relevance in the trenches. That staggers me. It’s precisely in the trenches, err, pews that you will encounter the sorts of people that have bought into flawed theological fads. Not only that, but it’s not unlikely that your parish DRE or adult formation director is one. Is it really useful to stand up, point and shout “heretic!” ? Or is it better to recognize the goodness of the person while standing firm against their sincerely held, but inconveniently egregious error in doctrine?

This “better this or better that” (above) is the language of the ivory tower. What is needed is the *means *of reaching the people in the pews, err trenches.

The Catholic teaching that the human person is worthy of profound respect does relate to moral issues in the trenches. However, it is a difficult concept for Catholics to explain in our secular world of relativism. Relativism and its cousins, modernism, subjective thinking, and utilitarianism continue to influence ordinary folk. Thus, I have yet to see that concept properly defended. I could explain why, but I need to get over my cranky (feminine of snarky) mood first. Besides there is no point in going off topic.
So, I will bow out here. Thank you for listening.

 

[fix]

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

I cannot imagine why. Would you fly in a plane where the pilot rejects the laws of physics?

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.

We need experts to decide this. Christ left such people. They speak for Him. Her proof that her position is correct is decided by whom?

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.

How many must agree to decide it is true?

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.

Authority matters in this case because the authority is the Creator.

 

[Suudy]

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

Just for clarity, here’s what Aquinas says (source):
Whether Sacred Doctrine is a Science?

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

And how. Right?

Some of us know, ahem, firsthand, and rather recently, just what is meant by “doctrinal development.” (Think, theological “Conferences.” )

(Don’t worry, manualman, no slam at you – or anyone else on this thread! )

Seriously, the problem with the “movement” i just referenced, and undoubtedly many others, is that there is no Catholic identifier before the word “theologian.” Now, I am well acquainted with the tradition of intellectual collaboration with other faiths, particularly in certain areas of theology. However, the modernist movement in (Catholic) theology has tended to move away from any religious designation whatsoever, not even “inter-faith” or “ecumenical.” It’s as if the discipline of theology has become devoid of reliigous content but rather is standing outside of all religious belief/tradition and commenting on it as a neutral observer.

Hmm. That could explain the New Age Drumming, Religiosity of drugs, and
Elimination of Gender as Discussion Topics at the “Theology” conference in question. (Among dozens of other utterly unCatholic topics.)

Btw, manualman, I think you have expressed yourself very well in your posts here.

 

[kompaz]

We need experts to decide this. Christ left such people. They speak for Him. Her proof that her position is correct is decided by whom?

And how do you know that a mathematician’s claim is correct? Because all of mathematics can be deduced from a set of basic axioms, that is how you know. So if a guy’s claim follows from the commonly accepted set of basic axioms, and his derivation follows the laws of logic, then it is objectively true. If his axioms are wrong, or his derivation is wrong, then it is not true. As simple as that.

I posit that objective morality must be derivable from an initial set of simple axioms. Consequently, everything that cannot be derived from the core axioms is not objective morality.

The CDF asserts that the theologian’s work contradicts the Magisterium. That’s true. But the actual question here is: is all of Magisterium indeed derived from basic axioms (and thus true), or, is the Magisterium rather a collection of superstition accumulated over millenia? My understanding of the case at hand is that the CDF did not point out the logical errors in the theologian’s work, but simply stated that it contradicts the Magisterium. This is unsatisfactory, because CDF did not demonstrate a proof that the Magiterium is objectively true (in this regard). The claim that the Magisterium is true because it is Magisterium does not fly with me, because it is circular. The claim that Holy Spirit would not let the Church fall into a doctrinal error does not fly with me either, because there are documented instances where the Church would proclaim things which were objectively not true (cough geocentrism cough).

Most of Magisterium on sexual morality is derived from Augustine in 4th century AD. However, understanding of psychosexual issues has advanced a bit since then, which naturally means that some of Augustine’s assumptions may no longer hold, and have to be revised in light of new understanding.

CDF simply maintains the position that the Magisterium cannot be revised. I predict that this position will become increasingly difficult to hold in the future

 

[manualman]

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.

I thought of some examples that might help.

“Limbo” was the predominating theological opinion for centuries in regards to what happens to unbaptized children who die before the age of reason. They suffer the effects of the fall, so without Grace, they can’t be brought into heaven (precisely conforms to Tradition). They have no personal culpability for their fallenness and don’t yet have the capacity to commit actual sins, so it seems out of character for God to assign them to eternal hell. Thus theologians for generations extrapolated that there must be a ‘limbo’ a place where people can be as happy as their fallen nature possible coul permit, but where they do not enjoy the ‘beatific vision’ enjoyed by the saints.

It’s only in recent decades that this theory has fallen out of favor as more recent theologians recognized that their predecessors had made the mistake of seeing God as governed by ‘the rules’ rather than God giving US the rules as a gift of love. The Grace of Baptism isn’t meant to limit God, but to be a blessing to us. We’ve come to realize that God may bless unbaptized infants in some other way not revealed to us, so that there IS reason to hope that these souls may be with us in heaven someday.

At first, this newer theological theory probably seemed radical and un-Traditional, maybe even ‘modernist’ or ‘wishy-washy.’ But really it grew out of a genuine breakthrough in understanding that previous theologians had placed human limitations on God (not a good idea).

So it’s not safe to say that theology is only valid if it confirms and builds on what came before. Sometimes it DOES serve to identify previous mistakes that people carelessly assumed to be doctrinal, but really were only theological speculation, and erroneous ones at that.

Back to earth, Sr. Farley’s book is NOT that. SHE thinks it is and asserts that it is. Good thing the church has not just scholars, but divinely guided decision-makers, eh? With limbo, the theologians submitted the new idea of God being larger than He’s revealed to us to the Magisterium and the they so far seem to agree. THAT’s how doctrinal development actually works. Cooperation between scholars and apostles. Not competition.

 

[St_Francis]

I thought of some examples that might help.

“Limbo” was the predominating theological opinion for centuries in regards to what happens to unbaptized children who die before the age of reason. They suffer the effects of the fall, so without Grace, they can’t be brought into heaven (precisely conforms to Tradition). They have no personal culpability for their fallenness and don’t yet have the capacity to commit actual sins, so it seems out of character for God to assign them to eternal hell. Thus theologians for generations extrapolated that there must be a ‘limbo’ a place where people can be as happy as their fallen nature possible coul permit, but where they do not enjoy the ‘beatific vision’ enjoyed by the saints.

It’s only in recent decades that this theory has fallen out of favor as more recent theologians recognized that their predecessors had made the mistake of seeing God as governed by ‘the rules’ rather than God giving US the rules as a gift of love. The Grace of Baptism isn’t meant to limit God, but to be a blessing to us. We’ve come to realize that God may bless unbaptized infants in some other way not revealed to us, so that there IS reason to hope that these souls may be with us in heaven someday…snip…

I think it is necessary to clarify that the idea of Limbo was *always *just a speculation and never considered to be dogma or a Church teaching, per se.

 

[St_Francis]

And how do you know that a mathematician’s claim is correct? Because all of mathematics can be deduced from a set of basic axioms, that is how you know. So if a guy’s claim follows from the commonly accepted set of basic axioms, and his derivation follows the laws of logic, then it is objectively true. If his axioms are wrong, or his derivation is wrong, then it is not true. As simple as that.

I posit that objective morality must be derivable from an initial set of simple axioms. Consequently, everything that cannot be derived from the core axioms is not objective morality.

The CDF asserts that the theologian’s work contradicts the Magisterium. That’s true. But the actual question here is: is all of Magisterium indeed derived from basic axioms (and thus true), or, is the Magisterium rather a collection of superstition accumulated over millenia? My understanding of the case at hand is that the CDF did not point out the logical errors in the theologian’s work, but simply stated that it contradicts the Magisterium. This is unsatisfactory, because CDF did not demonstrate a proof that the Magiterium is objectively true (in this regard). The claim that the Magisterium is true because it is Magisterium does not fly with me, because it is circular.

In isolation, you are correct; however, if a mathematician makes an error which is caught by a panel which reviews papers, do they also have to demonstrate that everything leading up to that error is correct? No, that explanation is assumed, it is elsewhere; it should have been in the education which the erring mathematician received.

The claim that Holy Spirit would not let the Church fall into a doctrinal error does not fly with me either, because there are documented instances where the Church would proclaim things which were objectively not true (cough geocentrism cough).

Geocentrism is not doctrinal.

The Church accepts science as it is taught and does not claim to be a scientific organization.

Most of Magisterium on sexual morality is derived from Augustine in 4th century AD. However, understanding of psychosexual issues has advanced a bit since then, which naturally means that some of Augustine’s assumptions may no longer hold, and have to be revised in light of new understanding.

However, psychosexual issues has nothing to do with the questions at hand, which are related to *morals, *which is the purview of *moral *theologians.