Why aren't more theologians excommunicated?

[mcliffor]

I was watching a show the other day about Mary Magdalen and the DaVinci code, and they were intereviewing McBrien at ND about Mary Magdalen. In the thirty seconds I saw, not only did he say there was NO evidence AT ALL that Mary Magdalen was a prostitute, but also that when she had demons cast out of her, that just meant she was sick and god better, since “demons” was how people like Jesus explained sickness before medecine!

My question is, why is such an errant theologian who interprets scripture like a modernist and contrary to 2000 years of Catholic teaching allowed 1) to hold such an important chair at a Catholic university and 2) to not have been excommunicated by our orthodox bishops for his errant teachings?

I mean, we’re not talking about your joe average priest preaching about tolerance in the pulpit…a lot of people listen to this man, and every news agency has his number on speed dial!

 

[wjp984]

I am confused as to where the problem is? I never knew it was Catholic Doctrine or even tradition that Mary Magdaline was a prostitute. I always thought that it was perhaps implied but not proven. I think he might be right in saying there is not any evidence to say she was a prostitute. And I don’t see anything wrong with the second part of his comment either. In those days when a person was metally ill or sick it was often thought that they had demons. So why couldn’t Mary had just been sick and got better? I see no problem with his statements whether I agree with them or not.

 

[jbuck919]

I was watching a show the other day about Mary Magdalen and the DaVinci code, and they were intereviewing McBrien at ND about Mary Magdalen. In the thirty seconds I saw, not only did he say there was NO evidence AT ALL that Mary Magdalen was a prostitute, but also that when she had demons cast out of her, that just meant she was sick and god better, since “demons” was how people like Jesus explained sickness before medecine!

My question is, why is such an errant theologian who interprets scripture like a modernist and contrary to 2000 years of Catholic teaching allowed 1) to hold such an important chair at a Catholic university and 2) to not have been excommunicated by our orthodox bishops for his errant teachings?

I mean, we’re not talking about your joe average priest preaching about tolerance in the pulpit…a lot of people listen to this man, and every news agency has his number on speed dial!

Possibly because there is no “errant teaching” here, nor any “Catholic teaching” being refuted. Frankly, I’d be a lot more concerned if you got the ear of any of my school students or my own children, if I had any.

 

[thistle]

I was watching a show the other day about Mary Magdalen and the DaVinci code, and they were intereviewing McBrien at ND about Mary Magdalen. In the thirty seconds I saw, not only did he say there was NO evidence AT ALL that Mary Magdalen was a prostitute, but also that when she had demons cast out of her, that just meant she was sick and god better, since “demons” was how people like Jesus explained sickness before medecine!

My question is, why is such an errant theologian who interprets scripture like a modernist and contrary to 2000 years of Catholic teaching allowed 1) to hold such an important chair at a Catholic university and 2) to not have been excommunicated by our orthodox bishops for his errant teachings?

I mean, we’re not talking about your joe average priest preaching about tolerance in the pulpit…a lot of people listen to this man, and every news agency has his number on speed dial!

There is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. It certainly is not in scipture.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

What bothers me, personally, is that he immediately dismisses demonics as illness. That doesn’t bother anyone? If every exorcism Jesus performed (and thats not to say that the people were not sometimes legitamently sick) was really curing them of an illness, then its only a short step from that to “I’m too enlightened to believe in demons.”

Besides, doesn’t McBrien have a pretty bad record in the first place, outside of this special?

 

[mcliffor]

What bothers me, personally, is that he immediately dismisses demonics as illness. That doesn’t bother anyone? If every exorcism Jesus performed (and thats not to say that the people were not sometimes legitamently sick) was really curing them of an illness, then its only a short step from that to “I’m too enlightened to believe in demons.”

Besides, doesn’t McBrien have a pretty bad record in the first place, outside of this special?

Yes, I know nothing here was Catholic doctrine, but the problem I had with what he was saying was that the Catholic tradition that the three Mary’s in scripture were the same person has NO scriptural basis, which is certainly does. The demons was him saying that Jesus didn’t actually exorcise her, and that Christ didn’t understand that she was only sick. He was encouraging an interpretation of Mary Magdalen along secular, modernist lines.

When I mentioned excommunication, I was taking McBrien’s track record into consideration. Obviously, those comments alone wouldn’t merit excommunication, but he has some very heretical ideas (that Christ didn’t found the Church for example.) The problem I had with his comments was that he was representing the Church while at the same time offering a very modernist interpretation of exorcism and condemning a very noble Catholic tradition, that Mary was the repentent sinner, by saying it had no logical basis.

 

[mcliffor]

Frankly, I’d be a lot more concerned if you got the ear of any of my school students or my own children, if I had any.

What did I say that merited this kind of insult? And it certainly is errant teaching to say that “demons” are nothing but a primitive germ theory.

 

[mcliffor]

There is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. It certainly is not in scipture.

There’s more evidence to suggest she was than there is to suggest she wasn’t.

read this:
newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm

 

[thistle]

There’s more evidence to suggest she was than there is to suggest she wasn’t.

read this:
newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm

I don’t agree and the lack of evidence is why the Church does not teach that.

 

[masterjedi747]

And it certainly is errant teaching to say that “demons” are nothing but a primitive germ theory.

Well…to a certain degree, they were. So was he making a universal claim that demons were “nothing more than” that, or was he simply saying that, in this particular instance, “demons” might simply be the way that they explained illness? Because if that’s all he said, he might be right. Although, given the way that the Bible describes the women as those “who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities” (Luke 8:2), I’m honestly inclined to think that it was both, since I don’t see the two as being mutually exclusive or incompatible in the slightest degree.

Read: Mary Magdalene
Sub-article: Identification With Other Women Of The New Testament

There’s more evidence to suggest she was than there is to suggest she wasn’t.
read this:
newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm

From the link I just posted above: The identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, also led to her being identified with “the woman who was a sinner”. Church fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries considered this sin as “being unchaste”. In an influential sermon in 591, Pope Gregory I identified her as a sinner (‘peccatrix’) who repented upon meeting Jesus, but he did not call her a prostitute (‘meretrix’). That was a folk belief that arose later and many writers and artists have followed it until the 20th century.

 

[mcliffor]

I don’t agree and the lack of evidence is why the Church does not teach that.

The Church did teach that Mary was the repentent sinner from the time of St. Gregory until 1969. And even then, this didn’t condemn the teaching, only allowed for other interpretations. Why exactly do you believe Mary wasn’t the repentent sinner?

 

[tdgesq]

The short answer is that the Church does not want to chill theological investigation. There is much more to learn about God and the Church beyond our current understanding. There is room for interpretation and explication even in the area of dogmatic theology. If the Church started excommunicating every theologian who challenged our current understanding of Catholic doctrine, we would all be the poorer for it.

 

[mcliffor]

The short answer is that the Church does not want to chill theological investigation. There is much more to learn about God and the Church beyond our current understanding. There is room for interpretation and explication even in the area of dogmatic theology. If the Church started excommunicating every theologian who challenged our current understanding of Catholic doctrine, we would all be the poorer for it.

But what if those theologians conclude that certain points of Catholic doctrine are wrong?

 

[puzzleannie]

I was watching a show the other day about Mary Magdalen and the DaVinci code, and they were intereviewing McBrien at ND about Mary Magdalen. In the thirty seconds I saw, not only did he say there was NO evidence AT ALL that Mary Magdalen was a prostitute, but also that when she had demons cast out of her, that just meant she was sick and god better, since “demons” was how people like Jesus explained sickness before medecine!
!

I am no fan of Fr McBrien but it is not a matter of Catholic dogma that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, the gospel is silent on that issue. It is also not a matter of dogma the nature of the malady she was cured of. The Demons could have been actual demons, could have been capital sins, or could have been physical or mental illness.

There are many other areas where McBrien has erred flagrantly, but these two particulars are debatable.

in answer to your larger question, how can a theologian continue teaching at a Catholic university even though he is a dissenter, or even heretical, the answer is many Catholic universities have refused to order their theology professors to seek a mandatum to teach from their local bishop. As to what disciplinary action a bishop can take against the president or faculty of the university, what would you suggest? Burning at the stake is not longer PC.

What carries most weight at most colleges, Catholic and otherwise, is $ and if Catholic parents and alumni stop supporting universities that promote dissidents and heretics, they will dry up and blow away. As long as parents and alumni pay more attention to the school’s football record than to the record of its theology department the problem will continue and get worse.

 

[mcliffor]

I am no fan of Fr McBrien but it is not a matter of Catholic dogma that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, the gospel is silent on that issue. It is also not a matter of dogma the nature of the malady she was cured of. The Demons could have been actual demons, could have been capital sins, or could have been physical or mental illness.

There are many other areas where McBrien has erred flagrantly, but these two particulars are debatable.

I know, but I was surpried that in a program where as a priest, he could have been defending the Church’s traditions, by at least showing that they weren’t contrary to scripture, he was trying hard to justify the secular worlds understanding of Mary Magdalen and demons. I wouldn’t have read into it if I didn’t know who McBrien was.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Well, as I see it,
the Holy Spirit, the principal author of scripture,
referred to them as “demons.”
Still, that one statement alone isn’t heretical per se.

The problem is that Richard McBrien IS heretical, and any reading of his books will demonstrate that. I have one of his books called WHO IS A CATHOLIC?
and in that book, he mocks the idea of male-only priesthood, denies the existence of angels, ridicules Original Sin, and on and on and on.

Now scripture forbids us to have anything to do with a heretic, so the proper thing for any Catholic institution which has him in their employ, would be to warn him up to 3 times, and then dismiss him. I have no doubt that these same schools would quickly dismiss anyone who advocated Sedevacantism or ultratraditionalism from their ranks.

 

[rwoehmke]

He is one of those cutting edge theologians like Augustine, Abelard, Aquinas, Duns Scotus who at one time were suspected of heresy or actaully held some heritical idea. With time what they had correct is accepted and the dross is disgarded. He gets called on a lot by the media because he is a. very intelligent, b. can speak down so common folks can get it, c. is controvesial. I mean who wants to see and hear drones who follow the party line on the telly?

 

[tdgesq]

But what if those theologians conclude that certain points of Catholic doctrine are wrong?

If you mean those who reach theological conclusions that are diametrically opposed to Catholic dogma, then another test must apply. But from what you posted, I didn’t see the need. Others here have leveled this charge at McBrien though. If they are right, then why hasn’t he been excommunicated?

A case in point - Hans Kung. Here is an internationally published theologian of the first order who has challenged the authority of the Church, specifically the authority of the Roman pontiff. On top of that, he is an ordained priest, yet he was not excommunicated. Wiki claims that he was stripped of his license to teach as a Catholic theologian, but my recollection is that he was stripped of his title at the Catholic University at which he taught. Should he have been excommunicated?

I see two possibilities here. First, the Catholic Church has acted inconsistently in applying the penalty of excommunication (the illicit ordination of the sspx bishops comes to mind). Second, the Church has been consistent in this regard, and has reasons for treating cases like Kung’s differently. I believe that the Church has been consistent.

 

[mcliffor]

He is one of those cutting edge theologians like Augustine, Abelard, Aquinas, Duns Scotus who at one time were suspected of heresy or actaully held some heritical idea. With time what they had correct is accepted and the dross is disgarded. He gets called on a lot by the media because he is a. very intelligent, b. can speak down so common folks can get it, c. is controvesial. I mean who wants to see and hear drones who follow the party line on the telly?

The difference here is that these theologians didn’t mock Rome and it’s doctrine. McBrien is not only a controversial theologian, he’s a controversial heretic. And besides, McBrien is part of a dying breed. I’d be incredidibly surprised if he went down in Church history as a pioneer. He seems to be one of those “liberal” theologians, like Kung, that are being replaced by conservative thinkers faithful to the magisterium.

 

[johnnycatholic]

He is one of those cutting edge theologians like Augustine, Abelard, Aquinas, Duns Scotus who at one time were suspected of heresy or actaully held some heritical idea. With time what they had correct is accepted and the dross is disgarded. He gets called on a lot by the media because he is a. very intelligent, b. can speak down so common folks can get it, c. is controvesial. I mean who wants to see and hear drones who follow the party line on the telly?

How can you say he is cutting edge? He’s a parrot for the secular world, mimicking their calls for the Church to become “relevant”. Augustine et. al. may have had novel ideas, but they didn’t tear down the teachings of the Church; they built them. McBrien gets called all the time because he does what the media wants him to; he makes it seem like this is the typical Catholic mindset and that the Church needs to listen to its people and let them democratically determine what is or is not sin. If you look at other churches that have changed with the times, you will see they are rapidly becoming extinct. McBrien will become extinct, too, one day. His ideas aren’t new and we will continue to fight these heresies in the future generations when they come from the lips of others.
Incidentally, although i cannot find it, i swear there is a part in the bible where St. Paul makes a distinction between mental illness and demon possession. I could not find it for the life of me, though.
And Mary Magdalene had 7 demons cast out of her. These are thought to correspond with the seven deadly sins, one of which is lust. Furthermore, Magdalene’s head was uncovered when she dried Jesus feet with her hair. A bare head was often a punishment for women for unchastity in those days. Pope St. Gregory did use some exegesis to arrive at the conclusion that she was the repentant prostitute, and this interpretation is not set in stone. However, the Da Vinci Load said the Church called Mary Magdalene a repentant prostitute to tear her down as a person and hide the fact that she was actually supposed to be the head of the Church. If you actually read Gregory’s homily about Mary Magdalene, you can totally see that casting her as a repentant prostitute was not a way to tear her down at all, but a way to demonstrate what a model she was for even the most hardened sinner and how great God’s grace is, that He can call people from all sorts of destructive lifestyles to greatness. Magdalene was revered as a great saint, and is to this day. Whether she was a prostitute or not doesn’t change her greatness. She was a great follower of Christ whether her journey to the Lord was long or short. That McBrien would lend his comments in support of that hideousness just shows how much he completely misses the point and greatness of his Church.