Archive for Donald Wuerl

Leadership, Embarrassment and the ‘New Evangelization’

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on October 9, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

“Fifty years after the Second Vatican Council revolutionized life inside the Roman Catholic Church, hundreds of bishops from around the world are gathered in Rome to confront an external threat: a mounting tide of secularization,” begins a recent Religion News Service piece from Rome that details the upcoming Synod on the “New Evangelization.” Since Pope Benedict XVI’s now-famous declaration of concern for the so-called “dictatorship of relativism,” in 2005, Church leaders have ramped up their anti-secular and anti-releativism rhetoric in various ways.

Such, I presume, is the case with the Synod on the “New Evangelization.” On the one hand, there is something rather innocuous and even laudable about a campaign to (a) reinvigorate people’s faith lives in terms of religious affectivity, personal and communal practices, and liturgical engagement; and (b) use new technology to express and discuss the faith in our contemporary age. These, it would seem, are the presenting themes of this “movement.” The USCCB’s website introduces the “New Evangelization” this way:

The New Evangelization calls each of us to deepen our faith, believe in the Gospel message and go forth to proclaim the Gospel. The focus of the New Evangelization calls all Catholics to be evangelized and then go forth to evangelize. In a special way, the New Evangelization is focused on ‘re-proposing’ the Gospel to those who have experienced a crisis of faith.Pope Benedict XVI called for the re-proposing of the Gospel “to those regions awaiting the first evangelization and to those regions where the roots of Christianity are deep but who have experienced a serious crisis of faith due to secularization.” The New Evangelization invites each Catholic to renew their relationship with Jesus Christ and his Church.

Yet, on the other hand, the way that bishops like Washington’s Cardinal Wuerl have been talking about the Synod lately suggests something a little less optimistic and a lot more adversarial. The RNS article continues:

In a wide-ranging speech aimed at setting the tone for the bishops’ discussion, Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl called on Christians to “overcome the syndrome of embarrassment” about their faith with a more assertive offense against the “tsunami of secular influence” that is sweeping away “marriage, family, the concept of the common good and objective right and wrong.”

“Overcome the syndrome of embarrassment’ about their faith”? I don’t think so.

As a faithful member of the Church — as a member of a religious order and a priest, to boot — I can say that there is no sense of embarrassment about our faith on my end. The doctrine of the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the true sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the continued activity of the Holy Spirit in the world, and all of our Creedal and doctrinal claims — concerning these, I, for one, am not embarrassed by any aspect of our faith!

My sense of the matter is that most Catholics (and Christians more broadly) are not embarrassed by their faith. But instead, I and so many others might be embarrassed about other aspects of our faith community, particularly the actions and priorities of many of the faith community’s leaders. Another point of embarrassment might be the perceived atrophy of certain leaders’ notion of “faith” to such an extent that, at least in some places in the United States, “faith” is equated with “sexual moral issues;” For, far too often, these are the only subjects about which many leaders will speak in the public square.

It will be difficult, I suspect, to find a self-identified Catholic who is embarrassed by Christianity’s claim that Jesus Christ is homousious (one-in-being, or “consubstantial”) with God the Father. But it doesn’t take much imagination to think about a self-identified Catholic who is embarrassed by bishops in various States campaigning against the rights of some US Citizens, engaging in the most divisive partisan politics, and ostensibly criticizing women religious for their care for the poor, marginalized, and forgotten in our society.

If this Synod on the “New Evangelization” is indeed an opportunity for the Church’s leaders to learn more about how to “speak the language” of today in terms of technology and culture in order to live up to the Second Vatican Council’s call to be open to the world in the spirit of Gaudium et Spes, then awesome!

But, if this is yet another attempt to “batten down the hatches” and put up walls against “the world,” in rather clear opposition to the teachings of the great Council whose anniversary of opening we are soon celebrating, then I think we have a serious problem on our hands.

What leads me to be cautious about the “New Evangelization” as its being discussed in Rome this week that lead to news reports which, in part, read:

Catholic leaders in the U.S. and Europe are also worried about a perceived rise of “aggressive” secularism, which they say wants to curtail the church’s role in the public sphere and reduce faith to a private exercise.

Qualifications like “aggressive” suggests an adversarial disposition, which threatens to re-inscribe the divisive “us-vs.-them” mentality of the pre-Vatican II church.

I am cautiously looking forward to what will come out of this Synod by way of statements, documents, and proposed actions. Will this be a chance for Church leaders to redirect a rather poor understanding and engagement with the broader human family and international cultures toward a stance of openness and encounter? Or will this be a rally to support Catholic isolationism, ecclesial partisan division, and ‘tests’ of who is and who is not “authentically Catholic?”

It will be interesting to see what happens.

UPDATE: The XIII Ordinary Session of the Synod of Bishops will be held in Rome October 7-28 on the theme, “The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith.”  The Emerging Theologians Network, in partnership with the International Catholic Movement for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs (ICMICA-Pax Romana), is collecting blog posts on the synod’s theme here.  

Photo: File

23 Comments »

Thomas Merton: The Next Generation

Posted in Thomas Merton, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on June 9, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

So, naturally I’ve been thinking a lot about Thomas Merton in recent days. Preparations and then travel to Chicago for the International Thomas Merton Society conference at Loyola University have necessarily brought the twentieth-century monk to the forefront of my mind. One of the things that I think about rather frequently — and even more so now that I feel the extra duty to be aware of Merton-consciousness in light of my new ITMS responsibility — is how to make sure that the work, thought and life of Thomas Merton is studied and shared by as many people who might be interested.

Merton’s continued relevance is a theme that has increasingly come to the fore, reaching something of a zenith in recent years in part due to then Bishop, now Cardinal, Donald Wuerl’s remarks about why Thomas Merton was removed from the new American Catholic Catechism. The text, aimed especially at young adults, was to include a prominent American Catholic at the beginning of each chapter, which would serve as a model of Christian living.

Wuerl, the chairman of the committee responsible for this project, explained that, among other reasons, “the generation we were speaking to had no idea who he was.” Implicit in Wuerl’s explanation, not to mention the misunderstanding of Merton’s own life and work, is the reality that the current Cardinal Archbishop of Washington sees Merton as an irrelevant figure in contemporary Christian life.

This statement predictably outraged scholars and enthusiasts of Merton’s work. But there is both a glimmer of truth (although not quite in the form proposed by Wuerl) in this critique and a significant misunderstanding. The truth comes in the ostensibly poor management of the “Merton brand” by way of effectively communicating the wisdom, resource, writings and story of Thomas Merton to many young people who were not part of the generation(s) that knew the Trappist’s name as a household figure in the wake of the success of his popular books.

Yet, the misunderstanding comes in a twofold form: first, the statement seems to imply that nobody of a certain (young) age knows Merton. As someone born after 1980, I can assure you that is patently untrue (see the photo above taken at a Merton conference 2 years ago featuring just a handful of the under-30 Merton crowd, including me).

Furthermore, just last week I was at the College Theology Society conference talking with a variety of young professors and doctoral students. Whenever we got on the subject of research interests, publications or schedules, I would inevitably mention Merton. Nearly EVERY person I spoke to in passing responded with admiration for Merton and his work. At one dinner table doctoral students at both GTU and Fordham university shared their love for Merton and his work (one even regularly worships at Corpus Christi Parish in Manhattan), yet none of them were members of ITMS (something I strongly encouraged all to do!).

Second, Wuerl’s statement seems to suggest that those who don’t know about Merton yet wouldn’t be interested to know, as if the Millennials (and perhaps the Gen-Xers before them) couldn’t find in Merton a spiritual guide, mentor and model. However, having given a number of public lectures as well as spoken informally with hundreds of young adults, those who are inevitably introduced to Merton always seem to like him and usually read more.

I am entirely convinced that if young people today are not “into Merton” it is only because they have not yet had the opportunity to be encouraged to explore his work. Sure, Merton (like any author) will not be for everybody, but to make a generational statement like Wuerl’s is unfounded and untrue.

Merton continues to be relevant today.

But one cannot be relevant today if no one knows about you and people come to know about you by meeting people where they are and sharing your story. For that reason, I believe that it is important for those engaged in Merton scholarship or those who are simply and personally inspired by his writing and story to share that with others. Encourage them to join the ITMS, to learn about current research and help support the organization that is committed to advancing Merton studies.

Today the 12th ITMS conference begins at Loyola University in Chicago and goes through Sunday. I hope to see many young people in attendance and hope even more that new folks might come to participate in events such as the ITMS conferences. One does not have to be a scholar or academic to attend, you can simply come and take in the papers and discussions. If we all do our part to spread the word, we can help ensure that Merton’s legacy will be passed on to the next generation!

Photo: Mike Brennan/ITMS

5 Comments »

College Theology Society Releases Statement in Response to USCCB Report on Johnson’s Book

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on April 19, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Following the CTSA‘s release of a statement responding to the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine’s report on Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ, PhD’s book Quest for the Living God (Continuum, 2007), the College Theology Society (CTS), another professional organization of Roman Catholic theologians, published a statement signed by the board of directors.

The CTS statement reiterates the CTSA’s earlier critique of the USCCB Committee’s report, while also adding its own elaboration of concern.

The College Theology Society is a professional society of theologians, solidly rooted in the Roman Catholic tradition and with a strong commitment to ecumenical collaboration, dedicated to teaching theology at the undergraduate level.  With this mission in mind, we believe that Elizabeth Johnson’s book Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God exemplifies a compelling style of Catholic theology that engages many different kinds of undergraduate students populating college and university campuses.  Her theology is credited with plumbing the depths of the received Catholic tradition as found in diverse scriptural and historical witnesses of faith while investigating pressing issues and searching for ever deeper understanding.  This book illustrates what has been a hallmark of all of Johnson’s work: a dedication to exploring the living faith of the Church as it is conveyed in communities in various cultures and contexts in the United States and throughout the world.  Her gifts and talents as a highly effective theological educator are clearly displayed in this book.

In addition, the CTS board of directors made it clear that the understanding of the vocation of the theologian and the response of the USCCB Committee to the ongoing work of such theologians raises certain concerns for the future of Roman Catholic Theology, particularly among young scholars.

Since the membership of the College Theology Society includes a high percentage of younger faculty members and graduate students in theology, we are particularly concerned about the chilling effect the statement by the Committee on Doctrine will have on our younger colleagues.  Instead of cultivating a culture of open collaboration and mutual dialogue between bishops, theologians, and the people of God in the advancement of a deeper understanding of the faith, the document of the Committee on Doctrine, as well as the process by which that document was formulated, breeds disillusionment, fear, and mistrust among younger theologians in their relation to bishops and increasing sadness and fatigue among more seasoned scholars.

You can read the full text of the CTS report on the homepage of the College Theology Society’s website.

Photo: Guardian, UK

2 Comments »

USCCB News Release: Cardinal Wuerl Gives ‘Rationale’ for Critiquing Johnson’s Work

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on April 18, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

This just in: USCCB Media Relations office has released this statement about a document distributed by Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, to his brother bishops in light of the recent controversies surrounding the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine’s report on Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ, PhD’s 2007 book, Quest for the Living God (Continuum).

I would comment further, but I’m on my way to deliver the Department of Religious Studies Spring Colloquium. My apologies. The full text of the press release is as follows:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

DOCTRINE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN GIVES RATIONALE FOR CRITIQUING QUEST FOR THE LIVING GOD

WASHINGTON—Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, sent a resource to bishops, April 18, outlining the relationship between bishops and theologians.

Cardinal Wuerl acted in light of interest in a March 24 Doctrine Committee critique of the book Quest for the Living God: Mapping the Frontiers of the Theology of God, by Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson, a Sister of St. Joseph of Brentwood, New York and professor at Fordham University. He particularly cited criticism from the Catholic Theological Society of America.

The Doctrine Committee asserted in late March that Quest for the Living God as a work of Catholic theology “does not take the faith of the Church as its starting point” and said “the author employs standards from outside the faith to criticize and to revise in a radical fashion the conception of God revealed in Scripture and taught by the Magisterium.”

In the April 18 document, “Bishops as Teachers: A Resource for Bishops,” Cardinal Wuerl stresses that “it is the specific competence and responsibility of bishops to teach the faith in its entirety.” He cites the 1992 document from the Committee on Doctrine, The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop, that asserts that bishops “are to determine authoritatively the correct interpretation of the Scripture and tradition committed to the Church…and they are to judge for the Church the accuracy of the presentation of this revelation by others.”

The resource can be found at http://www.usccb.org/doctrine/BISHOPS-AS-TEACHERS-%20CARDINAL-WUERL-4-18-11.pdf

Cardinal Wuerl highlights the importance of the role of theologians and their necessary interrelationship with bishops.

“It is the privilege of theologians to delve more profoundly and systematically into the meaning of the faith, according to the ancient adage, fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). Since this faith is handed on by the Church through the ministry of the magisterium, the bishop and the theologian have a special relationship that can and should be reciprocally enriching.” He cites again The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop, which states that “the Church cannot exist without the teaching office of the bishop, nor thrive without the sound scholarship of the theologian. Bishops and theologians are in a collaborative relationship. Bishops benefit from the work of theologians, while theologians gain a deeper understanding of revelation under the guidance of the magisterium. The ministry of bishops and the service rendered by theologians entail a mutual respect and support.”

Cardinal Wuerl likens the bishop to a referee in a sports match, and states that it is the responsibility of the bishop to step in at certain points and to declare that certain theological ideas are not in accord with the faith of the Church.

“To be sure, as in other disciplines the most effective check on fruitless investigation is the vigorous exercise of peer review, critique, and dialogue, as once was a strong tradition in the theological disciplines,” he says. “When that peer review is absent or ineffective, however, it is the responsibility of the bishop to make the call and to declare, if necessary, certain notions out of bounds, the bounds of Christian revelation.”

The statement notes that since Quest for the Living God is being used at the college undergraduate level, the Doctrine Committee needed to highlight its deficiencies.

“The book in question is an already published work not primarily directed to professional theologians for theological speculation, but rather one used as a teaching instrument for undergraduate students, many of whom are looking for grounding in their Catholic faith,” Cardinal Wuerl says. “The background against which the bishops must exercise their teaching responsibility today is the generally recognized catechetical deficiencies of past decades beginning with the 1970s. The result is a generation or more of Catholics, including young adults today, who have little solid intellectual formation in their faith. It is in this context that books used in religious studies/theology courses at Catholic colleges and universities must be seen as de facto catechetical and formational texts. While the content of a book may be highly speculative and of interest for trained theologians, when it is used in a classroom with students often ill-prepared to deal with speculative theology the results can be spiritually harmful. The bishops are rightly concerned about the spiritual welfare of those students using this book who may be led to assume that its content is authentic Catholic teaching. The Committee on Doctrine expresses serious concern about the pastoral implications of the teaching in this book.”

The statement adds that “the circumstances involving the teaching of theology within Catholic universities and colleges have significantly changed. Undergraduates are now offered a variety of texts within introductory theology/religion courses. While many of the texts can be quite helpful in presenting the faith and teaching of the Catholic Church, there are others that cause confusion and raise doubt among students. Some texts can even be understood as offering an alternative pastoral and spiritual guidance to students in contrast to the teaching magisterium. This is especially a concern given the current diminished level of catechetical preparation of so many young students. In the light of this changed academic situation special attention must now be given as to how to address theological works that are aimed at students and yet do not meet criteria for authentic Catholic teaching.”

The statement also addresses concerns that the committee criticized Quest for the Living God without addressing concerns with the author first and had not followed the bishops’ own 1989 document Doctrinal Responsibilities, which was intended to promote cooperation in resolving misunderstandings between individual diocesan bishops and theologians.

“Doctrinal Responsibilities did not address the special responsibilities of the Committee on Doctrine of our national Episcopal conference,” the statement says. “In addition the document is presented for consideration as one way of proceeding but not as obligatory.” Cardinal Wuerl also said that the 1989 statement makes it clear that these suggested guidelines “can only serve if they are adapted to the particular conditions, of a diocese, its history and its special needs.”

The resource adds that “the Doctrine Committee does not wish to stifle legitimate theological reflection or to preclude further dialogue, but it does want to ensure that the authentic teaching of the Church, concerning doctrine and morals, is clearly stated and affirmed. While dialogue between theologians and bishops is very important it should work along side of the bishops’ primary teaching and sanctifying mission.”

“The Committee on Doctrine recognizes the legitimate vocations of the theologian as well as of the bishop. The Committee hopes that the discussion generated by its statement will help lead to a renewal and foster a proper and fruitful relationship between the bishops and the whole theological community,” the resource adds.

Photo: CNS

8 Comments »

The USCCB on Sr. Elizabeth Johnson’s Book: Some Initial Comments

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on March 30, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

In a report signed 24 March 2001, but published today (30 March 2011), the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) identified the “misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors” that it found in Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ’s book, Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God (Continuum, 2007). The committee, chaired by Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, organized its 21-page report into seven problematic areas relating to what the committee found to be “theological and methodological inadequacies,” as stated in Wuerl’s March 30th cover letter.

The full report begins with (a) an explanation for the publication of the statement and (b) an overview of the proceeding critique. The reason for the report is described as: “Because this book by a prominent Catholic theologian is written not for specialists in theology but for ‘a broad audience’ [2], the Committee on Doctrine felt obliged, as part of its pastoral ministry, to note these misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors” (USCCB 1).

It is because Johnson’s book is seen as a potential text for undergraduate classroom adoption that it was subjected to such analysis, the bishops say. Yet, I wonder if the phrase “a broad audience” was not included in Johnson’s own introduction and the text was aimed at her theologian peers, would the bishops have just not responded? I somehow doubt it.

Here is how the headings of each section of the full report breaks down and therefore provides us with a brief glimpse at the critique that follows each heading:

  1. “A False Alternative: “Modern Theism” or Radical Reconstruction of the Idea of God”
  2. “A False Presumption: All Names for God are Metaphors”
  3. “A God who Suffers”
  4. “New Names for the Unknown God”
  5. “The Presence of God in All the Religions”
  6. “Creator Spirit in the Evolving World”
  7. “Trinity: The Living God of Love”

I want to only make a few preliminary comments about each of the sections, perhaps the need or opportunity will arise for additional analysis at a later time. What follows might be at times technical and certainly boring. It reflects my initial reading of the report in light of my own reading of Johnson’s book back in 2007 when it first came out. If you have no interest in this response, you can stop reading here and scroll down to the conclusion.

1. “A False Alternative: ‘Modern Theism’ or Radical Reconstruction of the Idea of God”

Concerning the first section, the report claims that Johnson is playing something of a “sleight of hand” to equate what she terms “modern theism” with what the report claims to be “integral and essential elements of [the Christian] tradition” (USCCB 4).

However, I don’t get that impression from my reading of the text in question. Instead, what I see is the perhaps inadvertent grouping-together of inadequate or incomplete — yet, immensely popular — conceptualizations of God. Modern Theism, as it is described here, is oftentimes the “doctrine of God” that most Christians appropriate, something that any pastoral minister can recognize in any given week of pastoral ministry among the faithful. In identifying that popular and problematic understanding of God, Johnson, it would seem, is simply establishing a starting point from which she might engage in a constructive theology.

However, what follows in this section is the beginning of an at-times latent and at-times more explicit concern with what I would classify as an anti-univocal-concept-of-being agenda that appears throughout the report. Take this line for example:

“Within traditional Christian theology, God is indeed the supreme being, but that means that he [sic] actually exists in a manner that is uniquely his [sic] own and so his [sic] manner of existence radically differs in kind from all else that exists. Existing in such a manner does not make God remote” (USCCB 5)

I don’t know about that. First of all, use of the term “supreme being” actually seems to work in a manner contrary to the rest of the argument, suggesting God is a ‘being’ of the ‘supreme’ — i.e., biggest, best, highest — proportions makes God out to be of same kind, different only in degree.

It doesn’t seem to me that the committee intended to say that, nor do I get the impression that Johnson means exactly what the report suggests that she said either. I do agree with the report, in general, that there is a crisis (perhaps a pastoral/catechetical one??) in how many understand God. It is theological efforts such as the book in question that serves to address such concerns.

2. “A False Presupposition: All Names for God are Metaphors”

As I tell all my students working on papers, I note in observation of this report: “use adjectives sparingly. Each adjective increases the statement’s vagueness and weakens an argument.” For example, the opening sentence of this section includes the phrase: “…her radical revision of the traditional Christian understanding of God…” (USCCB 6). What do the report’s authors mean by “radical?” That said, I can understand, at least in part, the concerns raised in this section as they relate to humanity’s ability to know God.

Read more »

21 Comments »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 390 other followers

%d bloggers like this: