Archive for elizabeth johnson

« Older Entries

Two Thoughts on the Kinship of Creation

Posted in Franciscan Spirituality, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on March 5, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

earthGreetings from the road! I’m away for a series of speaking engagements (with a few days of actual ‘Spring vacation’ with my brother friars in New York) this week, so posts here have been slow — thanks for your patience. In the meantime, I’ve been doing a lot of work on the subject of creation and wanted to share two very powerful quotes that I have been thinking about and that are well-worth our prayerful reflection, especially as (God-willing) we move from Winter into Spring. Peace and good!

“We need to fathom that the human species is embedded as an intrinsic, interdependent part of the magnificence of this universe, not as lords of the manor but kin in the community of life, charged with being sisters and brothers, friends and lovers, mothers and fathers, priests and prophets, cocreators and children of the earth that is God’s good creation.”

– Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ

“I believe that this kinship model is the essential foundation of a truly ecological theology of human beings in relation to other creatures. It challenges the model of domination and exploitation. Adopting the kinship model demands a form of conversion. It involves a new way of seeing and acting. It involves extending the love of neighbor to embrace creatures of other species. It involves extending the love of enemy to creatures that confront us as other and inspire fear in us. It involves loving and valuing others as God loves and values them. Ultimately, it is a God-centered (theocentric) view of an interconnected community of creatures that have their own intrinsic value.”

– Denis Edwards

2 Comments »

The Saints of Our Everyday Lives

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on November 1, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

The Feast of All Saints, which we celebrate every November 1st, is generally a time when most people pause to recall their favorite canonical saint: St. Francis, St. Ignatius, St. Dominic, Bl. Mother Teresa, and so on. Yet, what is often overlooked on this day is the degree to which we focus our attention a little too pointedly at those whom we place on a pedestal (not that doing so is a bad thing — we all need models, guides, and intercessors) and aver our gaze at those “saints” in our everyday lives. Instead of seeing the Feast of All Saints and the Feast of All Souls (celebrated on November 2nd) as two distinct celebrations, I suggest that we look at both as two sides of the same coin. This is the coin of the communion of saints, which includes all the baptized living, dead, and those who will come. In this sense, to talk about the communion of saints is to, yes, talk about those who we might describe as saints with a capital “S” (the “official” or “canonical” Saints). But it also includes those who are not so venerated, even those who might not be all that venerable. It also includes you and me.

The theologian Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ, of Fordham University, in her excellent book Friends of God and Prophets (Continuum 1999), makes the all-too-sad and all-too-true observation that “the communion of saints is one of the least developed symbols in the history of theological explanation.” The reason why we probably don’t think of the “saints of our everyday lives” alongside the big “S” saints, is precisely for this reason. We don’t have a very good or developed notion of sainthood nor of the communion of saints.

Johnson offers a rather beautiful overview of what the communion of saints means in the Christian tradition that we might find helpful on this day when we pause to remember All the saints — those canonized and, I would suggest, also those who are not.

The communion of saints is a Christian symbol that speaks of profound relationship. In traditional usage it points to an ongoing connection between the living and the dead, implying that the dead have found new life thanks to the merciful power of God. It also posits a bond of companionship among living persons themselves who, though widely separated geographically, form one church community. Since the range of those who seek God is as broad as the human race itself, it furthermore affirms a link between all who have been brushed with the fire of divine love and witness to this in their lives.

We are also the saints, the ones baptized into a special relationship to one another in Christ, that are to be recalled today (and, really, everyday). But we don’t recall ourselves as members of the communion of saints in some self-centered or egocentric way. Instead, our recollection is one of communion, of relationship, of connection, and of companionship. 

We don’t go about life alone and isolated, removed from fears and hopes, the joys and sorrows of our fellow women and men. We are called to return to our baptismal and fundamentally human roots, and recall that we are sisters and brother to one another.

The communion of saints includes those great models of Christian living that have gone before us and that are celebrated by the universal church. But the communion of saints also includes all the nameless women and men who have lived their lives without acclaim or notice, who were mothers and fathers, teachers and laborers, children and the like. We have a lot about which to reflect on this solemnity, the Feast of All Saints. While we pause and recall the litany of the big “S” saints, let us also remember ourselves, our family, our friends, and all those whom we might never meet and know.

As the Second Vatican Council document Lumen Gentium, a line that is repeated in the new translation of Eucharistic Prayer III, reminds us, “All the faithful, scattered though they be throughout the world, are in communion with each other in the Holy Spirit” (no. 13). May we celebrate that truth today and live as the members of the communion of saints that we are.

Photo: File

3 Comments »

Friends of God and Prophets: Happy All Saints!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on November 1, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Today is an awesome day for several reasons. As a child I always loved the day after Halloween — November 1st — because that meant that my birthday was exactly two-weeks away. For the last ten years or so, that hasn’t been all that important (although I do still like the month of November — I’m a Fall Season sort of person). The other reason today is awesome is the Solemnity that we celebrate in the Church calendar — the Feast of All Saints.

I am of two minds about the way that the Church separates today’s celebration and tomorrow’s — All Souls — because I am a firm believer that, following the language of St. Paul, we are all saints in communion with one another through Baptism into the Church, which is the Body of Christ. Today seems, on one hand, to be a little too ‘exclusive’ because it recognizes those who are officially listed in the canon of saints. Yet, on the other hand, there is something about collectively holding up the models of Christian living the saints we recognize as models of Christian living. St. Bernard of Clairvaux highlights the value of this example and inspiration the saints provide in his Sermon 2:

Calling the saints to mind inspires, or rather arouses in us, above all else, a longing to enjoy their company, so desirable in itself. We long to share in the citizenship of heaven, to swell with the spirits of the blessed, to join the assembly of patriarchs, the ranks of the prophets, the council of apostles, the great host of martyrs, the noble company of confessors and the choir of virgins. In short, we long to be united in happiness with all the saints. But, our dispositions change. The Church of all the first followers of Chris awaits us, but we do nothing about it. The saints want us to be with them, and we are indifferent. The souls of the just await us, and we ignore them.

It was in talking with one of my professors at the Washington Theological Union not too long ago that the idea that twofold understanding of the saints’ relationship to us outlined by Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ — namely, as both patrons and companions — can help make sense of the All Saints/All Souls split. All Saints is the celebration of the Communion of Saints in terms of the patronage model, while All Souls is the Church’s recognition of the companionship model. I’m not sure if I entirely buy the split, preference always seems to go to the canonized saints over the anonymous or lesser-known companions in Christ.

In her essay, “A Community of Holy People in a Sacred World: Rethinking the Communion of Saints,” (New Theology Review 12 [1999] 5-16), Johnson encourages us not to focus so much on the patronage model that has become the de facto mode of approaching the Communion of Saints, but to remember that the Communion of Saints is far richer and broader than those canonized. “The point is that corporately, inclusively, without discrimination, the whole living Church is a communion of saints” (6).

It seems, following the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Johnson — who wrote Friends of God and Prophets: A Feminist Theological Reading of the Communion of Saints –supports my reluctance to embrace the demarcation of All Saints and All Souls:

The Church is not divided into saints and non-saints. Vivified by grace, every woman, man, and child, in whatever diverse circumstances and of whatever race, class, ethnicity, sexual persuasion, or other marker that at once identifies and divides human beings, participates in God’s holy life… the holiness of ordinary persons in the midst of ordinary time needs to be ever more strongly underscored if people are not to be robbed of their heritage and their true identity (7).

The Jesuit author James Martin, SJ, who wrote the hugely popular My Life with the Saints (Loyola Press, 2006) — still one of the books I most often recommend to people — recently wrote a piece in America Magazine about the importance of emphasizing both patron and companion models of the saints in a healthy tension, rather than swinging to one extreme or the other.

When it comes to devotion to the saints one must hold in tension their dual roles as patron and companion. An overemphasis on one destroys the saint’s humanity, renders their earthly lives almost meaningless and negates their roles as models, examples and companions as Christian disciples. An overemphasis on the other makes their new lives in heaven meaningless, renders the tradition of intercession irrelevant and negates their current place in the communion of saints.

However we strive to hold the tension between patron and companion in our image of saints, we should always remember that we are each intimately part of the Body of Christ, connected to one another beyond space, time and all things that would otherwise separate us in our world. It’s nice to know that we walk with companions who are also friends of God and prophets, as we work to be the same for others. Likewise, when we pray Ora pro nobis, we should remember that we can similarly offer our prayers for others.

Happy feast day!

Photo: Ira Thomas

1 Comment »

America’s Editorial: Advice from Francis, Day and Gandhi on Conscience

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on April 25, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

You’ve got to love America magazine’s staff. Talk about wasting no time — I was delighted to see the electronic issue of the magazine out no later than the day after Easter! Recalling the two prominent, if different, cases of Fr. Roy Bourgeois and Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, the editors ponder what the relationship between conscience and ecclesiastical authority might be. In their consideration, they offer the question: “One wonders what Gandhi or St. Francis of Assisi or Dorothy Day might have advised Father Bourgeois.” An excellent question indeed.

Certainly Francis of Assisi and Dorothy Day knew what it was like to hold in their hearts and consciences both a clear loyalty to the Church’s teaching authority, yet also recognize that there are ways in which Church teaching in a given age did not reflect their understanding of the Gospel or the Spirit’s role in the world. One only has to recall Francis’s approach to the Crusades to see an example of, what I call, ecclesiastical civil disobedience.

Yet, the point that the editors make about Bourgeois in particular is worth noting. Alongside other vowed religious and diocesan priests who have been in similarly tricky situations (I think of Rochester priest Charles Curran and Jesuit Roger Haight, for example), their willingness to play by the rules — even if they didn’t agree with the reasons for the Church leaders gave for their imposed limitations — demonstrated that there is something greater than a personal vendetta, while still giving witness to what they hold to be true. They are also both priests, and in Haight’s case, a Jesuit, in good standing (at least last I heard).

The editors conclude with this paragraph:

Church and society would benefit from other witnesses of conscience appreciating the many ways by which they can testify to moral and intellectual truth. For its part, the church would profit from interiorizing the lesson of the council’s “Declaration on Religious Liberty” that “it is by personal assent that people must adhere to the truth they have discovered,” recalling that “Christ, who is our master and Lord, and at the same time is meek and humble of heart, acted patiently in attracting and inviting his disciples.”

I encourage you to pick up the latest copy of America, if only to read this editorial (“Paths of Conscience“). If you had to give advice to Bourgeois or Johnson, what would you say?

Photo: America Magazine

6 Comments »

Some Good Analysis Over at ‘Pray Tell’ Blog

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on April 20, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

I apologize if you are one of the readers of this blog that has become bored with the ongoing discussion centering on Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ, PhD’s book Quest for the Living God (Continuum, 2007) and the USCCB Committee on Doctrine’s report on it, but there continues to be a lively theological and pastoral discussion about this matter. This most recent installment was prompted by the letter sent to the Bishops of the United States by Cardinal Wuerl of Washington, DC. In this letter he attempts to explain the Committee on Doctrine (of which he is the Chair) report and the committee’s feeling that a statement (without notifying Sr. Johnson first) was necessary.

In response to Cardinal Wuerl’s letter, titled “Bishops as Teachers,” Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, a professor of theology, offers two points of reflection and concern. The second of which I think is an important one, especially for those of us who teach theology to undergraduates:

2. The purpose of undergraduate theology. “Bishops as Teachers” asserts that catechetics since the 1970s has failed to pass on the basics of the faith, and this demands a change in how theology is taught to uninformed Catholic undergraduates. Students don’t have sufficient background to negotiate the wide variety of opinions in the theological academy.  Undergrad theology must become catechetical – that is, it must stick to teaching the basics of the Faith to the uncatechized.

The Cardinal is raising a new topic here, and his proposal has huge implications for academic theology. Now the question isn’t Sr. Johnson’s orthodoxy, but the purpose of undergraduate theology. Would “remedial catechesis” be seen as a legitimate discipline in the wider academic community? Would the entire faculty approve of “catechetical courses” as general education requirements? What about the non-Catholic students in Catholic schools, sometimes 30% or 50% or more of the student body – would they be exempt from “Catholic catechesis as theology” courses? Would Catholic students who don’t want religious catechesis be able to opt out? Is is pedagogically effective with today’s college students to present only an official viewpoint in the theology classroom, not least when this pedagogic approach is not used in other disciplines in the school or college?

I see a need for serious discussion on what we think the purpose of undergrad theology is.

You can Fr. Ruff’s analysis and reflection in its entirety over at the PrayTell blog.  The article is titled, “Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, Cardinal Wuerl and Fr. Raymond Brown.“

Photo: Stock

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 »

New York Times on Elizabeth Johnson

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on April 12, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Just one additional, brief post today. The New York Times ran a story, “After Bishops Attack Book, Gauging Bounds of Debate,” that covers the recent discussion following the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine’s report on Johnson’s Quest for the Living God (Continuum, 2007). Paul Vitello’s reporting offers, in my opinion, a fair presentation of the current debate, which draws on the comments of some reputable scholars (e.g., Terrence Tilley of Fordham University) and some less-than-reputable, but prominent voices (e.g., Patrick Reilly of The Cardinal Newman Society). As far as news is concerned, there isn’t a whole lot here that those familiar with the story haven’t already read, but coverage in the New York Times does broaden the audience and increases the awareness of the ongoing debate — a conversation well-worth having on a bigger scale.

Perhaps the one thing I would critique about the article is the opening paragraph: “Is God male? The Old Testament uses the masculine pronoun to describe him. Jesus refers to the divinity as Father. So does that make the creator a masculine force — and mean that men are more godlike than women?”

While, yes, one can find masculine pronouns to describe God in the Old Testament, one also finds feminine pronouns and symbols of Divine Immanence too! Wisdom and Spirit, in both Hebrew and Greek, are used to describe God’s presence in and relationship to creation in the feminine. We should not so quickly overlook those aspects of the tradition.

You can read earlier coverage from DatingGod.org of this unfolding story here:

http://datinggod.org/2011/03/30/the-usccb-on-sr-elizabeth-johnsons-book-some-initial-comments/

http://datinggod.org/2011/03/31/on-the-politics-of-theology-fear-and-analogia-entis/

http://datinggod.org/2011/04/10/ctsa-releases-statement-on-the-usccb-elizabeth-johnson-report/

Photo: Fordham Univ.

3 Comments »

CTSA Releases Statement on the USCCB Elizabeth Johnson Report

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on April 10, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Below is the full text with the signatories of the statement offered by the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA). This statement takes particular note of the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine’s recent report on Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ, PhD’s Quest for the Living God (Continuum 2007). There are three primary areas of critique discussed below. For more information, go to the CTSA website.

Response of the Board of Directors of the Catholic Theological Society of America to the Statement on “Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God,” By Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson Issued by the Committee on Doctrine,  United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, March 24, 2011

We, the undersigned officers and directors of the Catholic Theological Society of America wish to comment on the statement by the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, which was made public on March 31, 2011. Our intent here is to voice our serious concerns regarding three issues: 1) the fact that, in this matter, the bishops did not follow the procedures set forth in their own document, Doctrinal Responsibilities; 2) a misreading of Professor Johnson’s work in the statement; 3) the troubling implications the statement presents for the exercise of our vocation as theologians.

It is not our intention here to comment in detail on the Doctrine Committee’s statement or on Professor Johnson’s book, since responsible consideration deserves greater time and thought. However, we feel an urgency to respond since her book has received such a wide and favorable reception from so many educated Catholic laity, including from the students many of us teach. In sharing this pastoral concern, we are conscious of the complementary but distinct vocations of the theologian and the Magisterium and are open to further conversation with the Committee on Doctrine regarding the understanding of our theological task.

Read more »

3 Comments »

Theology and ‘The Spirit of Prayer and Devotion’

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on April 4, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Francis of Assisi gave the first theologian of the Order of Friars Minor, St. Anthony of Padua, permission to teach theology to the other friars around the year 1223. The letter that Francis writes to Anthony is brief and highlights Francis’s central focus: the brothers are to work and can do anything that isn’t morally unsound nor interferes with a brother’s ‘spirit of prayer and devotion,’ which should always be the primary goal of the friars.

Brother Francis sends greetings to Brother Anthony, My Bishop.

I am pleased that you teach sacred theology to the brothers providing that, as is contained in the Rule, you “do not extinguish the Spirit of prayer and devotion” during study of this kind.

This is, in some sense, a significant turn both for Francis personally and for the Order more generally. The Franciscan friars, unlike their Dominican cousins who were schooled from the beginning because of their clerical mission, were supposed to be content to do what it is they were called to do by virtue of the gifts of the Spirit. If you had a trade, do that trade; if you were a priest, continue to be a priest. What distinguished the Friars Minor was the way one did any of those things: namely, without monetary compensation, within community, in chastity and in prayer.

In the Early Rule Francis made a point of directing those brothers who had not been educated to be content with the level of their schooling and, out of holy poverty, not desire to receive more education. As the Order became more clericalized and structured, responding as it did to papal ministerial requests, the pressure to instruct the brothers rose — hence Anthony’s request to Francis for permission to teach the other brothers.

If Francis had responded differently, the names Anthony of Padua, Bonaventure, John Duns Scotus, Peter John Olivi, William of Ockham and others would likely never have been known to us. Theology became a central part of the Franciscan tradition and its storied history.

That’s one thing. Yet, the desire to contribute to theology today has fallen under the shadow of what has developed in recent days concerning the constructive systematic theology of Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ. As the days have gone by and I continue to follow the conversation I was privileged to be a part of from the beginning, the words of Francis to Anthony have arisen in my thoughts: “do not extinguish the Spirit of prayer and devotion.”

Whereas Francis’s words have generally been interpreted as a governor to those who bear the name ‘theologian,’ a reminder of the priority of prayer and community over study and work, I wonder if they might also be interpreted as a mandate for theologians. This instruction means that one has to speak out in good conscience at times when one observes injustice or manipulation in the discipline of theology. To do otherwise or to sit by silently might likewise threaten to “extinguish the Spirit of prayer and devotion.”

I know this was the case for me this week, as I presume it is the case for so many students and teachers of theology. To not join in the conversation, raising critical — but, I hope, always respectful — questions about an apparently flawed analysis would have been to interfere with my own sense of relationship with God; my prayer and devotion to the Lord would have been compromised.

This is in part why I believe theology is such an important area for Franciscans to be present today. What drives our approach to the discipline, ultimately, is how it relates to our lives of prayer, devotion and community. This is not to suggest that others aren’t likewise compelled, but only to highlight the particular vocation with which Franciscan theologians have been entrusted by our Father Francis himself.

For me, there is an intrinsic connection between the study and practice of theology and the way in which I must protect and foster the Spirit of prayer and devotion in my religious life. To do otherwise is to deny who it is I am called to be.

1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 394 other followers

%d bloggers like this: