Archive for Quest for the Living God

Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ’s Response to Committee

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on June 7, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

While I know many other news outlets and blogs have already reposted this response by Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ, to the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine concerning her 2007 book Quest for the Living God, I decided that I should also make this document available to readers of DatingGod.org who have followed the proceedings over these last months here on this site. Here are links to the series of analyses and commentary on the previous events related to this situation:

Overview of DatingGod.org Coverage of Elizabeth Johnson Report

(3/30/11) http://datinggod.org/2011/03/30/the-usccb-on-sr-elizabeth-johnsons-book-some-initial-comments/

(3/31/11) http://datinggod.org/2011/03/31/on-the-politics-of-theology-fear-and-analogia-entis/

(4/10/11) http://datinggod.org/2011/04/10/ctsa-releases-statement-on-the-usccb-elizabeth-johnson-report/

(4/12/11) http://datinggod.org/2011/04/12/new-york-times-on-elizabeth-johnson/

(4/18/11) http://datinggod.org/2011/04/18/usccb-news-release-cardinal-wuerl-gives-rationale-for-critiquing-johnsons-work/

(4/19/11) http://datinggod.org/2011/04/19/college-theology-society-releases-statement-in-response-to-usccb-report-on-johnsons-book/

(4/20/11) http://datinggod.org/2011/04/20/some-good-analysis-over-at-pray-tell-blog/

(4/25/11) http://datinggod.org/2011/04/25/americas-editorial-advice-from-francis-day-and-gandhi-on-conscience/

Full Text of Elizabeth Johnson Letter to USCCB Committee

To the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Washington DC
Bishop Leonard Blair, Toledo OH
Archbishop Daniel Buechlein, Indianapolis IN
Archbishop José Gomez, Los Angeles CA
Bishop William Lori, Bridgeport CT
Bishop Robert McManus, Worcester MA
Bishop Kevin Rhoades, Fort Wayne – South Bend IN
Bishop Arthur Serratelli, Paterson NJ
Archbishop Allen Vigneron, Detroit MI

In the cover letter to the U.S. Bishops on March 30, 2011 that accompanied the Committee on Doctrine’s criticism of my book Quest for the Living God, Cardinal Donald Wuerl stated that the Committee was always open to dialogue with theologians and would welcome an opportunity to discuss my writings with me. In my one public statement on the matter, released April 1, 2011, I also expressed a willingness to dialogue over these matters.

In a letter dated April 28, 2011, I was informed that Cardinal Donald Wuerl reiterated this openness to dialogue, and expressed the willingness of the Committee on Doctrine to receive any written observations that I would wish to make with regard to its Statement about my book. The observations which follow are in response to this invitation.

I write these observations in the spirit of the Egyptian bishop Athanasius. I’ve always appreciated his words, written during the conflict that ensued after the Council of Nicea when three groups contended vociferously over the right way to express Jesus Christ’s divine identity. Athanasius, who upheld the homoousios (one in being) teaching of the Council, noted that his party and the homoiousios party (similar in being), originally perceived as opponents, were actually on the same side as compared with the subordinationist Arian position. In the effort to forge unity, he wrote: those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicea, and doubt only about the homoousios, must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers; but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the words. (De Synodis 41)

The Committee on Doctrine’s Statement declared that my book contains misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors with regard to Catholic teaching. My statement spoke of misrepresentations, misinterpretations, and an incorrect picture of my book in the committee’s Statement. I also expressed regret that a prior conversation had not taken place to perhaps allay these difficulties. In view of our common concern for the church and for the richness of its teaching, I hope in these observations to discuss the matter with you as sister with brothers, “who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the words.”

Thank you for this invitation to dialogue.

Peace,

Dr. Elizabeth A. Johnson, C.S.J.
Distinguished Professor of Theology
Fordham University

June 1, 2011

Cc. Fr. Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap., Executive Director

*     *     *     *     *

Introduction

The first observation I would like to make underscores the obvious: Quest for the Living God is a work of theology. It is not a catechism, nor a compendium of doctrine, nor does it intend to set out the full range of church teaching on the doctrine of God. Rather, it presents areas of Christian life and study where the mystery of the living God is being glimpsed anew in contemporary situations. Hence the subtitle, Mapping Frontiers.

Read more »

2 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 »

On The Politics of Theology: Fear and ‘Analogia Entis’

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

The more I think about it, the more I feel convinced that what is at the core of the recent USCCB report on Sr. Elizabeth Johnson’s 2007 book, Quest for the Living God, is yet another example of the recent politicalization of theology. What I mean by this is that beneath what appears to be particular characteristics the bishop’s conference finds problematic in Johnson’s book is really a latent, but deeply rooted, fear of change. Not just any change, but change that comes with the development of theological language in light of contemporary correlative study. What might have sufficed for a reasonable theological expression of a Christian faith claim eight-hundred years ago, might not make sense today.

Take, for example, many of the explanations offered by Thomas Aquinas (or Bonaventure, or any other 13th Century theologian for that matter). Much of what is expressed in texts such as the Summa Theologica makes sense only within a hylomorphic worldview. With developments in philosophy and the natural sciences over the centuries, we cannot simply cut-and-paste medieval articulations into contemporary settings. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but each instance of blind reiteration usually requires heavy contextualization and explanation for the statement to make sense today (in order to explain what the theory of ‘transubstantiation’ means to modern person, you have to give a primer on Aristotle’s metaphysics).

Nevertheless, the faith claims or doctrine remains True today as it always has. Using the example of hylomorphism and the Eucharist again, the True Sacramental Presence of Christ in the Eucharist remains True today as it did in 1274 when Thomas died. Yet, how we articulate that doctrine in terms understandable today is another story.

I will say at this point that I see a great value in authoritative bodies like the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine and the Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Their purpose is to maintain and safeguard the faith of the ecclesia kyrios. The faith claims, doctrines and dogmatic beliefs should be protected by such people who act in service of the entire Body of Christ. However, does one of these servants-of-the-Church overstep its boundaries when it claims that new attempts to articulate a Christian faith claim are untenable according to the Catholic theological tradition because of its novelty or contemporary relevance?

Sure, I don’t think the CDF or the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine would ever readily admit such a reasoning, but is this not what happens on occasion? I have this sense that something along these lines is what is happening with regard to Johnson’s book.

Since the early 1990s, coinciding as it were with John Milbank’s publication of Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason, there has been a theological movement in the UK and North America that is strongly reactionary. This movement sees contemporary theological engagement with the social and natural sciences as suspect, distrusts modern (and postmodern) philosophical resourcing and seeks to re-appropriate medieval articulations and formulae for today’s usage. The central figure in this movement is Thomas Aquinas, whose fame has not received such ubiquitous attention since the late 19th Century when Pope Leo XIII got this Thomistic monopoly rolling with his encyclical letter Aeterni Patris (1879).

One can see the influence of this movement increasing in the United States in recent decades. One of the clearest signs of this attitudinal appropriation comes in the form of Cardinal Francis George’s recent book The Difference God Makes (2009). In the first chapter, George sets the stage for what follows by simply repeating what Milbank and others in the Radical Orthodoxy movement have already said about the origins of modernity and the culpability of John Duns Scotus (d. 1308).

The loss of the communio ontology in Western thought begins, perhaps surprisingly, just after Aquinas, in the writings of Duns Scotus. Scotus consciously repudiates the Thomistic analogy of being — predicated upon participation — and adopts a univocal concept of being. (10)

He goes on, citing no primary sources but only the work of Milbank and Catherine Pickstock of the Radical Orthodoxy movement. I wrote my master’s thesis on the errancy of this particular movement’s reading of Scotus’s work, following the seminal analyses of top Scotist scholars Richard Cross (of Notre Dame) and Thomas Williams (of University of South Florida). I will not rehearse here all the problems with Radical Orthodoxy’s reading of Scotus that George blindly adopts for his own use. Instead, I want to highlight that the USCCB, like Cardinal George some years earlier, is yet again proffering a theological hegemony that is not as concerned with doctrine as it is with expression.

I cannot understand why the Scotus doctrine of the possibility of a univocal concept of being is so threatening to these people. Perhaps it stems from the fact that nearly none of those who launch attacks against univocity have demonstrated that they actually understand Scotus’s original thought. At the same time, I think that there is something much more primal operating here. It’s not that Thomist analogia entis is more correct than Scotus’s assertion that in order to even have an analogical concept of being it must first be grounded in a univocal concept, but that there is fear that there may in fact be a multitude of ways to authentically express a Christian faith claim.

(By the way, to Cardinal George and others: Scotus does not “consciously repudiate the Thomistic analogy of being,” he is first and foremost concerned with the development of analogia entis in the generation after Thomas, most notably in the work of Henry of Ghent — not Thomas — to which Scotus directs his univocal critique).

It’s an issue of simplicity, which, in its forceful assertion, results in a type of theological fideism. “Believe this as it is said in this way and don’t ask questions!” There is, at some level, a fear of change that comes from, dare I say, a lack of faith. Faith in the continued working of the Holy Spirit to inspire theologians and philosophers today as the Spirit inspired those medievals centuries ago. George, Wuerl and others give the impression by their ostensibly myopic outlook that they do not believe the Spirit continues to illuminate the minds of faithful theologians engaged in contemporary correlative theology.

Don’t forget, Thomas got in trouble in his own life and was condemned by his own community shortly after his death (only to later be restored) because his theology drew heavily on the “new sciences” of the day, originating from Islamic commentaries of a “pagan philosopher” = Aristotle.

When will we learn?

As I said above, one way to read the report on Johnson’s book is to see another iteration of the Radical Orthodoxy movement’s concerns articulated as: contemporary theological engagement with the social and natural sciences as suspect, distrusts modern (and postmodern) philosophical resourcing and seeks to re-appropriate medieval articulations and formulae for today’s usage.

The committee doesn’t like the place of evolution and science in Johnson’s theology, finds the Kantian qualities of Johnson’s modern theological project problematic and seeks to reiterate Thomas (notice the report’s only footnotes are from the Summa). This is not about the problems with Elizabeth Johnson’s theology, this is about problems with the entire purpose of theology and what a certain group of people in the last twenty or so years thinks theology should look like.

Photos: University of Dayton; CNS; Stock

14 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 396 other followers

%d bloggers like this: