Word from Rome

After a month-long sabbatical to finish a book, John Allen returns with a balanced look at the late theologian Fr. Jacques Depuis, and an interesting, slightly testy exchange with Jason Berry.

Comments

[WRY]

Why is it that when the Vatican points out some theologian's defective writings there's always someone like Allen who wants to somehow make that out as an act of cruelty? The real cruelty would be the damage to souls if they believed errors that could rob them of their salvation.

[Jason]

I don't understand why, as the Archbishop says, there was/is serious hope for full communion with Anglicans as a whole. Did we expect them to just lay aside their errors and accept the Catholic faith? Many of the differences between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy aren't really contradictory, and so could easily be reconciled (not all, of course). But do we expect Anglicanism to suddenly say, "The Pope as supreme jurisdiction throughout the Church", or "Women cannot be ordained", or "Our orders are invalid", or "Contraception is wrong"? They are Anglicans for a reason. If they wanted to be Catholic, they would be.

Can anyone explain this attitude of "reunion" to me?

[tt]

The "testy exchange" with Jason Berry is interesting because both of these men are rare examples of progressives who nevertheless have garnered admirers in conservative circles: Allen for the quality of his reporting and his uncommon willingness to try to understand conservative viewpoints, and Berry for exposing what some conservatives see as an enormous disciplinary failure at the highest levels.

Is Allen a member of Sant'Egidio? He mentions them rather often in his column and he is obviously a sympathizer. Not to call his journalistic impartiality into question, but I can't help wondering if this is a factor in the way he approaches questions surrounding groups like the Legionaries and Opus Dei who, like Sant'Egidio, depend on the patronage of the Holy See to flourish.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

Allen's response to Berry is wonderful and spot on.

[Neil]

Dear Jason,

I don't think that anyone expects a sudden reunion between Anglicans and Roman Catholics for many of the reasons that you mention. I would advise you, however, to read the 2000 Mississauga Statement* of the Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission, particularly section 9, to grasp why some of us do maintain a "serious hope for full communion with Anglicans as a whole," even if it is a somewhat chastened hope. Personally, I have been tremendously blessed by the opportunity to regularly participate in the sort of "common prayer" with Anglicans that the Holy Father has suggested (Ut Unum Sint 21).

Thank you for your concern for Christian unity.

Neil

* http://www.msgr.ca/msgr
3/ARCIC_COMMUNION_IN_MISSION.htm

[Rich Leonardi]

Allen's book is about Opus Dei. I believe he alludes to it in "All the Pope's Men". May it too be "balanced".

[amy]

Rich, judging from the reporting he's done on OD as he's researched his book in Latin America and Spain, as well as from the very, very balanced "All The Pope's Men"..I would think so.

[Tom]

Jason Berry writes that saying nice things about George Weigel makes John Allen an apologist for Maciel and the Legion.

Am I alone in thinking that's an absurd claim? If not barking lunacy?

[Cheeky Lawyer]

While I don't always agree with Allen, I think he is a class act as a reporter and that he is fair and balanced to coin a phrase. He strikes me as a deeply faithful and good man who does indispensable work for the Church.

[GregY]

While I don't always agree with Allen, I think he is a class act as a reporter and that he is fair and balanced to coin a phrase. He strikes me as a deeply faithful and good man who does indispensable work for the Church.
Ditto. He has been very complementary of young, orthodox priests that he meets in Rome in some of his columns. I remember one time he wrote about having Legionary priest at the NCR table at a talk. I have always found him to be balance and fair and love reading his columns each week--nowhere else do I get the kind of info I get from him.

[GregY]

While I don't always agree with Allen, I think he is a class act as a reporter and that he is fair and balanced to coin a phrase. He strikes me as a deeply faithful and good man who does indispensable work for the Church.
Ditto. He has been very complementary of young, orthodox priests that he meets in Rome in some of his columns. I remember one time he wrote about having Legionary priest at the NCR table at a talk. I have always found him to be balance and fair and love reading his columns each week--nowhere else do I get the kind of info I get from him.

[amy]

"Denny Crane" was Joseph D'Hippolito, who has been banned numerous times from this site. Don't respond to him.

[Rich Leonardi]

Amy,

I agree with your characterization of Allen; he's balanced, self-consciously so, which is not necessarily a bad thing. And I missed his mention of the theme of his next book in the first sentence of the linked report.

[Todd]

WRY, try reading more carefully.

"Why is it that when the Vatican points out some theologian's defective writings there's always someone like Allen who wants to somehow make that out as an act of cruelty?"

In this instance, it was a journalist reporting pretty much first-hand.

"The real cruelty would be the damage to souls if they believed errors that could rob them of their salvation."

Errors? What errors? Rome said there were none.

[Walter Babetski]

Todd: Ambiguities can be even worse (i.e., more insidious) than outright error. Remember what Rev 3 says about the lukewarm? I think the same can be applied to issues of truth.

[Todd]

Walter, given Dupius' life history: his willingness to work in India for 36 years, his service to the Church as a priest and theologian, "lukewarm" is probably not what I would call him. I think there are other targets more worthy of criticism. And if we're talking ambiguities, we have the witness of the Curia, who at first seemed to be tackling quite a heretic, but then begged off and called it something of a misunderstanding.

[Walter Babetski]

I disagree with your assessment that the CDF's finding of theological ambiguities is the equivalent of a misunderstanding. Again, you're making it sound like such ambiguities are perfectly acceptable in a priest's teaching and writing.....a position with which I strongly disagree. Exposing error and/or ambiguity is the very purpose of an investigation like this.

And the lukewarmness to which I was referring was doctrinal, not re his personal spiritual life or the way he lived it out.

[Todd]

You're correct, Walter. What happened with the Curia is that a person or small group of persons raised the questions and made the charges. When it was submitted to further study and prayer, the worst that was found was a lack of a sense of clarity.

I think the same operates here. Some people dislike what Dupuis stands for because the some in Rome did. Others see him as a champion because of what Rome did. Many in both groups have never bothered to read the man's works. I admit I haven't. Perhaps you have, and your opinion is founded on the man's own words.

There is as much danger in a mindless mob mentality, getting on the bandwagon because some people, perhaps people we admire and trust, have already done so.

[Patrick Rothwell]

I read "Towards a Christian Theology" a few years ago. Difficult, plodding reading. I didn't see anything in it that struck me as unorthodox. In fact, Dupuis condemned religious syncretism. A strong proponent of inter-religious dialogue, he opposed the abuse of inter-religious dialogue as a vehicle for dissent from Church teaching. While, I don't particularly like the emphasis on inter-religious dialogue as opposed to evangelization, that's a matter of opinion and not theological orthodoxy. I am of the opinion that the CDF was barking up the wrong tree when they went after Fr. Dupuis; they should have pursued other theologians such as Paul Knitter.

As to dangerous "ambiguities," perhaps some people can draw wrong conclusions from Dupuis book. Fair enough. But the same could be said about St. Augustine's writings against the Pelagians. And, the same thing could be said against the very Scriptures themselves.

[Kevin Miller]

Tom: I'm shocked - shocked! - to find "barking lunacy" coming from the likes of Jason Berry.

[amy]

Jason Berry has done fine reporting work on the abuse situation in the church, when no one else was doing it. I'm sorry people here feel the need to sneer at him, rather than simply express disagreement with his views or reporting.

[Kevin Miller]

Amy, I'm sorry, but I don't think reporting that abuse has occured suffices to constitute "fine reporting" given all the other problems with his work - starting with the silly assertions he makes about the pope and to which Allen is responding. Some people are worth sneering at, and I think Berry has abundantly established himself as such a person, For The Children though he may be.

[Todd]

Kevin, the pope and the cardinals come from a time and culture whose virtuous wouldn't dream of the abuse of children and whose predators rejoiced that their lives could be protected in part by such disbelief. I think it's a stretch, sometimes an impossible one, that people can cut and paste improper motives on people they don't know. All we can say is that Rome's response to clergy sex abuse has been less than satisfactory to many victims, their supporters, and agitators. Lacking evidence otherwise, I wouldn't say Rome has been malevolently negligent. Allen's take on this, both in ight of his experience and his reputation for being fair, seems more reasonable.

For his part, Berry has indeed done some fine journalism on this matter. But proximity to the cause can easily render a person more emotional, even a reputable professional like Berry.

[Kevin Miller]

Todd, regarding: "proximity to the cause can easily render a person more emotional, even a reputable professional like Berry."

Yes, that's true. I do think that professionals have a responsibility to keep their emotions from affecting the quality of their reporting/arguments as has happened in the case of some journalists, though. (That goes double when we're dealing in some cases with reporters with preexisting axes to grind.)

[Sandra Miesel]

If anyone has access to THE NEW OXFORD REVIEW, the first letter in the new issue is a bizarre screed denying that any sexual abuse of boys by priests ever occurred. It's all a hoax perpetrated by greedy lawyers, doncha know.

[Jimmy Mac]

The NOR used to be a reasonable read. However, Dale Vree has gone off the deep end for quite some time now and Sandra's citation is not a surprise to me.

I was a subscriber for years, but finally couldn't take it anymore and didn't wait for my subscription to expire, but, rather wrote and asked to be taken off of the mailing list (no reason given.) I never got an enquiry back as to why the cancellation, and I had been a subscriber for about 5 years at the time.

All you have to do is read their ads to see their mindset these days. It's a sad end to what was, at one time, an interesting point of view.

[chris K]

Ladies and Gentlemen of this Committee on Human Rights...
Text to be read at the hearing session of the Human Rights of Children and Youth Committee of the United Nations in Geneva, on October 9th. 2002

by José Barba-Martín

http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,41262,00.html

"So, under the belief in the perennial values of the Church and in spite of the repeated proclamation of Her Defence of Human Rights, we as Catholics have entered the Twenty First Century still under a disadvantageous Canon Law system that in many vital aspects keeps us still in the Middle Ages. Or should the blame be placed not on Her legal system but rather on Her unjust sense of discretionality in the
application of Her Law? And does not this breaking of a fair, impartial, universal application of the Law deny and destroy the true nature of Law itself? World states should review their concordats signed in agreement with the Church as long as She refuses to deal with and to correct criminal cases of impunity within Her institutions and ranks. If you, ladies and gentlemen, members of this Committee of the United Nations on Human Rights of Children and Youth, dispassionately and tenaciously investigate it, you will find the following: that Fr. Marcial Maciel's case vis-à-vis the Pope and the Vatican at large is a touchstone of the credibility and good faith of the Church in matters related to the pandemic sexual abuse problem within Her institutions and ranks."

Nowhere in this statement against the Church Herself to the United Nations is the reiteration that this same Church acted at the time of the complaints, removed this "friend" of Rome from his position for years, nor give the other facts such as those men admitting to having been coerced to join in a complaint against this founder. I also think that Mr. Berry's articles of repetition fail to give equal weight to these rather important facts that have also come about in the years following the initial investigation and further complaints. Thus, to my mind, there is a certain bias in reporting and lack of balance. I have also noted that these same reporters have written against the Church's authoritative treatment of the nun and priest in ministry to gay groups within the Church since they did so without Church teachings that differentiate between the homosexual person and homosexual activity.

There is an interview with the head of the Legionaries where he states his belief in a motivation ultimately to charge the Church Herself rather than to just finish a case with Fr. Maciel. Perhaps this UN presentation (with much greater trust in an institution guilty of its own sexual abuse by its own aids and its international establishment of abortion rights) shines a little light on a larger desire.

And a comment in another post about this question seems to make some sense:

Any instances of "sexual abuse" involving the accusers could have taken place only from the late 1940’s to the mid-1950’s. Immediately after the time when these men say they were abused, the alleged abuser was put under suspicion and removed from their midst. The path was clear for any wrongdoing to surface. Yet not one accuser stepped forward to allege any abuse until these many decades later. And if the allegations were true, wouldn't there be a rush of others to back up the story? It's been three years, and nothing. In fact, the Legionaries have the signed retraction of one of the accusers and sworn statements from four other men that the accusers recruited them over a period of years to join them in their lie.

The Legionaries and the Vatican also know much about the accusers that they will never make public because Father Maciel refuses to destroy the reputation of anyone, despite what they might say against him. What do you think?

[Kevin Miller]

JM: I agree 100% regarding the NOR.

[Rich Leonardi]

I'd say the word "ambiguities", which the Vatican used to describe his version of pluralism, is akin to "lukewarm". And even if the Vatican found his writing error-free, Dupuis' thesus provoked the CDF to issue "Dominus Iesus" - not exactly a ringing endorsement.

It's also interesting to note that Dupuis' fellow pluralists have taken this theme in a decidedly nonorthodox direction. Xavier University's Paul Knitter doubts the veracity of the evangelists' accounts of the Resurrection and all but rejects the notion that Jesus is the savior of all. He was a vocal critic of DI when it was released.

[Neil]

Father Dupuis was not a "pluralist," as the term is commonly used. And the claim that an identification of so-called "ambiguities" in a book is a more general pronouncement that a theologian's entire work is "lukewarm" needs to be supported by evidence.

Here are two excerpts from a recent article in Theological Studies on Fr Dupuis by the Jesuit theologian Gerald O'Collins (who, I should add, has been repeatedly praised on this blog):

"Some reviewers puzzled over Dupuis calling Christ 'universal' and 'constitutive' but not 'absolute' Savior and Redeemer, and speaking of the whole 'Christ-event' as 'decisive' rather than 'definitive.' Dupuis dislikes the inflationary use of 'absolute' and 'absolutely' that flourishes in much ordinary speech and in some theological talk. He maintains a firm, Thomistic line: only God, who is totally necessary, utterly unconditional, uncaused, and unlimited, is truly absolute. While Dupuis certainly has never wanted to reduce Christ to being one Savior among many, he is sensitive to the limits involved in the historical Incarnation of the Son of God, the created character of the humanity he assumed, and the specific quality of his redemptive, human actions. Moreover, the Incarnation itself was a free act of God's love and not unconditionally necessary. As regards the other dimension of the divine self-communication in Christ, God's self-revelation that was completed with the Resurrection and the coming of the Spirit, one should not so emphasize the 'fullness' of this revelation as to ignore 'the glorious manifestation of our Lord' still to come (Dei Verbum no. 4). Our present knowledge of God as revealed to us in Christ is limited and neither 'absolute' nor 'definitive.' Those who claim otherwise ignore the way the language of revelation in the New Testament is strongly angled toward the future (e.g. 1 Corinthians 13:12; 1 John 3:2), as Avery Dulles pointed out years ago in his Models of Revelation. John Paul II said the same thing in his 1998 encyclical on the relationship between faith and reason, Fides et ratio, where he wrote of 'the fullness of truth which will appear with the final revelation of God' (no. 2). We now 'see through a glass darkly' and not yet 'face to face'; hence it is more accurate to call the revelation completed in Jesus Christ 'decisive' rather than 'definitive,' a term that would too easily suggest (wrongly) that there is nothing more to come. A knee-jerk reaction has characterized some who are upset by Dupuis's refusal to speak of God's historical self-communication in Christ as 'absolute': 'he must mean that it is only relative and there are various, more or less equal saviors and revealers.' That was not what Dupuis means; in declining to use 'absolute' and 'definitive,' he sticks closely to the language of Vatican II's Dei Verbum and that of the New Testament itself. ...

"Finally, the term 'pluralism,' which has obviously acted as a red flag to certain readers. Some link it at once to such 'pluralists' as John Hick, who put Christ on a par with other religious founders or at least allege that he differs from them only in degree but not in kind. But 'pluralism' means a range of things: above all 'pluralism de facto' (which recognizes the fact of different religions) to 'pluralism de iure' (which endorses a pluralism in principle). Now this latter pluralism in principle may take a soft, Hickian form: in principle all major religions have equal authority, and hence in principle are equally valid, separate paths to salvation. But pluralism de iure - or, better, pluralism in principle - may take another form, as, for instance, when the declaration Dominus Iesus of September 2000, following the lead of John Paul II (e.g. in his 1990 encyclical Redemptoris missio) acknowledges that God becomes present to peoples through the 'spiritual riches' that their religions essentially embody and express (no. 8). 'The presence and activity of the Spirit' touch not only individuals but also 'cultures and religions' (no. 12); the 'elements of religiosity' found in the diverse 'religious traditions' come 'from God' (no. 21). Now, granted that God never acts merely 'in fact' but always 'in and on principle,' such statements about the Spirit's activity in various religions and all that comes from God to the religions imply some kind of religious 'pluralism' which exists in principle. Thus one needs to differentiate sharply between the 'pluralists' and 'pluralism,' and then scrutinize very carefully what kind of 'pluralism' Dupuis or anyone else endorses. Kneejerk reactions to terminology are totally out of place here. Hopefully the careful statement of what he means by 'inclusive pluralism' in Christianity and the Religions will help to dispel misunderstandings."

Thank you.

Neil

[Sandra Miesel]

Let me emphasize that the weird letter in NOR that I mentioned is a Letter to the Editor, not a statement by Dale Vree or any contributor. But it ought to be publicized as an example of the denial that's still out there.
Off topic, but the Letters section closes with something almost equally weird, denying homosexual behavior in animals, by someone who's obviously never heard of "buller" cattle.

[Rich Leonardi]

Father Dupuis was not a "pluralist," as the term is commonly used. And the claim that an identification of so-called "ambiguities" in a book is a more general pronouncement that a theologian's entire work is "lukewarm" needs to be supported by evidence.

The Vatican was concerned with "ambiguities", so your argument is with the CDF. No one (at least not me) was suggesting that Dupuis' "entire work is 'lukewarm'", just that "lukewarm" and "ambiguities" are analogous.

[Rich Leonardi]

And, just to be clear, there's nothing per se wrong with pluralism so long as it doesn't deny that Christ is the unique savior of mankind or other doctrines.

[Neil]

I have no quarrel with the CDF. The original invocation of "lukewarm" in this thread was in the sentence, "Remember what Rev 3 says about the lukewarm?" A clarification was then offered - "And the lukewarmness to which I was referring was doctrinal, not re his personal spiritual life or the way he lived it out." In any case, "lukewarmness" was ascribed to Fr Dupuis himself, despite what the CDF had written in its Notification - "The present Notification is not meant as a judgment on the author's subjective thought." Fr Dupuis in fact signed the "Notification". I should also pause here to note that it is strange to posit a doctrinal error that could lead one to write multiple books but leave his "spiritual life or the way he lived it out" completely unaffected. I will not comment about the exegesis of Rev 3.

The only real clarification of "ambiguities" in the CDF's "Notification" comes in this statement: "... while noting the author's willingness to provide the necessary clarifications, as evident in his Responses, as well as his desire to remain faithful to the doctrine of the Church and the teaching of the Magisterium, [the members of the Congregation] found that his book contained notable ambiguities and difficulties on important doctrinal points, which could lead a reader to erroneous or harmful opinions."

The only description of "ambiguities" we have is that they could lead some unidentified reader "to erroneous or harmful opinions." This is, perhaps quite properly, a meaningless statement, I think.

We are in agreement?

Thank you.

Neil

[Neil]

I think that the tone of my last comment wasn't quite appropriate. Sorry. But I still don't think that we should equate "ambiguities" with Dupuis' being "lukewarm."

Thank you.

Neil

[Rich Leonardi]

Neil,

I always appreciate your observations, even when I don't agree with all of your conclusions. Thanks you for your thoughtful post. You and Zhou are treasures.

[michigancatholic]

In Neil's excerpt above alone, there are huge ambiguities, the likes of which I don't accept. Christ was, is and always will be God. To say otherwise is driving a wedge between the persons of the Trinity.

It's curious that it says that "the Incarnation itself was a free act of God's love and not unconditionally necessary." I hate to tell you that just because you don't think it logically necessary, it doesn't kill off Christ. Christ was present at the creation of the world--just not incarnated yet. Have you never read the first several lines of the book of John?

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it."

Christ IS. You and I are the contingent beings.

[Neil]

Dear Michigancatholic,

I think that the ambiguities in my excerpts come from their cut and paste nature. Fr Dupuis never meant to deny Christ's pre-existence. Let me quote the lines from Fr O'Collins' article that immediately preceded my first excerpt:

"What Dupuis has consistently argued is that within the one person of Jesus Christ we must distinguish the operations of his (uncreated) divine nature and his (created) human nature. Here Dupuis lines up with Thomas Aquinas, who championed the oneness of Christ's person but also had to recognize that Christ's 'divine nature infinitely transcends his human nature (divina natura in infinitum humanam excedit)' (Summa contra gentiles chap. 4, 35, 8)."

Fr O'Collins also writes, "[Dupuis] continues to distinguish between the Word of God in se and the Word of God precisely as incarnated. We must make such terminological distinctions. Otherwise we will finish up joining some critics in such a strange statement as 'the Word of God as such is the Word incarnate.' Those who fail 'to watch their language' and use such an expression seem to attribute an eternal, real (and not just an intentional) existence to the human being created and assumed by the Word of God at a certain point in the history of the world, as well as appearing to cast doubt upon the loving freedom of the Word of God in becoming incarnate for our salvation."

Thanks to both you and Rich.

Neil