An interesting list of theologians and others investigated and/or disciplined during the pontificate of John Paul II

John Allen's article on the Haight controversy.

Very thorough, very, very fair, giving voice to all sides.

Jesuit Fr. Gerald O’Collins, who teaches at Rome’s Gregorian University and is widely considered a leading Christologist, said the basic problem with Haight’s approach is that “there’s no difference in kind, only in degree, between Jesus and other religious people.”

“Mother Teresa was also a symbol of God,” he said. “I wouldn’t give my life for Roger Haight’s Jesus. It’s a triumph of relevance over orthodoxy.”

O’Collins is not a knee-jerk defender of Vatican crackdowns; he was the advocate for Dupuis in his lengthy back-and-forth with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and was critical of both the process and outcome. Yet O’Collins said he sees major differences between Dupuis and Haight.

“Dupuis took Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, and for him that was not debatable,” O’Collins said. “That Christ rose from the dead was nonnegotiable. This isn’t the case with Haight.”

As a Jesuit, O’Collins said he has been stressed by what he perceives as Haight’s unwillingness to accept “friendly and loving criticism.”

“I pray for Roger Haight every morning,” he said.

The missing piece, however - that's perhaps fodder for another article - is this: The claim is made outright or even simply implied that this is all the theologian's business, has no impact on the broader public, and that the Vatican needn't intervene. Well, this contradicts the claim that Haight is trying to make a Christology that makes sense to modern people. Modern people would be, of course, the broader public.

But even more importantly - it's not just tenured professors who read these books. The tenured professors assign them to their students, many of whom are training, not just for academic professions, but for pastoral and catechetical ministry. Over time, the "insights" of these books make their presence known in catechesis and preaching. "Jesus of History, Christ of Faith" may be Bultmann's gift, but somehow, a few decades later it ends up the title and guiding principle of a popular high school religion textbook. Historical-critical methods may find their beginnings in 19th century German scholarship, but a century and a half later, you can't walk a block without hearing a Catholic priest (or mainline Protestant minister, I'd guess) preach on Genesis without, like Pavlov's dog, bringing up the Yahwist, Deuteronomist and Priestly traditions, forgetting in the meantime to enlighten anyone listening as to what the text is actually about and why we should care.

Tradition and theology are living and developing things. That process has many threads: spirituality, devotion, liturgical practice and theological inquiry and reflection. But theologians, who are so fond of reminding us of the Church's human element, could use some reminding as well that they are human, too, humans prone to errors and flights of fancy. Sometimes it takes decades to tease out the wheat from the chaff, sometimes centuries. But in the meantime, care really must be taken to try, as much as possible, to prevent those weeds from growing in places where they can do widespread harm.

Comments

[Kevin Miller]

Here's a theologian (i.e., me) who is happy to see Vatican involvement in these matters.

By the way, have I mentioned that I had O'Collins as a teacher, when he was a visiting prof at Marquette one semester and taught a grad seminar, and that I like him?

[Jacques Crémer]

My theological education is scandalously weak, and I certainly cannot participate in a learned debate on the merits of Haight book. On the other hand, I have read and meditated large portions of it, and found it very important to my faith. Contrary to what the notification says, it has made me better able to accept some of the traditional credal formulations.

For instance, it is only after reading "Symbol of God" that I have been able to confess Jesus as True God and True Man. Standard discussions tell us that this is a mystery, not in the sense that we do not know how it happened, but in the sense that 'we do not quite understand what it means'. How can I believe something if I do not know what I am believing? Haight tries to make this language understandable at the beginning of the XXIst century, and I do not understand why this is more condemnable than acculturation to Non-Western cultures.

I do not understand at all what we gain by preventing somebody like this from teaching in a Catholic University. Do the students at the Weston School of Theology really need to be protected?

[Ambrose]

Amy--maybe you need to pay someone to say you are about to be investigated. The interest in your books could result in paying ALL of yor children's way through college.

[jtbf]

The list in the National Catholic Reporter of theologians and others whose theories have been examined is deficient and misleading in the way it describes their offenses. For example, it says Schillebeeckx's "writings on Christology" were a problem. Sounds innocuous enough, in which case the Vatican would be overbearing. It doesn't say that those Christological writings included his proposal that what happens at the Consecration is a "transignification" whereby the "sign" of the bread and wine are changed into the "sign" of Jesus Christ. This heresy is specifically condemned in Mysterium Fidei, an encyclical of Pope Paul VI.
The misleading nature of the reporting is consistent throughout the NCR list.

[Mark Shea]

The book is an exercise in “Christology from below,”

One wonders just how far below: ninth circle?, fifth circle? first circle?

[WRY]

Misreporting from the NCR? Is that possible??
And this sad detail: the book was picked by the Catholic Press Association as the theological work of the year.

[Dan W]

Pardon my ignorance, but could anyone explain what Amy is referring to when she mentions the "Yahwist, Deuteronomist and Priestly traditions" of Genesis? I'm afraid I'm out of the loop on this one...

[Rich Leonardi]

“Mother Teresa was also a symbol of God,” he said. “I wouldn’t give my life for Roger Haight’s Jesus. It’s a triumph of relevance over orthodoxy.”

In "The Courage to be Catholic", Weigel quotes a successful seminary rector on why his orthodox seminary was growing vocations while "progressive" seminaries were empty. "A man will give his life for a mystery, but not a question mark".

Leaving aside the obvious necessity that Catholic theologians accept core Christian doctrines like the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection(!), the quote above should provide something of an answer to Mr. Cremer's question.

[Patrick Rothwell]

"...could anyone explain what Amy is referring to when she mentions the "Yahwist, Deuteronomist and Priestly traditions" of Genesis? I'm afraid I'm out of the loop on this one..."

It's referring to the idea that the Pentateuch - the first five books of the bible - were not written by one human author in their entirety, much less Moses himself, but instead the texts contains a combination of sources or traditions edited by a redactor or added onto over time by various "authors." These sources are usually known as Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, or Deteronomist or (J, E, P, and D). Scholars have spent much time hypothesizing which text pertains to which particular source. No one agrees, and some do not agree that certain sources actually existed, such as E. The idea that Genesis was not written by one human author is pretty well accepted by biblical scholars and even Catholic theologians, even though it was not for a long time. As to J, E, P, and D - well, who knows. And, for the purpose of preaching and teaching, I don't think it's all that important either.

[Cathleen]

I'm no theologian, but this jumped out at me:

"Paul Knitter, a theologian at Xavier University in Cincinnati, and like Haight an advocate of seeing other religions as autonomous systems of revelation and salvation, agreed."

I haven't read the book, but this seems dangerously close to denying that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the faith as revealed by Jesus Christ. My understanding is that the Church teaches that other religions share in the salvific graces of the Catholic Church to the extent that they embrace those truths as taught by the Church. Is he claiming something different?

Second....and this is purely anecdotal, from my own as well as many of my friends' experiences. Low Christology alone simply does not inspire. If Jesus is just another guy, why bother? Focusing on Jesus' humanity may have been necessary to provide balance to the unapproachable God of previous generations, but when that's all you've got, it ain't much.

[Elaine]

Jaques, I haven't read Haight, so I can't directly answer your question. However the blog Catholic Analysis discusses Haight in some detail, and where he is heretical. Perhaps that will help.
http://www.catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2004_02_15_catholicanalysis_archive.html

http://catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2003/10/christology-and-other-world-religions.html

And it's not that students can't handle it, it's that teachers are supposed to teach accurately. He's not. As I understand it.

[Rich Leonardi]

Cathleen,

Knitter is every bit as heterodox as Haight, and his influence is more pervasive. Witness his impact on Cincinnati's St. Anthony Messenger Press and their "Catholic Updates" that find their way into many RCIA programs and parish literature racks. He's had a similar impact on the catechetical crowd tho treat XU as a bizarro anti-magisterium in his diocese.

[Regina]

So how do we balance between defending the core beliefs of our faith and encouraging productive theological speculation? Assuming that Haight's current Christology/Spiritology is outside the pale, it's still quite possible that the debate and discussion of his ideas could lead to new understandings that are not only acceptable, but useful. There are all sorts of stories in academia about somebody trying to prove "x," eventually discovering that "x" is quite fanciful and illogical, but along the way discovering the wonderful and useful "y." If we cut off the debate too soon, we miss out on potentially wonderful discoveries.

It seems that the Vatican and other theologians both have a role to play in making sure that we don't lose the land while exploring the uncharted oceans. But, as a practical matter, they sometimes seem to be inhibiting debate rather than encouraging it. I was very dispirited to read about other theologians being reluctant to criticize Haight for fear of getting him in trouble with the Vatican.

[Rich Leonardi]

So how do we balance between defending the core beliefs of our faith and encouraging productive theological speculation?

That sort of balancing is what the CDF is doing, no? If you read the Vatican's note, not to mention the book which prompted it, Haight denied the reality of the Resurrection, the divinity of Christ, the personhood at the heart of the Trinity, and the unique salvific role of Jesus, among other aspects of Christianity.

Steer clear of things that demonstrate you're off the Christian reservation, and you have no reason to be "nervous".

This makes three posts, so in the interest of keeping the conversation non-monopolized, I'm going to bow out.

[Dale Price]

This is the heart of the piece:

"As a Jesuit, O’Collins said he has been stressed by what he perceives as Haight’s unwillingness to accept 'friendly and loving criticism.'

'I pray for Roger Haight every morning,' he said."

I think Fr. O'Collins' comments explain two things with regard to L'Affaire Haight.

First, this is why the CDF broke out the lumber. He's absolutely inflexible and refuses to acknowledge the possibility he may be wrong. Four years of trying to dialogue with that mindset and you'd have the Little Flower baying for his head. Also, don't overlook the fact that Haight may have played fast and loose with his submissions to the Congregation.

http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=2498

Secondly, it lays waste the idea that there is any form of effective "self-correction" within the community of theologians. It's hard to picture a united front forming to confront the wayward. The affronted scholar is always going to have someone in his corner, reinforcing his sense of rightness.

"Yeah, but Elizabeth Johnson and Paul Knitter agree with me, so there. Pthpppppt."

Very illuminating article. One of Allen's best--which is saying a lot.

[Christopher Rake]

Got to read the Allen article, but this last one on the list caught my eye:

Bishop Jacques Gaillot: He was removed from his position as bishop of Evreux, France, in 1995. The Vatican, and several of his brother bishops, saw his identification with the poor and advocacy of homosexuals and contraception as too unorthodox for a bishop.

The Vatican saw his identification with the poor as too unorthodox for a bishop?

[Julia]

Dan W.

There is a book about the various writers, sources, language, and redactor of the first 5 books of the bible attributed to Moses called "Who Wrote the Bible?" It was published in 1987 and written by Richard Elliott Friedman, biblical scholar, for the general public.

It is written as the history of the inquiry as it occurred starting about 600 years ago when a Jewish scholar stated about a Torah verse: "Moses did not write this." But Joseph bin Eliezer Bonfils also said "..insofar as we are to believe in the received words of prophecy, what is it to me if Moses wrote it or if another prophet wrote it, since the words of all of them are truth and through prophecy."

Prof Friedman quotes Pope Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, wherein the Pope encourage scholars to pursue knowledge about the biblical writers, for those writers were "the living and reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit".

Friedman also mentions the Catholic Jerome Biblical Commentary, with this statement by its editors:
"The principals of literary and historical criticism, so long regarded with suspicion, are now, at last, accepted and applied by Catholic exegetes. The results have been many: a new and vital interest in the Bible throughout the Church; a greater contribution of biblical studies to modern theology; a community of effort and understanding among Catholic and non-Catholic scholars."

I thought Friedman's book was utterly fascinating and highly recommend it. There may be more recent books on the subject, but it is certainly a good place to start on understanding what the historical-critical method is all about. Then get yourself a Jerome's and read the Bible using it as you go along.

This was part of what got me back into the Church after a 10 year absence. As Friedman says at the end of his book, for people who consider the bible as sacred writings, knowing something about the writers, the history and context "can mean a new awe before the great chain of events, persons, and centuries that came together so intricately to produce an incomparable book of teachings."

Our assistant pastor studied at the Gregorian and often works this stuff into very enlightening homilies that are definitely connected to the meaning of the text for us today. He is very orthodox, so I guess I'm not hearing the other guys who give history lectures in place of homilies on Scripture.

[Neil]

Fr Haight attempted to respond to his critics in "Jesus Symbol of God: Criticism and Response," Louvain Studies 27 (2002) 389-405. Here are excerpts on a few of the controversial points (I exclude methodological issues) to help with our discussion. I present them without comment, except to initially say that I do find Fr Haight unpersuasive, but I also believe that he deserves serious response rather than ridicule:

"All of the many portrayals off the Easter experience that one finds across the discipline of christology are hypothetical constructions, and mine is offered in only the most general terms. For my part I have never seen a plausible representation of the resurrection as an historical event; many assert it as such, but how should this historical event be imagined? It certainly is not necessary to conceive the resurrection as 'historical' in order to affirm it as real, any more than the resurrection of others, for whom Jesus is the 'first-born,' must entail an 'historical' resuscitation of their bodies. The same reasoning applies to the appearances: I do not see what ultimate difference it would make relative to the reality of the resurrection whether or not Jesus appeared to the disciples historically in the sense of physically or empirically. Relative to practical spirituality, the postulate of 'physical' experiences of Jesus risen tends to undermine the faith required for recognition of the resurrection and thus create a gap between the first disciples and ourselves. ... The experience of Jesus being really raised by God is the connecting link between Jesus in his ministry and the emergent Christian faith. ... [Edward] Oakes is simply wrong in his interpretation of my position on the resurrection for I hold and explicitly state in more than one place that Jesus the person is really risen and lives within the sphere of God."

______

"The choice of symbol as a Christological category seems called for in the measure that one appreciates Chalcedon's doctrine of one person and two natures as precisely dialectical. One cannot break the dialectical tension between Jesus' being at the same time human and divine with a non-dialectical construal such as 'Jesus is God' or 'Jesus is merely a human being.' In contrast to their views, then, I would assert that the doctrine of Chalcedon is strictly dialectical; that the statement 'Jesus is God' by itself and without a greal deal of explanation is deeply problematic; and that one of the points of Chalcedon was to affirm what the New Testament also teaches, namely, that Jesus is precisely just like us, excepting sin and, like Adam, is the new first born of all and the paradigmatic human being. Therefore I do not accept the implicit charge that symbol stands between the divinity of Jesus and its being made present in the world, or that Jesus' divinity lies 'behind' his human existence. Symbol precisely 'makes present,' as does my body and bodily gesture make present my 'self' who constitutes the gesture. The only alternative that I see to such dialectical thinking leads to something unimaginable, that is, an unmediated presence of God in Jesus which reduces to some form of docetism."
______

"The final chapter of the book presents the reader with some fundamental options. One of these is the classical contrast between the trinitarian theology of Karl Barth and that of Friedrich Schleiermacher, the one appearing at the head of his dogmatics, the other appearing as a summary of his systematics. A Christology from below spontaneously gravitates toward the option of Schleiermacher; one might even say that charting the development of the doctrines concerning Jesus Christ and God define Christology from below. Christology from below demonstrates that the doctrine of the trinity is derivative. ...

"It is important to realize that the heresies of the past were historically conditioned so that they may appear differently within the framework of different contexts and presuppositions. I operate on the principle that the language of a given doctrine of the past will not make sense today if all the perception and reasoning that supported it in the past has been undercut. Current theology of the trinity seems to be moving in the direction of reawakening concern for the economy of God dealing with human beings in history. I think of trinity as a narrative doctrine: it compactly summarizes the story of the emergence of a Christianity and defines the language of Christian faith and soteriology. This at least de-emphasizes the relevance of the distinctions within the Godhead, but I do not hold that it eliminates them."

________

Thanks.

Neil

[Mark Shea]

Sorry Neil. I read it this and it sound remarkably like Crossan's bafflegab. Haight, in plain English, sounds to me like he's saying that it doesn't matter if Jesus' body was eaten by wild dogs, just so long as the disciples deluded themselves into believing in an Easter Event. He seems to be of the "Physical resurrection is so crass and crude" school of thought. I tend to side with Peter Kreeft: "Death is a crass and crude physical problem." I think Haight deserves the ridicule.

[Neil]

Dear Mark,

I don't want to be Fr Haight's defender, because I strongly disagree with him. Nonetheless, I do think that it is important to defend the idea of a medieval disputatio here. As Fr Timothy Radcliffe, OP, has said, "In the disputatio the aim was not so much to demonstrate that your opponent was utterly and in every way wrong, and to be derided and dismissed as a fool. Instead you had to show the limited sense in which he was right."

That said, I believe that Fr Haight is wrong when he writes that "I do not see what ultimate difference it would make relative to the reality of the resurrection whether or not Jesus appeared to the disciples historically in the sense of physically or empirically." But an answer to Fr Haight will involve showing what that "ultimate difference" might be, not denigrating him. One can begin in numerous ways - perhaps with the exegetical work of Bishop N.T. Wright or even John Updike's beautiful "Seven Stanzas at Easter." But then one risks a serious discussion.

Furthermore, Fr Haight clearly differs from "Crossan's bafflegab" because he holds that Jesus was "really raised by God" and is "really risen and lives within the sphere of God." As my excerpt above should show, Fr Haight does not believe that the disciples "deluded themselves into believing in an Easter event." Fr Haight even writes that "the idea of Jesus' message being the basis of the resurrection makes no sense; and while some have held it was the basis of the Easter experience, I do not."

I realize that you depend upon ridicule to sell books and magazines and I also realize that sometimes it is appropriate. But surely we can agree that there are many other times when an immediate recourse to ridicule has a destructive effect on our humility and patience. I hope that you won't be offended if I ask you to read my excerpts over one more time.

Thank you.

Neil

[Christopher Rake]

For my part I have never seen a plausible representation of the resurrection as an historical event; many assert it as such, but how should this historical event be imagined? It certainly is not necessary to conceive the resurrection as 'historical' in order to affirm it as real, any more than the resurrection of others, for whom Jesus is the 'first-born,' must entail an 'historical' resuscitation of their bodies.

Someone better schooled than I am could quote off the top of their head Paul's conviction that Christians are mere fools in the absence of resurrection. So what about that word resurrection?

Amy, about a year after I started I am still trying to polish off N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. The reason for its length (and to the true lay reader, repetitiveness) is the depths to which Wright examines the language, teachings and philosophies of Jesus' time, to determine as much as possible exactly what was meant by certain words and expressions. And what Wright says in a thousand different ways is this: When Paul & co. talked about resurrection, they meant bodily, physical resurrection. Wright goes to great length (as in all things!) to examine what these resurrected bodies might be like, and of course one can only venture so far, but the basic idea is that they are recognizably human but transformed, as one might expect since we are to be freed from decay.

The same reasoning applies to the appearances: I do not see what ultimate difference it would make relative to the reality of the resurrection whether or not Jesus appeared to the disciples historically in the sense of physically or empirically. Relative to practical spirituality, the postulate of 'physical' experiences of Jesus risen tends to undermine the faith required for recognition of the resurrection and thus create a gap between the first disciples and ourselves. ...

Well, there is a gap and we're stuck with it: Some of those disciples saw the risen Christ. Oh well!

The experience of Jesus being really raised by God is the connecting link between Jesus in his ministry and the emergent Christian faith. ... [Edward] Oakes is simply wrong in his interpretation of my position on the resurrection for I hold and explicitly state in more than one place that Jesus the person is really risen and lives within the sphere of God."

Needless to say I am not a theologian or a scholar and I'm not familiar with this fellow's work so I don't want to misconstrue. But the phrase, "Jesus the person is really risen and lives within the sphere of God" has a gnostic ring to it, to the extent that the resurrection, for Christ and for us, might be interpreted as a "purely spiritual" experience. Spiritual it is, but again, N.T. Wright conveys that Paul and his merry band were certainly thinking about a physical resurrection. I would say historical--and that must apply to the resurrection of Jesus Christ--but as for our own hoped-for resurrection, I am not sure what happens to history and time when all is said and done.

[jtbf]

CHRISTOPHER RAKE:
"His [Gaillot] claim to great holiness has come to rest chiefly on his Communist
sympathies and his heroic love for those whom he calls 'the
excluded'-the term Gaillot uses for homosexuals and those dying of
AIDS." And his trip to Haiti, without notifying the Haitian bishops, to support Aristide. As well as his frequent absences from his diocese, his constant public opposition to the Magisterium and his consistent public siding with those recognized by everyone else as enemies of the Church.
From:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/DEPOSE.TXT

[john hearn]

I think that Mark is right. It's the physicality of Christianity that is the pea under the mattress of folks like Fr. Haight. It is a form of pride to be more "spiritual" than God Who made a world full of dirt and animals that c**p on it.

[Mark Shea]

But an answer to Fr Haight will involve showing what that "ultimate difference" might be, not denigrating him.

If I were his superior, that's what I'd be doing. I'm not. And judging from the article it appears that those who are charged with this task have been doing so for years. Meanwhile, they have been met with "Haight’s unwillingness to accept 'friendly and loving criticism" and the typical sort of "circle the wagons" mentality that quackademics resort to when their personal fiefdoms are threatened.

So, as a layman whose task of trying to articulate the faith is only made harder by the vanity of false teachers like Haight, I have to ask myself: is the problem here a mere intellectual fault that can be corrected with sufficient information? Or is it a case of sin (in this case, intellectual pride) making yet another academic stupid? I think it's the latter. And since I'm in no position to correct him, and the people who are are getting the full "Hier stehe ich! Ich kannst nicht anders!" treatment from the guy, I think my task is to point out to other laypeople that that the guy looks like Bad News and not like a man in serious pursuit of the truth.

[Rich Leonardi]

FYI, Christopher Blosser of "Against the Grain" has a thoughtful follow-up post concerning the Haight suspension.

[Fr. Brian Stanley]

Mark:

Translation, bitte.

Danke!

[Dale Price]

Fr. Brian:

That's Luther's most famous statement:

"Here I stand. I can do no other."

[Dale Price]

After brain wakes up:

Then again, if you're using German, you already knew that.

I know nuss-ink...

[Dan W]

Patrick Rothwell & Julia: Thanks for the quick tutorial on the authorship of the Pentateuch, and for the book tip! Tonight I will go to bed with more knowledge than I had when I woke up this morning. And tomorrow, I have some new reading material to add to my list...

Gratia!

[Liam]

Haight appears to have a number of a priori assumptions and truths that may well bias his method and conclusions. For but one example, that a faith that is perceived as arrogant and exclusive cannot be true or persuasive. That is very much a First World conceit of modernity, and falls apart upon easy deconstruction.

As for Johnson's comment, "He’s not trying to oppose doctrine, but to make it come alive", all I can say is I didn't know the doctrine was so dead that it needed resurrecting....

A lot of what happens in these academic circles today reminds me of the decadent late phase of Scholasticism: idea and logic factories run riot. The reaction of a number of the academics illustrated in Allen's piece deepens one's suspicion. Too many theologians take fellow academics as the measure of a reasonable person. The problem with this habit is found in Chesterton's bon mot that a fool is someone who has lost everything except his reason. The theological commentariat needs to be more self-skeptical about its biases and insularity. The Vatican was, if anything, far more polite to Haight than many people in the pews over the world might be if they encountered his ideas in serious conversation.

[Jane M]

Neil, Not being a theologian I can't swear to what this excerpt from your quotes might mean to others....

"Current theology of the trinity seems to be moving in the direction of reawakening concern for the economy of God dealing with human beings in history. I think of trinity as a narrative doctrine: it compactly summarizes the story of the emergence of a Christianity and defines the language of Christian faith and soteriology. This at least de-emphasizes the relevance of the distinctions within the Godhead, but I do not hold that it eliminates them."

...but the Trinity is not a narrative doctrine. It is a statement by Jesus, Who is God, of Who God is. Baptize in the name of the Trinity is what He said. I also think that a person who feels that the distinctions within the Godhead can be de-emphasized is a person who isn't paying attention to Who said it first. "This is My beloved Son." If that's what God said, maybe we should think it is VERY important. From a non-theological point of view I have no more time for Haight and I don't want to meet his disciples either.

I enjoy the thoughtfulness of your posts and these excerpts seem to me to show clearly that this particular guy is a waste of time.

[Jacques Crémer]

I have read (well tried to) read the book. Haight does try to connect to tradition. How can Mark Shea accuse somebody he has never met, who has spent his life in service to the Church, who writes with a painful honesty, of not being in serious pursuit of the truth?

On his chapter on other religions; I do not find him very convincing, but we do have a problem. The pope prays with other religious leaders; he accepts them as religious leaders. If a religion is a link between God and man, this presumably implies that their religions reflect something of God. Now, they are not Christian. Is it because God has decided to give a mix of truths and falsehoods? Is it because, despite the honesty which we must grant them, they "hear" badly what God is telling them? Why does he shout louder then?

I do not know the answers to these questions, but what do we gain by either pretending they do not arise or by saying that somebody who tackles them deserve the ridicule?

[Jane M]

Jacques,

You wrote that "if religion is a link between God and man..." and had trouble with the questions that this brought up. I suggest that you ditch the if clause and find a different definition for religion.

[stuart chessman]

"Ich KANN nicht anders..."

[Chris Sullivan]

Jacques asks "Is it because God has decided to give a mix of truths and falsehoods ?"

I think its more a question of partial revelations versus full revelation.

I'm pretty certain that there's nothing false in Judaism (unless one considers rejection of Christ as an essential teaching of Judaism) and resonably certain that there's nothing false in the Qu'ran (although some passages are hard to reconcile with the truth).

It's awfully hard to tell exactly what other relgions really do believe because if you ask most of their believers then you get an answer that is about as true to their tradition as if you asked the most Catholics the details of the Catholic tradition.

And no other religion I can think of has any equivalent to the Catholic Magisterium, which means that the religion itself provides no way to determine precisely what it believes.

I expect each religion has inner contradictions which point the way back to Christ. I know Judaism and Islam certainly do.

My problem with Haight is that I find it impossible to figure out what he means. His language is beyond me. On the other hand, the Magisterium is clear and intellible and makes sense.

I suspect that Haight may have been trying to provide a way of thinking that would make Christ more easily understood in a postmodern or interfaith dialogue. But if his language is impossible to understand, I can't see that his efforts help much. Using language that is at best ambiguous on the central truths of the Church doesn't help much in interfaith dialog, which is a search for the clarity of truth, not the obfuscation of academic language. In this sense I think the Magisterium makes a better contribution to interfaith dialog and understanding of Christ than Haight does.

Hope this helps
God Bless

[George]

Since Father O’Collins and others (including many here) make such sensible and persuasive critiques of Faither Haight (and Dr. Knitter), why do we need the Vatican to step in? In a free and open debate, is there any reason to think that heterodoxy will prevail?

The Anglican Communion has problems in the other direction, i.e. no authority. But part of its strength is that it contains articulate internal critics of every heterodox tendency. For example, Bishop Tom Wright is a bishop not only because of the brilliance of his historical theology and Christology, but specifically because his tenacious defense of orthodoxy against Marcus Borg, one of the leading lights of the Jesus Seminar. Borg has never been censored, per se, and is celebrated especially in Episcopal Church. But throughout worldwide Anglicanism, his heterdoxy has been largely trumped by Wright's orthodoxy.

I wish orthodox Catholics were more interested in the enhancing the strength of their arguments and less interested in invoking Rome's sanctions.

[Liam]

"In a free and open debate, is there any reason to think that heterodoxy will prevail?"

The Vatican hasn't prevented debate; it's just calling a spade a spade. It has a special obligation here because Haight is a priest, who authored these ideas while part of a Catholic theological institution. The Vatican is taking its responsibilities seriously.

Haight remains free to debate; all that is happening is that the Vatican is clarifying the terms under which he and his ideas get associated with ecclesial authority.

It has taken many years just to get to this point; this is no witch hunt.

And truth does not always prevail in "free and open debate," pace Pope Jefferson, because people often disagree with defining what that means. Academia today is filled with free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee types, and the theological disciplines are far from immune from that. It appears from Allen's piece that Haight may himself be afflicted with the disease.

[michigancatholic]

Jacques, yes. They're supposed to be being taught, not tortured with misleading puzzles by apostates.

"Misreporting from the NCR? Is that possible??" Heh. Next.

The fact that this book won an award from the Catholic Press Association lets you know what their awards are about, eh?

George, you don't think the Church should be about truth-telling, or about preaching the Gospel??

[michigancatholic]

oops, sorry, Amy.

[michigancatholic]

well, darn.

[Liam]

I should also add that it is not only orthodox Catholics who seem to play the Vatican trump card. I have heard many touting what (for lack of a better word) might be called heterodoxy cite the lack of Vatican or episcopal intervention as evidence that their ideas were tenable within orthodoxy.

"X has never been condemned, let alone adjudicated heretical, you know. Ergo...."

A favorite rhetorical spin in certain theological, academic and pastoral circles.

[Rich Leonardi]

I wish orthodox Catholics were more interested in the enhancing the strength of their arguments and less interested in invoking Rome's sanctions.

George, the Church isn't a debating society in which the answer to "bad speech" is more speech. It has always been the responsibility of the bishops to smite what Lewis calls "damned nonsense". As the term suggests, it endangers the souls of those who believe it and confuses the laity who hear it.

[Richard]

As a Catholic theology graduate student, let me say that I am relieved by the CDF's (overdue) action on Roger Haight. In the end he can teach whatever he likes, but he does not have the right to call it the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The danger that the faithful could be misled through his teaching is not a small one. Souls are at stake here.

I also pray for him. Charity demands it.

Tip of my hat to Rich Leonardi's clarifying reply to Mr. Cremer. I could not put it any better than Mr. Weigel and his anonymous seminary rector.

[John Lamont]

The real problem with the Vatican's action is that it is too weak. As a priest and theologian who has publicly denied the faith, Haight should have been excommunicated. Failure to do this is a disservice to Haight himself, and undermines the sanction that was imposed. The grounds of this sanction was Haight's rejection of the central teachings of the faith. But this offence, which is not a product of ignorance (Haight is a well-inforned scholar) and has been persisted in publicly for many years and in the face of rebuke by church authorities, is punishable by excommunication (Canon 1364) and removal from the ecclesiastical state (Canon 194). How can the Vatican expect its (perfectly true) criticisms of Haight to be believed when they refuse to apply the canonical penalties that would apply if they were true? and how it is doing its job of safeguarding the belief of the faithful when it undermines its own criticisms in this way?

[Richard]

HellO Regina,

So how do we balance between defending the core beliefs of our faith and encouraging productive theological speculation?

It is safe to say that at no time in the Church's 2,000 year history have theologians, lay or in orders, had more freedom to engage in theological speculation than in the last 40 years. It is not even close. Theologians get away with stuff unimaginable even 50 years ago.

Haight put forth for consideration several propositions that flatly contradict the Church's most sacred teachings - most especially that Jesus is not the Son of God, but merely a "symbol" of God. Arius and Pelagius (and Luther and Calvin) were excommunicated for a lot less than that. And he was passing this on to undergraduate and graduate students (who in turn go on to teach or catechize others themselves) as authentic Catholic teaching. This kind of thing has an ampact far beyond Roger Haight's classroom.

In the end it comes down to the question of authority: who has the responsibility to define and teach the doctrine of the Church? There has been only one answer to that question until recently, when many western theologians began to present themselves as an "alternative magisterium."

THE ECCLESIAL VOCATION OF THE THEOLOIGIAN spells out the role for theologiansin the life of the Church. The theologian *does* participate in the magisterium, in a sense, but they do so in the context of a juridic bond, one which establishes obligations and requires a mandatum from the ordinary authority to teach (one which too few theologians bother to obtain). There *is* room (as there always has been) to explore theological questions based on the revealed truth received and taught by the Church. There is no other access to that revelation save through the formal magisterium, however.

Sometimes in history the Church was too eager to see the worst in theological explorations. Henri de Lubac - later Cardinal - was told to cease speculations back in 1950. He responded by writing a book on the glory of the Catholic Church.

Somehow I doubt Roger Haight will be doing as much. But I'll pray for him just the same.

[Richard]

Hello Neil,

I don't want to be Fr Haight's defender, because I strongly disagree with him. Nonetheless, I do think that it is important to defend the idea of a medieval disputatio here.

With all due respect, Fr. Haight (my apologies now that I realize I have continually left off the title when referring to him) has had seven years of such official disputatio with the magisterium, and much longer than that with the theological community.

It is not like he has not had his day - more like his decade - in court. Especially since a disputation, properly conceived, allows for the possibility that one is willing to alter one's position even one iota. Fr. Haight has not, as Dale pointed out.

Men have been excommunicated - not merely had their teaching license yanked - for far less over the centuries.

The passages you posted here make clear that Fr. Haight has denied not only the resurrection - if it is not "historical," it is not a resurrection in any meaningful sense - but also the divinity of Christ. How one can have Christianity of any stripe with that as a foundation is quite beyond me.

[Richard]

Hello Liam,

Too many theologians take fellow academics as the measure of a reasonable person. The problem with this habit is found in Chesterton's bon mot that a fool is someone who has lost everything except his reason.

10 out of 10. Perfectly said.

Sad that it has come to this, however you cut it.

[Richard]

One more crack at this...

“I look at American Catholicism on the ground, with a Catholic population more and more educated in the faith,” Haight said then. “Many, for example college and university students, are used to [religious] pluralism, and are asking how they can square it with the Catholic faith.

Speaking from experience - and a frigate-load of evidence - I suugest that they may be more and more educated, but not in the faith.

The religious illiteracy among Catholic college students is astonishing. I include myself in my undergraduate years on that score. Fr. Haight is assuming a level of knowledge about Church teaching that simply is not there in most cases.

Perhaps Fr. Haight has asked himself, rightly, why it is, as several surveys have shown, that religious formation of Catholics at Catholic colleges in the U.S. is actually lower on graduation than at matriculation. He seems to think it is because we're not open enough to other religions and philosophies. I suggest it's because, as O'Collins argues, Fr. Haight's Jesus is not worth dying or living for.

best regards