« Pope to the Rota | Main | Big doings in France? »
January 30, 2006
Oh, to be a "Catholic Scholar"
This will make you snort, from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune report on encyclical reax (actually a reprint from the Toronto paper - so note that it was probably Canadian "Catholic scholars" who were consulted) :
Few Catholic scholars contacted this week had read the encyclical or planned to do so. Two professed amusement at the notion that the pope had written about love. And what puzzled some scholars is why Benedict had chosen the subject.
God save us from the Catholic scholars. There has been much hand-wringing of late about the "big chill" on Catholic theological work because of CDF, Ratz, etc...oh, I think it's okay. The less we hear from (some of) them, the better.
The ultimate irony is that as the theologians wimper about not being heard, the Big Guy is, of course...a theologian. And people all over the globe are pouring over his work. Even folks like the fellow who wrote me last week who'd read what I'd said about the encyclical on the blog and was confused about where to read the text itself. I sent him the links, and he responded thanks, and that he wasn't Catholic but was intrigued by what he'd read about the Pope's words.
So...is theology dead and did Ratzinger kill it? I'm thinking...no.
Update: And to address an issue that's popped up down below. I'm not suggesting that a papal encyclical should immediately be at the center of every Catholic's - even Catholic scholar's - consciousness and concern. I actually spent some time musing - although I never blogged on it - about why I was interested and why I should care.
But you know, this is the first papal encyclical since 2003, it's the first from this new Pope, who also happens to be a renowned theologian, who has been an object of controversy in the past and whose papacy so far has confounded some. So yeah, it's of interest, it's not very long at all, and any "Catholic scholar" who's on the newsroom rolodex (and once you get on, you learn to expect calls for reactions regularly), you'd think might have something to say besides, "Sniff." If that is, indeed, an accurate metaphor for what they said.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834a5ecc569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oh, to be a "Catholic Scholar":
Comments
Hmm--presumably, if you're a "Catholic scholar," reading the papal encyclicals isn't anything you'd want to waste your time doing...
Posted by: Blind Squirrel at Jan 30, 2006 2:31:20 PM
John Paul's lucidity missed
But with Deus Caritas Est, said University of Toronto church historian Giulio Silano, "I've been looking for where he wants to go and I can't see an answer." Reading it, he said, made him miss the lucidity of John Paul, in whose writings there was "a complete coherence that you don't find here."
BUZZ! Strike Two. The only lucidity missing is in your article.
Both scholars noted that the encyclical is addressed only to people inside the Catholic Church and not, as John Paul addressed his encyclicals, to the world. They both felt that what Benedict was doing was instructing Catholics to get the essence of their faith right, to renew and deepen it.
BUZZ! Strike three, you're out. It is addressed "TO THE BISHOPS
PRIESTS AND DEACONS
MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS
AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
" which includes not just people "inside the Catholic Church" and is almost identical to the way Ecclesia de Eucharistia was addressed.
Posted by: Chris-2-4 at Jan 30, 2006 2:37:30 PM
Theology is asleep. But thanks to you!!!! and a few others, it's not dead. No one wants to offend anyone. Esp those in the key positions who CAN defend what's right but don't. It's as if those who are in position in the church have all fallen down with fear or complacency. But it's the little folks, right now, who keep the light burning for Him, His mom, His church. Thanks Amy--for all you do.
Posted by: Trisha at Jan 30, 2006 2:39:47 PM
Actually, a local pastor who is a theologian with a doctoral degree, even decided to ask the question to his parish this weekend: "We don't usually pay any attention to these encyclicals. But this one got such good reviews from Hans Kueng, maybe it is worth a look. Does anybody want to study it?"
Indeed, it is the soundbites in the media from Hans Kueng that is raising the interest in my neighborhood.
For example:
The Catholic theologian Hans Kung, one of Pope Benedict's strongest critics, praised the encyclical's "solid theological substance on the subjects of eros and agape, love and charity and not drawing false contradictions between theor
Retired Catholic theology professor Hans Kueng, who met Benedict for a long lunch last year that appeared to resolve some of their old dispute, said the encyclical avoided pessimism about the state of culture, and added: "It's a good signal."He said he wished Ratzinger would write another encyclical that was loving towards couples using contraception, and he still hoped Benedict would usher in profound change in the church.
After all, if Hans Kueng doesn't hate it, it can't be all bad, right? Maybe worth a read.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Jan 30, 2006 2:40:34 PM
Actually, the fact the Hans Kueng liked it made me wary of it. But I read it and it, of course, is great. Hans just proved the old adage... even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Posted by: Sean at Jan 30, 2006 2:52:17 PM
Larry the word ninny strikes again:
It's "poring". :)
http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/08/do0801.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/07/08/ixportal.html
Posted by: Larry at Jan 30, 2006 2:54:55 PM
Well, a "few" scholars not reading or caring is better than a "lot."
Anyone with an oar in any church discussion knows that love is a sorely needed virtue, especially in St Blog's as well as your average parish.
As always with the secular media, I wonder how competent an article about the Church is, or can be expected to be.
Posted by: Todd at Jan 30, 2006 2:58:50 PM
I'm not quite as pessimistic as some of you, my friends. There were more than a few tantilizing quotes in this article to inspire, perhaps, some to procure the text itself.
I also find it interesting that the journalist didn't care to share who the "few" Catholic scholars were.
There's some confusion about the address of the encyclical. It's a public letter that can be read by all, but it's addressed to all Catholics. One of John Paul the Great's most important encyclicals (VERITATIS SPLENDOR) is addressed only to bishops. EVANGELIUM VITAE is addressed to the entire Church and also to "all people of good will", a more or less large group according to your penchant for finding ignorance invincible! LOL
I thought the (Methodist?) minister's essay on the encylical found on the Ratzinger Fan Club link was profound and well thought out. More evidence that the Holy Father has found a voice that will be quite accessible to evangelical Protestants.
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jan 30, 2006 3:51:21 PM
Anybody know how the magazine decided which scholars to contact?
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Jan 30, 2006 3:51:29 PM
I know a professor of "biblical sexuality" at a local Catholic college that has never read any of JPII's Theology of the Body. (He has read some negative reviews of it, though, which he thought sufficed.)
Now, whether you like TotB or not - I think if you're calling yourself an expert in "biblical sexuality", you'd have at least read it! I was very naive when I first met him. I was shocked.
Posted by: Leah at Jan 30, 2006 4:05:46 PM
They haven't read it? And they admitted that?
That's like a "scholar" of modern American History who neither hears nor reads the State of the Union message. And who admits it!! Even!!
Why in the world would anyone take any person like that seriously?
Posted by: Richter at Jan 30, 2006 4:06:44 PM
They haven't read it? And they admitted that?
That's like a "scholar" of modern American History who neither hears nor reads the State of the Union message. And who admits it!! Even!!
Why in the world would anyone take any person like that seriously?
Posted by: Richter at Jan 30, 2006 4:08:42 PM
Richter is right. I'm a scholar (and a Catholic, but not a "Catholic scholar" in the sense this article seems to mean), and I can't conceive of anyone planning persistent ignorance of even a potentially important source, whether one expects to like it or not. Being a scholar involves (among other things) taking care to know the things you should be expected to know; if these folks aren't doing that, I'm not sure how they justify drawing their salaries.
Posted by: Augustinianus at Jan 30, 2006 4:19:11 PM
There's isn't enough in the article to warrant blanket condemnation of "Catholic scholars" (theologians? Catholic chemists?). Hand-wringing or otherwise.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Jan 30, 2006 4:21:08 PM
Here at Large Catholic University (that some who comment here seem to really dislike...) people have been all over it - theo faculty and grad students. No strong reactions, but people generally seem to appreciate it. Despair not!
Posted by: Anonymous Student Person at Jan 30, 2006 4:22:30 PM
I know a professor of "biblical sexuality"
No offense Leah, but I found this to be immensely humorous in an unintentional way.
Considering the context of "To Know" in a "Biblical Sense".
Sorry...
Posted by: Chris-2-4 at Jan 30, 2006 4:25:03 PM
Dear Richter, Augustinianus, etc.
You can be a "Catholic Theologian" and never read anything written by a Pope since 1968 (or earlier, depending on your specialty). Some possibilities:
(1) You made tenure before 1970.
(2) Your specialty is anything other than "contemporary papacy."
For example, if you are a theologican specializing in Bible, you can do just fine without paying attention to what the Pope said today. Or if your speciality is ethnic liturgical studies. Or moral theology. In a very real sense, what the Pope says today is not going to change the material you teach, or the research you do.
In fairness, the people that probably need to pay the most attention to the Pope's encyclical are: (1) bishops; (2) laity; (3) other clergy; (4) religious. Theologians are way down there on the list of people who need to pay attention, IMHO.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Jan 30, 2006 4:28:50 PM
I know at least five people at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul who I am sure have read the encyclical by now. But maybe the Minneapolis Star-Tribune doesn't cover St. Paul. You know .... one of those territorial things.
Posted by: Alfredo at Jan 30, 2006 4:53:54 PM
Or moral theology. In a very real sense, what the Pope says today is not going to change the material you teach, or the research you do.
How do you know that until you read it? I read things all the time that affect or inspire me in ways I wasn't expecting.
If you have any scholastic relation to Catholicism, you should read the Encyclical. Besides the professional reasons, you might actually gain a level of holiness or two.
Posted by: Jason at Jan 30, 2006 4:58:29 PM
Old Zhou,
A major theme of contemporary moral theology is the primacy of charity. So moral theologians don't need to read the enyclical? Explain, please, my friend.
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jan 30, 2006 4:59:49 PM
"In fairness, the people that probably need to pay the most attention to the Pope's encyclical are: (1) bishops; (2) laity; (3) other clergy; (4) religious. Theologians are way down there on the list of people who need to pay attention, IMHO."
Oh yeh, and people who draw a salary by pretending to be experts on Catholic theology.
Posted by: Richter at Jan 30, 2006 4:59:55 PM
Of course they're not reading it! They're listening to the mp3! :)
I have to admit, it's tempting to do a remix of some of the better bits. But I'd have to make sure I had few enough quotes to constitute "fair use", and then I'd have to find some good dance tunes.... Hmm. No doubt someone will do it, in their copious spare time.
Posted by: Maureen O'Brien at Jan 30, 2006 5:01:36 PM
Dear Tom,
The "primacy of charity" is an expression not found in the encyclical.
Assuming the idea is there anyway, it is nothing new.
The encyclical itself starts it's development from the revelation of God's love in Scripture, and the commandments to love God and neighbor, conjoined in the Gospels. Then the practice of the early Church in Acts. Then to the patristic literature. You certainly could get everything "essential" in the encyclical from a thorough study of moral theology based on Scripture and Augustine.
In general, textbooks, and those who use them, rarely metion matters less than a decade old even in the most advanced and fast-changing sciences. It is only in later graduate school where one approaches involvement with "current events," be they scientific or theological.
But for the foundational teaching and learning, what happened last week is not terribly important.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Jan 30, 2006 5:37:31 PM
Encyclical I rocks! Who cares what the few so-called "Catholic scholars" think. These guys are still learning to make the sign of the cross. When they do that they might be able to figure out that "caritas" is the Latin word for one of the 3 theological virtues. That might explain he had "chosen the subject." (Latin, by the way, is a language which the Catholic Church uses from time to time.)
Posted by: Pauli at Jan 30, 2006 6:20:59 PM
"A major theme of contemporary moral theology is the primacy of charity."
This statement interests me insomuch as my "impression" (the quotes are for emphasis since I'm hardly an expert) is quite to the contrary. Seems like much of what I read and hear from contemporary Catholic theologians focuses on "justice" rather than "charity," even to the point of effectively defining "justice" in a manner that conceptually extinguishes "charity." Indeed, in discussions I have had with theologians they admitted to being somewhat uncomfortable with the concept of charity. In one such discussion the scholar in question tried to define charity as a mere subset of justice. Of course, these efforts effectively trivialize a virtue that should be vital for any Christian.
In any case I apologize to Amy for steering off topic.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jan 30, 2006 6:24:14 PM
