A Quest for Following Rules

Professor Johnson considers the matter done as far as her public statements are concerned. But the Catholic Theological Society of America has lowered the boom on the bishop’s Committee on Doctrine. The bishops, it seems, didn’t even follow the rules laid down in 1989. I suppose one can argue it was a different bunch of bishops back then. But on the same tack, some of them don’t even feel bound by their 2002 rules of sex abuse either. A Hermeneutic of Entitlement gone wild: they can do whatever they darn please and lay people and presbyters can’t say boo.

In 1983 Doctrinal Responsibilities was unanimously approved by both the Catholic Theological Society of America and the Canon Law Society of America. It was further refined by the Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine and formally approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1989. Under the heading “Ecclesial Responsibilities” (which considers the responsibilities and rights of both bishops and theologians) it states: “It is inevitable that misunderstandings about the teaching of the gospel and the ways of expressing it will arise. In such cases, informal conversation ought to be the first step towards resolution.”Professor Johnson’s response to the Doctrine Committee indicates that no discussion with her took place before the statement was published: “I would have been glad to enter into conversation to clarify critical points but was never invited to do so. This book was discussed and finally assessed by the Committee before I knew any discussion had taken place.”

Grant Gallicho at dotCommonweal writes of Doctrine Committee’s Fr. Thomas Weinandy’s explanation:

Do Weinandy’s explanations add up? Quest for the Living God was published in 2007. What does it mean to be caught off guard by a four-year-old book? Apparently the committee acted in response to complaints from certain bishops. But it took them a year after fielding those complaints to issue their critique. And over the course of that year they could not bring themselves to engage the theologian whose book they accused of undermining the gospel because, according to this report, “in past instances dialogue with theologians ‘came to nothing.’”

This sorry episode adds significant damage to the bishops’ already reeling credibility on administration. Here’s the worst of it.

A number of theologians have less reason than ever to approach their bishops. The “come-to-nothing” mentality seems fairly toxic. Cooperation with Ex Corde? Why bother? Aside from plagiarizing the catechism, how can one be sure a bishop will perceive any sort of theological depth. Professor Johnson isn’t the most dense theologian I’ve read.

More likely that a bishop will give a thumbs up to a friend. Imprimatur for a reputation. Condemnation for someone outside the boy’s club. Petty vendettas on a country club timetable: a few rounds of golf, a few strong drinks with cigars, and an off-season condemnation.

“Came to nothing” looks more like the theologian to bishop direction. Maybe the Jovial One can do something with the Pharoah and his Vatican committee. Nothing like a good laugh to smooth out a few difficulties.


About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in the Pacific Northwest, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Church News, Ministry. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A Quest for Following Rules

  1. David D. says:

    “Aside from plagiarizing the catechism, how can one be sure a bishop will perceive any sort of theological depth.”

    Care to provide specific examples of plagiarism?

    No doubt, theologians of the kind that receive awards from the CTSA don’t care what the bishops have to say. Fortunately, what these parasitic academics themselves have to say is of no real consequence either. I’m no fan of the bishops but if the USCCB is an old boys club, the CTSA is no less intent on taking care of its own. It comes as no surprise that the CTSA should come to the defense of a former president and John Courtney Murray Award winner.

  2. Jimmy Mac says:

    I’m sorry, but it is time that these professional theologians of the CTSA have a come to Jesus moment! Their role in life is to defend whatever any bishop has to say at any time about anything. Their role is to be an apologist, not a theorist, an investigator, or anything that smacks of not being continually at the beck and call of the Ontologically Favored Ecclesiastical poobahs of The One True Church Established by Christ.

    ]:> ))

  3. FrMichael says:

    Continuing the line of questions from number one:

    Any evidence of “imprimatur for a reputation?” That entire paragraph is an exercise in violating the Eighth Commandment.

    Not one of your better posts.

  4. FrMichael says:

    BTW I do wish the bishops’ committee had followed their own guidelines. But my disagreement with the bishops’ process in this instance still doesn’t give me a right to make unsubstantiated defamations.

  5. Todd says:

    Perhaps I should have written what I meant: copying the catechism word for word like an 8th grade exercise.

    The bishops didn’t plagiarize, of course. But the level of theology evidenced here seems to be on the same level.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s