This National Catholic Reporter opinion piece really got me hot under the collar. Here's how CathNews sums it up:
The recent Vatican censure of US Jesuit theologian Roger Haight for his attempt to reformulate doctrines about Christ for a postmodern world highlights a disturbing theme of John Paul II's pontificate. Instead of the ban on teaching, however, a more imaginative response might have been to convene a summit on Christology. A lively debate over Haight's work already existed, and many of the reactions in serious theological journals were negative.
What possible purpose would a summit on Christology serve? Newsflash, NCR, we've already had all the summits we need; they're called ecumenical councils!!!
The time for polite discussion is over. If a patient comes into an ER with a gunshot wound, the doctors don't sit around contemplating their navels as they discuss the moral and ethical implications of the Second Amendment. They remove the bullet, stop the bleeding, and dress the wound. Likewise, rather than allow Haight to continue teaching rubbish and risk a gangrenous infection developing at his university, Church officials have removed him for the good of the Body of Christ.
"Convene a summit" indeed. I'm reminded of a scene from The Life of Brian, in which People's Front of Judea resolve to discuss rescuing Brian from crucifixion, thus wasting precious time that could be spent actually rescuing him.
JUDITH: They've arrested Brian!
REG: What?
COMMANDOS: What?
JUDITH: They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify him!
REG: Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
Funky Dung
Comments 11
Oh man. I don't have a whole lot of time to do any in-depth on this guy, but his first mistake was publishing with out the Imprimatur and/or Nihil Obstat. And, call me ultra-traditionalist, but what's with that cover picture? Where's the collar???
As for the Monty Python reference, you earned a round of applause from dh. I, sadly, still have that one on my list.
+0
Posted 28 Feb 2005 at 2:42 am ¶Yuck. How can you have any sort of claim to be Catholic if you think the Church needs to convene a summit to modify the Christology authoritatively defined by three Ecumenical Councils, each attended by the heavy hitters of Church history? Seriously, Roger Haight or Athanasius, Leo the Great, Gelasius, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Great, Augustine, Ambrose, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and II-III Constantinople?
+0
Posted 28 Feb 2005 at 8:57 pm ¶I agree the above are heresies, but would proffer that a council may be of value to decide how we should treat the heresy, while loving the heretic. My understanding of Church history is that heresy has been much politicized in the past and unduely divisive to Christian witness and the autonomy of Church and State. God can even use heretics, like the Wachowski Brothers, to draw others into a deeper interest of Christianity. And if our salvations are determined by our assent to the right theology then heaven help us all. I'm sure Satan has a good handle on what is the right theology and it won't do him one whit of good.
dlw
+0
Posted 03 Mar 2005 at 2:49 am ¶my apologies for using the word we above.
dlw
+0
Posted 03 Mar 2005 at 2:50 am ¶"I agree the above are heresies, but would proffer that a council may be of value to decide how we should treat the heresy, while loving the heretic."
How would a council help that? I think it's being handled very well right now.
+0
Posted 03 Mar 2005 at 5:27 pm ¶apparently not everyone is in accord with that view.
dlw
+0
Posted 03 Mar 2005 at 11:09 pm ¶Right, but no one has yet shown what the Church could do better. Basically, the NCR is "disturbed" by the Pope acting like, well. . . a Pope.
The Catholic position on these doctrines is clear; these are dogmas that will not change, because they cannot. All a council (or Christological "summit") could do is reinforce these positions. How could a council help? I'm not completely against the idea, but I can't think of a way that it would benefit.
+0
Posted 04 Mar 2005 at 5:14 am ¶I think the whole problem people have with the Church telling this guy he can't call himself a "Catholic theologian" anymore is that it just seems so durned undemocratic and mean. First off, truth is not up for election. Second, it's not mean to tell a Catholic theologian that, when he denies Catholicism, he's no longer a Catholic theologian. It's just true.
1. Roger Haight says, "I'm a Catholic theologian, and I deny Christ's divinity."
2. Rome says, "no, Roger, no! Please don't!"
3. Roger says, "Yeah, sorry. I'm a Catholic theologian who denies Christ's divinity."
4. Rome says, "awp, sorry. You're still a theologian, but you ain't a Catholic one no more!"
We believe that Christ instituted an infallible Church to clear up matters like this. And these matters were cleared up 1600 years ago in a most definitive manner. All a summit would accomplish is. . . wait, I can't think of anything. I'm not against it; I just can't think of a reason for it.
+0
Posted 04 Mar 2005 at 5:26 am ¶I can understand the need for brand-control and admire that about the Catholic Church.
dlw
+0
Posted 04 Mar 2005 at 4:49 pm ¶Well, not only is it just brand control, but we'd say it's also a matter that this man is putting forth doctrines which are simply false, and not "Catholic" in the universal sense because they are patently false. The truth is not sold under a brand name (hence calling it the "Catholic" Church, rather than giving it a locally-flavored name).
+0
Posted 08 Mar 2005 at 1:36 am ¶my concern revolved more around the notion that doctrinal heresy has been politicized in the past and that there are different ways to deal with heresy.
dlw
+0
Posted 12 Mar 2005 at 8:11 pm ¶Post a Comment