The National Catholic Reporter is almost always predictable, and their choice for 2011′s “person of the year” was true to form: Elizabeth Johnson.
Johnson, a professor of theology at Fordham University, is a standard issue Catholic Theological Society of America theologian, which means a bit of simplified Karl Rahner and lots of talk about contextualization mixed with progressive social attitudes. Yawn. Her great achievement in 2011 was to have her 2007 book, QUEST FOR THE LIVING GOD, criticized by the USCCB doctrine committee as promoting a theology not in accord with Catholic teaching.
So that’s were liberal Catholicism is these days: circling the wagons. Writing and publishing the book wasn’t such a notable thing for Elizabeth Johnson to do. Ah, but to be criticized! One hears the cries of “censorship,” and “oppression.” As the NCR story tells us, after the official criticism of her book was released, “the Fordham faculty rallied around her, as did the leadership of the Catholic Theological Society of America and the College Theology Society, each issuing supportive statements.” The NCR as well wants to play it’s supportive role. Thus Elizabeth Johnson as victim, oops, I meant to say person of the year.
I wrote about this minor dust up in a recent Public Square (The Changing of the Guard, Aug/Sept), drawing attention to a Commonweal symposium that featured the fevered hyperbole of the Catholic theological Old Guard and the rather more measured and intelligent analysis put forward by Fritz Bauerschmidt.
It’s this contrast that’s the real story here. The Catholic Theological Society of America was once a serious academic organization. Today it’s a Trade Union for Dissent. How dare the bishop criticize theologians! Left with very little of interest to say in the current intellectual and ecclesial context, the Trade Union for Dissent can rouse itself to denounce any who would make the quite obvious observation that the substance and trajectory of their theologies are not in accord with the Church. Yawn.
January 6th, 2012 | 12:21 pm
Person of the Year?
At least they’re keeping the concept of personhood. Which is more than one could say about Johnson’s book!
January 6th, 2012 | 5:14 pm
Yes, the terrible oppression by the hierarchy of the tenured theologian. Next predictable event: watch for “former” Catholic universities to grant her honorary doctorates. “Take that you mean oppressive Bishops.” Sad.
January 7th, 2012 | 7:00 pm
[...] Catholic Theo’l Society of America Now a Trade Union for Dissent – R.R. Reno, Frst Thngs [...]
January 7th, 2012 | 8:51 pm
Indeed. Yawn. The bishops didn’t seem to have read the book. Archbishop Wuerl misled on his attempts to set up a meeting with an academic on sabbatical. The whole episode was darned embarrassing for the bishops.
The CTSA has a cheerleading moment in the war on stupidity. Oh well; it’s not like George Weigel or Fr Neuhaus never did it.
January 7th, 2012 | 9:25 pm
” Oh well; it’s not like George Weigel or Fr Neuhaus never did it.”
Please. Neither ever published nonsense or bad writing, which is what Johnson’s adolescent theology is if we detach it from its naughtiness. You don’t have to “read” a book through to get its giust, especially if it is 60s retread stuff.
January 7th, 2012 | 10:07 pm
Who put the non-hierarchical theologians in charge anyway?
Will the bishops hand down a “Voris” by issuing a statement that the CTS (and the NCR, for that matter) does not represent the Church and must stop using the word “Catholic” to identify itself? Probably not anytime soon, because that action – some might limply claim – would only result in further alienation of the CTS.
The reason some Catholic-in-name-only groups exist is because they hide under the mantle of the Church while at the same time undermining Her mission. By not reclaiming the name “Catholic”, i.e., limiting its use to projects endorsed by the hierarchy and which accord with Tradition, the Church might just as well bless such enterprises because failure to restrain amounts to tacit approval. Take the name “Catholic” from such groups and that helps to restrain the subterfuge which those groups represent.
January 8th, 2012 | 8:14 am
Why is it that articles complaining that one group of partisans is taking a predictable stand are always so predictable and boring? Isn’t the point of being a partisan organization to be predictable and boring?
January 9th, 2012 | 9:11 am
“You don’t have to “read” a book through to get its giust, especially if it is 60s retread stuff.”
Of course you don’t have to read a book. You assume the bishops have read it for you. When you were a kid, I’m sure you got those black and yellow-striped editions. The whole point was having someone else read it and digest it for you.
So, no, please: don’t read any books at all.
January 9th, 2012 | 10:32 am
Couldn’t the purpose have been served by some well-respected theologian—one of Elizabeth Johnson’s peers—or even a number of them, publishing critiques of her book in respected journals?
The bishops, in their inept handling of the whole matter, only made Elizabeth Johnson a martyr and undoubtedly boosted sales of the book well beyond what it would have sold if they hadn’t made such a fuss. Of course, for all I know, it may be a great book, and the bishops inadvertently did the book and its potential audience a favor.
Yes, the bishops have teaching authority and even duties to correct error, but from everything I have read, the really bungled in dealing with this book, and whether they are right or wrong about the book’s contents, they made themselves look bad. They shot themselves in the foot.
January 17th, 2012 | 10:48 pm
I think what some – including the venerable Mr. Gallicho at Commonweal – fail to understand is the concept of *proportion*. Really – who cares about the Elizabeth Johnson case? Does it even matter at all? Christians being persecuted around the globe (Barron’s point) – countless souls searching for peace and a way out of pain and alienation – real alienation…in need of the love of Jesus..
*Who cares* about the puported trials of a privileged First World academic at the hands of a (gasp) COMMITTEE?!
January 18th, 2012 | 10:22 am
I haven’t read Sr. Johnson’s book, only excerpts, but from what I can tell it doesn’t seem to merit such a harsh response. She’s not advocating satanism or throwing virgins in volcanoes, just a fresh approach to finding God in all things. If she’s just repeating things the Church already believes, why write a book? Any theology worth its salt will bring new thoughts or perspectives on God and belief. In her case it’s a long-overdue feminine perspective, and if it allows people struggling with their faith to access God and the Church in new ways, I say bravo. Put people in the pews, however you can get them there.
This whole controversy feels political (as in, not religious) to me, a nervous reaction of very powerful people to someone who might question their autocracy. Plus, it’s hard to believe a hierarchy dealing with the vast nightmare of abuse among its male clergy would bother chasing after a Sister who has neither raped nor tortured anyone. There are plenty of dangerous Church officials here in America, and the world over. One might suggest the bishops spend more time cleansing their ranks of scary priests and less time castigating some nun who writes about God.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact