In The Joys of Yiddish, Leo Rosten defined chutzpa as “…Presumption-plus-arrogance such as no other word, and no other language, can do justice to” and then offered classic examples of chutzpa in action: “Chutzpa is that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. A chutzpanik may be defined as the man who shouts ‘Help! Help!’ while beating you up.”
Leo Rosten should have lived to experience German Catholic theologians of the early 21st century.
In anticipation of Pope Benedict XVI’s forthcoming visit to his homeland, more than 200 German theologians—men and women who have earned doctoral degrees in theology and teach in German universities—have issued a manifesto, “The Church in 2011: A Necessary Departure.” The manifesto itself does not identify the destination for which the Church is to depart, but the terminus ad quem seems reasonably clear from a careful reading of the document: Catholicism is to transform itself into another liberal Protestant sect by conceding virtually every point at issue between classic Christianity and the ambient culture of the post-modern West.
It is, perhaps, no surprise to find German Catholic theologians publicly supporting the ordination of married men and women to the ministerial priesthood (overtly), same-sex “marriage” (slyly), and full communion within the Church for those in irregular marriages (subtly but unmistakably). These causes have been espoused for years. German theologians dissented en masse from the 1993 teaching of Veritatis Splendor on the nature of moral acts and from the 1994 teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on the Church’s inability to admit women to Holy Orders. What was particularly striking about this new manifesto was its attempt to address serious problems with tried-and-failed solutions. That bespeaks a remarkable lack of intellectual creativity and historical sense.
Thus we are told that the German sexual abuse cases that came to light in 2010 have “plunged the Catholic Church in Germany into an unequaled crisis.” Really? I understand, and in many respects sympathize with, German complaints about the ubiquity of references to the National Socialist period whenever anything German is discussed. But was 2010 really a crisis greater than that in which German Catholicism found itself between Hitler’s 1933 accession to power and Nazi Germany’s defeat in 1945? (Do today’s Catholics face crises of conscience greater than those faced by Count Claus von Stauffenberg or Sophie Scholl?) Moreover, what about the crisis of faith that emptied German churches over the past two generations, such that weekly Mass attendance in urban areas hovers around 5-10 percent?
The manifesto is also notable for its failure to examine academic consciences, an exercise that might have led to more measured assessments of responsibility for the current situation. Do these theologians imagine that they and their teachers bear no responsibility for the “paralysis and resignation” they deplore in German Catholicism? Does German theology’s tendency to treat the Bible as a specimen to be dissected rather than a gift to be studied with a full array of interpretive tools (including the eyes of faith) had nothing to do with today’s crisis of faith in a land whose very language was formed by Luther’s biblical translation? Has the theologians’ bizarre notion that “freedom of conscience” means abject surrender to the sexual revolution in all its demands had nothing to do with the Church’s failures to convert a hedonistic culture? Few of these academics have any serious or sustained connection to the liturgical or pastoral life of the Church; yet they assume they occupy a privileged position from which to understand what has happened to German Catholicism and how its genuine problems can best be addressed. Why?
Seeking a rousing conclusion to their call to the ecclesiastical barricades, the German theologians advise their fellow Catholics that they should “look to the future with courage and walk on water, like Peter as Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you have fear? Is your faith so weak?’” A question to the professors: Would each of you who believes that Peter walked on water please raise your hand?
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Comments:
Weigel points out that attendance rates have dropped in Catholic parishes in the last 2 generations. It would be interesting to see if the rates dropped even further after the 2010 crisis. I suspect it stayed the same i.e. the German parishoners who remain do not see Catholic doctrine as being the cause of the sex abuse scandal.
The fundamental principle of the letter is revealed in the section on liturgy as, "[living] from the active participation of all the faithful." It seems to me that if the liturgy gets its life from humans, then it is a worship of humans. If the liturgy lives because it is the divine reality, then it is the worship of something beyond. In that case, I would argue that the liturgy lives whether we participate in it or not. We truly live when we participate in it.
Predictable Weigel.
While he awaits the German theologians to accept responsibility for the ennui in their churches, I await Dr. Weigel's personal responsibility for the promotion of an unjust war in Iraq.
Bashing Weigel again.
Pretending to make a connection to the "unjust war in Iraq" -- is this the most natural conclusion to be made from Mr. Weigel's article? His point is the chutzpa of German theologians.
If such a connection were a proper conclusion from Mr. Weigel's daring to show his face in a public forum, then ... well, it isn't.
Predictable liberals.
The case of Analiese Michel , the German girl , said to have been allowed , to make the world aware of the reality of evil and the need to counter same through powerful spiritual means ; a place with an Islamic name - Fatima , for the importance of Church unity and what that is to accomplish !
Let us hope too that there would be a quiet sort of 'revolution' of the hearts among the theologians, to adopt the need for minimal 'requirements ' - of certain basic Church devotions , including practices such as regular fasting , before they make statements that can mislead !
If Dr.Wiegel went against the caution expressed by Pope John Paul II , about going to war in Iraq , may his intercession help him to be free of culpability along with that of many others , for doing ' what we know not ' ; this would include all who have not lived lives holy enough too - heaven itself tell us that there is a relationship between sin and wars and thus more reason , to ask for mercy , on behalf of all !
To be honest, it is difficult to find a work of "academically-trained" theologians who truly believe in the Bible without hedging - defined as: "to protect with qualifications that allow for unstated contingencies or for withdrawal from commitment."
For nearly a century, from 1815 to 1914, Germany was the undisputed world leader in biblical studies and church history. Providing they drew no doctrinal implications from their work, Rome was content to leave them be, not least because the only consulters who had the technical expertise to examine their work were themselves the product of the German universities.
Now, those immersed in historical studies are especially prone to fall into a certain kind of theological relativism, especially under the influence of the Idealist philosophy that permeated the German academy: Man’s experience of the Divine was intuitive and non-conceptual and dogma was an historically and culturally conditioned response to this experience. This, of course, is the underlying, usually unstated, assumption of the Modernist heresy. Most “liberal” Catholics would regard it as a truism.
It first surfaced into general view with the rejection of Papal Infallibility in 1870, by several prominent German theologians and historians, of whom Döllinger was the leader, although most of the dissenters later submitted and others were reluctant to lose their chairs; Modernism inspires few martyrs.
Following Pope St Pius X.s Pascendi, biblical and patristic studies and church history provided a safe haven for many Modernists in Germany; once again, so long as they steered clear of dogmatic theology, Rome was content to leave them alone.
Small wonder, then, that the turmoil of the Second Vatican Council and the hesitant response of Rome to dissent from Humanae Vitae in 1968, produced an outburst of tendencies that had been latent in the German theological schools for a century and a half.
It's a curious question, as it was Jesus who walked, and Peter who actually faltered, overreaching because of his lack of faith. I don't know if this is psychologically significant for Dr Weigel and the conservatives, but it sure is worth talking about.
The metaphor certainly leads us to the conclusion that Peter tends to bite off more than he can chew, and when he sinks he looks to the Lord for help. Taking things a bit further, let's remember that this same Peter was presented with a descending sheet from heaven, suggesting that it was safe to move beyond the kosher tradition, to receive "What God has made clean, you are not to call profane."
Indeed, it is odd for anyone to cite St. Peter and his actions, as authority. Given so many problems with Peter. Peter himself 1) seems to have used a mere "dream," to suspend major sections of the Old Testament; to suspend or deny the commands of God to observe certain food restrictions, kosher laws against eating shellfish and pork, etc.. In that sense, Peter himself was a radical theologian ... in danger of appearing to go against God himself. Or perhaps this founder of orthodoxy ... was a heretic in fact.
Peter in fact, 2) often "denied" Jesus. And 3) Peter went against Jesus himself even on a major doctrinal matter: Peter asserting to Jesus that the doctrine of the necessity of the crucifixion was wrong (in Mat. 16).
Indeed, 4) Jesus himself finally got so angry at Peter, that whatever apparent confidence he might have once expressed in Peter - as the "rock," etc. - was retracted. In Mat. 16.23. When Jesus called Peter, "Satan."
"Poor Saint Peter!" many ministers say today; to allude in a gentle way to Peter's - and the Church of St. Peter's? - huge errors ... even especially in and among the most "orthodox" founders. Like St. Peter himself.
Those who criticize liberal or other theologians for allegedly false theologies ... should look for the "beam in the eye," of orthodoxy itself. Those who all-too-religiously follow the "Church of St. Peter" follow a church named after a man that Jesus himself once called "Satan" (Mat. 16.23).
Mr Weigel is a faithful follower of the church and the Holy Father as long as it pleases to his political stance, otherweise he chooses to go his one way. Mr Weigel should not hot judge "German theologians", but rather himslef.
St.Peter 's fall , like all other things that work well for those who love God and are called according to His will , still serves to caution as well as offer the remedy - to ask for the trust in The Lord , for strenght , to do good , as well as to ask for mercy when one fails !
The essential other pertinenet facts of St.Peter's role - our Lord 's appearence after The Resurrection and esp. the last part of The Gospel where he is given the role , to tend and feed and his own martyrdom - unless one is willfully trying to subvert , unsure how these truths can be ignored !
Our Lord Himslef had said - 'it is not what enter a man's mouth that makes one impure ' ; the jewish people had been called to live a life set apart from the surrounding people immersed in idolatry and all that comes with it ; restrictions on foods also served to reinforce the truth of being set apart ; with the coming of The Lord and of His Spirit , The Church recieved power , to bring them in , without getting defiled themselves ; this is how St.Peter had interpreted his vision ; The Church , guided by The spirit , took in the connection with the earlier words of our Lord and what the Spirit of truth revealed in this area , thus fulfilling what our Lord had promised them earlier !
May the same Spirit help us and keep us from getting defiled by what comes out of our hearts and give us the wisdom , to turn to His mercy , when we fail !
The Pope is to be obeyed in matters of faith and morals, but his judgment as to persons or as to matters of fact (unless contained in revelation) are in no sense binding on Catholics.
So, the Pope may lay down the conditions of a just war, but not whether they are fulfilled in a particular case; just as he can declare a particular doctrine heretical, but not that it is contained in a particular book, or, at least, if he does, no one is bound to believe him.
The Austrians fought a war against the Pope and his French allies, but were good Catholics, for all that, for the Pope is no judge in particular cases.
