Fr. Jacques Dupuis, S.J, Fr. Roger Haight, S.J,
Fr. Anthony De Mello, S.J. .Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, OMI
Vatican denounces book, *Jesus: Symbol of
God *
American Jesuit Fr. Roger
Haight prohibited from teaching at
Weston School of Theology.
Among
the seven criticisms is that the book challenges that Christ existed as the
divine Word of God prior to his incarnation as Jesus. In addition, the book
presents Jesus as a human being who *mediated* the saving presence of God, as
opposed to being truly divine and truly human.
Dear
Sirs, 15 SEP 05
We
have been reading your page on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/haight.htm.
In the last part, in the list of documents related to the CDF's position
regarding the writings and activities of Vassula Ryden, you have copied a link
to the official website of Mrs Ryden. In her website, Mrs Ryden affirms that
the CDF has modified it's position towards her and implies that the 1995
Notification is no longer valid. This is not true, as the Catholic Church
of Scotland has recently reminded us (http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1898192005)
In
fact, the Ratzinger Fan Club website (http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/cdf.html),
which has the same information that you have on your page, has in
fact cancelled it's link to Mrs Ryden's page, and replaced it with the
link to the following page: www.mypage.bluewin.ch/cafarus/tligchurchposition.htm
, which contains the text of the July 2004 letter of Mons. Ratzinger, together
with the confirmation from the Swiss Bishops Conference that the CDF has not
modified it's position regarding Mrs Ryden.
Since
your homepage indicates that the site wishes to be faithful to the Holy Father
and the Magisterium, we have considered it important to inform you of the
above.
Very
warmly in Christ,
Maria
Switzerland
Vatican City, Feb. 09, 2005 (CNA) - The Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith has denounced the book ³Jesus: Symbol of God² by
American Jesuit Fr. Roger Haight as containing "grave doctrinal errors,²
reported John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter.
As a result, Fr. Haight has been prohibited from teaching
Catholic theology "until his positions have been corrected so as to be in
full conformity with the doctrine of the Church," said the notification
from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The book was reviewed in 2000, and the Congregation for
Catholic Education ordered him suspended from the Jesuit-run Weston School of
Theology in Cambridge, Mass., soon after.
Fr. Haight is currently an adjunct professor at the
non-Catholic Union Theological Seminary in New York, reported Allen.
The notification presents seven criticisms of
the book but does not say the book contains "heresy." It also does
not prevent the Jesuit from publishing.
Among the seven criticisms is that the book challenges that
Christ existed as the divine Word of God prior to his incarnation as Jesus. In
addition, the book presents Jesus as a human being who *mediated* the saving
presence of God, as opposed to being truly divine and truly human.
Allen reported that Fr. Haight has described his book as an
attempt to express traditional doctrines in a post-modern culture.
Theological Progress: An Analogy
by Dr. Jeff Mirus special to CatholicCulture.org
The revocation
of Fr. Roger Haightıs right to teach theology by the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith in February was greeted with a public statement of dismay
by the Catholic Theological Society of America. This dismay is so out of touch
with reality that it reminds me of someone who believes the forward progress of
an automobile is caused by constantly changing the scenery.
My Car is Making Funny Noises
Speaking of autombiles, the first sign of a major breakdown
is often a strange sound emanating from the engine compartment. The CDFıs
announcement, approved by the Pope and published in the February 7-8
edition of LıOsservatore Romano, identifies a high-pitched whine in Fr. Haightıs work
occasioned by deviations from the Catholic Faith concerning the Incarnation,
the Resurrection, the Person of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the
salvific role of the Church, and the nature of Truth itself. The errors in
question are as serious as they are numerous, and as numerous as they are
obvious.
They are also old, indicating a long-standing problem.
Essentially, Fr. Haight insists that we cannot know precise information about
God, that Revelation is therefore fundamentally symbolic, and that this
symbolism must be reinterpreted in every age, particularly in our post-modern
culture, which does not relate well to previous expressions of the Christian
Faith. In other words, Fr. Haight is making exactly the same assertions that
Modernists have made for the last 150 years, assertions taken for granted by
all the various forms of religious accommodationism throughout the history of
the Church, and in fact the same assertions which have dominated the Western theological
community at least since the modern crisis of Faith struck the academy in the
1960ıs.
Revving the Engine
One wonders whether academic theologians are a particularly
tortured breed doomed to constantly reinvent Christianity in the vain hope of making
it palatable to the natural man, or if like the rest of us they are simply
tempted to win the approval of the surrounding culture by obscuring the demands
of Faith. In either case, the forward progress of mainstream academic theology
over the past generation has been virtually non-existent. The engine has been
revving well enough, but the vehicle has stayed firmly in one place. This is
what makes the expressed dismay of the Catholic Theological Society so strange.
As if to prove the point, the CTSA Board of Directors
sniffed that peer review is the method by which theological theories should be
tested and filtered. They acclaimed Fr. Haightıs constant openness to review
and gracious acceptance of criticism, in contrast to the peevish unfairness of CDF
procedures. They fear the CDFıs unwarranted intrusion into the conversation
will stifle further criticism and undermine the ability of Catholic theologians
to critique their colleagues in order to advance the theological enterprise.
Finally, they resent the CDFıs presumption in moving beyond theological
criticism to a ³negative judgment upon a theologianıs personal integrity and
responsibility² by revoking Fr. Haightıs right to teach.
But these are the same unsettling sounds we have heard every
time weıve listened to the engine for a generation or more. The erroneous
theologian is always kind and gracious; the Church is always unfair and
authoritarian. The theological profession is always self-correcting and
progressive; Church authority is always personally hostile and repressive.
Every time the Church has censured a theologian, the same script has been used
for the academic response. The engine roars, but the car doesnıt move.
Transmission Problem
Modern Catholic theologians, including Fr. Haight, have
largely forgotten the fundamental fact that their craftıs dependence on
objective Revelation is so complete as to have no meaning without it. The
Judaeo-Christian tradition is unique in claiming direct, public Revelation from
God to man, and the whole point of Revelation is to make up for the obvious
fact that man cannot figure God out on his own. All man can do on his own is
express his vague intimations of immortality through figures and symbols. In
other words, all man can do on his own is what Fr. Haight has done in the work
questioned by the Vatican, Jesus Symbol of God (1999).
Just as passengers in a car have it backwards when they
think progress toward a destination is achieved by moving the scenery, so too
are Fr. Haight and the CTSA gravely mistaken in their belief that they can make
theological progress by rearranging Revelation. To the contrary, only when the
fixed nature of Revelation is taken seriously can an intelligible examination
of the Faith take place. Moreover, it is the Churchıs Magisterium which
infallibly provides the needed connection between the mind and this fixed
supernatural scenery. The Magisterium thus performs a role analogous to the
transmission in a car. Unless it is engaged, the wheels donıt turn.
Now, consider that Fr. Haight is saying exactly what
dissident theologians were saying when I was a boy a half-century ago. Consider
that the academic/journalistic establishment is still so backward that his book
won the Catholic Press Associationıs award for the yearıs best book on theology
in 2000. Consider that the book contradicts teachings of the Church on several
key matters which were definitively settled in the fourth century (nearly 1700
years ago!). And consider that the CTSA is now rebuking the Church for nastily
interrupting the all-important progress of the ongoing discussion. Diagnosis:
The transmission has been disconnected for a long, long time.
The Church as Mechanic
In our time it may fairly be said that the Church is very
good about making the latest manuals available but reluctant to pick up the
wrench and the air gun. Still, in this case she has rolled up her sleeves,
gotten her hands dirty, and reconnected the theogicial engine with the
landscape of Revelation by reinserting the Magisterium. If the accelerator is
now depressed and the engine speed increased, the theological vehicle will
actually move. The Faith will be explained, elucidated and, well, transmitted.
This must be terrifying to men and women who have long
enjoyed the comforts of the SUV without understanding the purpose of wheels. We
must urge them to be calm and to keep the gears engaged. Yes, motion sickness
can cause dismay. But it is not the scenery that is supposed to move.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith
According to the Vatican website, the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith was founded in 1542 by Pope Paul III with the Constitution "Licet
ab initio," and was originally called the Sacred Congregation of the
Universal Inquisition. It was charged with the obligation of defending the
Church from heresy.
Pope St. Pius X
in 1908 changed the name to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It
received its current name in 1965 with Pope Paul VI. Today, according to
Article 48 of the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia, "Pastor
Bonus", promulgated by the Holy Father John Paul II on June 28, 1988,
"the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to
promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic
world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls
within its competence."
The
congregation is now headed by Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
Selected Documents
Please Note: What follows is a list of selected statements from the
Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (such as Dominus Iesus), and a special section on specific
investigations of notable theologians. For a complete
list of documents published by the Congregation, both doctrinal, disciplinary,
and those on sacramental questions, see:
Documents on
Sacramental Questions
2004
On the
Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World May
31, 2004, the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
2003
Considerations
regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual
persons. June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his
Companions, Martyrs.
2002
Doctrinal Note on
Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life
November 24, 2002, the Solemnity of Christ the King.
2000
Note on the
Expression "Sister Churches" The proper use of the
expression "sister churches" is discussed in a note by the Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that was distributed to heads of
bishops' conferences. The note, accompanied by a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,
prefect of the congregation, was signed June 30, 2000.
Declaration Dominus
Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church.
August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.
Documents
concerning The Message of Fatima. June 26, 2000.
1998
The Primacy of the
Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church. Reflections of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated October 30, 1998 on the
primacy of Peter's Successor in the Mystery of the Church.
Commentary on the
Concluding Formula of the 'Professio fidei'. Issued by the CDF on
June 30, 1998 to go with the Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem (In Order to
Safeguard the Faith) released the same day. Also contains the Profession of
Faith and the Oath of Fidelity on Assuming a Church Office.
1997
Regulations for
Doctrinal Examination. une 29, 1997, the Solemnity of the Blessed
Apostles Peter and Paul.
1992
Letter to the
Bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of the Church understood as
Communion - Communionis notio . May 28, 1992.
1990
Instruction on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. Given at Rome on May 24, 1990,
the Solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord.
1987
Instruction on
respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation - Donum
vitae. Given at Rome on February 22, 1987, the Feast of the
Chair of St. Peter, the Apostle.
1984
Instruction on
Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation". Given at
Rome on August 6, 1984, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord.
Resources Pertaining to Specific Investigations
Occasionally Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith has had to fulfill it's sacred office of disciplining and
correcting a particular theologian who's teaching is not in line with that
proclaimed by the Catholic Church. What follows are resources (statements and
articles) relating to a few of the more noteworthy skirmishes that have made
the headlines.
Paul Collins
In the Press . . .
"Paul Collins
Resigns from Priesthood amid Vatican Probe", by John Allen. National
Catholic Reporter,
March 16, 2001.
"Collins Told
to Revise His Views", by John Allen. National Catholic
Reporter, July 16,
1999.
"Collins Views
on Papacy face Heresy Investigation", National Catholic
Reporter, February
20, 1998.
Documents Pertaining To...
Paul Collins'
Explanation of his Resignation from the Priesthood, February 1,
2001.
Letter from
Cardinal Ratzinger to Father Michael Curran, December 8, 2000.
Fr. Jacques Dupuis, S.J
In the Press...
Jacques Dupuis, SJ
1923-2004 Times Online. January 12, 2005.
Remembering Jacques
Dupuis, by John Allen, Jr. Word from Rome January 7, 2005.
"Rome sends
mixed signals on Jesuit contributions", by John Allen, Jr. National
Catholic Reporter, April
27, 2001.
"Theologian Criticized by Vatican Wrote Interreligious
Guidelines". America. April 23, 2001.
"A Matter
of Justice : Was the trial of Jacques Dupuis really necessary?", by
Ladislas Orsy. America. April 16, 2001.
"Ways of
Salvation? On the investigation of Jacques Dupuis", by Francis J.
Sullivan. America.
April 9, 2001.
"Theologian's
work merits encouragement, not censure". National Catholic
Reporter. March 9,
2001.
"Theologian
Dupuis says He's Free At Last", by John Allen, Jr. National
Catholic Reporter,
March 9, 2001.
"Cardinals
Air Differences on Role of Doctrinal Congregation". America. April 10, 1999.
"Provincials
decry Vatican Suspicion of Asian Theology", National
Catholic Reporter,
April 2, 1999.
"Ratzinger
Rips Konig's Criticism", National Catholic Reporter, April 2, 1999.
In Defence of
Jacques Dupuis, by Cardinal Franz Konig. The Tablet, January 16, 1999.
"Indian
Archbishop Defends Jesuit Theologian". America Dec 5, 1998.
"Two European
Scholars Under Scrutiny for Heresy", by John Allen, Jr. National
Catholic Reporter,
Nov. 20, 1998.
Documents Pertaining To...
Commentary on the
Notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the
book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism by Father Jacques
Dupuis, S.J., Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, March 20,
2001.
Statement of Father
Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, Superior General of the Society of Jesus,
Feb. 26, 2001.
Notification on the
book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Orbis Books:
Maryknoll, New York 1997), by Father Jacques Dupuis, S.J.,
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Jan. 24, 2001.
Fr. Roger Haight, S.J.
In the Press...
Jesuit Roger
Haight's Book Has "Grave Doctrinal Errors": Author of "Jesus:
Symbol of God" Barred From Teaching Catholic Theology
Zenit.org. Feb. 8, 2005.
Ratzinger seeks
further explanation from US theologian. CathNews.com. 17 Sep 2003.
"Haight
Silencing Feeds Theologians' Fears", by Margot Patterson. National
Catholic Reporter,
May 4, 2001.
American Jesuit's
Book Spurs Vatican Inquiry, by Teresa Watanabe. The Los Angeles
Times. April 25,
2001
"Rome Targets
Another Jesuit", by Gerald Renner. National Catholic
Reporter, August 11,
2000.
Haight on Trial.
Commonweal May
18, 2001 / Volume CXXVIII, Number 10.
Documents Pertaining To . . .
Vatican
Notification on "Jesus Symbol of God". Published in the
Feb. 9 weekly English edition of L'Osservatore Romano.
Fr. Anthony
De Mello, S.J.
In the Press...
The Enigma of
Anthony de Mello, by Parmananda Divarkar. America. Nov. 7, 1998.
The Prayer of the
Frog Called into Question. Ecumenical Review April 1999.
Dr. Seuss
condemned: grinches go after de Mello, by David Toolan. Commonweal, Oct. 23, 1998.
"De Mello
Censure reflects Vatican Misgivings about Eastern Thinking", by
John Allen Jr. National Catholic Reporter, Sept. 4, 1998.
Documents
Pertaining To...
Notification
Concerning the Writings of Father Anthony De Mello, S.J.,
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Jan. 24, 1998.
Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, OMI
In the Press...
"Condemned
Priest is Restored to Church", by Pamela Schaeffer. National
Catholic Reporter,
January 30, 1998. Cardinal Ratzinger
vs. Fr. Balasuriya. Christian Order Dec. 1997.
"Chronology of
Balasuriya's Troubles", National Catholic Reporter, January 30, 1998.
The Balasuriya
Affair, by Pravin Thevathasan. pp. 622-627, Christian Order. December 1997. [documents key
questionable elements from Balasuriya's texts].
"Vatican
Excommunicates Balasuriya", by Pamela Schaeffer. National
Catholic Reporter,
January 17, 1997.
"Theologian
Under Heavy Fire, Appleals to Pope", by Pamela Schaeffer. National
Catholic Reporter,
Dec. 27, 1996; January 3, 1997.
Documents Pertaining To...
Notification
Regarding the Text Mary and Human Liberation, by Father Tissa
Balasuriya, OMI, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Dear
Sirs, 15 SEP 05
We
have been reading your page on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/haight.htm.
In the last part, in the list of documents related to the CDF's position
regarding the writings and activities of Vassula Ryden, you have copied a link
to the official website of Mrs Ryden. In her website, Mrs Ryden affirms that
the CDF has modified it's position towards her and implies that the 1995
Notification is no longer valid. This is not true, as the Catholic Church
of Scotland has recently reminded us (http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1898192005)
In
fact, the Ratzinger Fan Club website (http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/cdf.html),
which has the same information that you have on your page, has in
fact cancelled it's link to Mrs Ryden's page, and replaced it with the
link to the following page: www.mypage.bluewin.ch/cafarus/tligchurchposition.htm
, which contains the text of the July 2004 letter of Mons. Ratzinger, together
with the confirmation from the Swiss Bishops Conference that the CDF has not
modified it's position regarding Mrs Ryden.
Since
your homepage indicates that the site wishes to be faithful to the Holy Father
and the Magisterium, we have considered it important to inform you of the
above.
Very
warmly in Christ,
Maria
Switzerland
Vassula
Ryden
In the Press...
Press Release:
Vassula Ryden Notification, Dec. 1996. A clarification on some
elements in the October 1995 Notification.
Puerto Rican
Bishops, by Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. Bishops warn the island's
Catholics against the unauthorized 'ecumenical' activities of Vassula Ryden. The
Wanderer May 11,
1995.
Documents Pertaining To...
Notification on
Vassula Ryden. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. October
6, 1995.
Correspondence
between Vassula and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
(April/June 2002), consisting of questions put to Vassula by Fr. Prospero Grech
of the CDF and her answers to the Congregation.
Modifications by
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the situation concerning True
Life in God. January 2005.
Vatican bans Jesuit from teaching as
Catholic theologian
After a five-year investigation, the Vatican's doctrinal
congregation said it had found "serious doctrinal errors" in the work
of US Jesuit theologian Fr Roger Haight and forbade him to teach as a Catholic
theologian.
The Vatican's critique focused on Fr Haight's
1999 book, Jesus Symbol of God, which explored the themes of Christ's
divinity, the resurrection, the Trinity and salvation for non-Christians.
A lengthy notification summing up the investigation's
conclusions was published by the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano this week. The
notification, dated 13 December, was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A a note said Pope John Paul
II had approved the notification and ordered its publication.
The doctrinal congregation said Fr Haight's
book contains "serious doctrinal errors against the Catholic and divine
faith of the church."
"As a consequence, the author is
forbidden to teach Catholic theology until his positions have been rectified in
such a way as to be in full conformity with the doctrine of the church,"
the notification said.
The notification said Fr Haight's assertion
that Catholic theology must be "in dialogue" with the modern world
leads him to downplay or deny central teachings of the church.
The congregation also criticised Fr Haight's
assertion that "because of modern pluralistic consciousness," one
cannot continue to affirm that Christianity is a superior religion or that
Christ is the centerpiece of God's plan for salvation.
Fr Haight has declined to comment. But in a
brief statement, his New York Province Jesuit provincial Fr Gerald J. Chojnacki
said Fr Haight "has collaborated with the congregation and is available
for consultation with them."
He said the priest submitted a letter of
resignation to the president of Weston in February 2003, and it was accepted in
October 2004.
"Fr Haight now lives in New York City,
where he continues his research and writing," Fr Chojnacki said.
SOURCE
Vatican
forbids US Jesuit to teach as Catholic theologian (Catholic News Service
8/2/05)
LINKS
Roger
Haight: Jesus Symbol of God (Amazon - includes contents, excerpt)
Haight on trial
(Commonweal/Looksmart 18/5/01)
Haight silencing
feeds theologians' fears (National Catholic Reporter 4/5/01)
ARCHIVE
Ratzinger
seeks further explanation from US theologian (CathNews 17/9/03)
MORE STORIES
American Jesuit
Roger Haight barred from teaching Catholic theology (Jesuits-Europe 9/2/05)
Jesuit Roger
Haight's Book Has "Grave Doctrinal Errors" (Zenit 8/2/05)
10 Feb 2005
Post details: Warning on "Jesus" Book Is
Seconded
03/18/05
10:56:43
am
Warning on "Jesus" Book Is Seconded
Categories: News,
931 words
And of course
the warning comes from that conservative Catholic bastion, the U.S.?
[More:]
WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- A U.S.
bishops' committee welcomed the Vatican's recent Notification concerning
"Jesus, Symbol of God," a 1999 book by Jesuit Father Roger Haight
that questioned the divinity of Christ.
In a statement, the bishops' Committee on Doctrine said the
notification by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was issued
"in order to clarify any misconceptions, to affirm our support for the
decision of the Holy See, and to reassert the importance of authentic
theological inquiry."
"It is essential that we, as the authentic teachers and
guardians of the Apostolic Faith, ensure that the faithful throughout our
country, be confirmed in their faith, and not become confused by ambiguous or
erroneous theological speculation," said the statement, approved Monday.
"Authentic doctrine, contained in the Scriptures and in
the Apostolic Tradition and defined by the Councils of the Church, must be the
explicit and unambiguous foundation not only for catechetical instruction, but
also for theological teaching and inquiry."
In its notification,
the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, after a lengthy process, found that
Father Haight's book contained serious doctrinal errors contrary to Scripture
and the ecumenical councils of the Church, particularly the Council of Nicaea.
Here´s the U.S.
Bishops' Statement on Vatican Notification On the 1999 Book "Jesus, Symbol
of God"
WASHINGTON,
D.C., MARCH 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of the statement by the
U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine welcoming the Vatican's notification about
the book "Jesus, Symbol of God."
* * *
Regarding the Notification from the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith concerning the book: Jesus, Symbol of God, by Fr. Roger
Haight, S.J.
In the light of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith's recent Notification concerning the book: "Jesus, Symbol of
God" (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1999) the Bishops' Committee on
Doctrine offers the following brief statement in order to clarify any
misconceptions, to affirm our support for the decision of the Holy See, and to
reassert the importance of authentic theological enquiry.
Firstly, the Notification does not comment on the author's
personal character, but assesses the book, judging it to contain "serious
doctrinal errors regarding certain fundamental truths of faith." The
errors concern "the pre-existence of the Word, the divinity of Jesus, the
Trinity, the salvific value of the death of Jesus, the unicity and universality
of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church, and the Resurrection of
Jesus." Because the author continues to hold views that are erroneous, and
"until such time as his positions are corrected to be in complete
conformity with the doctrine of the Church," the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith judged that he "may not teach Catholic
theology." Such a decision is a judgment solely on the author's
suitability to teach Catholic theology given his own present mistaken
theological positions.
Secondly, this negative judgment concluded an involved
process, including consultation with the author over the course of five years.
At the end of this lengthy process the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith rightfully concluded that Fr. Haight's book contained serious doctrinal
errors that were contrary to Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils of the
Church, particularly the Council of Nicaea (325 AD).
Thirdly, the Bishops' Committee on Doctrine for the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomes the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith's Notification. It is essential that we, as the authentic
teachers and guardians of the Apostolic Faith, ensure that the faithful,
throughout our country, be confirmed in their faith, and not become confused by
ambiguous or erroneous theological speculation. Authentic doctrine, contained
in the Scriptures and in the Apostolic Tradition and defined by the Councils of
the Church, must be the explicit and unambiguous foundation not only for
catechetical instruction, but also for theological teaching and inquiry.
Fourthly, in accordance with "Ex Corde Ecclesiae,"
"bishops should encourage the creative work of theologians," for they
indeed "serve the Church through research done in a way that respects
theological method." At the same time, however, "it is intrinsic to
the principles and methods of their research and teaching in their academic
discipline that theologians respect the authority of the Bishops, and assent to
Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is
taught" ("Ex Corde Ecclesiae," 29-30). While the Catholic
theological community is not only competent but indeed obliged to address
creatively and to debate strenuously theological issues that are open to
authentic development, theologians are not permitted to espouse theological
positions that are contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the Ecumenical
Councils of the Church. The competence to judge authoritatively what is and is
not in conformity with the faith of the Catholic Church resides within the
charism of the Bishops in union with the Pope. Thus, the Notification assists
the bishops in teaching that the divinity of Jesus, the reality of the Trinity,
the salvific value of Jesus' death and bodily resurrection, and the
universality of his salvific mediation are to be accepted in faith by all members
of the Catholic Church, for such doctrines are at the very heart of the
Christian Gospel -- the good news of salvation.
Most Reverend William J. Levada, Chairman
Archbishop of
San Francisco
Most Reverend Leonard P. Blair
Bishop of
Toledo
Most Reverend William E. Lori
Bishop of
Bridgeport
Most Reverend Edward W. Clark
Auxiliary
Bishop of Los Angeles
Most Reverend José H. Gomez
Archbishop of
San Antonio
Most Reverend Robert J. McManus
Bishop of
Worcester
Most Reverend Arthur J. Serratelli
Bishop of
Paterson
The following articles are from dissenting authors and
publications:
Rome targets another Jesuit
By GERALD RENNER
Special to
the National Catholic Reporter
In its latest attempt to rein in theologians who hint that
Jesus of Nazareth is not the
exclusive path to God, the Vatican is investigating Jesuit Fr. Roger Haight, a priest of the Weston Jesuit
community in Cambridge, Mass.
Haight confirmed rumors that an investigation is under way,
but said he had been asked by church
officials to refrain from commenting about it.
Haight is the author of Jesus, Symbol of God, a book published last year by Orbis Press. The book has drawn high
praise from many theologians for
the way the author avoids discussing Jesus in traditional dogmatic formulas, but rather presents
an interpretation of Jesus in modern
terms. It was a selection of the Catholic Book Club, operated by America Press.
Regarding the investigation, Haight said in a brief
telephone interview July 19 from
the Weston Jesuit School of Theology, the graduate theology school where he teaches, ³I want to handle this
like Jacques Dupuis did and not
comment.²
Dupuis, 76, is a Jesuit who taught at the Pontifical
Gregorian University in Rome until
the fall of 1998, when he came under Vatican investigation for his book Toward a Christian Theology of
Religious Pluralism (NCR, Nov. 20, 1998).
Dupuis told the Italian news agency ANSA at the time that he
had been ordered to refrain from
speaking about the investigation, the charges or his theological views.
It is believed Dupuis is under suspicion of heresy for
suggesting that salvation can be
attained other than through Jesus Christ. No resolution of the case has been announced.
In 1993 and again in 1996, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,
the Vaticanıs top doctrinal
official, warned that the theology of religious pluralism represents a threat to Roman Catholicism today
similar to that of liberation
theology in the 1980s. In that decade, the Vatican silenced and censured a string of authors in order
to impede liberation theology, a popular
movement in Latin America. Vatican officials warned that the
movement downplayed supernatural
elements in Christian theology in its efforts to support social and political struggles of disadvantaged
people.
Since Ratzinger issued warnings against religious pluralism,
a similar campaign has been
unleashed against theologians believed to be diluting the uniqueness of Jesus as the universal savior for all
humankind.
Haight, like Dupuis, argues that while Jesus is ³normative² for salvation for
Christians, other world religions may
also offer ways to God and salvation.
That Haight is a target of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith comes as no surprise,
even to his most ardent supporters who had expected a challenge almost from the moment his book was
published.
John B. Switzer, a Boston College doctoral candidate and a
former student of Haight, reviewed
Haightıs book on the Web site amazon.com earlier this year. ³This work is
truly on the cutting edge as it brings Catholic tradition into dialogue with
postmodern realities. Haight seems
destined to ask the difficult questions, and one worries that this penchant may well find him in hot
waterı with those short-sighted
minds who claim the prerogative of preserving Roman Catholic doctrine in
the curial halls of Vatican City.²
Switzer said in a telephone interview he regretted that he
had been so prophetic. He noted
that church doctrines had been formulated at a time in church history when ³some of the greatest theological
minds were among the hierarchy.²
That is no longer the case, he said. ³The hierarchy is more interested in shoring up edges of the church that
they see as tumbling, and I think
that is a mistake,² he said, because it prevents the case for Christianity from being presented in a
fresh way to modern generations.
Jesuit Fr. David Toolan, theologian and associate editor of
the Jesuit weekly magazine America, said he was not surprised to learn
that Haight had been called on the
carpet, given his fresh approach. Toolan, who chose Jesus, Symbol of God as a selection of the Catholic Book
Club, said Haight has paved a way
for theologians to talk sensibly about the Holy Trinity for the first time in centuries.
³Certainly the dominant interpretation in Christology,
the interpretation of Christ, is
the one that comes from Johnıs Gospel -- the eternal Word became flesh. It is what Roger and others call
Christology from above,ı the
Divine Person sending [Jesus] to earth,² Toolan said.
³Haightıs approach takes from the three synoptic gospels² -- that is, Matthew, Mark and
Luke -- ³which are very
different,² Toolan said. ³It is Christology from below with no real reference to [Jesus as] a divine person
[but as] an utterly human being raised
and glorified by God. It is quite a different approach.²
Matthew, Mark and Luke are called ³the synoptic
gospels² because they correspond
closely to one another in their accounts of the life of Jesus.
³Roger is so respectful of theological tradition,² Toolan said. ³He is not denying the
Johannine theology² -- that is,
the Christology drawn from the Gospel of John -- ³but he is emphasizing
another motif. I expected it would upset people. It seems to me within
bounds of Catholic orthodoxy but
somewhat unfamiliar.²
There are reports that Haight is not expected to teach in
the coming semester. Toolan said,
³I heard by hearsay that the Vatican told
the school at Weston he was not to be teaching.² Toolan said he
respected Haightıs decision to
obey but considered the process to be unfair to Haight.
The Vatican investigation fails to follow due process,
Toolan said. ³He doesnıt know who
his accusers are and probably even what
the accusations are. Itıs a terrible system and very unjust.²
Fr. Charles Curran, probably the most famous contemporary
American moral theologian, fired
from Catholic University in Washington for his writings on sexual ethics, said he was surprised
that Haight had come under fire so soon
after publication of his book.
³Rome doesnıt work that fast,² Curran said from his home in Dallas where he teaches at
Southern Methodist University.
Curran speaks from experience. When he was a theologian at
the Catholic University of
America, Curran challenged Humanae Vitae, Pope
Paul VIıs document upholding the churchıs ban on artificial contraception, shortly after it was
issued in 1968.
Nothing was done formally until 1979, a year after Pope John
Paul II was installed. The process
against Curran began then. He wasnıt ousted until 1986.
³That shows how these things can drag on,² he said.
However, another well-connected theologian, who asked not to
be identified, said, ³The Vatican
has been getting its act together and moves more quickly on these things nowadays.²
As previously reported in NCR, several American Jesuits have been targeted by Vatican
crackdowns in recent years. Specifically, the Vatican has refused to approve at least five U.S. Jesuits to
serve as administrators or members
of pontifical faculties at Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass., or
Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley, Calif. The Jesuits include: Frs. William J. Rewak, Edward
Glynn, Michael Buckley, David Hollenbach
and John Baldovin.
National Catholic Reporter, August
11, 2000
Pluralism conference report; A conversation with Fr. Roger
Haight; The Sant'Egidio conference; Slovakia preview
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
At a four-day summit of religious pluralists, or theologians
who believe that all the worldıs great religions are valid paths of salvation,
I was especially struck by affinities between the Christians and Muslims.
Although much conflict in the world today can be analyzed in terms of clash
between these two traditions, it was clear to me in new ways how much they also
share.
Among other things, both Christianity and Islam police
orthodoxy in ways that other religions often canıt, or wonıt. While that
capacity to enforce boundaries can afford cohesiveness and a strong sense of
identity, it also means that creative thinkers inside both traditions sometimes
face special pressures.
The September 6-9 summit, the first of its kind, amounted to
a ³whoıs who² of the pluralist world. It was held in Birmingham because thatıs
the home of English philosopher John Hick, 81, the father of the movement. In
books such as 1986ıs God Has Many Names, Hick argues that since Christianity does not produce
more kindness and goodness than other religions, itıs untenable to regard it as
a superior revelation.
Catholic luminaries such as Paul Knitter of Xavier
University and Jesuit Fr. Roger Haight and Chester Gillis, both of Georgetown
University, took part, as well as Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists
and Sikhs. All told, some 40 scholars from 16 countries participated.
In theological debate, pluralism is usually contrasted to
³exclusivism,² the view that only one religion saves and followers of others
are excluded, and ³inclusivism,² the view that only one religion saves and
followers of others can be included. The official
Roman Catholic position is generally held to be a form of
inclusivism salvation comes from Jesus Christ, but non-Christians can receive
its fruits, though in a less comprehensive way.
The charter for
Catholic concerns with pluralism is the September 2000 Vatican document Dominus
Iesus, which insists
that followers of other religions are in a ³gravely deficient situation² in
comparison to Christians who alone ³have the fullness of the means of
salvation.² Critics worry that pluralism produces relativism, meaning
skepticism about objective truth. They say that pluralism implies at least a
reinterpretation, if not an outright rejection, of elements of the Nicene Creed
such as that Jesus is the ³only Son of God,² not one savior among many, and
that he came for the salvation of all, not just of Christians.
The German
Evangelical Church (EKD) recently issued a set of ³Guidelines for
Interreligious Dialogue² strikingly similar to Dominus Iesus, reaffirming the definitiveness of
the revelation in Christ.
The Birmingham summit was my first experience of John Hick
³in the flesh,² and whatever one makes of his philosophy of religion, it should
be said that Hick is an unfailingly gracious man. Knitter, now retired from
Xavier and more or less the master of ceremonies in Birmingham, is likewise a
gentle and endearing soul. If one were to evaluate theological movements on the
basis of congeniality, it would be tough to fault this one.
Of course, thatıs not how itıs done.
In fact, pluralism arouses resistance from religious
institutions. If all religions are equally valid, itıs hard to know why I
should be especially committed to any one of them except for psychological or
biographical reasons. Itıs no surprise that pluralists face a backlash. To
judge from Birmingham, thatıs especially the case for Christians and Muslims.
Hickıs own biography offers an example. In 1987, while
teaching at the Claremont Graduate School in California, he was rejected as a
minister in the Presbyterian Church in the United States after a wrenching
four-year debate. Haight is presently facing a Vatican investigation for his
2000 book Jesus Symbol of God (Obris), in which he presents a Christology ³from below,²
stressing the humanity of Jesus, as a way of opening Christianity to the
pluralist view.
Muslim participants had their own cautionary tales. One
concerned Nasr H. Abu Zagd, an Islamic theologian who until recently taught at
Cairoıs prestigious Al-Azhar Institute. A shariah court found him guilty of apostasy
for suggesting that the Koran was fallible, one legal consequence of which is
that he is regarded as a non-Muslim. His wife was ordered to separate from him
since under Islamic law a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-believer. The couple
went into exile, and is today in the Netherlands.
The account tracked with the experience of Muslims in
Birmingham. A Malaysian theologian said she couldnıt be identified as a
participant in the summit because of pressures she would face back home. An
Iranian scholar said heıs teaching at an American university because his views
are unwelcome in Iran.
On the Christian side, a German scholar who works at a
Catholic mission institute said he and his colleagues are all ³cryptic
pluralists,² but canıt say so out loud for fear of being fired. An Asian
Catholic described the loyalty oath his bishop had forced him to sign, under
Vatican pressure, for inviting a well-known pluralist thinker to speak to the
church group he serves.
Tensions over pluralism, of course, are not exclusive to
Christianity and Islam. A Jewish scholar pointed to Britainıs Chief Rabbi
Jonathan Sacks, who was threatened with a heresy trial for offering a positive
view of other religions in his 2002 book, The Dignity of Difference. In the end, Sacks revised the book.
A Buddhist said that while Western converts sometimes act like the tradition
has no doctrine, in fact Buddhists in Japan and China have complex systems of
belief and are just as chauvinistic about them as anyone else.
At the same
time, it was clear that the pressures endemic to Christianity and Islam
sometimes puzzled other participants. One Indian Hindu, after listening to
several such accounts, shook his head and said of religious systems in the
West: ³We canıt understand what youıre doing.²
Strategies adopted by Christian and Muslim pluralists for
re-interpreting their own traditions are likewise similar. Just as Christians
craft new readings of traditional doctrines such as Christology and pneumatology,
Muslims look for ways to open up the Koran.
For example, Abdulkarim Soroush, a Shiite Muslim from Iran,
said theologians committed to a ³reformed Islam² are drawing on the distinction
between portions of the Koran revealed in Mecca and those in Medina. In Mecca,
Soroush said, Mohammed was strictly a prophet, and these texts are positive
about other religions. In Medina, Mohammed ran a state, and the revelation
became more legalistic and harsh towards ³non-believers.²
Traditionally,
Soroush said, Islamic jurists have favored the Medina texts. Reform-minded
theologians argue that the Medina revelation represents only one possible
application of Meccaıs religious and moral principles, which should be seen as
more fundamental.
Remarking on these parallels, Haight said on the summitıs
final day he had learned from Muslims that ³Christians are not the only ones
with strict structures of religious authority,² and that ³Christianity and
Islam can learn from each other how to use tradition to open up authority
structures.²
* * *
Most experts in inter-religious dialogue say that if
relationships are to mature, they have to grow beyond the ³tea and cookies²
stage into the capacity to challenge one another. The problem is that issuing
challenges tends to make people mad in a way that tea and cookies rarely do.
A clear example in Birmingham came with the summitıs
last panel, composed of three rabbis: Marc Ellis and Michael Kogan of the
United States and Dan Cohn-Sherbok of England. Up to that point, most participants
had used their five-minute speaking blocks to outline how pluralism could be
accepted from within their traditions.
Ellis, however, flung down a gauntlet.
He denounced
what he called an ³ecumenical deal² in Jewish/Christian dialogue, which in his
opinion works like this: Jews agree to forgive mainline Christian churches for
anti-Semitism, and in return Christians agree not to push Jews on Israelıs
conduct in Palestine. Criticism of Israel is interpreted as a reversion to
anti-Semitism. The end result, Ellis said, is that out of guilt over the
Holocaust, Christians end up being silent on another historical crime.
One consequence of this ³ecumenical deal,² Ellis said, is
that Jewish dissenters such as himself are frozen out of the dialogue. One
example, he said, is that he had been asked in advance of the pluralism summit
not to address the Palestinian problem.
³This deal is upheld by Jews such as Eli Wiesel and by
mainstream Christian organizations such as the World Council of Churches,² Ellis
said. ³Some people in this room are among the architects of the deal.²
Sparks flew.
Kogan later said that had he known in advance the
Palestinian problem would be on the table in Birmingham, he would not have come.
³Unless weıre also going to deal with the caste system in India, and the
oppression of women in Arab states, and the problems of the American Indians,
etc., to focus exclusively on the sins of Israel seems to many Jews to be
scapegoating,² he said.
Kogan insisted on focus.
³We canıt get hijacked by social and political issues. This
isnıt a deal, but a matter of what we choose to cover and not to cover.²
Interestingly, however, the most passionate reaction came
from Christians.
Perry
Schmidt-Leukel of the University of Glasgow argued that relationships across
religious boundaries arenıt ready for the kind of ³tough love² Ellis proposed.
³When it comes to inter-religious criticism, historically it
served only one purpose, which has been to denigrate the other and claim oneıs
own superiority,² Schmidt-Leukel said. ³For now we should stay with the
prophetic function of criticizing oneıs own tradition. We might find forms of
inter-religious criticism, after friendship develops.²
Jesuit Fr. Roger Haight asked aloud if the pluralist
approach inherently implies bracketing some criticism in order to advance
understanding.
Ellis wasnıt buying it.
³When youıre silent, you actually denigrate us,² he said.
³Itıs patronizing.²
Wesley Ariarajah, a former official of the World Council of
Churches, largely agreed with Ellis.
³We dare not say thereıs anything wrong for fear of being
accused of anti-Semitism,² Ariarajah said. ³The Jewish community is so
well-organized to put out dissent they donıt get the criticism they need to
become a more mature religious community.²
Ariarajah said that as an Asian, he is frustrated that so
much in the Jewish/Christian relationship pivots on 20th century European
history, especially the Holocaust.
³We need a relationship between two mature communities, not
so over-burdened by European history. The dialogue has to relate to Christians
in all parts of the world.²
Michael von
Brück, a German Protestant theologian, said there are other ³ecumenical deals.²
³Catholic dissenters accuse us Protestants of the same
thing,² he said. ³They complain that we dialogue only with the Roman Catholic
hierarchy and freeze them out. In effect, they say that we Protestants are no
longer protesting, and we should be ashamed.²
* * *
Here is the revised statement of principles as adopted by
the participants in the Birmingham summit.
1. Interreligious dialogue and
engagement should be the way for religions to relate to one another. A
paramount need is for religions to heal antagonisms among themselves.
2. The dialogue should engage
the pressing problems of the world today, including war, violence, poverty,
environmental devastation, gender injustice, and violation of human rights.
3. Absolute truth claims can easily
be exploited to incite religious hatred and violence.
4. The religions of the world
affirm ultimate reality/truth which is conceptualized in different ways.
5. While ultimate
reality/truth is beyond the scope of complete human understanding, it has found
expression in diverse ways in the worldıs religions.
6. The great world religions
with their diverse teachings and practices constitute authentic paths to the
supreme good.
7. The worldıs religions share
many essential values, such as love, compassion, equality, honesty, and the
ideal of treating others as one wishes to be treated oneself.
8. All persons have freedom of
conscience and the right to choose their own faith.
9. While mutual witnessing
promotes mutual respect, proselytizing devalues the faith of the other.
Readers who compare this list with the preliminary
draft I published last week will notice that itıs been softened
in some key respects. This was a subject of debate at the summit. Some felt the
tweaking was needed in order to speak outside the circles of the already
convinced, while others saw it as a frustrating retreat on key ideas.
* * *
Sources in Rome say that Haight was notified of a review of
his work by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2000, and shortly
thereafter the Congregation for Catholic Education ordered him suspended from
the Jesuit-run Weston School of Theology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Haight
is currently on a sabbatical year at the Woodstock Theological Center at
Georgetown University).
Haight responded to a critique from the CDF of his 2000 book
Jesus Symbol of God (Orbis). Meantime theological debate over the book
continues in the Catholic world. Some find it an exciting new Christological
approach, while others feel that in trying to make room for the pluralist
hypothesis Haight goes too far in jettisoning or reinterpreting core doctrines.
While the CDF has given no public hint of how things will
fall out, most observers expect a strong intervention. In February 2001 the
Vatican issued a stern notification warning of eight "ambiguities" in
the 1997 book Toward a Theology of Religious Pluralism by Belgian Jesuit Fr.
Jacques Dupuis, whose inclusivist position is considerably more moderate than
Haightıs.
I had the chance in Birmingham to sit down with Haight,
awaiting the final outcome of the Vatican review of his work. Does Haight
believe that Catholicism will ever come around to his view?
"I have no expectation that pluralism will become the
official understanding of the Roman Catholic church," Haight said.
"What Iım trying to do is carve out space for it to be accepted as an
orthodox Catholic view, even if itıs a minority position."
In other words,
Haight hopes that the inclusivist/pluralist debate can be like the 16th century
argument between the Jesuits and the Dominicans over grace two views that can
both be accommodated within the bounds of orthodoxy.
Does he see evidence of movement in that direction?
³I think of the Modernist crisis in the early 20th century,
when so many things were declared unacceptable that later were approved at
Vatican II,² Haight said.
I flippantly
asked if that made him George Tyrell, the English Jesuit who was considered one
of the fathers of modernism, but Haight rightly waved it off as a loaded
question.
³I also look at American Catholicism on the ground, with a
Catholic population more and more educated in the faith,² Haight continued. ³We
have an extremely polarized right and left, and a great body in the middle.
Many, for example college and university students, are used to pluralism, and
are asking how they can square it with the Catholic faith.
³I try to put critical words on their experience, and keep
this experience in touch with the tradition,² Haight said. ³Very few reflective
young Catholics arenıt asking questions about other religions.²
I asked Haight if he could see any value in the concerns
expressed by the Vatican.
³Theyıre saying that one has to attend to the tradition, to
the community,² he said. ³I try to do that in what I write. I proceed very,
very carefully and responsibly to address issues that cannot go unaddressed.²
Haight insisted that this work is a service to the Church.
³My fear is that educated Catholics will walk if there isnıt
space for an open attitude to other religions,² he said.
In the end, Haight believes, the kind of inclusivism
represented by Dupuis doesnıt do the trick.
³Itıs not finally open to the other religions, because it
postulates the superiority of Christianity,² he said. ³It doesnıt allow God to
do Godıs will in the other religions autonomously, apart from Jesus of
Nazareth.²
* * *
While the pluralists were meeting in Birmingham, an
inter-religious dialogue much more closely tethered to the official centers of
authority in the worldıs great religions was unfolding in Aachen, Germany,
under the aegis of the Community of SantıEgidio.
Some 10,000
people took part in more than 30 panels over three days, and thousands more
followed the event on the SantıEgidio web site: www.santegidio.org. The official theme was
³Between War and Peace: Religions and Cultures in Dialogue.²
Bishop Heinrich Mussinghoff, the Catholic bishop of Aachen,
set the tone on the opening day by declaring, ³God is not Catholic, nor
Orthodox, nor Protestant; neither is God Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or
Buddhist; God is God for all.²
Pope John Paul
II sent a message, urging the representatives of the great world religions to
intensify their dialogue for peace, recognizing that ³differences do not compel
us to conflict but to respect, to loyal collaboration and to the construction
of peace.²
The
Israeli/Palestinian problem drew a couple of creative ideas, one set to become
reality, the other still in the ³maybe² phase.
Fr. Elias Chacour, director of the Prophet Elias College in
Israel announced that his institution on Oct. 21 will open the first mixed
Israeli-Palestinian university in the world. Instruction will be in English,
Hebrew and Arabic, and courses will be offered in computer science, chemistry
and communications.
Rabbi David Rosen
proposed that SantıEgidio organize a conference among Christian, Muslim and
Jewish religious leaders in the Holy Land to try to reach a joint accord on the
status of Jerusalem, given that disputes over the city are at the heart of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On the subject
of the alleged harmony of Eastern religions, a Tendai Buddhist leader from
Japan, Kojun Handa, decribed how hard it was to organize an inter-religious
summit on the holy mountain of Hiei, near Kyoto, in the spirit of the 1986
prayer for peace hosted by John Paul II in Assisi. Handa works on dialogue
between Japanese and Chinese Buddhists, long complicated by Chinese bitterness
over the brutal Japanese invasion in the 1930s. Handa said he hoped Chinese
Buddhists may be able to attend futute SantıEgidio meetings.
Perhaps the
greatest drama in Aachen was generated by Metropolitan Kyrill of Smolensk and
Kalilinigrad, the number two figure in the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. Given
the ³big chill² in Catholic/Russian Orthoidox relations in recent years,
Kyrillıs mere presence would have made news.
Kyrill went
considerably further in his remarks.
³This is a
season in which dialogue, beyond the incomprehensions of the past, is
possible,² he said during a panel with Cardinals Walter Kasper and Roger
Etchegaray, along with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch Ignatius IV
Hazim and Catholic Bishop Vincenzo Paglia of Terni.
³People say that the Orthodox are closed to dialogue, but if
that were true, I wouldnıt be here,² he said.
Kyrill spoke more positively about the idea of a meeting
between John Paul II and the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II, than at any time in
recent memory, though he continued to insist that first the pope must put a
stop to Catholic missionary work in Russia.
³Between the Vatican and Moscow there is no divergence in
the system of values. But in real life the opposite sometimes happens. The
principal painful point is missionary activity. None of the Russian Orthodox
priests in the West have received instructions for converting the German people
or the Italian people to Orthodoxy,² Kyrill said. ³We know that no Catholic
priest who works in Russia has received such instructions from Rome. But today
the mission of the Catholic priests in Russia is a reality.
³There are other painful points that have to be healed, for
passing to another level in the relationship. It would be a beautiful symbol if
this new page in relations could be turned over together, by the Pope and the
Patriarch, meeting one another in Moscow, or in Rome, or in another place.²
* * *
After almost three months, Pope John Paul II is on the road
again. As this column appears, Iıll be in Slovakia watching the pope defy age
and infirmity, traveling outside Italy for the 102nd time in his pontificate.
You can view stories about this trip on the NCR Web site: http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn091203.htm
The popeıs physical condition is certainly part of the
subtext to this trip, especially for much of the worldıs secular press, since a
visit to Slovakia in itself is not an especially ³sexy² story. Over the summer
John Paul has appeared tired and weak at many public appearances, struggling to
make his way through prepared texts, often breathing and perspiring heavily.
Vatican officials, speaking on background, have explained that the popeıs
treatment for Parkinsonıs disease was reduced to a bare minimum for a period of
time to prepare him for a change in dosage. They say he should be in better
shape by the time he leaves Castel Gandolfo for Slovakia.
On the other hand, his immobility continues to limit travel
options. A top Vatican official recently told me that John Paul is covering the
roughly 20 miles between Castel Gandolfo and the Vatican for his Wednesday
audiences by car because itıs too complicated to get him into the helicopter.
It seems probable that future papal travel will be confined
to spots that fall within a zone of two hoursı flight time or so from Rome. Heıs
scheduled to visit a Marian shrine in Pompeii Oct. 7. For 2004, thereıs talk of
trips to France, Switzerland and Poland, with a visit to an international
Eucharistic congress in Mexico in October in the ³maybe² column.
John Paulıs
message in Slovakia will pivot on the Christian identity of Europe. An
intergovernmental conference whose task is to revise and finalize a new
constitution for Europe will begin deliberations in the Palazzo dei Congressi
in Romeıs EUR neighborhood on Oct. 4. The popeıs ardent desire is that the
constitutionıs preamble contain a specific acknowledgment of the Christian
roots of Europe. For now, the text is generic, referring only to ³the cultural,
religious and humanist inheritance of Europe.²
Other issues more internal to Slovakia will also loom large
during the papal trip.
In July, the Slovak parliament voted to legalize abortion up
to the 24th week of pregnancy, but President Rudolf Schuster vetoed the bill.
Currently, a rule by the health ministry allows abortion up to 24th week and
the proposed law was an attempt to make that rule into law. Parliament is
expected to take up the issue again in October, and the pope will certainly
want to weigh in.
The Vatican is also pushing the Slovak government to sign a
treaty that would recognize a right to ³conscientious objection² for Catholics,
not just on abortion but across a wide range of issues. Under the terms of the
treaty, employees could refuse to work on Sundays and Christian holidays,
gynecologists could refuse to carry out abortions or prescribe contraception,
judges would be able to refuse divorce cases, and teachers to refuse to teach
sex education.
Slovakia authorities say they expect the four-day visit to
cost $2.1 million. Apart from Bratislava, John Paul II will visit Trnava in
west Slovakia and Banska Bystrica and Roznava in central Slovakia. Trnava is
the heart of Slovakian Catholicism, and is known as the ³Slovak Rome.²
This will be John Paulıs third visit to Slovakia. His first
was in 1990, shortly after the fall of communism, and the second in 1995.
One footnote: Readers of the ³Word from Rome² who have ever
attended the Sunday morning English liturgy at Romeıs Oratory of St. Francis
Xavier at Caravita will be pleased to know that Jesuit Fr. Vlasto Dufka will play
oboe for the pope when he visits the cathedral in Trnava. Those of us who
remember the beautiful music Dufka created at Caravita know that John Paul is
in for a treat.
The e-mail address for John L. Allen Jr. is jallen@natcath.org
Inquisition Continues (Sun Feb
13, 2005 9:30 am)
Fr.Roger Haight's JESUS: SYMBOL OF GOD
Cardinal Ratzinger's Inquisition type condemnation of the work
of Fr. Roger Haight, S.J. has the unintended consequences of bringing this
superb book to our attention. ARCC Board member Fr. Tom Doyle, O.P. speaks for
those among us who have written on Catholicism, "I love it. The wizards at
the CDF don't get it. When they read something they don't understand they
condemn it thus making sure the book becomes a best seller. If they condemned
phone books everyone would buy them. I think I'll start sending my stuff
straight over there and by-pass the snitches who send their anonymous notes and
letters. Maybe I too can get condemned for supporting Christianity and then
become a best selling author and get rich. Haight follows in a great tradition.
In all seriousness however, I am amazed that in this age, when the ineffectiveness
of authoritarian systems is acknowledged by a majority, the CDF still presumes
that it can treat adult, believing Catholics, lay, clergy and religious, as if
they were impressionable and non-thinking infants. The action against Roger
Haight is itself the most duplicitous form of dissent......dissent from the
ideals of Vatican II; dissent from the concept of freedom of conscience but
above all, dissent from the fundamental Christian concept of charity."
A quick survey of reader reviews in the Amazon.com website
is very instructive. One enthusiastic reviewer notes, "Once in a while a
masterful book comes along in the field of Christology ... this is one of those
books! ... Haight's grasp of the field is incomparable. This work is truly on
the cutting edge as it brings catholic tradition into dialogue with postmodern
realities. Haight seems destined to ask the difficult questions and one worries
that this penchant may well find him in 'hot water' with those short-sighted
minds who claim the prerogative of preserving Roman Catholic doctrine in the
curial halls of Vatican City."
Another
reviewer writes, "Overall, Haight has given us a well conceived and
thoughtful Christology. He has not intended it to be the final answer. Theologians of all denominations can
and should engage in unfettered debate of the individual issues he raises. In
this, Haight does well in keeping ecumenical considerations in mind."
Clearly, Haight reaches out to non-Catholics and non-Christians in the grand
Jesuit tradition"
The Catholic Magisterium would earn the respect of the
Christian community if it were to stop violating the dialogic principles
embodied in Right No. 20. of ARCC's Charter of Rights that "Catholic
teachers of theology have a right to responsible academic freedom. The
acceptability of their teaching is to be judged in dialogue with their peers,
keeping in mind the legitimacy of responsible dissent and pluralism of belief.
(Canon Laws 212:1, C. 218, C. 750, C. 752, C. 754, C. 279:1, C. 810, C.
812)."
This heavy-handedness of the Vatican seems to illustrate
clearly that the Vatican methods have not changed in 30 years condemning what
the People of God judge to be a significant contribution to the understanding
of our faith. Roger Haight has joined the ranks of Hans Kung, Schillebeeckx,
Murray and many other outstanding theologians who, we suggest, will be read and
remembered long after Cardinal Ratzinger is forgotten.
Editorial Exegesis by Paul Kelly
A Notification is Not a Notification But a Prohibition
By Paul Kelly
The
notification that Fr. Roger Haight, SJ, a good and decent Jesuit theologian,
has been prohibited from teaching Catholic theology by the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, is the most recent example of autocratic power as
manifested by the Holy See and one of the dicasteries in its Curia, in its
continuous control over the minds of its scholars. There is no such thing in
the church as academic freedom, or even creative thought.
The
notification has no practical effect, because Fr. Haight is currently teaching
at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, not a Catholic institution. Nor
will much obeisance be given the CDF by people who are opposed to the absolute
power and control of papal primacy.
There is no
intent to debate the merits of the theological opinions set forth by either Fr.
Haight or the CDF. I never took a single course in the four years required of
those who are ordained as priests, and am, quite obviously, not qualified. As a
person among the people of God, I object to the attempt to control freedom of
thought and uninhibited scholarly research. It is an abuse of power by men
whose only desire is to preserve and protect the institution they call church,
which is just that, an institution and not a religion, nor a faith, not even
holy. There is, of course a Catholic religion, with a faith of
Catholicism, and it is holy. The organization bearing the name ³Roman Catholic
Church² is merely an institution of celibate men, still hanging on as the
very last feudal system out of the Dark and Middle Ages.
What appears to
be at bottom here is the perplexing and complex issue of Pluralism, the relationships among the worldıs
diverse and numerous faiths, the religions of all the cultures of
humankind. The simplistic way to put it is that the CDF has ruled that
Catholicism is the sole superior religion and the others have merit only
insofar as they recognize that superiority. Commonweal in an excellent article on May 18,
2001, wrote:
Catholics everywhere
must grapple with the challenges of religious pluralism--as Haight, and others
recently scrutinized, have been doing. When theologians struggle with questions
about Jesus, about salvation, and about the worldwide role of the church
itself, how can silencing and harassment possibly advance our understanding?
What is required is dialogue, conversation, criticisms, countercriticisms,
prayer, and Christian charity. This may not be easy, but it is absolutely
necessary.
In any field of
scholarship, there are bound to be differences of opinion. Harassing and
squelching those with whom the CDF disagrees is not the way to handle such
differences That is, however, the secretive method of operation employed by
that dicastery, ever since its creation in 1542, when its first name was The
Universal Inquisition. No field of learning, whether in the liberal arts or the physical
sciences, has seen and suffered from such tyranny of censorship, silencing, and
the denial of the freedom to teach.
Imagine if
Albert Einstein were silenced and forbidden to teach when he published his
General Theory of Relativity in the early 1900s, which went contrary to the
accepted physics of Isaac Newton. Remember the abject treatment of Galileo
Galilei, who did not receive an apology until Pope John Paul II made one in the
1980s. Think of the illustrious names of our theologians of the last century:
Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, John Courtney Murray, Edward
Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng, Charles Curran. Think, if you can, of the many, so
many, destroyed minds of other theologians and scholars, denied, in the
cruelest punishment of all, the interchange of daily conversation with their
peers in their world. Jesuits who lived in the New York community with Teilhard
de Chardin have described how devastatingly brutal was his solitude, unable
even to talk about The Phenomenon Of Man with scholars whose intelligence was equivalent to
his own. Those stories have gotten around, their own suffering, as they
observed Fr. Pierre, day after terrible day, being almost as keen.
Commonweal, almost four years ago, wrote of Father Haightıs difficulty
with the CDF:
[There should
be] . . . a Vatican-sponsored public examination of the state of the question,
drawing in theologians, philosophers, missiologists, and others. How does
Haight's work . . . fit in with the work of other Catholic and Christian
theologians? How do the novel elements of their theology relate to classic
formulations? What impact do their conclusions have on other areas of church
teaching and on church practice? This is a long process that should engage
theologians, bishops, pastors, and indeed, at some level, the whole people of
God.
What does the
church teach? How does the church teach? These are critical matters. Who could
deny that? But the CDF's secretive methods do nothing but undermine the very
teaching role of the church. Neither by popular vote, nor by curial fiat will
these matters be resolved, as the history of theological silencing shows . . .
Another process
is needed--one that honors both the struggle of theologians to clarify and
enlarge our knowledge and the responsibility of the church for right teaching.
If the CDF cannot do that, the church should devise another means.
The CDFıs
control over scholars is wrong, very wrong. And yet, and yet, it continues,
oblivious of the rights of humankind it so piously preaches to the civil
governments of the world. This notification is what Lord Acton so insightfully
called the absolute corruption of absolute power, when he and Cardinal Newman
tried their utmost to thwart the dictatorship of Pope Pius IX. Bishops have
abdicated their responsibilities to teach the Gospel, content with disciplinary
edicts only. Theologians are in chains and have nothing to teach, in the abject
fear of those constantly being spied upon. The CDF controls all of us this way,
as mindless illiterates, demanding and getting total obeisance, making sure
that we are unable to form a thought without their approval. What they do is called
The Official Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
As the people
of God, we are a pretty sorry bunch, arenıt we?
As far as
theology is concerned, it really isnıt much of a science at all, nothing more
or less than the parroting back to the CDF what it wants to hear and see from
obeisant sheep whose minds simply cannot be trusted with a single thought of
their own. It is forbidding to imagine anyone wanting to study the stuff and
then living in absolute fear that something they published might offer their
very necks to the claws of the CDF, as it pounces yet one more time. What a way
to live a life of scholarly research. What a waste of a human mind. What is so
startling is that theologians are treated worse than women, whose denigration
is beyond all human comprehension.
I am so
grateful for having been free in my professional life to ask questions, to
challenge authority, to be a member in a real profession, to practice law with
colleagues and peers. We honored those at the top, the law professors, the
legislators, the justices on the Supreme Courts, who listened to what we had to
say and read what we wrote and issued their learned decisions, which they
called by that marvelous phrase, The Opinion of the Court. To which we gave assent freely, if
with some natural disappointment, until the next case in which we decided to
challenge the ruling, one more time. And I thank the Lord for letting me
duck theology, which, from my catbird seat, looks like the slavery, the abject
slavery of the soul.
As you read
this, say a prayer for Fr. Roger Haight, SJ. He is a Jesuit, an authentic one,
and will act as Jesuits always have, as men for others, Ad majorem Dei
gloriam For the greater glory of God. A fitting act of defiance to obeisance is to purchase the trilogy,
as he himself calls
his work: Dynamics of Theology; Jesus Symbol of God; , Christian
Community in History. I
had Volume I of the last title, with Volume II on order. When the news of the
notification came down, I bought the other two from Amazon.com. So, there!
Also, ask the
Holy Spirit, the Paraclete the Lord gave to us so long ago, to put an end to
the terror of the Roman Catholic Church as an institution of celibate males wielding
power with such disregard for the sacredness of Godıs own people, especially
those who should be Godıs Best and Brightest, The Theologians.