Jesus and the CDF

  What are the qualifications of a good teacher? To know the answer, just look at someone who certainly had them: Jesus of Nazareth. When the law-specialist poses the anxious question, ‘What must I do to have eternal life?,’ Jesus does not simply dump an authoritative answer on him. Instead he takes into account the context, and the situation of the questioner. He prompts the questioner to produce his own answer, out of his own store of wisdom. And the man’s answer turns out to be the core of the New Testament, discerned in the heart of the Old: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God… and thy neighbor as thyself.’ (To be sure, in Mark and Matthew, Jesus does give this answer himself, rather bluntly, but Luke’s portrait of Jesus brings out gracious aspects missed by them. See http://www.2preslex.org/S030316.HTM.)

  A bad teacher says to himself or herself: "I have the expertise and I have the objective truth. All I need do is state it unambiguously, and then it is up to my students to subscribe to it, to digest it, and to repeat it." Such a teacher takes the Latin word doctrina to mean ‘doctrine’ rather than ‘teaching.’ His or her idea of intensive teaching would be to clear up students’ confusion by insistent repetition, by indoctrination. Such a teacher does not allow himself to be involved in a relationship of dialogue with his students, whom he in any case despises. But often, such a bad teacher is also one who has not really mastered the subject in depth, and whose show of authority and objectivity is a defense against exposure to dreaded criticism.

  The legal specialist is not satisfied with the answer of Jesus. He is perhaps an anxious, scrupulous man. He wants clear guidelines as to how to practice the law. ‘Who is my neighbor?’ Jesus chooses a form of discourse designed to allay his anxiety: he tells a story. A good teacher explains things in the simplest way and in a tone appropriate to the subject. A bad teacher will kill even the most beautiful subject by treating it coldly, bureaucratically, as if the objectivity of knowledge were best served by presenting it in a manner devoid of reference to its human context.

  In the story Jesus tells, the two religious experts are so wrapped up in their holy thoughts, their scriptural studies, their clerical egos, that they cannot open their hearts in love to anybody, least of all the sufferers who litter the road to Jericho and many other places in the world today. What has that to do with them? They are employed for purposes of doctrine, not of pious works. The Samaritan chooses to respond to the suffering man, lavishing on him human care. The religious experts may commend him as a do-gooder, but their chief task is to critique his heretical views, which are objectively wrong. In doing so, they may feel that they, too, are being good Samaritans in their own way, saving souls from the pernicious influence of unsound doctrine.’

  Jesus does not answer the question, ‘Who is my neighbor?’ but asks another, ‘Which of these three was a neighbor?’ The answer is easy: not the two clerics, with their hang-ups, but the one who showed compassion. And so the questioning law-specialist has his answer: there is no difficulty finding your neighbor, rather you must find your way to your neighbor, using your creative freedom and your imagination and opening your heart.

  Creative freedom? Imagination? Heart? Are these the qualities expected of the forty priests who comprise the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in their rather grim palace in Vatican City? (I once peeped in the gate there and was chased away by a lady with a sweeping brush.) Most certainly not. Their trade is in objective truth, and these other factors can only detract from that.

  That the current CDF is a bad teacher as regards both teaching skills and mastery of its subject, theology, has long been apparent. A group of leading European theologians led by the eminent Peter Hünermann, has issued a timely call for its reform (as another group, including Joseph Ratzinger, did back in the 1960s). The reform concerns not only its procedures, which have sometimes amounted to pure skullduggery, but its theological basis. Theological maturity, and participation in the processes of theological thinking, dialogue and research, is what is demanded of the CDF. They are asked to choose to be neighbors to theologians, not hostile invigilators. But such a reform would no doubt entail cashiering the entire present staff of the corrupt and incompetent Congregation, so it will be hotly resisted. Paul VI's charter for a reformed CDF, issued on the last day of the Council, has been ignored.

  These forty priests have to earn their living. They diligently trawl through theological publications in search of dangerous errors. The publications are read diagonally, not in depth, since the readers are not out to learn theology or acquire new ideas, but rather to diagnose diseases, for the treatment of which they themselves are the accredited specialists. If they allowed themselves to enjoy the publications they plow through they would not be doing their job.

  But vigilant reading is not enough. They must also produce a quota of reports and documents to show that their office is not an idle one, but a precious organ of the Church. So before they set off on their expensive summer vacations, they issue an important-looking statement on a topic alleged to have caused confusion and to be in need of clarification. Now since they have done no real theological study recently, and since they have no particular gift for theology anyway, they have no new or fresh teaching to offer. In such cases, the best thing is to recycle some tried and trusted number. They reach back to 2000, when they issued statements on the status of the Protestant churches. What better idea than to repeat those statements? And they suppose that this will go down well with their former Prefect, still their boss.   

  And so the ‘objective truth’ is trotted out, in the glorious old dubia et responsa format beloved of the old Holy Office. Unfortunately, the resulting document is not long enough, so to avoid the impression of skimpiness they produce as well a longer note commenting on it. The note adds nothing, except to swipe at theologians guilty of sustaining the alleged confusions. The only one named is Leonardo Boff, condemned by them about twenty years ago. Strange that in all their trawling through theological literature they have come up with no new names. They seem to be stuck in the rut of a few obsessive ideas and references, unable to relate to a wider field of interlocutors. In any case, the supplementary note is published on the Vatican website in Italian – no need to translate it – and now the CDF team can happily set off on their well-deserved holidays. It does not worry them that they have dumped an ecumenical stink-bomb that will nauseate the nostrils of Christians everywhere. (Outrage was expressed on their behalf by Cardinals Kasper and Lehmann, the latter accusing  the CDF of trying to start a religious war.)

  “What stink? Why, we receive letters from all over the world, congratulating us on the job we are doing, as we preserve the faith pure of contaminations and distortions of every kind! You say that Paul VI wanted us to be evangelizers, not inquisitors, to promote theological research, not to stifle it? But, you know, Paul VI wasn’t the full shilling. We see him as dabbling in Marxism, entertaining dangerous and counter-productive ideas of freedom of conscience in the application of moral norms, flabby in his ecumenical overtures to what he falsely called ‘sister churches,’ and naïve in his eagerness to implement Vatican II.”

  The teaching role of Jesus brought serenity and confidence to those who were anxiety-ridden and guilt-ridden. The CDF, on the other hand, thrives on anxiety and guilt. Its effect on Catholic theology has been inhibitive and intimidatory. “Ah, but Jesus was not popular, and neither are we, for we teach the truth boldly, even when it goes against all the fads of the age! It’s only the muddle-headed tea-party ecumenists who find us uncouth. People who stand for objective truth agree with our stance, even if their objective truth differs from ours. Yet, the outcry against us only confirms that we are doing a very good job, and well deserve our summer break.”

  Is it any wonder that bishops dread the Roman Curia like the plague, and refer to is as ‘the bureaucracy of nothing’?

  Supposing that, before composing their most recent pensum, the CDF had really thought about the people their objective truths refer to. Supposing – God bless the mark! – that they had dialogued with them. Or supposing they had consulted with the people in another palace who are devoted to ecumenical affairs. Might they not then have come out with some creative and enlightening teaching, rather than a dead piece of doctrine? Instead of saying, ‘You are not churches in the proper sense,’ might they not have allowed the Protestant churches to utter their own truth, drawing on their own store of wisdom? And might that truth not be that since the Church of Christ is ‘present and operative’ in all Christian bodies (as John Paul II taught in Ut Unum Sint and as the CDF grudgingly admit though it goes against their Scroogian instincts), so Christ can amply supply whatever is missing in the allegedly ‘defective’ churches. Ecclesia supplet. Christus supplet.

  “But that is not the CDF’s job. The people responsible for ecumenism can look after that. It’ll give them some extra work and help them justify their existence. To be sure they’re miffed that we made work for them just as they were packing their bags for the summer. And the man on the side of the road? Oh, toss him a coin. The doctrine of the faith, as is well known, has nothing to do with justice and peace issues. Those are for that other department (or has it been abolished?). People who drag justice and peace issues into the realm of dogmatic theology are among our most fruitful targets, you know, ‘political theologians’ like Johannes Baptist Metz and ‘liberation theologians’ like Jon Sobrino. That Notification on poor Sobrino was a cinch – we just recycled the old liberation theology dossier, spiced up with a bit of pseudo-exegesis and charming retro touches like that bit  from Pius XII's time about Jesus enjoying the beatific vision immediately after his conception.”

  After the summer, what projects have the CDF in mind? “Well, relativism is a bit ambitious – it might involve thinking about obscure philosophical issues. The ordination of women? No, let sleeping dogs lie. What about that old sizzler, sexual ethics? We haven’t said anything about that for quite a while, and it always gets media attention. And it’s so easy as well. Anyway, there’s plenty of work for us to do, and we need never worry about being thrown out on the side of the road.”

Comments

[Luis Gutierrez]

Please bring this research project to the attention of interested
persons. The project is about global issues such as solidarity,
sustainability, nonviolence, gender equality, and the U.N. "Millennium
Development Goals," with heavy emphasis on the interactions between
religion and society. Each newsletter is a digest of current research
and emerging issues. Any feedback would be most welcome.

Thanks, Luis
------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE

The July 2007 issue of the SSNV newsletter has been posted:

Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence (SSNV)
Volume 3, Number 7, July 2007
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n07.html

The central theme is MDG7: ENSURE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

The August 2007 issue is in preparation - the central theme will be

MDG8: BUILD A GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPMENT

The SSNV newsletter is a free monthly service of The Pelican Web.

As always, feedback and collaboration are welcome.

Luis

-------------------------------------------------------
Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D.
Website: The Pelican Web
http://www.pelicanweb.org/pelweb.html
Newsletter: Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust.html
Email: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------

PS -- FOR YOUR PERUSAL:

POSTED

V1 N1 May 2005 - Cross-Gender Solidarity -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust01.html
V1 N2 June 2005 - The Phallocentric Syndrome -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust02.html
V1 N3 July 2005 - From Patriarchy to Solidarity -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust03.html
V1 N4 August 2005 - Synthesis of Patriarchy and Solidarity -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust04.html
V1 N5 September 2005 - From Solidarity to Sustainability -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust05.html
V1 N6 October 2005 - Dimensions of Sustainability -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust06.html
V1 N7 November 2005 - Analysis and Synthesis of Objective Evidence -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust07.html
V1 N8 December 2005 - Solidarity, Subsidiarity, and Sustainability -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust08.html
V2 N1 January 2006 - Synthesis of Solidarity and Sustainability -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n01.html
V2 N2 February 2006 - Sustainable Human Development -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n02.html
V2 N3 March 2006 - Patriarchy and Mimetic Violence -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n03.html
V2 N4 April 2006 - Mimetic Violence in Patriarchal Religions -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n04.html
V2 N5 May 2006 - Mimetic Violence in Patriarchal Religions 2 -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n05.html
V2 N6 June 2006 - Mimetic Violence in Patriarchal Religions 3 -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n06.html
V2 N7 July 2006 - Mimetic Violence in Patriarchal Religions 4 -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n07.html
V2 N8 August 2006 - Mimetic Violence in Patriarchal Religions 5 -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n08.html
V2 N9 September 2006 - Sabbatical Activity ~ September 2006 -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n09.html
V2 N10 October 2006 - Sabbatical Activity ~ October 2006 -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n10.html
V2 N11 November 2006 - Sabbatical Activity ~ November 2006 -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n11.html
V2 N12 December 2006 - Sabbatical Activity ~ December 2006 -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv02n12.html
V3 N1 January 2007 - MDG1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n01.html
V3 N2 February 2007 - MDG2: Universal Primary Education -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n02.html
V3 N3 March 2007 - MDG3: Promotion of Gender Equality -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n03.html
V3 N4 April 2007 - MDG4: Reduction of Child Mortality -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n04.html
V3 N5 May 2007 - MDG5: Maternal Care Improvement -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n05.html
V3 N6 June 2007 - MDG6: Mitigation of HIV/AIDS Epidemic -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n06.html
V3 N7 July 2007 - MDG7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n07.html

PLANNED

V3 N8 August 2007 - MDG8: Global Partnership for Development -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n08.html
V3 N9 September 2007 - Combined Evaluation of the U.N. MDGs -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n09.html
V3 N10 October 2007 - Outlook for Attaining the 2015 MDG Targets -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n10.html
V3 N11 November 2007 - If not the MDGs, then what? -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n11.html
V3 N12 December 2007 - Patriarchy, Humanity, and the Human Habitat -
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n12.html

[Gégé]

Hello,

Here are few remarks. Please excuse the mistakes.

I can't agree with the above commentary : Jesus teaches to the young man an objective truth. Love toward the neighbor and God derives directly from authoritative teachings (from the Bible and Rabbis). But Jesus, in a one to one dialog, had the possibility to make this young man go further in the understanding of the Law : an understanding that comes from the heart.

The church can't of course make such personalisations when she gives an official statement. However its ministers;, the priests, are able to, because each of them knows their flocks.

Sadly many of them just say : "People won't understand" and then leave things without doing anything (when not mumbling against the Church). And we, just lay people, have just a little knowledge and understanding of our faith.

I think that the Church allow the truth to be clearly understood in a century, and that its ministers are here to make this truth be a living truth, not just a mathematical truth.

Sincerely.

[Joseph O'Leary]

Notice that Jesus teaches (a) through dialogue (b) in reference to concrete human situations (c) with reference to Scripture. The Tridentine Mass revival will annul such teaching and make priests more like the present unimaginative CDF, parrotting "objective" doctrines -- in of course the false "objectivist" sense of objectivity (you do not get my point on this). The Novus Ordo is hated by conservatives because it lets Scripture speak (14% of the OT as opposed to 1% in the old lectionary) so we can hear the prophets present God as a God of justice and peace, or as a liberator (as in today's first reading from Exodus 3).

[Gégé]

I think I understand what you mean. However, the Magisterium can't materially speaking express doctrine through dialogues (too many catholics ;-) ). That's why I said it's the priest's job to give the teachings through dialogues and to root them in the human situation of their flocks.

Concerning the Tridentine rite (I 've just seen one at Fongombault, a very long time ago), isn't the way the Motu Proprio does things more able to be used in the way you said? I mean, with that Motu Proprio, someone like me who is just a "novus ordo one" will go on listening to the Mass I love and I have always known; whereas a fellow Catholic whose sensibility is Latin, mystery, etc... will be able to have a Tridentine Mass. The priests will be able to be nearer their flock this way.

Morever if I have righly understood, the Easter celebration will only be able to be said in the ordinary rite : this will show the absolute unity of the Church despite its diversity...

Byzantine catholics with their rites aren't a problem; why would "old Catholic rites" be one?

Concerning the scriptures, we aren't forbidden to read them out of the Mass, are we?

[Gégé]

I mean : Unless one thinks the extraordinary rite is evil, I can't really see any problem. The more flexibility, the more freedom.

Sincerely.

[Joseph O'Leary]

The extraordinary rite is not a different rite but a step back to an earlier form of the present Roman rite. The reforms seen as urgent and necessary by Vatican II are thus treated as optional and reversible.

I am all for creative variety in inculturated forms of the Roman rite, as in Vietnam and the Congo (praised by Benedict XVI in The Spirit of the Liturgy), because they are moving in the direction of Vatican II. But a return to the unreformed rite is moving in the opposite direction, the direction of "no change" strongly advocated by the Lefebvrites.

So it is not innocuous at all.

[Gégé]

But I thought that the extraordinary rite had been reformed along the centuries many times?

Concerning the second and third paragraphs of your answer (thanks you to have taken this time) I can't agree about the "toxicity" of the use of the ER (extraordinary Rite), because ER isn't just for Monseigneur Lefèbvre followers; there are "trads" who don't have a problem with the existence of the Novus Ordo although their sensibility is in the ER, and who don't have a problem with ecumenism or inter-religious dialogue. One can imagine that people can discover this way of celebrating Mass and enrich themselves with what that rite emphasises.

And finally, since the rite (I was told) has been reformed (slightly) over the centuries, why not dream of new reforms and perhaps variety?

Thank you.

PS : I'm afraid of one thing in today's Church (perhaps in the past too, but I wasn't here to see the good old days). I have remarked that people use many words that can be useful in sociology such as "traditionalist" "progressive", etc... But I remarked that this destroys dialogue in charity, because once one hears that such people go to "Latin Mass" or that such people wants a Vatican Council III, the dialogue no longer exists. It turns to : your just a(censured) trad/ you're just a (censured)progressive.

Where's charity then?

[I. Shawn McElhinney]

Notice that Jesus teaches (a) through dialogue (b) in reference to concrete human situations (c) with reference to Scripture.

In dealing with individuals there is naturally going to be a different approach than when speaking generally.

The Tridentine Mass revival will annul such teaching and make priests more like the present unimaginative CDF, parrotting "objective" doctrines -- in of course the false "objectivist" sense of objectivity (you do not get my point on this).

You come across as bitter Fr. O'Leary. Have you by chance bothered at any point to question your own infallibility much as you demand that the CDF question theirs???

The Novus Ordo is hated by conservatives because it lets Scripture speak (14% of the OT as opposed to 1% in the old lectionary) so we can hear the prophets present God as a God of justice and peace, or as a liberator (as in today's first reading from Exodus 3).

Of course the current lectionary is rather selective in spots with omissions parallel references to God's justice. It is in essence the polar opposite of the old lectionary in this regard which focused too much on the justice side of the equation. The two are sides of the same coin and should be presented together as such. Hopefully there will be a revision to the existing lectionary which while overall a superior product over the older version nonetheless is imbalanced in its own right.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Opening the plenary of the German bishops' conference with a two-hour address in late September, Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Mainz said of the Roman release that "It is not appropriate to repeat and republish reminders and admonitions on binding church teaching, which are moreover frequently incomplete or abbreviated, within a period of a few years -- even if they are necessary." First reported in English by The Tablet's Christa Pongratz-Lippitt in Vienna, the address by the president of the German episcopate was termed "striking" and, she wrote, "may signal a new intent to defend the reforms of the [Second Vatican] Council" on the part of the German bishops. Pongratz-Lippitt also noted that "unanimously and with no abstentions," the German conference also "agreed on a 10-point guideline" to govern celebrations of the 1962 Missal in the 27 dioceses of Europe's largest country. Among the norms: a pro tem ban on the creation of personal parishes for the faithful attached to the Extraordinary Rite, and that "priests who celebrate the [1962 Form] had to also accept the Ordinary [Form] of 1970."

(Whispers from the Logggia)

It looks as if the German bishops are aware of the limitations of their papal colleague's vision.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Shawn McElhinney, I have visited your weblog and find there a neocath who is still vocal -- many of them seem to have fallen silent of late -- whether because of a general crisis of blogging or because they have run out of things to say or whether because they are registering how unproductive their constant nagging is and have chosen silence as the wiser strategy.

I found very problematic your statements on torture. You object to it being "treated as if on a par with various subjects which are not admitting of latitude in Catholic belief". You insinuate that the Church has some latitude in regard to torture... You say that unlike abortion, gay "marriage" (your scare-quotes), euthanasia, adultery and divorce, and even fetal stem cell research the Catholic Church has not defined what they mean by "torture." Odd to see divorce on this list...

You prefer to say "Catholic principles on human dignity" rather than Catholic condemnation of torture. You say, "There is a difference between noting principles and enunciating teaching and without a definition for a word being understood, there cannot be actual teaching on any issue whatsoever." You seem to want the Church to ease its opposition to torture as the USA has done. Of course you object that people are ruling out of court "any forms of coercion or interrogation whatsoever", but this seems a straw man argument.

The vagueness of church statements, you claim, "has given some people the pretext for lumping under the nebulous term 'torture' many forms of interrogation which seek for a just cause during wartime to coerce enemies to give up vital information for the safety of the common good of society and protection of just public order." So what are these methods you feel are unjustly threatened? Water-boarding?, sleep deprivation for 55 days?

"Technically," you say, until a clear definition of torture is given, "there is no need to take those who prattle on about this issue with even the most remote of seriousness" -- even if they themselves have been victims of torture?

You quote a fellow neocath: "We do not have a definition of torture from the Church and if, as has been suggested, the definition of torture includes a reasonability or proportinality condition [CLEARLY IN CHURCH TEACHING IT DOES NOT] then exactly the same thing will apply to torture: Not everything that looks like torture will turn out to be torture in all circumstances."

So this is what the neocath apologetical movement has come to: weasel words designed to pervert Catholic teaching so as to allow the Bush regime to continue its campaign against human decency.