If misery truly loves company, my tonsils are currently the Platonic Form of Wedded Bliss. The filthy little bastards.

In Irish culture, there is an over-riding belief in what is loosely called "luck." Despite being third generation Irish in the States, I've been amused and amazed to learn how some of these cultural conventions have nevertheless trickled down to us. So, being a "glass half empty" kind of culture after nine centuries of happy relations with the English, the Irish tend to be very superstitious about speaking of things in our lives being "good" because that simply provokes the "bad." Luck. Therefore, the other week, talking with Mum on the phone, I remarked that – other than the surgery stuff I've had to deal with over the last few years – I've gone without so much as a cold for something like three years. Mom immediately gasped, and said something to the effect of "Don't say that! Are you crazy?!" I was just provoking "Luck" to come and give me bad luck. Maybe this is getting slightly toward the same idea the Greeks had about Nemesis.

So naturally, true to form, I spent all last week being oddly achy, and then on Thursday evening, after catching a matinée of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix with Diane after I got done teaching, my tonsils exploded into the giant, diseased form they now exhibit, and which kept me pretty much laid out light-headed and aching all weekend. I keep wishing they'd been chopped out of me as a kid. They're so huge that I've been having trouble sleeping because I keep choking or gagging on them when I lay down. Totally disgusting.

I couldn't talk for more than a sentence yesterday without my voice blowing out, but it seems stronger today. It's been painful, but Mike Canaris visited me from Fordham University this afternoon, and we just spent two hours talking about Francis Sullivan. Mike is the third doctoral student after me and Fr. Dermot Ryan over at the Gregorian University in Rome to plan a doctoral dissertation on Francis Sullivan's work. Mike was out here for the Green Bay/Philadelphia game this weekend, and made a point of getting together with me while staying here in town with his aunt.

It was a lot of fun to be able to talk with someone (if painfully, in a raspy voice) who knew Sullivan's material. Once we had established that our dissertation ideas weren't the same and possibly in competition with or invalidated by the other's work (the first, natural fear you have) we got on very comfortably. The Catholic theological community is past the sort of self-destructive phase that academic theology went through in the mid-20th century (a deconstructionist phase, more in Protestant theology, and before "deconstructionism" had been articulated) and so it tends to be full of people of good will. I walked into Starbucks expecting to see someone who looked more-or-less like myself, dressed in pretentious "junior academic" fashion, and found instead a relaxed and cool "regular student" in a Fordham hoodie, baseball cap, with a big smile and goatee who looked more like he'd stopped by to throw a football around. And so I got to laugh at my expectation and to enjoy the difference. Whereas I'm from working-class rural Midwestern farming country, Mike seemed more from working-class Philadelphia urban stock. We compared notes of how we had drifted upward into academic theology and traced our rising interests into Sullivan's work. I was also particularly interested in hearing about Mike's experience working for one of American Catholic theology's superstars: he's been assisting Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J. for three years now. While my dissertation ideas have more to do with a "marco"-level look at Sullivan's ecclesiology from an organizing paradigm in his charismatic perspectives, and Dermot is looking at Sullivan's concept of the role of the theologian in the church from his response to the CDF's Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Mike is looking at putting together something more ecumenically-oriented, in dealing with Sullivan's work regarding Jacques Dupuis, and Sullivan's book Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response. Soon we were cheerfully throwing around terms like "hermeneutics," "neo-pentecostal," and "ordinary universal magisterium" with the happy ease of a person who has finally met someone who has read all the right books and for whom you don't have to stop to explain what all the basics.

After about an hour at Starbucks, where we met, we moved over to my apartment so that he could look at the Italian dissertation on the Magisterium that Dermot had sent me which had a Sullivan chapter in it (and one on Dulles), so that Mike could judge whether it was something he'd like to copy. I burned him a CD of my interviews with Sullivan while we continued talking, and gave him a copy of a small book from the 1970s that I'd accidentally bought two copies of, which had a chapter by Sullivan that he might be able to use. In time, we walked over to the copy shop through the cool, autumn-like rain greying Milwaukee today, talking about other things, too, like travels in Florence.

So, a very happy couple of hours. My throat didn't give out, though it now hurts a lot more, and so I hope I won't have to cancel class tomorrow. I've had to cancel a third social engagement in four days, but I wasn't going to drop this one entirely, since Mike's presence here in Milwaukee was so extra-ordinary, and too good an opportunity to miss. That it turned into a clear example of the kind of good-will and fellowship that I generally find to be normal in the theological community today – that was just gravy. It's cool that the three of us can have some contact with one another, at our diverse schools, and enjoy the benefits of one another's explorations into Frank Sullivan's work as we open up this hitherto-unexplored corner of theology. And having said all this, I'm going to go pass out. Or maybe moan a bit, first. My apologies to everyone I still owe responses to, etc.

Oi. I woke up this morning to find that there was a new document that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) had issued regarding the Second Vatican Council's statement that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church. Nicole Winfield, one of the regular AP reporters I read covering the Vatican, has a story out on it that naturally puts things in their bleakest and harshest terms, with a headline – hers or her editor's – that the Pope says (not the CDF, note) that other Christians' communities are "not true churches." Naturally, this language is rather like pissing gasoline into the fire, but I suppose it makes the story more "newsworthy."

The question is of particular interest to me because it is Francis Sullivan's – my dissertation subject – work, although he is not mentioned by name, that is in many respects going to be at the center of this question. In 2000, the CDF – then under the leadership of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict – issued a document entitled Dominus Iesus that said, among other things, something along these lines. The CDF issued Dominus Iesus without consulting the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, the members of which promptly had collective strokes at the clumsy declarations about the nature of other Christian churches. The CDF could issue such a statement without consulting even the Vatican's official group responsible for that area because the CDF has jurisdiction over all doctrinal matters. Naturally, the problem with that formulation is that everything done by each body within the Roman Curia – the papal administration – has something to do with doctrine. This makes for situations where the CDF seems to get really clumsy and oversay things because "doctrine" is too broad a field for total competence without wide consultation. After all, that is part of the reason why we are a church, a community, rather than individual people out trying to be spiritual. It is the CDF's responsibility to be a restraining force regarding teaching in the Church, and it is an important and necessary function. It should be noted, though, in Church politics, that the CDF putting something out, even though the Pope signs off on their doing so, is in itself considered of less weight than a more explicitly papal teaching as in the form of an encyclical.

Sullivan issued a few articles that dealt with the meaning of these two words, that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Roman Catholic Church – a phrase that was understood after the Council, by the Council Fathers – to indicate that there was a legitimacy to other forms of Christianity. This is a different question than whether or not the Catholic Church might preserve a "fullness" of the way of being the Church of Christ that other churches lack, like having the ministry of the papacy, which provides a kind of unity and leadership lacking in other forms of Christianity. These are fairly delicate and technical questions about the nature of the Church and are probably best handled among the church leadership and theologians of the various churches. News stories like this, unfortunately, tend to reduce asking these technical questions to something more to street-level pissing contests. I'll be curious here to see if Sullivan's careful correction of misunderstandings within Dominus Iesus is taken into account here, or if this is recycling the same confusions: I've not yet read the document, which I include below. The question is made even more interesting (for me and for my dissertation) because Ratzinger's replacement as the head of the CDF is Cardinal Levada, who happens to be a doctoral student of Sullivan's. Professor Fahey wrote to me that Sullivan had sent off a response to Levada this morning, and I've already cheekily asked Sullivan if I could read his mail.

I include below the AP story on the issue, inflammatory as it may be; Sandro Magister's introduction article; the text of the CDF document itself; the commentary on the text, issued by the CDF; and then another, unrelated and much lighter little AP story about Benedict's summer vacation plans.... Now, to actually get to it!


Pope: Other Christians Not True Churches
Jul 10, 8:49 AM (ET)

By NICOLE WINFIELD

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

( Read more... )

Summer Assignment: Restudy the Doctrine of the Church
This is what is prescribed by a new document from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. The Orthodox and Protestants are cautioned: the Catholic Church is the only one in which subsist the "essential constitutive elements" of the Church intended by Christ. Turbulence in view, in ecumenical dialogue

by Sandro Magister

ROMA, July 10, 2007 – Benedict XVI departed yesterday for his vacation in the Alps, leaving an assignment for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith: the task of refreshing for the bishops, faithful, and above all the theologians, some of the controversial points of the doctrine on the Church, in order to avert “errors and ambiguities.”

The congregation carried out this assignment with the document published today, which is presented below in its entirety.

( Read more... )

Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Introduction

The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen gentium," and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter "Ecclesiam suam" (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter "Ut unum sint" (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church "ommunionis notio" (1992), and the declaration "Dominus Iesus" (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

( Read more... )

Commentary on "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church"

In this document the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is responding to a number of questions concerning the overall vision of the Church which emerged from the dogmatic and ecumenical teachings of the Second Vatican Council. This Council ‘of the Church on the Church’ signalled, according to Paul VI, “a new era for the Church” in which “the true face of the Bride of Christ has been more fully examined and unveiled.”[1] Frequent reference is made to the principle documents of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II and to the interventions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, all of which were inspired by an ever deepening understanding of the Church herself, and many of which were aimed at clarifying the notable outpouring of post-conciliar theology – not all of which was immune from imprecision and error.

This present document is similarly inspired. Precisely because some contemporary theological research has been erroneous, or ambiguous, the Congregation’s intention is to clarify the authentic meaning of certain ecclesiological statements of the Magisterium. For this reason the Congregation has chosen to use the literary genre of Responsa ad quaestiones, which of its nature does not attempt to advance arguments to prove a particular doctrine but rather, by limiting itself to the previous teachings of the Magisterium, sets out only to give a sure and certain response to specific questions.

( Read more... )

Pope to Write New Book While on Vacation
Jul 9, 3:40 PM (ET)

BY NICOLE WINFIELD

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI said Monday he plans to use his nearly three-week-long vacation in the Italian mountains to write a new book and said he was also preparing a new encyclical.

Benedict spoke briefly to reporters as he arrived at a church-owned villa in Lorenzago di Cadore, in the mountains near Italy's border with Austria. He said he hopes to work on the second volume of the book "Jesus of Nazareth." The first volume was published earlier this year.

( Read more... )

According to my map program, today my journal got a hit for the first time, not from Rome, but from the Holy See: the Vatican City-State. Is the Pope reading my journal? The CDF? The cleaning staff? The office in the basement that secretly controls the world economy?

Doctrinal congregation head finds his work mostly behind the scenes
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 2005, U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada has found that most of his work is behind the scenes.

The recent action against Jesuit Father Jon Sobrino was an exception: He was the first theologian to be publicly censured during Cardinal Levada's tenure, and the case immediately brought the doctrinal congregation into the media spotlight.

Although some critics described the Vatican's action against Father Sobrino as authoritarian, for Cardinal Levada it was an example of how carefully and cooperatively the doctrinal congregation operates.

"I think we work in a more collegial fashion than in most instances in the church," Cardinal Levada told Catholic News Service in a wide-ranging interview in mid-March.

"We take into account all the relevant data before articulating our position," he said. That means thorough reflection and discussion by groups of theological peers before decisions, reprimands or decrees are handed down, he said.

Cardinal Levada, 70, is the first U.S. prelate to head the doctrinal congregation, which is the oldest of the Vatican's nine congregations and considered primary in responsibility and influence.

( Read more... )


The New York Times
March 17, 2007
Beliefs
‘Spiritual Realities’ in Service of Science and Vice Versa
By PETER STEINFELS

When the Templeton Foundation gave its annual prize, now valued at $1.5 million, to the philosopher Charles Taylor, it probably did itself an even greater service than it did the honoree.

And in a simple, almost unnoticed phrase at a news conference on Wednesday when the award was announced, Professor Taylor inadvertently suggested why.

His remarks were impromptu, although the news media packet for the event contained a prepared formal statement. He began, of course, by expressing his sense of being surprised and overwhelmed by the prize, which used to be given for “progress in religion” but since 2001 has been given for “progress toward research or discoveries about spiritual realities.”

Professor Taylor immediately noted that the idea of “discovery” in spiritual matters was “an analogy to scientific discovery in chemistry, physics and so on.” In answering a question later, he went further, worrying aloud that “the notion of discovery here by analogy with natural science a little bit falsifies the picture.”

To many listening, this point about “analogy” might only have been a passing remark, but to a careful thinker like Professor Taylor, it was fundamental. And it showed why giving him the prize this year could be a breakthrough moment for the prize itself and the foundation that presents it.

( Read more... )


The Sentence Against Theologian Jon Sobrino Is Aimed at an Entire Continent

In pointing out the errors in two books, the Vatican wanted above all to warn their readers: the bishops, priests, and laypeople of Latin America. It is the prelude to Benedict XVI’s upcoming visit to Brazil. At the center of it all is the question on who is the real Jesus

by Sandro Magister

ROMA, March 20, 2007 – Last Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, a diminutive friar from Peru in the black and white habit of the Dominicans came before Benedict XVI, who was officiating over the rite in the Roman basilica of Santa Sabina. The pope applied the ashes to his head.

The friar was Gustavo Gutiérrez, author of the 1971 book “A Theology of Liberation,” which gave rise to the theological current of the same name.

In 1984, and again in 1986, this theology was severely criticized by two documents from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, signed by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. But it still influences large sectors of the Latin American Church, in their mentality and language.

Not all of its major exponents have taken the same path. Gutiérrez has corrected some of its initial positions, has entered the Dominican order, and at the beginning of this Lent he was called to give a theology course at an illustrious pontifical university in Rome, the Angelicum, where Karol Wojtyla studied.

But another famous liberation theologian, the Jesuit Jon Sobrino, a Basque émigré to El Salvador, where he co-founded the University of Central America, UCA, has held firm on his positions even after the congregation for the doctrine of the faith placed two of his books under examination.

And he says that he doesn’t want to fold even today, now that two of his texts have been judged “erroneous and dangerous.”

( Read more... )

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith put out some pointers of where they concluded that Jon Sobrino's theology so under-emphaizes certain points that it threatens to produce an image of Christ or of the Church that is less than that of the faith. This perhaps isn't so surprising, as his theological method attempts to overtly base itself in one particular social and political experience: a method that would lend itself to making expressions so particular or parochial that the wider, more universal aspects of the faith might be insufficiently expressed. The statement issued by the Vatican seems focused on making such methodological qualifications and lacks any overt "condemnation" of Sobrino of the sort that might turn this into a more "personal" fight of the like seen before, where a theologian then is cast in news reports as the lone righteous voice representing Individualism and Freedom standing over and against the [evil] Church representing Retrogression, Conformity, and Repression. That's a much-loved and much-repeated caricature we can do without. I hope here, instead, we'll continue to see the kind of collaborative and civil engagement of a creative theologian exploring a new articulation working out his vision in communion with the wider experience of the Church today and throughout history.

Vatican criticizes Jesuit liberation theologian, issues no sanctions
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican strongly criticized the work of Jesuit Father Jon Sobrino, a leading proponent of liberation theology, saying some of his writings relating to the divinity of Christ were "not in conformity with the doctrine of the church."

In publishing a detailed notification March 14, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said it wanted to warn pastors and ordinary Catholics of the "erroneous or dangerous propositions" in Father Sobrino's work.

The notification did not, however, impose any disciplinary measures on Father Sobrino, such as limiting his right to teach or publish as a Catholic theologian. Father Sobrino, 69, was born in Spain and has taught for many years at the Jesuit-run Central American University in El Salvador.

( Read more... )

In this Commonweal article, ecclesiologist and the John and Gertrude Hubbard Professor of Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America, Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak, who is also one of the co-editors of the new five-volume History of Vatican Council II, takes a look at the elements that have contributed to Benedict XVI's theological formation. As a brief intellectual history, it seems pretty good. Toward the end, there are some harder words of criticism that may be unfounded or at least less certain, but we shall see whether that is so as time plays out.

The Church in Crisis
Pope Benedict’s Theological Vision

Joseph A. Komonchak

In articles about Pope Benedict XVI, much has been made of his experience of student unrest at the University of Tübingen in 1968. Many see that experience as the best explanation of the apparent intellectual about-face that turned the young progressive theologian of the Second Vatican Council into the poster-child of conservative reaction in theology and in church politics. There is something to this, and Joseph Ratzinger was not the only European intellectual to have been deeply affected by the excesses of the fascists of the left at the time. (We all know the definition of a neoconservative: a liberal who’s been mugged.)

But overemphasizing that Tübingen experience may lead one to overlook the deeper continuity in the new pope’s basic theological approach and vision. ( Read more... )