Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Distinguishing Theology from Catechesis: Exploring Unsafe Catholic Theologians who Challenge and Inspire Faith By: Michele

Stopera Freyhauf The biggest mistake people make is attempting to use theology and catechesis interchangeably; something that can be seen at the upper echelons of the Patriarchal hierarchy. This is an important distinction that impacts the scholarly community of Catholic Theologians, both veterans and rookies in the field. So what is the difference? The definition may seem black and white but the interpretation takes on varying shades of gray. Catechesis in the Catholic tradition is an echoing of the faith, an education of a maturing person, whether child or adult, about Catholicism (see McBrien). Theology on the other hand, using St. Anselm, is faith seeking understanding. Richard P. McBrien, in his article What Theology is and Is Not, states that a theologian is required to investigate and examine the whole of the Christian tradition; what it mean, how it fits, how it is developed, and how it relates to the outside the world in theory and in practice. I would not personally restrict this definition to Christian tradition, but McBriens definition is important within this discussion because it distinguishes the role of a theologian over a catechist. Michael G. Lawler and Todd A. Salzman, in their article Beyond Catechesis: What is the Proper Role of Theology cites the definition of catechesis from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Catechesis is an education in the faith They go on to state that catechesis can be included in theology, but theology is distinguished from catechesis because it uses scholarly principles not only to communicate the truths of faith but also to explore the meanings of those truths and contemporary ways of articulating them. The theologians role is seen as mediator between the magisterium and the faithful. Theologians are considered unsafe when they differ or dissent from the magisterium. However John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint requires such a dialogue with theologians without the threat of punitive or disciplinary action. Ex Corde Ecclesiae also emphasizes community and dialogue, which according to Lawler and Salzman have not always been realized in practice. The slant of the patriarchal authorities of the Catholic Church is to go with the safe theologians that support their views or agendas. This stance is evident in the swirling controversy of Elizabeth Johnsons book The Quest for the Living God where we have a very public discussion of this subject being launched from Catholic Theological Society of American (CTSA) and College Theological Society (CTS) against the USCCBs warning that Johnsons book contains misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors that bear upon the faith of the Catholic Church as found in Sacred Scripture, and as it is authentically taught by the Churchs universal magisterium. This warning was issued on March 24, 2011, four years after its publication with the primary basis identified as Johnsons broad audience; it was not written specifically for other scholars.

However, as McBrien points out that the theologian has three audiences only one of which is the scholarly community, which distinguishes a theologian from a catechist. The other issue of contention seems to be Johnsons understanding of God. The USCCB states that Johnson goes outside the faith to criticize the understanding of God. Once again, if you review McBriens article, theologians are required to do this. What I find strangely odd and mildly perplexing is the fact that this is not the first time Johnson writes about this image of God, which USCCB calls modern theism. In 1992 Johnsons groundbreaking work She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse introduces this notion and is followed up in 1993 with Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit. In fact, John Theil stated that Quest for a Living God as a culmination of Johnsons work. CTSA, in their response dated March 24, 2011, stated that Johnsons understanding of God, as human words cannot completely capture the divine reality is quite traditionally Catholic. They also point out that a theologians task is to venture in new ways to imagine and express the mystery of God. Johnson, in her response, defined her role as a theologian is to wrestle with mysteries that are always complex in light of a growing and living tradition of the Church. As previously outlined, this stance is distinguished from an echoing of the faith, as a catechist would, but examines and challenges it, in other words faith seeking understanding. The statement from CTS was similar but went on to state Johnsons theology is credited with plumbing the depths of the received Catholic tradition as found in diverse scriptural and historical witnesses of faith while investigating pressing issues and searching for ever deeper understanding. Citing Gaudium et Spes, CTSA believes that Johnson wrote this Book, in service and love for the church, should be encouraged by all in the Church and that the USCCBs stance denies the knowability of the very revelation the Word of God by their actions. With the USCCBs action there are two troubling items that go beyond this critique. The first is the fact that, according to CTSA, USCCB for not follow the approved procedures of Doctrinal Responsibilities which advocate that an informal conversation be undertaken between theologians and the Bishops. Johnson, in her response to the USCCBs stance stated that was glad to enter into a dialogue with the Doctrine Committee but they never bothered to contact her. The other was voiced by CTS, a concern that affects up and coming theologians, we are particularly concerned about the chilling effect the statement by the Committee on Doctrine will have on our younger colleagues. Instead of cultivating a culture of open collaboration and mutual dialogue between bishops, theologians, and the people of God in the advancement of a deeper understanding of the faith. The Committee in this document breeds disillusionment, fear, and mistrust among younger theologians in their relation to bishops and increasing sadness and fatigue among more seasoned scholars. In addition to CTSA and CTS, colleagues have stated similar concerns about this warning. Stephen J. Pope from Boston College believes that the warning was political, certain bishops decide that they want to punish some theologians and this is one way they do that. Since there is nothing particularly unusual in her book as far as theology goes, which is a continuation of thought since the early 1990s, Pope believes that this is nothing more

than making an example of someone whos prominent. Grant Gallicho states that the Bishops statement fails to meet the standards of presenting an intelligible and convincing scenario and is really a series of catechetical assertions that inadequately address the questions that animate the book. He also asks if the committee on Doctrine read this book? Mollie Wilson OReilly states that the Bishops are being oddly aggressive and inaccurate in its representations. She goes on to state that the Bishops accusation that Johnson has no regard for divine revelation is not fair. Mary Hunt also concurs with this statement the bishops were making an example of a feminist who taught in a Catholic university. Thomas Bushlack cites Avery Cardinal Dulles who states that there are two magisteria in our tradition: that of theologians and that of bishops, a statement that should be disturbing to all of us. The USCCB responded to the concerns through Cardinal Donald Wuerl who acknowledges the diminished level of catechetical preparation of so many students and because of this special attention must now be given as to how to address theological works that are aimed at students and yet do not meet criteria for authentic Catholic teaching. As I see this, because students are inadequately catechesized, theologians are being mandated to water down their theology in order to comply with the teachings of the Church? Fr. Anthony Ruff sees this differently stating that Wuerls comments, since we dont have the arguments, lets insist on our authority, but it sort of looks like it. Ruff goes on to talk about this issue between Theologians vs. Bishops as depressing, and bad, very bad, for the future of theological inquiry in the Church, at the service of the faithful and their leaders where we have compelling arguments on one side, appeal to authority on the other. Moreover, Ruff states that this stance does not help the Bishops creditability as authoritative teachers in light of the fact that the Bishops continue to teach that every use of artificial contraception is morally wrong, yet 98% of US Catholic women disagree. Ruff states I hope, O how I hope, that were not heading into a situation where the Bishops condemn books representative of the work of about 98% of theologians, and keep doing so until the theologians come around. I think it is apropos to look at the words of Cardinal Joseph Bernadin, who founded the Catholic Common Ground Initiative before he died found at that the beginning of Johnsons book The Church Women Want, There are urgent questions that the church in the United States knows it must air openly and honestly but which it increasingly feels pressed or evade or, at best, address obliquely. These issues call for a constructive debate by those with different viewpoints in dialogue expressed in an atmosphere of mutual respect where all parties can listen, learn, contribute, wrestle with the insights that should be tested and refined. For Bernadin, theology is not only healthy but ultimately builds up a vital future for the church. We are a living changing church, and through this journey it is our responsibility to understand the faith that we ascribe our beliefs to even if it means asking hard questions and exploring new interpretations. In essence, theologians and bishops should work together, even if it means challenging the status quo and it should be a conversation about just that. I would like to conclude with a list of Catholic Theologians, which along with Elizabeth Johnson, are considered to be an unsafe. A majority of these individuals have influenced

me in my own theology and are the very reason that I remain a Catholic today. They have given me a means in which to survive within a constricting and oppressive patriarchal institution. They continue to remind me fundamentally what Catholicism really means. I wonder, actually I hope that one day I might be added to this list. This list is by no means exhaustive (note the ones with * have received official Vatican Notices): Oscar Romero (early in his career did not have support),*Jon Sobrino, *Fr. Roger Haight, *Philip Keane, *Hans Kung, *Fr. Michael Morwood *Fr. Roy Bourgeois, Fr. Art Baranowski, Fr. Phil Berrigan, Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, Fr. Patrick Brennan, Fr. John Coleman, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, , Bishop Franz Kamphaus, Bishop Rembert Weakland, Bishop Thomas Gubleton, Bishop Raymond Lucker, Bishop Michael V. Seneco, Bishop Remi DeRoo, Bishop Jacques Gaillot, Thomas McCabe, Fr. Charles Curran, *Fr. Robert Nugent, Fr. George Wertin, Fr. Richard McBrien, Fr. Karl Rahner, *Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, Fr. Matthew Fox, Fr. Don Cozzens, Joseph Kelly, *Fr. Jacques Dupius, *Jacques Pohier, Sr. Carol Coston, Sr. Lavinia Byrne, Sr. Joan Chittister, Sr. Christine Schenk, Sr. Sandra Schneiders, Mary E. Hunt, Sr. Geannine Gramick, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai