CTSA: Young theologian to the CTSA: 'The hierarchy is not our enemy'
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Miami
An up-and-coming Catholic theologian said today that the previous generation in the church, both bishops and theologians, has left behind a “negative legacy” of ideological division, and called upon theologians to recognize that “overall, the hierarchy is not our enemy.”
Perhaps most pointedly, Jozef Zalot called upon theologians to remember that bishops are the successors of the apostles, and it’s their teachings which are binding on the church, not those of the theological guild. At the same time, he also invited bishops to seek contributions from a “greater range” of theologians in formulating statements, and to be open to private critique from sources outside the hierarchy.
Zalot, who received his Ph.D. from Marquette in 2002 and today teaches at the College of Mount St. Joseph in Cincinnati, made the comments at the annual convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America in Miami.
Zalot spoke as part of a panel on a new generation of theologians in the CTSA. He described what he sees as an unfortunate split between bishops and theologians that prevents the church from addressing pressing social problems in a unified fashion.
“Many theologians believe bishops to be theologically illiterate, while many bishops view academic societies such as the CTSA to be irrelevant,” Zalot said. “This dynamic needs to change.”
In practical terms, Zalot urged that Catholic theologians “need to work more collaboratively with the church hierarchy.” Candidly, he added that based on conversations he’s had with more senior members of the theological guild, this is something “there seems to be little desire on the part of many theologians to do.”
Zalot made clear that he sees this call as reflecting neither a traditional “liberal” or “conservative” stance. In fact, he seemed to suggest, that very ideological taxonomy is part of the problem.
“On one side we have the so-called ‘liberals’ (clerical and lay) who are wary, distrustful, and sometimes openly hostile to church hierarchy, and who see little or no possibility for collaboration with it,” he said. “On the other side we have the so-called ‘conservatives’ (again, clerical and lay) who, while meticulously maintaining continuity with established church doctrine, render as heretical any attempt at respectful, critical questioning of magisterial teaching.”
Zalot said those divisions prevent Catholicism from offering a unified witness to critically important questions such as “individualism and relativism … the war on terror, sexuality, medical research, immigration, the plight of refugees, [and] economic policy.”
Zalot said that he does not see “the ideological divide in our generation as I do with our predecessors.”
“My hope and prayer for our generation is that we will not allow our differences to cloud the work that God has called us to do,” he said.
“It would be of great service to the church if we, the next generation of Catholic theologians, made it clear to the U.S. bishops’ conference – and by extension to the magisterium as a whole – that we desire a positive working relationship,” Zalot said.
Zalot described the hierarchy as “an essential partner in extending Christ’s message to a world that so desperately needs it.”
At the same time, Zalot challenged the bishops to be open to theological input, saying that “critique offered in a spirit of mutual collaboration is good for our church, and hopefully someday our bishops – and the magisterium as a whole – will more fully recognize this.”
Zalot asked rhetorically, “Am I being naïve and idealistic here?”
“Maybe,” he said.
Dear newhope~ I agree with
Dear newhope~ I agree with much of what you say. It does seeem a bit inconsistent with your affirmation of Pope Benedict. The tenor of his papacy seems to be contrary precisely to your theme of self-direction and personal conscience rather than rote adherance. Have you visited the discussions here on women's ordination?
Dear Newhope, You say,
Dear Newhope,
You say, "There are far too many orthodox EWTN Christians with the nastiest dispositions than is good for the world. Where is the hope, the joy, the salvation, the redemption and reason for living God gives? It is still in the Word. And the church will survive this time in history. But For God's sake, won't someone get over it, already? We were set free in Christ for a reason."
Is your contention that Christ established a Church on the Rock of Peter, with the intention of immediately setting us free from it? I agree that unity grows out of love and not coercion, and find Pope Benedict XVI to be a prime example of this "caritas in veritate." But your comments about the Inquisition, brainwashing, and the 'devil's doctrine of blind obedience' sound like the trite disparagements from the Church's perennial critics. "We were set free in Christ for a reason." Free from his established Church, or from those who constantly denigrate it? I am left to wonder who is brainwashing whom.
admajoremdeigloriam : A
admajoremdeigloriam :
A suggestion: read "Murder in the Vatican", then revisit this post.
The existence of the CTSA
The existence of the CTSA itself begs the question: What, exactly IS a "theologian?" It's not a position. It's not an official title. And, it's not rank in the hierarchy. Basically it's meaningless-like Ward Churchill or Louis Farrakkan as self-appointing themselves as "leaders" of the black or Native American "community."
Same thing here: A "theologian" from what I can see, is someone who rejects the idea of Truth, requires adulation, and self-appoints himself to an imaginary position of authority to oppose the Church.
A Catholic Theologian is one
A Catholic Theologian is one who defines and explains the Truth. If one does not define and explain the Truth, one is simply a theologian.
I'm trying to imagine what
I'm trying to imagine what kind of church we'd have without theologians, Jolenecasa.
It would be a church in which faith would be equated with being told what to do and what to believe. The faithful would be expected to obey without question and without understanding--since understanding is not necessary when obedience is the only virtue to be cherished.
It would be a church in which faith would be equated with looking up "the" truth in a book like a catechism, and then assenting intellectually to "the" truth, regardless of whether we understand what the text we accept with our heads means.
It would be a church in which faith would be equated with mouthing catechetical or magisterial statements that we have received intellectually, without any concern for how we take those teachings into our hearts and let them inform our beings at the deepest level possible, so that we live them with heart, mind, and soul--with our whole beings.
It would be a church in which those who claim to have "the" truth locked away in books like a catechism could use those truths as weapons against others who ask questions about "the" truths, in a sincere quest to understand, receive the truth into their inmost selves, and live that truth in the cultural context in which they try to be faithful to the gospel.
It would be a church in which litmus tests of orthodoxy would be simple to apply: the truth is in the book. Look it up. If you don't assent to it intellectually, then you are on the outside.
It would be a church in which witch hunts to hound the "unorthodox" out of the church would be simple to mount, since the truth would belong to those who own the book and its truths, and choose to use the book of truths as a weapon against others.
It would be a church in which it would be easy to equate one political movement or political party with Catholic values, on the basis of those "truths" found in a book like a catechism. Without theologians, no one would be asking inconvenient questions about the disparity between what politicians who claim to believe "the" truth say and what they actually do.
It would be a church in which clerics lord it over layfolks, since they own the book that has the truths written into it.
Would it what Jesus envisaged when he proclaimed the reign of God? Personally, I doubt it, but, then, I have been very much influenced by theology and by theologians and by the belief that our faith must always seek understanding, and must engage in creative dialogue with reason, since the same God is the source of both faith and reason.
William D. Lindsey
What you describe as a
What you describe as a church without theologians,
bears a remarkable resemblance to the rhetoric we hear from
those who label themselves "the faithful orthodox"
when they are trying to "teach" the "rest of us"
how to be a "real" Catholics and correct us so that we are
saved us from the sin of "liberal heresy"
while I clearly see the espousal of rigid adherance to doctrine
as their measure of a "true catholic"
what I do not see is the common ground of love anywhere in that rhetoric
what I do not see is the common ground of the Holy Spirit
There's no way to be without
There's no way to be without theologians. Eventually somebody somewhere is going to put their thoughts about God on paper and voilá! you have a new theologian. The Orthodox have an even simpler view - they say anyone who prays is a theologian. "Theologian" is about as descriptive as "carpenter". There are lots of different kinds, and lots of different skill levels. Whether there ought to be some kind of vetting to pronounce a person an "official theologian" of some sort is a very different issue. There are all kinds of titles out there that mostly indicate the person claiming them thinks too highly of themselves, and "theologian" is just one. "Scientist" is another one. Everyone, at some point in their spiritual lives, has to come to realize that a great many people who claim expertise and authority are just fooling themselves.
Actually, it would be a
Actually, it would be a Church that had a simpler belief, but more fierce. Faith would triumph over even the preaching of others, truth become less important. What it would lack in knowledge would be made up in passion. The modern non-denominational movement would be the eventual result. However, greater knowledge allows for a greater love, the more we know why and what we believe, the more we are able to participate in Divine love.
However, if CTSA is the definition of a theologian, then jolenecasa is right. Theologians have to look at their relation to the Church and the Magesterium and not become so attached to their opinions that they end up out of union with the Church. (props to whoever puts that together). I think she "gets" what Zalot was saying... and I think that he "gets" the role of the theologian.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
HT, I really wanted to give
HT, I really wanted to give you a four, but your last paragraph kind of killed it. Why shouldn't the magisterium have to look at their opinions and quit being so attached to them? How do you know they aren't out of touch with the Church?
On the other hand, you are dead on with this: "However, greater knowledge allows for a greater love, the more we know why and what we believe, the more we are able to participate in Divine love" The difference between you and I on this issue is, is where does our knowledge come from? You would say the magisterium and it's incredible 2000 year old history. I would say yes, that, and my own experience, mystical and otherwise, but also my beat up and abused conscience. In some respects spirituality is certainly a personal war.
I want you to know something else, I love you and sense the difficulty of the path you are walking. Know that you aren't alone. Some of us aren't discerning a call to the priesthood, but priesthood is only one of the very difficult calls living a life with Jesus that Jesus may be calling us to live. Theologians have their own difficult path and life, and to call everything they write and say ego, is well, egoish.
Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
When it is only a matter of
When it is only a matter of opinion (or theological speculation), ala Limbo, then it is open to examination. When it is a matter of consistent, authoritative teaching based on Scripture, not so much.
I agree that we learn from experience, and from those outside the Church. However I cannot trust my conscience to the degree that I am the one who beat up and abused it in the first place. My conscience is scarred, and needs direction and support.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
HT, are you aware that in
HT, are you aware that in your first 3 sentences, you are describing fundamentalist islam.
No, I am describing ignorant
No, I am describing ignorant faith. Perhaps not a sin, but not virtue either.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
I know one theologian I
I know one theologian I would not like to live without.
I'm sure Thomas Aquinas
I'm sure Thomas Aquinas appreciates this analysis.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
Zalot asked rhetorically,
Zalot asked rhetorically, “Am I being naïve and idealistic here?”
Ah, yes. But best wishes!
"...many bishops view
"...many bishops view academic societies such as the CTSA to be irrelevant.”
Perhaps the bishops are onto something. How many members of the CTSA have seen their works widely disseminated by the Catholic populace? Are they really making an impact outside of the lecture hall? Maybe this is a topic they should consider discussing at their next meeting.
It should be pointed out, however, that the bishops are hardly a group to talk. At meeting after meeting the USCCB releases documents that go mostly unread (even among priests and deacons). The "relevance" of the conference lies in the various guidelines they pass and not much else.
I agree that the
I agree that the Bishops have an apostolic authority to teach. This does not make me or anyone a slave of the Bishop. Many who want a return to the church of the past wish to give the impression that Rome has spoken, and think at your own peril.
Any serious study of the Inquisition will cure you of that idea, and for good. In our time, reading the 400+ pages of the documents in the DA's office concerning abusive priests will do the same.
Any serious discussion of Church must include the Holy Spirit. I have been called a Protestant for saying this-but mind control and brainwashing are unethical, and the church has engaged in these in more subtle ways than one might find in the days of yore-but if you ever wondered if you cojuld go to hell for missing Sunday mass, or eating meat on Friday, or using birth control to limi the swize of your family, you were brainwashed.
What is needed is a church that can be honest with itself-and this means that we must be honest with ourselves, and each other.
Christianity will survive the process, and so will we. But to quote a bumper sticker I have seen occasionally: "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention!".
Catholic or Protestant-you HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT ANYTHING YOU SAY MUST BIND MY CONSCIENCE WITHOUT MY EXPRESS CONSENT! I hope I am clear about this. Very clear. See-through, crystal clear.
St. Thomas taught that consience was the aboriginal vicar of Christ. We have betrayed our Lord and we continue in this betrayal when we betray our God given conscience and our personal responsibility for our spiritual lives. It is so easy to just follow everything we are taught without thinking. I suggest it ispossible to love your soul following the church in this manner,for you will lose Christ.
WHAT IS CHURCH? What is the meaning of authority in the church? I find myself more in agreement with Pope Benedict than not. The spirit of charity brings about unity through love, not coercion. This could include the Bishops. But to assume that I have to give up my God-given spiritual liberty for blind obedience is the devil's doctrine-make no mistake about it.
I also believe in the liberalisation of the church, and agree with what a Redemptoristine nun said, when asked about today's church and the ordination of women-"I don't believe this is what Jesus wants".
There are far too many orthodox EWTN Christians with the nastiest dispositions than is good for the world. Where is the hope, the joy, the salvation, the redemption and reason for living God gives? It is still in the Word.
And the church will survive this time in history. But For God's sake, won't someone get over it, already? We were set free in Christ for a reason. It was not to be dumb slaves of clerical authority. And not to disrespect religious authority for the sake of Christ, but to hear, and discern, and obey, if conscience will permit.