GU Prof in Trouble with USCCB

[theexorcist]

EDIT - tinyurl.com/yu45ne

There's a Post article, too, but you need to log in to read it.

This sounds really strange - the book is misleading, so don't buy it? Any comments on this from inside the tower?

[hoyaLS05]

www.thehoya.com/news/091807/news2.cfm

Story first came out back in September. It certainly sounds strange.

[CWS]

One of the debates going on in the Catholic Church and Christianity in general is the role of Christ vis-a-vis other religions. Catholicism accepts the fact that members of non-Christian religions can be saved. The debate right now is how to understand the role of these other religions, i.e., whether these other religions act as helpful instruments in that salvation, or are instead neutral or even misguiding influences. (In more theological language: does God work through these other religions or is the labor of the Spirit something that occurs completely apart from them?)

Some liberal Christians see Christianity as one of many possible paths to salvation. Progressive Catholics, on the other hand, tend to describe Christianity as the final, perfect, full, absolute path, but believe that other religions have a role (albeit, imperfect, partial, etc.). The Vatican (or some in the Vatican?) tends to take a more exclusive position: yes, non-Christians are saved, but non-Christian religions should not be viewed as instruments in that salvation (Judaism is an exception, given its role in salvation history).

When theologians like Phan use language like "absolute" and "final" to describe Jesus' role in salvation, they could be read to imply that there are other saviors, although they are not absolute and final, hence the caution of the US bishops.

I wouldn't read too much into this, (i.e., it's a bit much to say that a "GU prof in trouble with USCCB"). These kind of statements going back and forth are a regular part of interchanges between the CAtholic hierarchy and CAtholic theologians.

[theexorcist]

CWS:

Why wouldn't you "read too much in to this"?

I'll explain why I'm asking. The Post article - where I first read about this - is linked below. It includes the words "Attempts last night to reach Phan were unsuccessful, and it wasn't clear from the bishops' statement what will happen if Phan does not make changes to his writings. Phan is in a long line of priests who have been censured by church officials for their writings.

According to the bishops' statement, Phan's book says references to Jesus as unique should 'be jettisoned and replaced by other, theologically more adequate equivalents.'"

The Post writer seems markedly less optimistic (though they may simply be hedging). The reference in the statement to Jesus as unique seems as though it would seriously question Catholic doctrine.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001596.html

[DFW HOYA]

Georgetown gets its fair share of criticism in the Catholic community for people just like this--it attracts the likes of those which are seen by some as pushing the envelope on heretodoxy bordering on heresy on the theological spectrum, yet maintains no one on the other side of the fence as a visible national figure on traditional doctrine.

[CWS]

Maybe I am overly sanguine about it, and I have no inside scoop or anything. But couple of things. First, this happens in the Catholic Church a lot. Theologians are condemned, criticized, and then later become the standard-bearer of Church teaching; I see it as part of the testing process of the development of teachings. Aquinas was condemned, and just about every theologian whose thought became part of Vatican II teaching was at one time or another silenced, criticized, condemned (Rahner, Murray, de Lubac, Congar, etc.). Second, the bishops could have said explicitly that the book contained errors, but instead they used milder language, saying that the book could confuse the faithful (i.e., it's not necessarily wrong, just not clear enough).

Finally, and here I'm speculating: I think most Catholic bishops and theologians recognize that the Church has entered a new terrain, and doesn't yet have a clearly defined, dogmatic position on this issue: what should the Catholic believe about how God or God's Spirit is working in other religious traditions? What is their theological role, if any?

It used to be pretty clear: other religious traditions had no theological role. They were wrong and false, simply. Thus what was seen as the traditional Catholic doctrine: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, outside the Church there is no salvation. The idea can be found in the first centuries of the Church, but was articulated clearly in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved"; and by Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctam (1302): "Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins ... We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Vatican II changed all that, or at least, it did so in the minds of many Catholic theologians. We're told that it is our conscience that God will ultimately judge (“In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which he is bound to obey. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to his heart more specifically: Do this. Shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man. According to it he will be judged” (Gaudium et spes, no. 16).

[Pasting some other quotes from Vatican II:] Jews are acknowledged as "first receivers of God's covenant," Muslims as "followers of Abraham," Hindus and Buddhists as "advanced civilisations . . .with a deep religious sense" (Lumen Gentium, 16; Nostra Aetate 2). The Council's 1965 Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) states unequivocally that "the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions." Indeed, Christians should "acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among Non-Christians, as well as their social life and culture" (NA, 2).

[Continuing to paste from other sources...]
Summarising the theological vision of Vatican II, the Secretariat for Non-Christians (later renamed the Pontifical Commission for Interreligious Dialogue) declared in 1984:

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council . . . affirm that in the religious traditions of non-Christians there exist "elements which are true and good" (LG, 16), "precious things, both religious and human" (GS, 92), "seeds of contemplation" (AG, 18), "elements of truth and grace" (AG, 9), "seeds of the Word" (AG, 11; 15), and "rays of that truth which illumines all humankind" (NA, 2). According to explicit conciliar indications, these values are found and preserved in the great religious traditions of humanity.

The question that is at the heart of the tension between Phan and the US bishops is how to interpret non-Christian religions theologically; i.e., whether God is using these traditions in a positive way to bring salvation to non-Christians, or should we see these traditions more neutrally (or even negatively)? On that, I don't think the Church's position is completely settled.

Since the tradition is not yet settled on that score, I think we will see some theological tussles around the issue for the next generation.

[rosslynhoya]

FYI, if you're interested in learning more, the USCCB's doctrine committee's conclusions are now available at

www.usccb.org/dpp/StatementonBeingReligiousInterreligiously.pdf