Reader Sigmund notes a Vatican report that seem to slap down Catholic theologians a bit:
_____
What is the function of Catholic theology?
by Sigmund
The question above was the focus of a new report “Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles and Criteria”, published on the Vatican’s website on Thursday March 8th.
According to an article in the “On Faith” section of the Washington Post, the Vatican’s report:
“aimed at defining the principles of theological research in the Catholic Church and at exploring the limits of theologians’ freedom. “
According to the Washington Post writer, Allesandro Speciale, the Vatican commission that prepared the report—an advisory group of theologians that answers to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith—concluded that “The task of giving the “authentic interpretation” of the Catholic faith ultimately belongs to bishops, not theologians.”
The report, according to Speciale:
“states that “’dissent’ towards the magisterium has no place in Catholic theology,” but stresses that “investigation and questioning” are “justified and even necessary.” Bishops and theologians have “distinct callings, and must respect one another’s particular competence,” the panel said. But in the end, the “’authentic’ interpretation of the faith” is a prerogative of church authorities, namely the bishops, and theologians cannot “presume to substitute the teaching office of the church’s pastors.”
So theology is all well and good, so long as you do not dissent from the message of the hierarchy.
Does that mean that theology has no independent function?
Helpfully the report is not silent on this question and provides a clear answer,
“In all its endeavours, in accordance with Paul’s injunction always to ‘be thankful’ (Col 3:15; 1Thess 5:18), even in adversity (cf. Rom 8:31-39), [theology] is fundamentally doxological, characterised by praise and thanksgiving.”
Theology is fundamentally doxological? What does that mean?
According to Wikipedia, “a doxology (from the Greek δόξα [doxa] “glory” + -λογία [-logia], “saying”)is a short hymn of praises to God in various Christian worship services, often added to the end of canticles, psalms, and hymns.”
In other words theology, as understood by the Catholic Church, is not an intellectual pursuit of defining meaning in religious teachings but is, at its base, primarily aimed at singing praises to God!
______
JAC addendum: If Catholics are to take this report seriously, then they must abjure the interpretations of liberal theologians such as John Haught, who interpret Scripture differently from the “bishops.” They must hew to the Church line on issues like homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, and divorce. I believe that the Church has also affirmed a literal Adam and Eve, so they should adhere to that, too!
In view of this report, the onus is now on theologians to explain why we should adhere to their interpretations of Church teachings rather than those of the Church itself.
Here are the conclusions of the report (my emphasis):
CONCLUSION
100. As theology is a service rendered to the Church and to society, so the present text, written by theologians, seeks to be of service to our theologian colleagues and also to those with whom Catholic theologians engage in dialogue. Written with respect for all who pursue theological enquiry, and with a profound sense of the joy and privilege of a theological vocation, it strives to indicate perspectives and principles which characterise Catholic theology and to offer criteria by which that theology may be identified. In summary, it may be said that Catholic theology studies the Mystery of God revealed in Christ, and articulates the experience of faith that those in the communion of the Church, participating in the life of God, have, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church into the truth (Jn 16:13). It ponders the immensity of the love by which the Father gave his Son to the world (cf. Jn 3:16), and the glory, grace and truth that were revealed in him for our salvation (cf. Jn 1:14); and it emphasises the importance of hope in God rather than in created things, a hope it strives to explain (cf. 1Pet 3:15). In all its endeavours, in accordance with Paul’s injunction always to ‘be thankful’ (Col 3:15; 1Thess 5:18), even in adversity (cf. Rom 8:31-39), it is fundamentally doxological, characterised by praise and thanksgiving. As it considers the work of God for our salvation and the surpassing nature of his accomplishments, glory and praise is its most appropriate modality, as St Paul not only teaches but also exemplifies: ‘Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen’ (Eph 3:20-21).
So all those theologians are just wasting their time then, not that that’s news.
So much for the mighty lucubrations of Alvin Plantinga! We knew he was basically a wanker, and now the RCC says he is too. ROTFLMAO
Plantinga isn’t a Catholic; he’s a non-Catholic Christian of a Calvinist stripe. I’m not sure what he’d call himself. Haught, however, IS a Catholic.
Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary are Christian Reformed Church. Like many emigre churches, the Christian Reformed Church has the reputation of being more strict than the parent Dutch Reformed Church.
My bad, Jerry. I’m guilty of guilt by association, since he’s an emeritus at Notre Dame.
This is just traditional RCC teaching. You can dissent within very strict limits. You can do things that your conscience tells you is OK, again within limits and provided you have taken to enure that your conscience is well-informed. But as to what is actually true, the Church is the authority on that.
I love Cathspeak like Written with respect for… with a profound sense of the joy and privilege…. When you see that in a Vatican proclamation, you know they’re going to announce they will completely ignore whatever wish or proposition you dared forward to them.
It’s also the same lingo the late medieval popes would use to announce they were about to send an Inquisitor to your country.
Looks like John Haught will be falling into silence a bit more often then.
“I tried very hard to become a philosopher but [wishful thinking] kept breaking in so I had to became a theologian [but then the Bishops told me to STFU]” — John Haught*
(*inaccurate paraphrase of)
Summary: religious twisting of the facts is only allowed if the brass can cherry-pick the straw men to ensure they’re not totally useless.
So all those bishops and archbishops who refer to queers, and talk up European plots to distribute AIDS-infected condoms are the authoritative line from the Vatican.
Good to know what all this praise and thanksgiving entails.
Theologians are the spin-doctors of religion. That’s nothing new.
In religion, people are completely free to think, reason and say what they want, as long as it is what the Church wants to hear. That’s nothing new either.
I can look at Star Trek, study it, reinterpret it, but whatever else I may do with it, it is still Star Trek: fiction.
That’s what religion is. Theologians won’t change that simply truth.
“studies the Mystery of God”
using no tools other than imagination.
Lolz. Well someone has to set limits to their world of make believe!
” . . . in accordance with Paul’s injunction always to ‘be thankful’. . . even in adversity . . . .”
The “Doxology”: “Praise God from whom all blessings flow.”
No doubt, Giordano Bruno was singing this at the top of his lungs, secured to his own private votive candle.
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia: From this time we must distinguish two doxologies, a greater (doxologia major) and a shorter (minor). The greater doxology is the Gloria in Excelsis Deo in the Mass. The shorter form, which is the one generally referred to under the name “doxology”, is the Gloria Patri.
Latin jazz players will often incorporate the unmentioned “augmented” and “diminished” doxologia when the Vatican choir is taking PTO.
Losing the battle with their “imps of the perverse”, they also throw in lots of tritone substitutions.
Diabolus in Musica
“Bishops and theologians have “distinct callings, and must respect one another’s particular competence,” the panel said.”
Sounds like NOMA.
Does that mean that without the bishops the whole organization goes to hell?
Timeshare condo in limbo.
There was a reference to limbo in the thread for an earlier post as well: http://tinyurl.com/7rwvlxs
This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about limbo and specifically Limbus infantium: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
It is, as usual, doublespeak.
Now Jerry can understand Haught’s peevishness after Jerry dissed him in their recent debate. The poor guy probably just had a paper he’d worked on for months rejected by the bishop (editor) for ‘made-up stuff involving boiling water’. The bishop sent the paper out for review and Haught’s best deepities in years were trashed by some unimaginative, third-rate Monsignor who had an original, made-up thought in decades. The theologian’s life must be hard!
… who hadn’t had an original…
According to http://oxforddictionaries.com
Doxology: a liturgical formula of praise to God
Formula:(as it applies to the above)a rule or style unintelligently or slavishly followed.
While the spell check for the comments queries the word “unintelligently,” it is the perfect word in this case.
As Shakespeare says,“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek.”
So, as said, theology has no place in the Roman Church of today. Indeed Rome has its own astronomer too but I bet he can’t alter what the pope says, whatever the evidence, a bit like Galileo!
Of course, theology has, in fact, already been completed! if we haven’t found meaning the texts etc. in 2,000 years the chances are there is nothing else to find. Given that, and the fact that theology cannot change the mind of the church of doctrinal matters, the theologians ought to be retired off.
I wonder why the pope hasn’t done this already…
Wow! I studied Greek for a year and a half and I never knew that doxa should be translated as “glory” in some theological contexts. Guess that’s cause my classes focused on Classical authors who wrote before “doxa” was used this way.
I’m not Catholic, so I didn’t know what was said during the “doxology”. Since all my experience taught me “doxa” is “belief” or “position” I figured the doxology was the same as a creed. I should have understood this was incorrect because there’s a different mart of the mass called credo.
Funny the little things you can be misinformed about even when you have reason to think you’re pretty well informed about a subject.
It is a new one on me, too. Does this mean that we can call theologians doxies? 😀
bacopa @ 17: I’ve been an atheist for nigh on 70 years now. I quit believing in England when I was 15, but I still remember partS of the CofE doxology: Praise God from whom all blessings flow,praise him all creatures here below,praise him above ye heavenly host, praise father, son and holy ghost.
VERY FUCKING SYCOPHANTIC – almost made me throw up.
I remember reciting that in primary school in India (I went to a “missionary school”), at an age when I could barely speak in English. But what I did/,/i> know was that a ghost properly belonged to a horror story, and I remember wondering why anyone would worship something they would not want to meet during an evening stroll. 🙂
Standing up and singing the Doxology was my favorite part of the few Presbyterian services I was trotted off to as a kid–because it signified the end of the sermon!
& sub
@Bacopa: Point is – their “doxa” is on a whole higher level of “doxa” than anybody else’s. Laypeople and the general public, theologians too, unless they’re in line with the higher “truth” of the Church, have only a second-class “doxa.” Just one problem, weren’t they also insisting at one point that theology constituted “episteme” or “scientia” as well? Turns out, yes. More ecclesiastical doubletalk I would presume. Anyway, you’re right about the etymology of “doxa”; it is defined as “belief” (or according to my old philosophy professors, the dreaded word “opinion”)
Oh, wait? Does that mean official Church statements are opinions? … God forbid!
Or, as Epicurus would say, mere opinion.
They do love their pseudo-mystical gobbledygook, don’t they?
This is devastating as I was about to begin my quest to become a Catholicer. Having noticed the discrepancies between the bishops, theologians and, sophisticates, I had assumed that the true process of christianity was picking and choosing which part I wanted until I had constructed the one and only True Christian God. Now though, with this pronouncement seeming to descend from on high, it is causing a shaking of my faith approaching the point of crisis, from which I won’t be able to ascertain the truth of belief for I am sure that God would not want me to be in turmoil over Its command.
I call on the theologians and sophisticates. Are you mere fluff whose only purpose is to comb the dust from your bishop’s house or do you have relevance in knowing the nature of God? Will you rise and ascertain your abilities to describe the holy of holy or fall to the whims of the bishop’s desire to praise or reject your work? Should those seeking faith hear your words or dismiss you as merely painters of irrelevance except when softening the edges of the bishop’s domain? Theologians and sophisticates, the masses are now required to dismiss your prose unless it contains a bishop’s approval, will you lift yourselves or wash your bishop’s feet?
Yes, poor theologians. They’ve been hearing the atheists tell them they’re irrelevant and now the Authorities in Charge are piling on and basically saying the atheists are right. You’re not researchers making discoveries: you’re window dressing decorating a landscape we already know.
That’s what happens when you’ve dedicated yourself to having a “reasonable faith.” If it was reasonable in the usual sense — meaning you could study it and test it and weed out the inconsistencies and make it stand firm and sensible — then it wouldn’t be a faith, now, would it?
Theologians of the world, rise and whine!
Ha Ha Ha!
Maybe the bishops have noticed that the theologians often make no sense.
Next they need a bit of introspection.
I think it was Chesterton who said: “Othodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is your doxy.”
I wonder what the relative average IQs of theologians and bishops are? It might be interesting to find out. Clearly we can’t have anyone TOO intelligent providing input to Catholic policy.
“I wonder what the relative average IQs of theologians and bishops are? It might be interesting to find out. Clearly we can’t have anyone TOO intelligent providing input to Catholic policy.”
Indeed, and that is why you will see that pupils with high IQs are often discriminated against and are often vilified by the loving priests who teach in Catholic schools.
I don’t have children and don’t know any either, but it was the case during my childhood, and I see no reasons to assume this would have changed by now.
Human bias has no IQ limit. The smarter you are the fancier the explanations you make when you get cognitive dissonance. Theology seems to be a catalog of intellectual cognitive dissonance.
The Vatican has long said theologians are not to think for themselves. Here’s another example, from Pius XII (Humani Generis, 1950):
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church…Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: ‘in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church’.”
So the Vatican agrees with the gnus: a theologian’s job is not to look for the truth, but to think of clever ways to keep on believing what you were told without looking too dumb.