2006 CONFESSIONS
November/December
September/October
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January

Little Notes
Letters

Talk About Movies
Roamin' Catholic
Follow Me




Contents © 2006
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

CONFESSIONS
March 2006

---

CLEAR EXPRESSIONS OF FAITH

We Catholics are not Gnostics. We do not hold that there is one set of teachings for the masses, and another for the enlightened few. The Church is universal. That said, neither are we all theologians. Flannery O'Connor once wrote, "It is popular to suppose that anyone who can read the telephone book can read a short story or a novel.... Catholic readers are constantly being offended and scandalized by novels that they don't have the fundamental equipment to read in the first place..."

O'Connor was writing about fiction, but it seems to me that the same might be said of theology. Theology is more than the Catechism, and I think that's okay -- theology is not meant to do the job of the Catechism. It's when the two get confused that things get ugly.

This is why I was so pleased to read awhile back about Kansas City's Archbishop Finn canceling Father Richard McBrien's column in the diocesan newspaper, The Catholic Key. Finn explained his action in an interview with the Key: "Bishop Finn said he wants The Catholic Key to be an important component of ongoing diocesan catechesis and evangelization, and an instrument of reconciliation. For that reason, he said, he directed The Key to discontinue Father Richard McBrien's often controversial syndicated column. 'Father McBrien likes to stir the pot,' Bishop Finn said. 'He approaches things with a certain skepticism and cynicism. You can get that in a lot of places, so go get it somewhere else. We need clear expressions of the meaning of faith, why we believe and how we can inspire each other,' he said."

Father McBrien is a theologian. His column may not be strictly theology, but it is the work of a theologian, and it is not pastoral. And people need pastoral care. People need -- I need -- "ongoing diocesan catechesis" and "clear expressions of the meaning of faith." The Wanderer recently took its non-newsy headlines to new heights with "Pope Benedict XVI Declares: God is Love!" but by golly, the paper gave a huge amount of space to the encyclical, commentary on the encyclical, and even Benedict's account of why he wrote the encyclical, and that seems to me a worthwhile thing. That encyclical was addressed in part to "all the lay faithful." Deus Caritas Est was something a careful reader could discuss without too much theological background. I'm thinking there would be more fruit in such a discussion than in a great hue and cry over dissenting theologians.

Ah, but I'm sidestepping, you say. These theologians get media coverage, and what's worse, they get hold of our kids at Catholic colleges. Pretty soon, we've paid thousands of dollars so our children could lose their faith. Maybe so; I won't pretend I'm giving a complete account. But at the very least, I would say that's why we need -- I need -- that "ongoing catechesis." We need a firmer foundation before we begin to investigate theology. We need to be what Cardinal Newman wanted us to be: "I want a laity who know their religion and who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold, and what they do not, who know their creed so well that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it. I want an intelligent, well-instructed laity. I wish you to enlarge your knowledge, to cultivate your reason, to get an insight into the relation of truth, to learn to view things as they are, to understand how faith and reason stand to each other, what are the base and principles of Catholicism."

But wait. Theology matters; it's not just academics spinning theories for one another. Just war theory. The death penalty. Abortion and contraception. These are things that theologians argue about, and these things hit us where we live. It's a big objection; I can offer only a small answer. I have a friend who doesn't think much of the argumentation behind the Church's prohibition of barrier-method contraception. But intellect and will are not the same thing -- though he rejects the arguments, he submits to the prohibition. We were talking about it recently, and in the course of explaining himself, he mentioned this, again from Newman: "Trust the Church of God implicitly, even when your natural judgment would take a different course from hers, and would induce you to question her prudence or correctness. Recollect what a hard task she has... recollect how much she needs your loyal and tender devotion. Recollect, too, how long is the experience gained in eighteen hundred years, and what a right she has to claim your assent to principles which have had so extended and so triumphant a trial."

TOP