It is rather curious to hear Italian theologian and historian Massimo Faggioli lament what he calls the “Great Displacement of Theology” on most progressive Catholic college and university campuses. After all, the truth is that Professor Faggioli has played a role in that displacement and demise.
But after reading Faggioli’s latest book, Theology and Catholic Higher Education (Orbis Books, 2024), it is clear to me that the irony is lost on him.
Faggioli has been part of a progressive movement in Catholic higher education to destroy the discipline of theology by transforming theology departments into soulless “religious studies” departments that view the Catholic Church as oppressive. These core-less departments, in rejecting Tradition and magisterial teachings, continually thwart attempts by the Catholic hierarchy to bring the teachings of progressive theologians into line with authentic Catholic teachings.
Faggioli has had plenty of committed company in the undermining and destruction of academic theology. In an often quoted but very misguided essay, published two decades ago, entitled “Liberal Catholicism Reexamined”, Peter Steinfels, who was then the religion correspondent for the New York Times, wrote that “one definition of liberal Catholicism is simply papal teaching a hundred years too soon.”
Steinfels was reflecting the sentiments of most progressive theologians on Catholic campuses. They believed then, as they do now, that their dissenting views on the divinity of Christ, the path to salvation, women’s ordination, reproductive rights, and sexual morality are the views of the future of the Catholic Church. They were and are wrong about that.
In contrast, the late-Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who was elected president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2007, argued that liberal Catholicism is “an exhausted project, now parasitical on a substance that no longer exists…unable to pass on the faith in its integrity.”
It was into this debate over theological change, criticism, fidelity, and obedience that Ex Corde Ecclesiae arrived in 1990. It was the first attempt by the Vatican to revitalize what Pope St. John Paul II viewed as the “authentically Catholic character” of the Church’s colleges and universities. As such, it was the most important document affecting Catholic colleges and universities.
While Ex Corde Ecclesiae acknowledged that the Catholic University, as a university, possess the institutional autonomy necessary to perform its functions effectively and guarantees its members academic freedom, the document reminded theologians—and all those working on Catholic campuses—that this freedom must always be viewed within the confines of the Truth and the common good. It demanded that there must be “fidelity to the Christian message” as it comes to us through the Church.
Most theologians working on the majority of the more than 200 Catholic campuses in the United States rejected John Paul II’s document as an infringement of their academic freedom. One Catholic college professor, then the vice-president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, called it the “death” of Catholic higher education. The University of Notre Dame’s then-president Fr. Edward Malloy, along with Dr. Donald Monan, then-chancellor of Boston College, responded to the release of the document by publishing an article in America calling it “positively dangerous.”
Warning of “havoc” if it were adopted, the faculty senate at Notre Dame voted unanimously for the guidelines to be ignored. Fiercely resisted, it took an additional ten years for Catholic campuses to even pretend that they were beginning to implement it.
Progressive theologians led the protest against any attempt to bring them into line with the truth of magisterial teachings. But the timidity of many of the bishops contributed to the death of a vibrant theology on their campuses. Most bishops appeared to be afraid to confront intractable administrators and recalcitrant theologians, refusing to enforce the Mandatum, which required Catholic college theologians to teach “in communion” with Church doctrine and be accountable to their bishops. Progressive theologians have always considered themselves superior in intelligence to the bishops. Faggioli once wrote that many of the U.S. bishops (unlike the German bishops) “lack the ability to intellectually understand and analyse what is happening in the world.”
Many of these progressive theologians saw themselves as a kind of “alternative magisterium” meaning that they were free to create their own interpretations of faith and morals, essentially creating a competing or parallel source of authority within the Church. This has led to a division of authority and a challenge to the Church’s traditional teachings.
Faggioli, who is a member of the “alternative magisterium” and a longtime critic of ecclesial authority, writes that he came to the United States from his native Italy in 2008 because he wanted to escape “the control that the Catholic Church in Italy exerted over theology.” Wishing to be free of ecclesial authority—or what Faggioli has called “ecclesiastical tyranny”—progressive theologians have resisted all attempts to bring theology closer to what Pope St. John Paul II called “the heart of the Church” through his magisterial document. And now they are all surprised that students no longer want to enroll in their courses and that Catholic college administrators are beginning to slash their departments.
Thankfully, there are exceptions on faithful Catholic campuses, such as at my own academic home, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, where Ex Corde Ecclesiae guides hiring, curriculum, student life, and theology and philosophy. Franciscan is a campus where all professors request and receive the Mandatum from their presiding bishop. At Franciscan, theology is the most popular major on campus because students know that they will be invited to seek the truth of Catholic teachings and will be inspired by them. In fact, Franciscan University has the largest number of students majoring in theology, catechetics, and philosophy of any Catholic university in the United States. Likewise, Ave Maria University, which recently re-published the papal document in a beautifully bound book and distributed it widely across campus, has a vibrant and growing theology department.
My new book, Lamp in the Darkness: How the Faithful Catholic Colleges and Universities Can Save the Church (Sophia Press), points out that all the faithful Catholic colleges have made Ex Corde Ecclesiae central to the mission of their campuses. The document is used to guide the orientation of new faculty, formation opportunities on campus, and most importantly, for hiring faithful theology faculty. Enrollments are strong on these campuses because students and their parents know that they will be invited to engage in the search for Truth, even knowing that the Truth has already been revealed.
Meanwhile, Massimo and others will continue down a path that goes from dissent to eventual disappearance. The irony, alas, continues.
• Related at CWR: “The Fatuities of Professor Faggioli” (Sept 17, 2020) by George Weigel
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
There are NO Catholic Colleges other than the handful recognized by the Newman List as authentically Catholic. In my opinion, unless a college is COMMITTED to a mission aligned with that of the mission of the Catholic Church, it can not, and should not, refer to itself as Catholic.
Authentic? Or conservative enough to satisfy the most traditional claim “authority” over the consciences of others while avoiding the inward search required of every healthy adult conscience?
Christianity & Catholic teaching aren’t about conservative vs. liberal but about orthodoxy. And an examination of one’s conscience is a traditional Catholic practice.
Yoteech: “Conscience” is not a self-serving free for all.
In my years as an atheist, I did try to formulate a sort of manifesto for atheism by which I could defend my position. Since I was always pro-life, and my allies in the movement were almost entirely religious, I was never disposed to be a religion hating atheist. In formulating ideas about atheism, I frequently practiced thought experiments regarding attributes that God would have to have if God did exist, and one of these had to be a God who showed proper displeasure with the vanity of intellectuals.
Conversion from atheism included observations of the stupidity and vanity of other atheists, including noted “intellectuals.” I did keep track of the “intellectual” arguments of the “progressively religious” and found them to be similar and equally stupid. Using such a word does not betray charity towards those who so cavalierly corrupted religious arguments and the thought of hundreds of millions of Catholics. Many Catholics have come to believe that conscience, which properly understood only applies to Christians acting and responding to situations with incomplete information of all moral repercussions, which can mitigate perceptions of how to apply objective morality, should come to be conceived as a tool for any sort of self-serving judgment about anything.
Objective morality a capricious authoritarian tool you imply?
What greater tool of oppression is the mass-murdering tool of governmental mandated moral nihilism.
I agree. I would say that most “theology” is just the playground of heretics anyway. Doctrine was settled 2,000 years ago. Anybody looking to “uncover” or “expand upon” ancient truths usually is going to end up creating heresy. (See the countless Protestant churches for example #1 and the Godless Catholic theologians for example #2.)
Learning the details about doctrine or history is a good thing, and that’s what I think theology is for some people. For most, though, theology is just an intellectual way to come up with something new and call it Christian.
Thank you, dear Professor Anne Hendershott (and CWR), for such a penetrating & readable exposee of the scandalous, on-going rebellion against truth by far too many Catholic Theologians in the USA.
The situation is as bad or worse in Australian Catholic universities & colleges.
But, unlike the good news you bring of the success of those American Catholic universities: “where ‘Ex Corde Ecclesiae’ guides hiring, curriculum, student life, theology, and philosophy.” I know of no Australian Catholic educational institutes where that is sincerely applied.
Even without sociological data, one might be led to conclude that the very poor quality of understanding manifest by so many Catholic clergy, at all levels, is the direct result of their exposure to frankly heretical & trivialising academic teachers, during their seminary years.
In Australia, it’s a rare event to come across a genuinely Christian Catholic clergyman. Not only do they often teach lies but they rubbish lay people who do have a genuinely loving faith in Jesus Christ and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
One lives in hope! Perhaps our new pope, Leo XIV, and our new, young Australian Cardinal, Mykola Bychok, will be inspired to find a way to flush-out the Augean Stables that are passed off as Catholic higher education institutes here.
Then there’s the vexed challenge of how to re-educate in The Faith so many of our beloved Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Brothers & Sisters.
Ever in the grace & love of King Jesus Christ; thanks & blessings from marty
Refusal to broaden one’s understanding eventually results in a church filled with a few critical judgemental clerics & their followers blaming others for having had the courage to ask questions that the backward looking fearful were not able to ask. Christ himself says the Kingdom of Heaven is within” . Not from external authority.
Sorry, dear ‘Yoteech’ that is isagesis not exegesis. You seem to be twisting The Word of God to support your non-canonical preferences.
The Kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:20-21) refers to Christ’s presence AMONG those disciples who adhered to Him (who, at that time, were being instructed not to go looking for God’s Kingdom somewhere else).
Yet, even today, IF we set our hearts on obeying the teachings, life style, & commands of Jesus & His Apostles, we are assured in John 14:23 that Jesus & His Father will make their home with us.
The humbly obedient find that GOD’s Kingdom is right here in our heart!
Yes: GOD will always be among all those who joyfully & lovingly obey GOD.
Hoping this gives clarity. Ever in the love of The LORD; blessings from marty
Dr. Martin, you are going to have to stop waiting on the clergy to fix problems in the Church in your area. The Establishment Church is never going to fix itself and will resist all change, regardless of how much it is needed.
The laity in Catholic Church are going to have to start realizing that they are as much Catholic as the Pope and act accordingly. If the laity want to be sheep, they can expect the corruption to continue for decades and centuries more.
Dear Fred:
I see your frustration, but the sheep cannot rebel against what you deem as the “Establishment Church”, because the Establishment Church IS the Church that Christ established almost 2000 years ago. It’s important to remember the promise of Christ that “the gates of hell will not prevail against My Church”.
The Church sustains and guides us. It’s not up to us to “act accordingly” (whatever that means). It’s up to us to remain faithful to God, and stay in union with Rome and the worldwide Catholic Church, otherwise we are no better off than the schismatic Orthodox churches.
I’d also like to add that most people probably already know that they are just as much Catholic themselves as the Pope. The problem starts when they believe that they are MORE Catholic than the Pope, and set off on a fool’s errand to attack the hierarchical structure of the Church by trashing the Pope and the bishops, all in the name of “Saving Mother Church”.
This is actually in reply to Didn’t Think So. For some reason there wasn’t a Reply button…
I do not share your trust in the hierarchical structure of the Church, as if loyalty to a system is somehow better than loyalty to Jesus. (There’s a big conflict between the two in many, many Catholic places nowadays.)
There was a reason Jesus said, “Call no man Rabbi/teacher/Master/Father” and “you are all brothers.” Before we engage in blind loyalty to the hierarchy, we should ponder what that meaning is and…act accordingly.
When I say “Establishment Church,” though, I mean the people currently running it. We don’t have to blow up the hierarchical structure to reform the Catholic Church, but we do have to take action independent of the people currently making decisions — who will never reform themselves.
It is sad that it came to this point, but I think schism would be better than what we currently have.
To Fred:
If you really think that schism is better than what we currently have, remember that there’s no other place to go if you jump ship, other than returning from where you left to begin with.
I still don’t know what you mean by “taking action” and “acting accordingly”. Is that implying that we should overthrow the Pope and the bishops, and have the laity make decisions on behalf of the Church? That’s basically religious communism, and will end in disaster.
Or do you mean leaving the True Church and setting up a new church in protest against the hierarchy and the One that Christ created? Lay people look weird wearing priest’s vestments. I hope I’m mistaken on either questions, but if not, then I don’t have anything left to write to you, other than to urge you to remain in union with Rome, our Pope, and the One Church that Christ established.
To “Didn’t think so.”
Sometimes I think most Catholics don’t realize how bad things really are in the Church these days. When 85% of young people leave; your Church has serious problems. When most of who is left in your Church aren’t really trying to keep the Commandments (and can’t even tell you what they are), you have serious problems. If I remember the survey correctly from a few years back, over 50% of self-described Catholics believe in abortion, over 60% believe homosexuality/homosexual marriage is acceptable, etc.
Yet, here we are talking about following the hierarchy as the most important job a layman has. THAT is what’s wrong in the modern Catholic Church. The focus is always on clerical “authority” and never on actually fixing the problems we have.
Since we are all “brothers,” every Catholic should take ownership for his own education, raising his children, evangelizing, etc. You don’t need to ask your priest’s permission to do any of this. The only thing off-limits to the layman are the things that require Holy Orders.
Furthermore, the laity need to be part of the Church’s decision-making process, and I don’t mean just advisory councils which the priest/bishop can just ignore. The priests/bishops I have personally met were usually true witnesses to the faith, but leaders they were not.
Fred, as you said, to quote: “every Catholic should take ownership for his own education, raising his children, evangelizing, etc. You don’t need to ask your priest’s permission to do any of this. The only thing off-limits to the layman are the things that require Holy Orders.” That I agree with.
There are many erroneous bishops, and like you said, many self described Catholics are in favor of abortion and gay marriage* (see footnote below).
That’s sickening to hear, and it says a lot about them. I’m mainly saying as long as you know what’s right, don’t let stupid beliefs and decisions made by other people, be it a bishop or a pro abortion leftist “catholic” influence YOUR faith. There’s no changing them, and following the path of schism does no good.
Adherence to Rome and the Pope is part of tradition itself. One only has to look at Martin Luther and Henry VIII. They both rejected the Pope and the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, which is the very foundation of the unbroken line of Apostolic Succession. As a result, 2 heretical religions are misleading hundreds of millions of people worldwide. All because they rejected the Pope.
This is why I always urge people to stick with Rome. I would also like to say sorry for being a bit combative and sarcastic in my comment above too, God bless.
*Gay marriage isn’t really marriage, just like wearing a lady’s wig doesn’t make you one.
fred: So the Catholic laity, where 90 percent reject the absolute humanity of the unborn, don’t live with any self-serving lies that would affect “decision-making?” Or the Catholic laity, where even among Mass Going Catholics, 75 percent reject the Real Presence, have just as much “faith” as those who honor the magisterial authority of Catholic doctrine and the divinely endowed insights and imperatives to know that truth, because it all originates with God, never changes?
The authority of the Church is not the authority of clerics or laity. It is the authority of God, and this does not include godless people seeking to live with their sins and displace immutable truth.
No apology needed, and I appreciate your sincerity. My biggest concern about our Church is that the emphasis is not on the right things and there is literally no mechanism in what I call the “Catholic System” for really rooting out corruption and fixing weak/clueless leadership.
Ironically, failure to address widespread problems WILL lead to schism — and has in the past. Yes, people with good intent can be too picky and too critical of their leaders. Still, there rightfully comes a point where honest people say, “Surely this can’t be what Christ intended.”
God bless.
Edward, what I hear you saying in so many words is the clerics are more Catholic than the laity or the clerics are “the Church.” To that I say this: the clerics who have not fallen into corruption are usually more serious about God than most laity, but they have less leadership ability — and leadership is something we sorely need right now from wherever we can get it.
I also hear you saying that we should exclude laity from the decision-making process because, in general, the laity is not as devout as are the clerics.
That is wrong, because you do not judge a person based upon arbitrary groupings that you have placed him in. The devout laity have chosen a different calling and their input in the decision-making process is, again, sorely needed in the modern Church. Most clerics I have seen are incapable of relating to the very people they are supposed to be leading. That has consequences.
Since when do progressivists ask questions? Do you take time to ask any questions of what they are actually saying in the course of describing those you trivialize as “backward?” Do you ask questions about why it is that Catholicism holds that truth, because God is the exclusive source, is immutable, unchangeable, and eternal?
A few more specifics regarding the hellish avalanche of deriliction-of-duty in our Aussie ‘Catholic’ Church:
https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/the-strange-death-of-australian-catholicism/
The poorly received 1990 “Norms for Catholic Universities,” Ex corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church), addressed the meaning of scientific and technical research, social life and culture. The Introduction to the document reads, “On an even more profound level, what is at stake is the very meaning of the human person” (italics in the original).
Today, instead, Ravioli’s peer-review careerism in cap and gown…
Displacement of theology (and the unique historical event of the Incarnation)—by all those hall-of-mirrors Departments of Religious Studies. From whence commeth the similar displacement (!) of Synods of Bishops by a circular/self-validating Synod on Synodality? Say what?
“…the very meaning of the human person” (ex Corde Ecclesia). Instead, life inside the campus corner-office bubble….Why are we reminded of the asylum inmate likewise confining himself in a corner of his cell, diligently looking for, what…looking for himself?
What a breath of fresh air! Thank you, Professor Hendershott. What about Christendom College? Does it enforce a mandatum? How does it see Ex Corde Ecclesiae?
One of my children graduated from Christendom & it was very solid. They’ve had a couple faculty-related issues since then but what college hasn’t?
Christendom is wonderful – one of the faithful few described in my book Lamp in the Darkness.
Here’s the link to the Newman Society detailed evaluation of top Catholic colleges:
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/college/
Yes, meiron, it does. I have assisted as deacon at Christendom for the past 10 years and the faculty takes an oath to teach according to the Church’s Magisterium at the beginning of each school year.
Frankly it is hard to believe why the Church – Bishops put up with this nonsense. Clear thinking on what to do is surely lacking. This type of lazy, gutless approach allowed the sexual abuse to foster and how many souls were damaged or lost. Now with the non catholic/catholic colleges being allowed to retain there Catholic identity that don’t teach the faith is a huge issue that has gone on way too long. My guess is we have way to many Bishops who are part of this crowd. While it will never happen, I don’t see the problem with all of these type of colleges and supporting bishops as not being solved by excommunicating the whole group. Send them off to where they belong, to the Lutherans, Episcopalians etc., where they can wallow in their prideful self righteousness.
Hold on, GRM, are you sure that “prideful self righteousness” is manifested only in those two communions and not also on occasion in the One Holy Roman Catholic Church?
As Deacon Peitler indicated, “unless a college is COMMITTED to a mission aligned with that of the mission of the Catholic Church, it can not, and should not, refer to itself as Catholic.” That should also go without saying for schools at all levels, hospitals, and the various social service agencies!
Joe, you’re absolutely correct. When my bishop named me to head up the Catholic Charities of his diocese, the first thing I did was host an all-day retreat for my staff that was entitled: “What’s ‘Catholic’ about Catholic Charities?” I had a minor revolt on my hands but they quickly got the point!
How many well-meaning Catholics like myself took Religious Studies courses thinking they were getting the real (if somewhat simplified) goods?
From a progressive standpoint, it’s less about irony and more about personal evil here. The progressive mindset simply refuses to submit to God’s authority, God’s law, and God’s truth. Progressive ideology, in all its forms, is nothing more than a spirit of pride and open rebellion against the truth. There is nothing redeeming about it, and so God’s faithful servants must oppose it in every way that we can.
Well said, dear Athanasius.
Underlying all of these ungodly rebellions is the denial of Perfect Being Theism.
In view of the definitive teachings of The New Testament, e.g. Matthew 5:48, that denial is frankly anti-Christ.
My humble take on ‘Perfect Being Theism’ finds consonance with the most reliable scientific discoveries and with the best of rational philosophy, as set out in a Griffith University doctoral thesis, entitled ‘Ethical Encounter Theology’.
Once a theologian accepts that GOD was always, is currently, and always will be Perfect in every regard, and that Jesus Christ uniquely revealed the divine Perfection in human form, and that The Holy Spirit continues to reveal the Perfection of divinity, they are well on the road to Catholic autheticity.
The theologians’ mind worm that denies GOD’s comprehensive Perfection is none other than the ancient serpent of Genesis 3:1 – the devil that leads the whole world astray. No wonder so many of these aberrant Catholic theologians deny the devil exists, since they’re in thrall to ‘the father of lies’.
Thanks be to GOD for the gift of Jesus Christ who has overcome and objectively demonstrated that the devil will never have the last word.
Always seeking to hear & lovingly follow King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
I have always found it odd that it is considered entirely acceptable for a theology professor not to believe in God. Astronomy professors are expected to believe in stars; geology professors are expected to believe in the earth; zoology professors are expected to believe in animals; but theology professors are only expected to believe in theologians.
Good point, how about a Math teacher not believing 2+2=4.
Not quite. That 2+2+4 is a fact, not a belief.
The deception is in cross-dressing “faith” in the supernatural fact of the Incarnation event (and the historicity of the gospels) as not the factual Self-disclosure of the triune One, but as only religious “beliefs”–to be equivalently set alongside the beliefs of other (only natural) religions.
Rather than the fact Christ in our midst (Mt 18:20), just another narrative amidst a “pluralism of religions.”
It is odd indeed from one perspective anyway. Apparently they view their subject matter as just that, just another academic subject, rather than a matter of life-changing truth.
It seems that in some cases they may have once believed in the truths of the faith but somewhere in their journey found they could no longer so anymore. But rather than jettison their careers and take up another line of work, they simply continued doing what they had been doing, but with a difference.
And the fact that could no longer practice their profession with intellectual integrity did not bother them. THAT most likely never occurred to them.
That’s a good point, Outis. I hadn’t considered that before.
I read several years ago that Oxford was considering dropping its theology courses but I don’t think that ever came too pass.
Such brilliance … so profound … so lost!
😞
A fanciful parable…
Somewhat as the Old Testament prefigures the New, so too, does the slow decline of the Roman Empire prefigure the erosion of the Church itself—by infiltrated “departments of Religious Studies”?
Why are we reminded of how the barbarian Odoacer from the middle Danube marked the end of imperial Rome when he deposed the child emperor Romulus Augustulus at Revenna in A.D. 476” And, then how the end of Odoacer was marked (even physically!) by the Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great in A.D. 483?
Just as the northern der Synodal Weg today is dividing the Church, so too did the easterner Theodoric divide Odoacer—invited to an earlier banquet of reconciliation—by suddenly splitting him collar bone to pelvis with a single thrust of his sword!
Said Theodoric to the combined and stunned banquet attendees: “See, he has no backbone!” Likewise, “[the ‘alternative magisterium’] has led to a division of authority and a challenge to the Church’s traditional teachings” (Hendershott).
“Does the slow decline of the Roman Empire prefigure the erosion of the Church itself—by infiltrated ‘departments of Religious Studies’?”
Since you asked: No, it doesn’t. It’s shocking how often people try to make the Church analogous to earthly kingdoms and empires, which are really nothing like the Kingdom of Heaven. That’s even if you want to use the Kingdom of David as the analogy, let alone the Roman Empire. St. Augustine’s CITY OF GOD is a long read, but you really should read it before making such a comparison; the upshot is that contrast is more appropriate than comparison.
Seriously, you might as well ask if the decline of Czechoslovakia’s wool industry foreshadows a decline of the Church due to Christ referring to Himself as the Good Shepherd.
Okay Outis, I read Beaulieu here, as saying some people will crumble in faith as did the Roman Empire, -not that the Church would.
I am sharing my “take” likewise.
Some of the Traditionalists have been stressing a comparison for present circumstances with the Arian Heresy conflict. What they are trying to emphasize is that there is a major Christological defection happening; which needs emphatic rejoinder.
On the other hand, many aspects of the current “progressive” agenda or even of some strategies in Modernism, could be seen to resemble The Iconoclast Controversies. “You can’t have those icons because it would amount to idolatry.” Iconoclasm seems to have taken root following after impactions from Islam on Christianity and it reflects and overflows the philosophical biases going on in Islam.
Interesting too, that during these times of Pachamama, sumak kawsay and feng shui and the like, we got the Abu Dhabi Document comcomitantly.
And as it turns out, the very things that Benedict XVI had expressed concern over coming from CELAM/Aparecida, are what have taken root “under a Bergoglian management”; so that now that he and Francis both have passed, those things are looking for ways and channels to prove their justifications and to flourish.
The article at ALETEIA, The Aparecida Document: What you need to know, 2017, is by Alicia Ambrosio.
‘ But the true beauty of the Aparecida document lies in the fact that it can easily be applied to the whole Church. ‘
https://aleteia.org/2017/09/09/the-aparecida-document-what-you-need-to-know
You’re exaggerating a “fanciful parable.” Get a life…
Outis,
We must be careful in possibly equating “The City of God” with the “Kingdom of Heaven.” Otherwise, our argument is with St. Augustine himself…
“What, exactly, are these two cities? They are, as we have said, two peoples whose nature is determined by the object of their love. The term ‘city’ is already a symbolic mode of designation [!], but there are terms still more symbolic: Jerusalem, that is, vision of peace; and Babylon, that is, Babel or confusion. No matter the name, it is always the same thing referred to, namely, two human societies” (Vernon Bourke, foreword to “The City of God,” Image, 1958, citations to 16:4, 18:2, and 19:9)…
Surely, we together on this. Yes? After Augustine distinguishes between a distorted love of self and holy charity, then this:
“These are two loves, the one of which is holy, the other unholy; one social, the other individualist; one takes heed of the common utility because of the heavenly society, the other reduces even the commonwealth to its own ends because of a proud lust of domination; the one is subject to God, the other sets itself up as a rival to God; the one is serene, the other tempestuous; the one peaceful, the other quarrelsome; the one prefers truthfulness to deceitful praise, the other is utterly avid of praise; the one is friendly, the other jealous; the one desires for its neighbor what it would for itself, the other is desirous of lording it over its neighbor, the one directs its efforts to the neighbor’s good, the other its own [….]In this historical sketch [!] of the two loves, there is contained universal history itself [!], as well as the basis of its intelligibility. ‘Tell me what a people loves and I shall tell you what it is,'” (“The City of God,” 19:24).
Faggioloi is for me and occasion of sin! His loathing for the unborn in particular is very disappointing
I am no theologian. I am a Catholic, age 85, with some ins and outs over the years. I go to Mass, receive Communion. I pray, mainly to Jesus, Mary, Joseph, like a sticker on the inside cover of a textbook I had my freshman year in St. Thomas College in 1959-60. That seems more direct now. They are the important people to learn from and follow. Whether or not God exists seems of secondary importance. We can argue all day about this and get nowhere. There is enough hell on earth. We cause it. As Christians we should spend our time following the example of Jesu, Mary, Joseph and others on earth before us. That’s the best we can do. And dogma, do we really need it or so much of it. Easing off on it could bring many people back to the Church or there for the first time.
We can go to church, pray, get ashes, genuflect, make the sign of the cross. Maybe even “pro-life” and “pro-choice” can get together and help those with problem pregnancies and keep human law out of it. Legalistic is not the way. Pope Francis eased up on this, bless him. And bless Pope Leo.
“And dogma, do we really need it or so much of it. Easing off on it could bring many people back to the Church or there for the first time.”
Spoken like a true progressive. There is no spiritual life, growth or service apart from revealed Truth. There is no basis for fellowship apart from the Truth. People have stopped coming to church because of the absence of doctrine, not because there is too much. Nice try, though.
Attempts to line up today’s knowledge with yesterday’s superstitions provides a poor fit every time. Progress is a dirty word only to those who live without genuine faith in the Divine which encompasses both yesterday and tomorrow which we straddle in the Present Momenyoyt.
* moment.
Yes, but the reality of Jesus Christ and his divinity is a “dogma” (“…do we really need it or so much of it”).
Do we need dogma??
That’s a first.
🙂
” Maybe even “pro-life” and “pro-choice” can get together and help those with problem pregnancies and keep human law out of it.”
I live in Pennsylvania. The Governor just cancelled the relationship with crisis pregnancy centers because he thinks they are inconsistent with the reasons for his election.
In other places, the “pro-choice” types want to frustrate sidewalk counseling.
Are you unaware of this or simply not paying attention?
It’s puzzling why they can’t allow another viewpoint, or to prevent a woman from regretting her termination, which millions have — they don’t even talk about that possibility.
Thanks so much dear Jim Lein, for your excellent portrait of so many in The Church who have developed an indifferentist attitude to the uniqueness and the commands of Jesus Christ & His Apostles that are made clear for us in the magisterial Catechism of the Catholic Church & its very accessible chapter summaries.
This is what many learned CWR commentators have called: ‘Catholic Lite’.
What Pope Leo XIV has already identified as ‘practical atheism’.
Your ‘appologia pro vita sua’ sadly accords with the marginal beliefs of many parishoners (& – more sadly – many clergy) in the Australian Catholic Church.
“We’re comfortable in The Catholic Church (as well as in other things, like freemason lodges, etc.). Just don’t trouble us about God, the commandments, the sacraments, sin, heaven & hell, or about having a personal relationship with Jesus our Savior, & all that stuff! We like to fit in with the world, we really don’t want to stand-out.”
That situation presents a major challenge to all our authentic clergy. May The LORD give us a new Pentecost & fire from The Holy Spirit to purge our double-mindedness.
Always in the love & grace of The Lamb; blessings from marty
I wonder how the author and most on this thread would define theology. For some I think they equate theology with apologetics. Certainly in the Middle Ages theology was a blood sport with the losers facing death and exile. But hasn’t theology evolved past this? Is Catholic theology now the memorization of dogma and apologetics? I would hope that a school would teach how to do theology rather than memorialize the theological conclusions of someone else. The author of this piece is a sociologist. Does she think sociology as a discipline can be destroyed by a single sociologist? If theology is to exist as a discipline, we cannot fear the conversation that the work of doing theology requires. Disagreement about theological conclusions is good! We study a transcendent reality and as finite creatures all of our conclusions are inadequate if not wrong. Augustine knew this. Aquinas knew this. How did we forget?
“Disagreement about theological conclusions is good! We study a transcendent reality and as finite creatures all of our conclusions are inadequate if not wrong.”
Except for the conclusions you’ve reached here, correct?
Said Augustine: “we can say things differently, but we can’t say different things.”
Moreover, what has been divinely revealed can be said conceptually and definitively, even if not exhaustively.
Well commented, dear Peter.
Dear Patrick Nelson has very confused thinking (like so many of those employed as theologians).
There is ‘theology generalis’ which legitimately compares unbounded propositions about ‘theo’ + ‘logos’ and has many theos and no limits to its logic.
THEN there is ‘Catholic Theology’ which is joyfully bounded by the the perfect revelation of GOD faithfully given to us by King Jesus Christ and His Apostles, in our New Testament, with its practical explication in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Theo is known and the bounds of logic made clear.
What this article by Professor Anne Hendershott and all of the sensible responses are saying is that it is a perversion of truth when teachers in Catholic institutions dishonestly peddle ‘theology generalis’ as if it were Catholic Theology – chalk & cheese!
What dear Yoteech and co. fail to realize is that there is plenty of scope for great academic research and discovery within the bounds of Catholic Theology.
When will they stop ‘privateering’ & leading their vulnerable students in the paths of heresy. Have they no fear of GOD? Why can’t they hear Jesus Christ?
Have they not read it would be better for them to be thrown in the ocean with a millstone around their neck than that they should lead astray a single one of these little ones, their students (see Luke 17:1-2).
In the next verse Jesus instruct us & our theologians: “Watch yourselves!”
To the wise, this article will be a salvific trumpet call: “Wake Up!”
Ever hoping to faithfully represet King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
“represet” corrected = represent
In response to ‘Didn’t Think So’ of May 17.
Dear DTS, you make a valid point but might think of balancing it by making it clear you’re not supporting the sort of mindless (‘didnt think’), swallow-all-without-question, kow-towing to power that is completely alien to the heart of Catholicism but is in force in Marxist and other despotic tyrannies.
Catholicism has always had an unequivocal commitment to the truth, even if it means correcting a erring bishop or even a misfeasant pope (even under threat of mortal consequences!). Check-out Galatians 2:14, for example.
Check-out Ezekiel 3:18 – if we Catholics, of whatever level do not declare the truth when faced with episcopal or papal errors or misunderstandings, we are liable to be judged guilty of the wrong that occurs (a threat of eternal consequences!).
The wise will note this is the very ancient basis of our democratic & legal system.
Every Catholic, from the highest pope or bishop, to the lowest lay, like me, will face the same Judge, King Jesus Christ, who instructs his leaders to be exemplary servants of us all, and not imperious dominators.
Yes: such a large body of diverse peoples do need a competent administrative system, but to be godly it has to subject itself to the truth, however that is made apparent.
Hope this helps to clear the air. Blessings from marty
Responding to ‘Fred’ of May 17th. He wrote :
“When I say “Establishment Church,” though, I mean the people currently running it. We don’t have to blow up the hierarchical structure to reform the Catholic Church, but we do have to take action independent of the people currently making decisions — who will never reform themselves. It is sad that it came to this point, but I think schism would be better than what we currently have.”
Dear brother ‘Fred’, please abjure every thought of schism as a satanic temptation!
NEVER GIVE IN (see Colossians 1:11-12).
STAND FIRM (see James 1:12).
IT’S VIRTUOUS TO SUFFER FOR RIGHEOUSNESS (see 1 Peter 3:17).
BE PATIENT AND READY TO SUFFER FOR JESUS’ NAME (Revelation 2:23).
Read the book of Job: see what he put up with from family & co-religionists! The brilliantly faithful prophet, Isaiah, had to put up with being sawn in half by them!
In Australia, our great & beloved Saint Mary of the Cross MacKillop was persecuted both by some of her own nuns, the clergy, and even excommunicated by the bishops (some of today’s tall hats still hate her!).
She never even dreamed of a schism!
Jesus taught us that few find the narrow gate and hard track to His Kingdom; many take the broad way to Hell.
It seems that this rule applies WITHIN the Church and has done so from the beginning (see for example John 6:66; Acts 20:30: etc.).
Jesus did not want us to be disturbed by unbeleiving & heterodox brothers & sisters, Matthew 18:7 and Luke 17:1 record His advance warnings to us that such offences are CERTAIN to happen.
Let’s always ‘hang-in there’, knowing many un-Christian people have always been in The Church, at all levels. GOD knows them & asks us to carry on regardless!
Take heart: we are promised a time when the hypocritical ‘bad fish’ will be removed.
Hoping this helps. Ever in the love of King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
About schism…are they (not we) already there? This from only a few days after Pope Francis died:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/04/23/german-bishops-blessings-of-same-sex-couples-should-be-done-with-appreciation/
1 John 2:19c “By going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us.”
A primary target for our new pontificate to address. Pope Leo has the academic credentials.
Thanks, dear Fr. Peter; that is the present hope of all sincere Catholics.
Am sure you and many others would agree, we don’t need reformation or schism but REVIVIFICATION. A recommitment to lovingly obeying all that GOD has commanded us in ways that are evangelically persuasive.
Holy Spirit-reviving of who we think we are, and what it is we do, will bring GOD’s blessings and beautifully overcome all obstacles to our loving unity.
One small example. What do we actually mean when we sign ourselves with The Cross? Could we give a Life-giving explanation to an enquirer, beyond saying we’re using a Trinitarian sign to recall our baptism into The Crucified One & His Church.
For example, could we also be objectively expressing some Catholic Christian basics?
“I bless myself on my head by the total perfection of Father GOD;
I bless myself on my umbilicus by Jesus Christ, whose Cross & Resurrection has given me rebirth as a child of Father GOD’s perfection;
I bless myself across my chest by The Holy Spirit who daily trains me in Christ’s revelation of Father GOD’s perfection.
Am sure you would know of numerous opportunities for REVIVIFYING (never reforming) familiar Catholicities, to become Life-giving witnesses to our Faith.
Am hoping our dear new pope, Leo XVI, will have a major focus on REVIVIFYING all that good Christians have always believed and done.
Where the authentic Light of Christ blazes forth, the shadows are vanquished.
Correction: Leo XVI = Leo XIV
A few more specifics regarding the hellish avalanche of deriliction-of-duty in our Aussie ‘Catholic’ Church:
https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/the-strange-death-of-australian-catholicism/