Patrick has emerged from a long hibernation to settle some old scores with me. For some reason he chose to use the PP’s blog to stage a rematch.
On second thought, that actually makes a lot of sense. If you lose the first time around, the best way to win the second time around is to go to a different boxing ring, declare victory, then disappear again without every laying a glove on your own opponent.
Perhaps we should make Patrick an honorary champ for sheer ingenuity.
***QUOTE***
patrick said...
It's cruel of you to dig up some of those links, PP. Posting Link 2 was especially heartless. Steve Hays must find it pretty humiliating to see you link to the discussion with me where he made believe that a certain claim made by Archbishop Chaput committed him to open theism. That was a real trainwreck.
***END-QUOTE***
Well, now, let’s see. If I was so disappointed with my performance in that exchange I could either delete it altogether or at least delete Patrick’s side of the exchange. But it’s all there for all to see.
And what they will see is that Patrick tried to save the good Archbishop from heresy by imputing to him one or another—or was it both at the same time?—position to him, viz. Thomism or Molinism. As a matter of fact, Occamism is a third alternative, but Patrick is apparently unacquainted with that. Oh, and while we’re on the subject, there’s more than one version of Molinism as well.
So, as I was saying, he tried to save his Archbishop’s bacon by imputing to him either of two harmonistic strategies without having the slightest idea whether he subscribed to either imputable position, OR whether either strategy would be consistent with his position, OR whether either strategy would be successful.
Then when I invited Patrick to turn his vacuous conjectures into something resembling an actual argument by explaining to us how he himself understood Thomas and Molinism, and how he thought they could be deployed to salvage Chaput’s claim, he got all wobbly in the knees and--unable to stage a graceful exit--settled for a fist-shakng show of feigned indignation to cover his unceremonious retreat. Yes, it was a train wreck, all right. On that much we are agreed.
***QUOTE***
Interestingly relevant to the point at hand--that is, the way you and Hays pay attention to the "business end of the Church" is his claim in that same link that "Catholicism has this two-tiered piety, with the laity on the lower tier and a spiritual elite of monks and nuns on the upper tier. Is that how you interpret the Sermon on the Mount? Is the Sermon on the Mount only for some Christians, and not for all Christians?"
Yes, clearly Steve Hays is getting his interpretation of Catholicism from the business end of the Church. After all, the Second Vatican Council taught that "The Lord Jesus, divine teacher and model of all perfection, preached holiness of life (of which he is the author and maker) to each and every one of his disciples without distinction: 'You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.' (Mt 5:48) ... All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of love." (Lumen Gentium, section 40.) I can certainly see how Hays could get his "two tiered" approach out of Catholic teachings like this! (Cough cough.)
***END-QUOTE***
I guess Patrick is clearing his throat to cover the suspicious sound of his paper shredder as he tries to dispose of the incriminating evidence which prompted discussion of the Sermon on the Mount in the first place. The original context was St. Francis’ sweet, softheaded interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount as a call to the monastic life.
Vatican II is completely irrelevant to the Franciscan interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount--except to contradict it. So I guess we should congratulate Patrick for proving me right and St. Francis wrong—even if I would have take a different route to the same conclusion.
Patrick is also assuming that just because Vatican II says something, that holds true for past Catholic teaching on the same subject. Needless to say, this is not an assumption which a Protestant will readily grant without evidence of a supporting argument somewhere in the vicinity.
Patrick has done absolutely nothing to show that, in traditional Catholic theology, the counsels of perfection did not implicate a higher spiritual calling than the lay lifestyle. Frankly, that’s the whole point of monasticism, which lays the basis for the treasury of merit.
Given how much time that Patrick has had to dream up a snappy comeback after our last encounter, is this really the best he can do by way of repartee?
***QUOTE***
Before I go, let me refrain from being snarky for a moment and try to make a simple but serious point.
Pope Paul VI convened a theological commission to study the issue of artificial contraception. Clearly, by convening this commission, he at least implicitly expressed his confidence in its members. (Why would he ask for their advice if he thought the advice would be worthless?) And apparently, when he received their recommendation, he really struggled over what to do about it. You see, the commission recommended that he "update" Church teaching on contraception. (Because of the new methods then available--i.e. the pill--this wouldn't have amounted to a substantive change in Church teaching. Rather, it would have been an application of Church teaching to a new area. But we needn't bother with this distinction, of course, because of Paul VI's decision, which was...) He rejected their advice, and issued _Humanae Vitae_. That's the teaching of the Church. The recommendation of the theological commission is entirely irrelevant.
You see, theologians and biblical scholars--even ones trusted by popes and appointed to prestigious commissions--really only serve in an advisory role. Every organization has a board of advisors. And you know how much real authority a board of advisors has? None. None at all. People get onto boards of advisors for any number of reasons. Just like there could be any number of reasons why Raymond Brown was on the PBC. Maybe he was there because the popes who appointed him approved of his work. Or maybe he was there for some other reason entirely. Who knows? The point is that his being there does not make him an official spokesman for the Church. This, I think, is what Jordan Potter was getting at by objecting to your putting Brown et al in the same category as the popes.
Indeed, you seem to fail to make an extremely important distinction between the actual teaching of the Church on the one hand, and the various theologies and philosophies through which the Church's intelligentsia seek to interpret and understand the teaching of the Church. Theologians do important work, but their work qua theologians--or qua biblical scholars, or qua philosophers--is speculative, and it's a very bad idea to conflate this speculative work with the teaching of the Church. Even the theology of Aquinas can't hold up to that kind of conflation. And, in fact, because the apologist is not engaging in such a speculative enterprise, it may actually be much wiser to go to a trustworthy apologist than to a speculative theologian if what you're looking for is a straightforward presentation of the teaching of the Church.
***END-QUOTE***
This is putatively directed to the PP, but it’s equally applicable, or inapplicable—as the case may be—to me as well.
1.According to the Vatican, the president of the PBC is a top cardinal in the Curia:
“Presidente della Commissione Biblica è il Cardinale Prefetto della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_pcbible_en.html
That, of course, was Ratzinger’s old day job.
Why would the Vatican put its official doctrinal watchdog in charge of the PBC except to keep it on a short leash?
But, of course, here we come to a great divide. That’s the sort of logical question that a Protestant will ask, but a devout Catholic will not. We ask the “why” questions while they stop with the “what” questions—what does Mother Church say?
2.But suppose, for the sake of argument, that we play along with Patrick’s contention.
He chooses to follow the familiar insulating strategy of shielding the Vatican from accountability by distancing the PBC from the Magisterium.
Okay, you can play that game, but like a high-end poker game, you pay through the nose to get in, and you may lose your shirt on the way out.
The problem with treating the PBC as a rogue institution is that the Vatican is still to blame, but just in a different way than before. You render the Vatican inculpable off any errors on the part of PBC members by rendering the Vatican culpable for failing to exercise adult supervision over the PBC.
What, again, is the point of the magisterium, of a divine teaching office, if it doesn’t function as a quality-control mechanism to place a check on influential error?
If a dog-owner doesn’t keep a vicious dog securely tethered, if he lets it roam the neighborhood and maul the children a play, he is legally responsible.
Saying that the dog was out of control doesn’t render him blameless, but blameworthy.
3.Remember, contrary to Patrick’s comparison, that the PBC is not advising its superiors, but its inferiors.
It isn’t telling the Pope how he has to interpret the Bible. Rather, it is a guideline for the lower ranks. For the flunkies, and not the “Princes of the Church.”
4.So the Vatican loses either way. If the members of the PBC are under its thumb, then it’s complicit in their methods and conclusions.
But if the PBC is a runaway train, then the Vatican is at fault for being asleep at the switch.
Take your pick: complicity or negligence.
5.Patrick also taking a position nearly opposite to that of Prejean and McElhinney. For them, the work of the scholars and theologians is absolutely crucial to putty all the interpretive gaps.
The magisterial stuff is mediated by the nonmagisterial staffers. According to Prejean and McElhinney, we poor slobs don’t enjoy direct epistemic access to magisterial teaching. No, that must be filtered through dense layers of exegesis.
So, in the final analysis, it’s not what a Pope or council says that counts, but what an expert says they said.
Patrick may disagree, but this is the problem when Catholic laymen offer contradictory defensive strategies.
6.Patrick says that these guys are not official spokesmen for the church. That may be so, but this goes to a painful irony among the lay apologist.
Since poor little Patrick is hardly an official spokesman himself, what gives him the right to say who does and does not speak for the church? He’s tacitly assuming the very posture he denies to others.
And, frankly, guys like Brown and Rahner and Fitzmyer enjoy a lot more institutional standing than a nobody like him.
In saying that, I’m not judging hhim by my standards, but by his own.
7.And that brings me to the final irony. It is very revealing that the Church of Rome delegates the task of apologetics to the laity or lower clergy. Why not have a curial office to do that sort of thing?
Simple, that Vatican might inadvertently paint itself into a corner. It prefers deniability to visibility. Now you see it—now you don’t!
The so-called teaching office is less interested in protecting the faithful than in protecting its own reputation by sticking its neck out as little as possible.
That’s quite understandable—for an uninspired church. Join the club!
Patrick said: "Indeed, you seem to fail to make an extremely important distinction between the actual teaching of the Church on the one hand, and the various theologies and philosophies through which the Church's intelligentsia seek to interpret and understand the teaching of the Church. Theologians do important work, but their work qua theologians--or qua biblical scholars, or qua philosophers--is speculative, and it's a very bad idea to conflate this speculative work with the teaching of the Church."
ReplyDeleteThe key questions are 1) what criteria does one use to discern "the actual teaching of the church" from the "speculative work" of it's theologians; and 2) who is the arbiter when disagreements arise about whether a theologians explication of the teaching of the church conforms to the actual teaching of the church?"
Apparently we are to believe that uneducated lay e-pologists hold the key to "the true teaching of the church" (although I still wonder what sort of criteria is being employed by these gate keepers to discern the "authentic" from the purely speculative opinions of individual Catholics).
Steve says:
ReplyDelete"5.Patrick also taking a position nearly opposite to that of Prejean and McElhinney. For them, the work of the scholars and theologians is absolutely crucial to putty all the interpretive gaps.
The magisterial stuff is mediated by the nonmagisterial staffers. According to Prejean and McElhinney, we poor slobs don’t enjoy direct epistemic access to magisterial teaching. No, that must be filtered through dense layers of exegesis.
So, in the final analysis, it’s not what a Pope or council says that counts, but what an expert says they said.
Patrick may disagree, but this is the problem when Catholic laymen offer contradictory defensive strategies."
Patrick didn't disagree with either one of us. It's not as if papal infallibility is simply separate from the Church, as if the Pope says it, and that's it. The teaching has to be evaluated in the context of the belief of the entire Church. Until that process is complete, the "meaning" of even an infallible pronouncement is not settled.
I'd analogize it to law, a situation that has been noted in the past. When the legislature passes a law, the law's meaning is not definitely fixed based on the opinion of any of the legislators that went into it or even the prevailing arguments, because people may have had vastly different reasons for voting for the law, so there has to be some principle for determining the meaning of the law authoritatively (a "rule of law"). Ordinarily, the meaning of the law is determined in subsequent applications, actual decisions made using the law, which may or may not reflect the intent of any of the particular legislators who passed it. That is the difference between an objective discipline determined based on formality (which the authority of the Catholic Church is), and a subjective discipline based on persuasion. Patrick's point is exactly that you have to appeal to objective teaching to ground anything, and Shawn and I are simply applying the rather ordinary criteria that one interprets the meaning of objectively authoritative statements primarily based on how they are subsequently applied (which is effectively what is binding) and the general reception of the document in the community, rather than the intent the authors had for the document (which is not). The canons of "Catholic jurisprudence" aren't all that different from English common law, which is unsurprising, as Catholic canon law was the primary basis for those systems.
Honestly, Catholicism is not particularly different from from legal scholarship. Before a definitive Supreme Court ruling, there may be a number of theories among lawyers, judges, and academics as to what the law means, none of which are binding but all of which represent various ways to understand and meaningfully apply the law, considering things such as original intent but also factors such as overall coherence of the jurisprudence in the area, giving effect to all provisions, presuming against repeal or preemption without stated intent, etc. After a while, you'll usually note some kind of practical consensus, which typically guides practitioners from there on out (this is what Patrick means by the "apologist" view as opposed to the "speculative views."). Sometimes, it simply remains bitterly divided even among different regions of the county, and sometimes the Court simply leaves it that way, exercising its own discretion as to when it reins in the lower authorities. This acceptance does not indicate that the Court agrees with all of the views or even any of them, but merely that until something definitive comes down, everyone does the best that they can.
Obviously, in such an objective system, formality is huge; anything which is definitely formal cannot be ignored. A step below that are matters of technical informality but high relevance, such as Supreme Court reasoning (not technically binding, but almost invariably persuasive), and there are steps below that, again based on relative formality, not authority. There's nothing inherently anarchic about such a system; indeed, I can hardly figure out how any system based on the "will of the people" giving meaning to objectively authoritative pronouncements (which Catholicism inherently is) can be grounded in anything other than such jurisprudence.
That's why we Catholics are always a bit baffled by the obsession with finding a definitive meaning for everything that can be fixed at a particular moment in time; that's simply not necessary for language to be objectively and authoritatively binding (and indeed, it's questionable as to how the definitive meaning can possibly be fixed in anticipation of all possible future contingencies). Epistemic certainty about meaning simply isn't necessary for something to be authoritatively binding; there's nothing incoherent about accepting an authority without having a definitive knowledge of every ruling the authority has made. You simply judge based on the internal operation of the legal system and the likelihood of interpretation within that system. Indeed, one could argue that there is considerably *less* certainty in the American jurisprudential system (since unlike the older English common law or the Catholic Magisterium, Supreme Court decisions can be overruled later), but we fallible lawyers all manage to muddle through somehow. Your argument sounds a great deal like "You shouldn't be American because your legal system doesn't provide certainty," to which I reply "Perhaps that's not a reasonable basis on which to make one's decision to be American."
Something else occurred to me related to my earlier point. The following statement are also inexplicable from the Catholic view:
ReplyDelete"Why would the Vatican put its official doctrinal watchdog in charge of the PBC except to keep it on a short leash?
But, of course, here we come to a great divide. That’s the sort of logical question that a Protestant will ask, but a devout Catholic will not. We ask the 'why' questions while they stop with the 'what' questions—what does Mother Church say?"
"The problem with treating the PBC as a rogue institution is that the Vatican is still to blame, but just in a different way than before. You render the Vatican inculpable off any errors on the part of PBC members by rendering the Vatican culpable for failing to exercise adult supervision over the PBC.
What, again, is the point of the magisterium, of a divine teaching office, if it doesn’t function as a quality-control mechanism to place a check on influential error?
If a dog-owner doesn’t keep a vicious dog securely tethered, if he lets it roam the neighborhood and maul the children a play, he is legally responsible."
"But if the PBC is a runaway train, then the Vatican is at fault for being asleep at the switch.
Take your pick: complicity or negligence."
Vatican pronouncements, like Supreme Court decision, are rather extraordinary means to resolve doctrinal disputes. In the ordinary course of things, teaching filters down by this deliberative process of determination within the Church, and unless there is such an extreme risk in allowing the process to continue that it must be cut off, that is ordinarily the preferred way for things to happen (viz., people achieving gradual consensus through deliberation). The PBC is nothing more than another voice in those deliberations; it provides a venue for certain people to speak their views based on their expertise. Generally, if people aren't advocating out-and-out lawlessness (i.e., denial of the objective authority of the Magisterium), then it's ordinarily permissible for this process to take place. That's why I tend to be less harsh on liberal and traditionalist Catholics than most; it's not my job to discipline them, but to bring them around to my way of thinking through articulation of my views (deliberative process). But if the rule of law itself is rejected (as in Protestantism), then there's no common foundation even to discuss things.