Posted on 02/26/2008 6:16:54 AM PST by NYer
His 700-page "The Writings of the New Testament" is widely used as a religious textbook, but well-known theologian and lecturer Luke Timothy Johnson is not fit to be heard by Belleville Diocese Catholics, according to Bishop Edward K. Braxton.
Johnson, a professor of theology at Emory University in Atlanta, was scheduled to speak April 20 at the diocese-funded Newman Center on the campus of Southern Illinois University Carbondale. But in October, Braxton, who has authority over virtually all diocesan matters, blocked the presentation.
In an editorial published two weeks ago, Commonweal, a national Catholic magazine, criticized Braxton's action, terming it "censorship."
While Braxton rarely comments to local reporters and could not be reached for comment for this article, he did respond to Commonweal, citing a need to protect the "magisterium," or teaching authority of the Catholic Church, and wrote:
"I do not wish Catholic institutions or organizations to invite speakers into the diocese who have written articles or given lectures that oppose, deny, reject, undermine or call into question the authentic teachings of the magisterium of the Catholic Church."
Steven Sanders, a Carbondale insurance brokerage owner and member of the center's pastoral council that invited Johnson, said of Braxton, "I think he's stepping in where it's none of his damn business. These kids are college kids. They should be able to hear all sides."
Braxton's action in blocking the talk is not unusual, said Johnson, who is mainly known as a biblical scholar who sometimes questions church authority. He recently wrote a Commonweal article about applying practical experience instead of relying solely on Holy Scripture's condemnation of homosexuality. The article also mentioned the long-standing opposition by church hierarchy to the ordination of women.
"It's hardball politics in this kind of thing. And by no means is it restricted to Catholicism. It's widespread," he said.
The Rev. Peter Phan, a theologian and author of the 2004 book "Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue," was banned from speaking in St. Louis in December by Archbishop Raymond Burke. Church officials had deemed Phan's book "confusing." The national Cardinal Newman Society regularly monitors lists of proposed speakers and objects to those deemed to undermine church authority.
Johnson said he was once asked by a university's Newman Center to sign a statement promising not to embarrass the church in his lecture. He said he refused.
"Of course there should be give and take," he said, adding, "If Bishop Braxton had come to my lecture and after the lecture either posed a hard question or wrote a pastoral letter criticizing me or made clear to his catechists that they should be careful of my teaching, that would be perfectly within his right."
However, Johnson, who has accepted an invitation to lecture at Loyola University in Chicago, said he was barred from the Belleville Diocese even though he hadn't chosen a subject.
"It's not a new pattern by any means. Nor, am I some kind of martyr," he said, "It's laughable at one level that a 2,000-year-old institution of such glorious cultural and intellectual riches should be so frightened. It's just ridiculous."
Paul Anegelis, a retiree in Carbondale and member of the SIUC Newman Center's pastoral council, said he wrote two lengthy letters to Braxton last year that, while not seeking permission, gave reasons why Johnson was desired as a speaker.
"I took the time to write two letters that he didn't answer. It was an impolite gesture," he said.
Notre Dame University theology professor Lawrence Cunningham said while Braxton could be said to be acting within his authority as a bishop, "... there ought to be reasons given," when a speaker is barred from lecturing on church property.
"He should be willing to speak to people," Cunningham said, "Especially in this day and age when people are not as uneducated and as docile as they might have been when I was a kid growing up."
Cunningham said Johnson is well-regarded as a "solid Catholic biblical scholar," who, in the recent Commonweal article, "Asked for a more generous consideration of the plight of homosexuals."
And Cunningham praised the Carbondale Newman Center for not simply relocating the talk, which would have been partly paid for by a speaker's fund from Commonweal, to a site out of Braxton's control.
"It's to their merit in the sense that they're not trying to cause some big rupture between the bishop and the Newman Center," he said, "They're trying to be faithful in their own right. It seems to me that they acted with more grace than he (Braxton) acted."
Ping!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Explaining Catholic teaching to the intentionally ignorant, but highly educated, attendees after the lecture, would obviously be too late.
They know this, and the bishop has the duty to prevent scandal before it occurs if he suspects it will be the likely result of an event.
The Catholic Church is under no obligation to provide a forum to those who challenge its teachings. Where does "censorship" arise?
The converse position, namely that the Catholic Church is somehow obligated to entertain those who disagree with it, is both dictatorial and nonsensical. The gentleman in question is free to air his views through a variety of different media. He is in no way "censored". The Catholic Church is perfectly within its rights to say "no thank you".
The former group seem to have gotten the idea from somewhere that the Church is a democracy, and should guarantee their 'rights' as though it were a government.
Buy a clue, whiners! The Church is not a democracy, and you're not entitled to say anything you want on private property and on the Church's dime.
Nobody is forcing you to belong to the Church, and nobody has the right to force the Church to fund, support, or give its imprimatur to speakers who are promoting doctrines contrary to Church teaching.
Oh well Luke ,guess your not welcomed.
I never went back. I am not shocked they would court controversy by inviting this guy to speak.
That Newman Center at SIU is just filled with awful people.
Censorship means an absolute prior restriction on speech, publishing, performance or broadcast by a government agency. It is generally inimical to American values of free speech as well as free enterprise.
Sponsorship means providing resources for speech: a speakers' fee, a venue, a platform, a microphone. All organizations have limited resources, and all organizations have the right to select a few "speeches" to be sponsored, necessarily leaving many, many potential "speeches" unsponsored.
In this case, the Newman Center is Diocese-funded, and the Bishop does not want to sponor a speaker who teaches pernicious errors which undermine the very purpose of the Diocese and the Newman Center. Causa finita.
Well, perhaps not quite "finita." Now the Bishop needs to use this "teachable moment" to positively proclaim the Church's perspective on gender and sex.
Let's send him some encouraging words:
Most Reverend Edward K. Braxton
222 S. Third Street
Belleville, IL 62220 .
Off topic, but my fiancee attends Smith college and I went to mass there last weekend, only to be subjected to a sermon (by a Jesuit no less) about how “sin as selfishness” is the “masculine” concept of sin. Then the priest said if a woman is in an absusive relationship and she doesn’t leave she is sinning. (Making a wrong decision, perhaps, but not sinning).
It was weird. I’m glad the bishop here is preventing this.
>> Then the priest said if a woman is in an absusive relationship and she doesn’t leave she is sinning. <<
With all the outrageous heresies from the mouths of bishops, that’s a funny one to pick on. I actually agree with the bishop: She is subjecting future or present kids to fantastic evil. I note the word, “relationship” instead of “marriage.” But even if it is a marriage, abusiveness is a good basis for an annulment. With all the annulment abuse, it’s good to remember that those rules are these to be abused for good reason.
Quote from the article:
“It’s hardball politics in this kind of thing.”
It’s more like hardball pastoring and God bless the Bishop for taking his responsibility seriously.
>> Then the priest said if a woman is in an absusive relationship and she doesn’t leave she is sinning. <<
With all the outrageous heresies from the mouths of bishops, that’s a funny one to pick on. I actually agree with the bishop: She is subjecting future or present kids to fantastic evil. I note the word, “relationship” instead of “marriage.” But even if it is a marriage, abusiveness is a good basis for an annulment. With all the annulment abuse, it’s good to remember that those rules are these to be abused for good reason. If you disagree about the annulments, a separation can sometimes bring a man to appreciate what he’s got.
“...is subjecting future or present kids to fantastic evil.”
My fiancee and I spoke about this afterward. She believes that the psychological impairment sufferred by the abused makes it very difficult for them to escape their situation and that full compliance of the will is hardly ever met.
In as much, the priest never really proved or even provided good evidence of how sinfulness is NOT selfishness in that “our” will takes precedence over God’s.
Oh one other thing; I may have disagreed on an intellectual level with the guy, but what bothered me was the implications that there are “masculine” and “feminine” concepts of sin. Sin is sin. Our understanding of it may be closer or further from Truth, but gender doesn’t play into it.
Smith college is an all-women institution and a hot bed of radical feminist thought.
He who pays the band calls the tune.
“Cunningham said Johnson is well-regarded as a “solid Catholic biblical scholar,” who, in the recent Commonweal article, “Asked for a more generous consideration of the plight of homosexuals.”
__________________________________________________
It is precisely because of the “more generous consideration of the plight of homosexuals” - a “generous consideration” once defined by the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen as “false tolerance” - that we are in the sorry predicament we are in today with homosexuals now demanding an across the board “normalization” of their perversions.
Am I homophobic? In so far as “homophobia” is the “natural revulsion that unnatural acts invite in most people” you bet your boots I’m “homophobic” - and with no apologies!
Bishop Braxton has nothing to apologize for either. What is needed are more bishops like Bishop Braxton who preach the Gospel in and out of season and do not fear “persecution” in terms of stiff editorial rebukes from either so-called “religious” and/or secular rags like COMMONWEAL, THE NEW YORK TIMES et al!
“Explaining Catholic teaching to the intentionally ignorant, but highly educated, attendees after the lecture, would obviously be too late.”
_____________________________________________
Not necessarily “highly educated” or “intentionally ignorant.” More likely “highly indoctrinated” in so-called “Catholic” schools by purveyors of error also pretending to be “Catholic.”
This could be an unexpectedly fruitful teaching moment for Bishop Braxton......especially if he sticks to his guns.
Perhaps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.