"New" sanctions for Roger Haight SJ.
Sandro Magister comments on the latest (six months old but only just revealed) sanctions against Jesuit theologian Roger Haight. He has many supporters in the area in which I work, namely interfaith relations. But is his theology the answer even in this context?
Pope Benedict and other curial officials (eg. Cardinal Tauran) working in the area of interfaith dialogue are strongly of the opinion that watering down the faith of the Church in the area of Christology is no more helpful in interfaith dialogue than is watering down the Church's ecclesiology in ecumenism.
Straightforward honesty and truthfulness is the first prerequisite for positive outcomes in any dialogue. Well, equal first anyway, along with respect for the honest and true beliefs of the dialogue partner.
Magister highlights one comment from another Jesuit, Gerard O'Collins - an Australian now working in Rome - with regard to Roger Haight's Christology:
O'Collins made a memorable quip after news came of Haight's first condemnation: "I wouldn't give my life for Roger Haight's Jesus. It's a triumph of relevance over orthodoxy."That perfectly sums up the problem with Haight's Christology.
posted by Schütz @ 10:19 pm
5 Comments
.JPG)
5 Comments:
Sounds like albert schweitezer's "Quest for the Historical Jesus" relevancy was meant to be the aim but i think olfd Albert lost the historicity because he could not accept that Jesus was/is God working in History. I have out tbis clumsily ,but nursing and sociology are my background
sorry my tremorous typing hand bit bad today,hence typos
I guess it's a sign of the times.
On the one hand a priest who dares to imagine women being priests is getting his butt kicked, on the other a bishop, who was until recently excommunicated and thinks that women shouldn't even be at University (http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-2001.htm) is having his butt warmed.
'A triumph of relevance over orthodoxy'? A triumph of 1909 over 2009!
His Christology sounds like a Haight Crime.
On the one hand a priest who dares to imagine women being priests is getting his butt kicked
Which one? And what's the problem with getting his butt kicked for "daring to imagine" something the Church has declared itself unable to effect?
And what do women have to do with it? I thought David was discussing Christology?
Williamson wasn't excommunicated for being a dingbat and the excommunication has not been lifted for that reason either.
Mind you, it is possible to make an argument that women would be better served not going to uni.
A triumph of 1909 over 2009!
If only...
Tony, to paraphrase Fr Z. on a recent post, a Church that can embrace Fr Haight (and he has not been excommunicated or stripped of his clerical orders) can also embrace a Bishop Williamson.
Williamson's ideas are offensive and contrary to the Catholic faith on the continuing role of the People of the Covenant among the people of the New Covenant.
Haight's teachings on Christology are in serious disagreement with the Catholic Church and have the power to undermine the faith of the Church and the faith of inviduals.
Both are treated with concern and with action to correct the erring brother.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home