In a recent discussion about "They were the best of times; they were the worst of times"?  I wrote

American Catholicism it seems to me (as I have written  before)  sometimes appears anti-intellectual, anti-scholarship, anti-learning and anti-education. 

I had expected that I would get a response to this opinion. Sometimes to get a discussion going one needs to be provocative and over-state a case, so perhaps I may exaggerate a little. 

Even here in this round-table the anti-education bias of the American Catholic Church may be seen.  We have had a number of posts denigrating knowledge, admittedly led by one person, but the defence of knowledge and learning was not very strong.

In our local Catholic paper, The Irish Catholic, in an article supposedly about the new Jesuit Superior, Fr Adolfo Nicolas SJ, George Weigel launched into a very harsh criticism of the Jesuits, who for centuries have been at the forefront of Catholic scholarship and education. 

First of all he attached Fr James Keenan SJ of Boston College.  Then he attached Fr Robert Drinan SJ of Georgetown University. He followed that up with an attack on an old  web site of the  Jesuits’ California Province.  

He then followed these specifics with a general attack on Jesuits, including the accusation that some Jesuits, especially in Asia, have denied the unique salvific role of Christ.

I get emails about performances of the Vagina Monologues in Notre Dame University and attempts to get its President, Fr Jenkins, to ban these performance.  I agree with this campaign, as it is not about academic standards. 

Fr Richard  McBriien of Notre Dame University has been attacked here in this forum, perhaps unfairly.    

You might like to glance at http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/change/sub.asp?key=98&subkey=1117&printable=true

and

http://thenewmanguide.com/Portals/3/docs/TNG%20State%20of%20Catholic%20Higher%20Ed%20-%20Patrick%20Reilly.pdf. I

It seems Catholic Institutes of higher education have their problems.  However perhaps it is rash for ordinary Catholics. Without a theological background,  to condemn them too comprehensively and give vent to an anti-intellectual bias. 

Catholics have their critics.  Perhaps we, Catholic should remember the words of Benjamin Franklin "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

God bless,

NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________

Loretta

Thank you so much for your immediate clear and positive response.

I did write:

Sometimes to get a discussion going one needs to be provocative and over-state a case, so perhaps I may exaggerate a little. 

However do you think the views I expressed have some truth in them?

Here  in this round-table we did have attacks on "knowledge".  However you did contribute in your usual expert and balanced way to point out the Catholic view.

Thank you, once again.

God bless,


NoelFitz.

PS: I am very pleased with the recent discussions which have been without personal attacks.  NF
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________

This is an excellent thread. Thank you Noel!

lpoich brings to the table so many points that I would like to comment on--from the "contra" position of course--that I don't know where to begin. Now...to find the time to do so. (For now I will simply add this thread to "my discussions" by making this post.)

But for starters, lpoich asks. "What about those that profess, openly and intentionally, heresy? Are they still Catholic?" My answer: absolutely! I don't think it's possible to “change your address“. Are you really suggesting another fracture of the Body of Christ? It certainly didn't help Christianity when Luther changed his address and a similar action won't fair any better today. Where should the Catholic heretic go? The Catholic Church has the Bread of Life and has a pretty good handle on a large part of the truth. You can’t go back to eating baby food after you’ve dined on meat and potatoes. No, the heretic belongs to the Body Christ although they may sometimes function as a certain orifice.

Ave Maria!

Unfortunately most of the criticism against the Jesuits is founded. There are many dissidents in the ranks such that our Holy Father has had to ask them to return to faithfulness. If they do not, I hope he suppresses the order that is a danger to the faith in many cases.  The last 'America' magazine I read was all promoting of gay priests.

Fr. McBrien?  Bad news.

We have to use some discernment!  I know it is hard.  We do not want to criticize the holy priesthood but the men in holy orders are men and they have to deal with sin in their lives too. Certainly we know where the cover-ups of criminal sexual crimes has gotten us.

Are those who publicly profess heresy still Catholic? NO! Maybe in name but a heretic puts his own barriers up. Many are in a place of automatic excommunication (latae sententia) which although not publicly formal, is still, in essence, there.  When someone proclaims heresy they are working for 'the other side'.  I know one holy friar that calls them 'anonymous satanists'.

<<Where should the Catholic heretic go? The Catholic Church has the Bread of Life and has a pretty good handle on a large part of the truth.>>>

That'a true, Zach, but suppose you're dealing with a person who calls himself a Catholic, but doesn't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  There are many such people in this country. It is irrelevant to such people that the Church has the Bread of Life.  They think it's just bread.  Most of these people do not believe they have an obligation to attend Sunday Mass.  Do you call them Catholics?

By your criteria, any Southern Baptist can call himself a Catholic.

Peace

Noel, let me try to restate my thoughts from a different direction.  I quote you above:

------------------------------------- 

But for starters, lpoich asks. "What about those that profess, openly and intentionally, heresy? Are they still Catholic?" My answer: absolutely! I don't think it's possible to “change your address“.

I agree with Z.  Once a Catholic always a Catholic.

A good mother does not  reject a child that goes astray; if anything she increases her love for the child.  Our holy mother the Church also does not throw us out if we go wrong.

-------------------------------------

Ah.  Very good analogy.  That was (I hoped) my point.  That it isn't the Church that throws them out.  But they choose to leave. 

A good mother does not reject a child that goes astray, but she also does not embrace the rejection and says "that's fine".  No, she in love must correct - for the sake of the child's soul and also for the sake of the souls of her other children.   

The Prodigal Son's Father does not go out in search for the son when he went astray.  He accepted his child's freewill.  He waited patiently, with love and prayer, for the son to return.  The choice to "leave" is up to the individual with free will.  It isn't the Church rejecting the heretic.  It is the heretic rejecting the Church by the very fact of holding onto heresy. 

Once Catholic always Catholic means that the prodigal son will always be welcomed back if sincerely repentant.

Once Catholic always Catholic does not mean that the son can be both at home and gone astray at the same time. 

As I said before, we are all sinners.  Sin does not make us not-Catholic.  But we're not talking about sin.  We're talking about the rejection of the Church's teachings.  The rejection of the Bride of Christ as Christ loves her. 

It isn't the Church that rejects the heretic.

It's the heretic that rejects the Church.  Why hold on to the "title" then?

The term "heretic" is a pejorative label used by an opposing side to bully those who disagree with some aspect of Church teaching. These heretics most likely disagree either because they believe the teaching to be in error or they have not received the necessary inspiration/grace from the Holy Spirit to embrace the teaching. In our modern Catholic world, and certainly on CE Roundtable, we mellow the term "heretic" and substitute the term "Cafeteria Catholic". These children of God do not choose to leave the church they simply choose to be careful not to get food poisoning.

To dismiss the CC heretic too easily seems to demean/trivialize the real power of worshipping within the Catholic Church. It's as if there are no real benefits to Catholic worship other than salvation by strict adhesion to a plethora of teachings; as if that is all that really matters. The joy and fulfillment that is experienced by a practicing Catholic, regardless of rejection of certain easily questionable teachings, cannot be denied. Spiritual power is very real and it manifests itself in many forms and in a variety of different people from all walks of life as well as socio-economic background and intellectual competency.

As Noel so correctly eludes to: yesterday’s heretic may just be today’s Pope.

<<It's as if there are no real benefits to Catholic worship other than salvation by strict adhesion to a plethora of teachings; as if that is all that really matters.>>>

Z, what you refer to above as 'teachings' include the teachings of Christ found in the Gospels.  noel is right that the Creeds are short, but there is much in the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels not found in the Creeds.  What comes to us as, in your words, "a plethora of teachings" is the message of the Holy Spirit given to the Church through Her bishops and the Vicar of Christ.  Do you suggest we ignore them?  Or that ignoring them is without consequences?

<<The joy and fulfillment that is experienced by a practicing Catholic, regardless of rejection of certain easily questionable teachings, cannot be denied.>>>

I'm not sure what you consider 'easily questionable teachings' but what I'm talking about are the fundamentals of the Faith without which one cannot legitimately call himself a Catholic.  i.e., a Catholic is required to go to Mass on Sunday;  a Catholic must believe Jesus is fully present in the Holy Eucharist;  a Catholic must not procure an abortion or use contraceptives.  Are these, to you, questionable teachings?  Whatever 'joy and fulfillment' an alleged Catholic may find in rejecting the teachings of the Church has nothing to do with the teachings of the Church.  Some people find joy and fulfillment in hating the Catholic Church.  Are those the people you mean?

<<Spiritual power is very real and it manifests itself in many forms and in a variety of different people from all walks of life as well as socio-economic background and intellectual competency.>>>

 That's true, but I'm not sure the statement has any practical meaning.  Though its value is dubious, one can find 'spiritual power' in people rolling around in the dust of a revival tent.

Peace

Noel wrote: It seems to me many very influential theologians have been suspect, especially those with new insights.

Mother Teresa had a good response.  She stated, “There are too many theologians.  They should pick up a broom and sweep the floor.”  (from Prayer for Beginners by Peter Kreeft)

Mother Teresa was suggesting rather than cause confusion in Church teaching, it would be far better if some theologians did manual labor in God’s vineyard.

I simply couldn't resist my two-cents worth today.

I don't want to be a stickler for pettiness of words but the term I used was "heretic" not ""heresy". I think we can all agree that there is a significant difference between the two meanings. If you call me a heretic (not that anyone did) you are doing so with a pejorative intention. I readily agree that the term "heresy" is not pejorative in intent but rather descriptive in terms of a taught belief not in agreement with a traditional interpretation of Catholic teaching.

lpioch says "...those that openly disdain the authoritative teachings of the Church and teach contrary to the Church have already left the Church...", which would make them a heretic. Yes? Certainly the inference of the term is used in pejorative context, at least in my opinion.

Now to refocus on Noel's question about anti-intellectualism in the American Catholic Church. Firstly, I am Canadian Catholic, born and raised, multi-generations. I have never stepped foot on American soil so I can only imagine what is may be like to be Catholic in the American Catholic Church. That being said, I have had some lengthy exposure to what I consider to be some of the finest Catholic men and women I've ever encountered right here on Catholic Exchange. Most give the impression that they are American. Now I have also spent considerable time at "fisheaters.com" which is, again in my opinion, a harsh, even extreme example of the right wing ultra conservative, big "T" traditional church. Those people, (obviously who are not all Americans) believe with all their hearts that they are intellectual Catholics. They are not. They are fanatics, extremists, and screamers who have very little to say but choose to say it in a very loud way. They are rarely interested in intellectual dialog that even remotely questions traditional Tridentine Catholic teaching. The term "heretic" arises sometimes as often as periods at the end of sentences do. AND THAT IS AMONG THEMSELVES, their fellow traditionalists.

On Catholic Exchange the on-line environment is significantly better as evidenced by the wonderful posters that are found here (and you know that I know who you are ) 

However, on the ohter hand, I have been shut down, on at least two occasions, by moderators who felt that I took the intellectual thing too far. I was asked to back off because I had waded into dangerous territory and that further discussion might put other posters faith at risk. That scared the “hell” out of me and I backed off. The dangerous place we reached, we reached together. I only wrote what seemed an obvious, logical conclusion.

Thus, if I were to answer Noel’s question based on my experience with the “American Catholic Church” found on-line, I would have to say, as respectfully and charitably as possible, that quite possibly most are anti-intellectual when it comes to a variety theological and faith based questions. They tow the party line (brilliantly mind you) but the party line non-the-less.

God bless you all!

Z: <<the term I used was "heretic" not ""heresy". I think we can all agree that there is a significant difference between the two meanings.>>>

I'm afraid we can't so agree.  "Heretic" is derived from "heresy."  One who professes ideas which are considered heresy is a heretic, as has been explained to you.  If you agree 'heresy' is not pejorative, how can you possibly consider 'heretic' pejorative.  It makes no sense.

<<lpioch says "...those that openly disdain the authoritative teachings of the Church and teach contrary to the Church have already left the Church...", which would make them a heretic. Yes? Certainly the inference of the term is used in pejorative context, at least in my opinion.>>>

In my opinion your opinion is mistaken.  All Loretta is saying is, in words of one syllable, if the shoe fits, wear it.  Lets parse it out.  A person who calls himself a Catholic, but believes, and tries to convince others to believe the Eucharist is not the real body and blood of Jesus Christ, but is merely symbolic, is expounding an idea which is clearly heresy.  Calling such a person a heretic is no different, comparitively, from calling a man who plays baseball for a living a professional baseball player.  There's nothing at all pejorative about calling a ballplayer a ballplayer, an apple an apple or a heretic a heretic.

 <<Now to refocus on Noel's question about anti-intellectualism in the American Catholic Church.>>>

There is no such thing as 'The American Catholic Church.'  We are the Catholic Church in the USA.

 <<I am Canadian Catholic, born and raised, multi-generations. I have never stepped foot on American soil so I can only imagine what is may be like to be Catholic in the American Catholic Church.>>>

 That explains a lot.  I'm interested to know what your imaginings are, especially where you italicized the word.

<<However, on the ohter hand, I have been shut down, on at least two occasions, by moderators who felt that I took the intellectual thing too far. I was asked to back off because I had waded into dangerous territory and that further discussion might put other posters faith at risk.>>>

Reading that, I can't help but believe something was lost in the translation.  What does "the intellectual thing" mean?  I find it hard to believe the moderators of this site would ever think anyone here couldn't handle themselves with you, or anyone who posted here, regarding Catholic doctrine and dogma.  Specifically, and please don't take this as anything but an objective observation, I find your arguments weak and your ideas about the Catholic Church lacking a serious theological foundation.

<<I would have to say, as respectfully and charitably as possible, that quite possibly most are anti-intellectual when it comes to a variety theological and faith based questions.>>>

Again, I'd be grateful if you'd explain what you mean here.  What does 'anti-intellectual' mean regarding 'theological and faith based questions?' The majority of the posters on this forum are very intelligent people who are happy to engage you in any idea you may wish to express.  The only proviso is that you respond to what is written to you.

<<They tow the party line (brilliantly mind you) but the party line non-the-less.>>>

Actually, that almost answers the question.  Almost.  Do you consider the Catholic Church analogous to a political party, Z?  Do you think adherence to and faith in the teachings of the Magisterium is a form of slavery?  Do you believe Catholics have a right to deviate from those teachings?

And, BTW, speaking of anti-intellectual, it's "toe" the line.

Peace

I think it is Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom."

Noel, I do not find that bhokuto is misleading anyone as I cannot find anyone who is following him. His interpretations require a great deal of consideration which appears to annoy some readers. In my opinion, he appears to require patience to understand and with effort, he is understandable. The Scriptures do state that we put to death the desires of the flesh in order to live in the Spirit. It is obvious that the Spirit is not comprised solely of intellect as Christ was not subjected to human existance by an act of intellect, rather an act of love. Christ baptizes the faithful in the Spirit according to the Gospel of Saint John. Nothing in Scripture describes baptism in the Intellect nor the Flesh as emanating from Christ.

May God Bless Us All!

Noel, I think you are wise to decline correspondance with bhokuto. I have read his postings and found that he is strongly persistant. Unless you enjoy lengthy debate, it would seem that challenging him would prove to be a frustrating experience. For your own peace of mind, I think you would enjoy discussion from a more agreeable person. Thank you for the welcome. I do want to announce that my Bishop recently confirmed about 100 mentally retarded adults in the faith. The Bishop did not allow any of the candidates to pass examination without correct conscience and responses. This may be evidence that intellect does not necessarily fully comprise the Holy Spirit. I attended the Confirmation and was pleasantly surprised at the honesty and correctness of these mentally delayed Catholics.

May God Bless Us All!