David B. Speaks

[_MrStakhanovite]

I deliberately set my question in broad historical terms. I shouldn't be surprised, however, if the intellectual elite of the 21st century Roman Catholic church was as you describe in some countries.

Even in broad historical terms, going through the Middle Ages, some of the most subversive and hard to eradicate forms of Heresy came straight from the clergy after the Gregorian reforms. All the Reformers were trained in theology at Roman institutions too.

[_madeleine]

Has it, on the whole, been priests who have been subversive of Roman Catholic belief over the last hundred and fifty years?

Hell yes, Jesuits put out stuff in biblical studies that make secular projects look like faith promotion. The Catholic Church has a huge huge gap between what the lay people believe and the theological elite who train priests and publish in journals.

von Balthasar and Lonergan (with non-Jesuit Karth) shook the Catholic world.

Then there are the censured priests, such as Küng. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:D ... heologians

[_Kishkumen]

So, Stak, madeleine, and whoever else wants to chime in-

Is the problem with theological education one of loss of faith or one of power and authority? Or a little of both?

[_Chap]

I deliberately set my question in broad historical terms. I shouldn't be surprised, however, if the intellectual elite of the 21st century Roman Catholic church was as you describe in some countries.

Even in broad historical terms, going through the Middle Ages, some of the most subversive and hard to eradicate forms of Heresy came straight from the clergy after the Gregorian reforms. All the Reformers were trained in theology at Roman institutions too.

Oh come on ... neither of us is terribly surprised to find that in the Middle Ages the theologically literate (or even the just plain literate), and hence those able to generate interesting heresies, were quite likely to be clergy, are we? And as for the Reformers - where else could they possibly have been trained but in church-dominated institutions?

There is no need for us to bore everybody else by getting into a cat-fight about this, but I remain skeptical about the general applicability of the idea "Trained clergy - > loss of belief".

[Guest]

So, Stak, madeleine, and whoever else wants to chime in-

Is the problem with theological education one of loss of faith or one of power and authority? Or a little of both?

In the LDS world it's both, but that's mainly because power is derived from faithful tithe payers who invest GAs with authority and the means to exercise it.

In the Protestant world, since no one Protestant holds that much power, it's mainly a problem of loss of faith. There just isn't that much power concentrated in one spot to lose that much authority.

In the Catholic and Orthodox worlds, it's still a problem of loss of faith, but for different reasons. In those traditions, authority is defined by apostolic succession and the exercise of that authority is liturgical. So while there is authority to usurp, it tends not to be usurped by academic conclusions. Loss of faith will eventually lead to loss of power (because there is less money flowing in), but because of the way finances are organized in those faiths, it will take longer for them to feel it.

[_madeleine]

So, Stak, madeleine, and whoever else wants to chime in-

Is the problem with theological education one of loss of faith or one of power and authority? Or a little of both?

I didn't know there was a problem with theological education. :-) I don't know about the huge gap between the laity and clergy, either. The deacon who catechized me in backwater of the Catholic world, Salt Lake City, is steeped in Communio. It remains, by and large, my approach to Catholicism as well. :-) And I am far from being a theologian!

More the problem, as I see it, are Protestant ideas, particularly Puritan, that seep in. bleh.

[_Joe Geisner]

Amen to that, but don't put the whole blame on Packer. Peterson and Benson played a big role in it too, and Hinckley and others did nothing to stop it. Truly a tragedy in my opinion and right now the church is reaping what they sowed way back then.

Thanks Cicero.

You are correct, all of these people created this situation the Church is now facing.

I may be wrong, but I think people are not reaching high enough. The Church leadership and its intellectuals are willing to settle for mediocrity at best, and complete failure in the least.

Leonard Arrington was no Bob Flanders or Dick Howard. Leonard was faithful to Joseph Smith, Spencer Kimball and the Utah Mormonism of his day. Leonard believed that a Mormon could look at the Church's history and remain faithful. Leonard advocated faithful history, much like Richard Bushman does to this day. The RLDS were much more open to full examination with critical questions being asked.

Graceland University is an excellent example of a university who can look at Restoration studies and theology and take it to new heights. I am constantly blown away at their level of sophistication. I don't always agree with the scholars, but that is the beauty, they are willing to have serious and difficult discussions. Why are we willing to reach so low, and our cousins have reached for the stars?

Another example is Dick Howard's "Restoration Scriptures: A Study of Their Textual Development," which is a masterful work on Joseph Smith's scriptures. It is still unmatched.

I believe if Leonard's vision had been allowed to flourish, we would see works of this level. He surrounded himself with people like Jim Allen, who was at the top of his game and also very faithful. Instead we have the JSPP writing a terrible introduction for the journals volume two. These "historians" have no problem throwing Sara Pratt, Nancy Rigdon and John C. Bennnet under the bus just to make Smith looking sterling clean.

[_Kishkumen]

I didn't know there was a problem with theological education. :-) I don't know about the huge gap between the laity and clergy, either. The deacon who catechized me in backwater of the Catholic world, Salt Lake City, is steeped in Communio. It remains, by and large, my approach to Catholicism as well. :-) And I am far from being a theologian!

More the problem, as I see it, are Protestant ideas, particularly Puritan, that seep in. bleh.

So, madeleine, is the perception that there is a problem more of a Protestant thing?

[_Darth J]

...

Recently, when BYU Religious Education professors such as David Seeley and Dana Pike in the Deseret Book publication Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament even made mention of the fact that most biblical scholars believe that Moses did not write the Pentateuch and that it is comprised of separate sources, these scholars were called into the Dean’s office and corrected for possibly destroying faith.

....

Does anyone know more about these two BYU professors getting "spanked" by the Dean for writing that most biblical scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?

Maybe SeattleGhostWriter could write a story about that.

Rimshot.

[_MCB]

I think she is off-line at the moment.

So, madeleine, is the perception that there is a problem more of a Protestant thing?

IMHO, I think it is symptomatic of the problem of living in a predominantly non-Catholic society. It is easy to pick up false ideas, particularly when circulating among anti-Catholics. The religious scholars of the Catholic Church have the advantage of being able to study without those influences-- while still cognizant of the difficulties of the laity, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation and other forms of guidance. So, yes, as Madeline suggested, a good share of the advantage is sacramental in nature.