The poor misunderstood theologian

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Apr 05, 2011

Last week the US bishops’ conference released a detailed critique of a book by Sister Elizabeth Johnson. The bishops’ doctrinal committee found that Quest for the Living God “contains misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors that bear upon the faith of the Catholic Church as found in Sacred Scripture, and as it is authentically taught by the Church’s universal magisterium.”

In a measured response to the bishops’ statement, Johnson said that the criticisms “paint an incorrect picture of the fundamental line of thought the books develops.”

Well, obviously somebody is wrong here. Either Sister Johnson is wrong about what the Church teaches, or the bishops’ doctrine committee is wrong about what Sister Johnson teaches. Either she misrepresents the faith, or they misrepresent her.

Father Thomas Weinandy, who heads the staff for the bishops’ doctrine committee, reported that the bishops had no real doubts about their judgment. “They thought it was self-evident in the book what she was saying and that it was wrong,” he told the Catholic News Service . In other words, it was not a close call.

Have you noticed how frequently, when the Vatican questions the orthodoxy of a theologian’s works, the theologian claims that the Vatican has misunderstood? Invariably, the embattled theologian defends himself by saying that the Vatican did not properly grasp the nuances of his position. Now the same little drama is being played out between Sister Johnson and the US bishops’ conference. Yet the US bishops’ doctrinal committee saw no nuances; they saw a clear-cut decision.

This difference of perspective might be understandable if the work in question was an esoteric text, aimed at professional theologians and difficult for amateurs to grasp. But that is not the case with Quest for the Living God. The book is aimed for a popular audience. In 2008 it was cited as the top theology book of the year by the Catholic Press Association: a group of journalists, not theologians. It is assigned reading for undergraduates in many Catholic colleges. It is—or purports to be—a book that an ordinary reader can understand.

If we can assume that the bishops on the USCCB doctrinal committee have at least an ordinary comprehension of theological issues, then when they perceive “self-evident” doctrinal problems, it seems reasonable to conclude that the problems are real—that the bishops have not simply failed to understand Johnson’s work. Or to look at the question from a different angle, if Catholic bishops cannot grasp Johnson’s points, how can we expect college undergraduates to understand them? If the bishops have misunderstood, it’s fair to assume that many undergraduates will misunderstand, and thus be led astray. And if that’s the case, the bishops were right to issue a warning.

The standard line of defense for heterodox theologians—that the bishops (or the Vatican) misunderstood them—is growing old. If the theologians were writing exclusively for their academic peers, they could plausibly make that argument. But invariably they are writing for a popular audience, conveying their views to readers who are at best no more sophisticated than bishops. If their books are subject to misinterpretation by bishops, they are subject to misinterpretation by the general public. And if they are subject to misinterpretation, they can lead people astray. Even if the theologians are right, and their works have been misunderstood, their defense still fails.