Elizabeth Johnson, professor of theology at Fordham University in New
York, in a June 1 letter to the Committee on Doctrine of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, strenuously defended the orthodoxy of
her 2007 book, Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God, saying the committee had thoroughly misunderstood, misrepresented, and misinterpreted the book.
The bishops’ doctrine committee in late March, after studying the
book for one year, concluded it “does not accord with authentic Catholic
teaching on essential points” and “completely undermines the Gospel and
the faith of those who believe in the Gospel.”
Johnson, a Sister of St. Joseph, taking up an offer by the Committee
on Doctrine to begin a dialogue centered on the book, sent the committee
a 38-page letter countering the critique.
The committee of nine bishops
is headed by Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington.
NCR received a copy of the Johnson letter from someone not connected with Fordham University.
Johnson wrote that at the outset of the critique, the committee had
made “several erroneous moves” that jeopardized the accuracy of its
judgment, by:
- Deciding that the book did not start with the faith of the church;
- Interpreting her critique of the theological position known as modern theism as criticism of the faith of the church;
- Misconstruing her position on religious language as leading to Kantian skepticism.
“Given these initial misreadings, what follows was almost bound to
miss the mark. Ideas are taken out of context and twisted to mean what
they patently do not mean. Sentences are run to a conclusion far from
what I think or the text says. False dilemmas are composed. Numerous
omissions, distortions, and outright misstatements of fact riddle the
reading. As a work of theology, Quest for the Living God was thoroughly
misunderstood and consistently misrepresented in the committee’s
statement. As a result, the statement’s judgment that Quest does not
cohere with Catholic teaching is less than compelling. It hangs in the
air, untethered by the text of the book itself.”
In addition to “misreading” the content of her book, Johnson criticized the committee’s process.
“To use a judicial metaphor: The fact that Quest for the Living God
was brought up on charges by person or persons unknown, put on a
yearlong trial, and found guilty before I was ever informed adds to the
problematic aspect of the statement’s appearance. In my view, it would
have been better to have this dialogue prior to the release of the
statement. Then, if the Committee on Doctrine still wished to make a
statement, it would at least be based on an accurate reading of what the
book actually says."
“Simple human courtesy would indicate that springing such a public
critique without warning is neither a generous nor respectful way to
treat an adult. Were it not for the graciousness of Archbishop Timothy
Dolan, my local bishop, I would have found out about the statement
online or in the newspaper. It is no disparagement to the episcopal
office to suggest that the committee might have garnered less criticism
from scholars and the reading public if it had followed a more
dialogical procedure. Furthermore, in a letter to the Fordham University
faculty cited in the press, Thomas Weinandy, OFM Cap, executive
secretary of the Committee on Doctrine, wrote that the critique of the
book ‘in no way calls into question the dedication, honor, creativity,
or service of its author.’ This is interesting to know, because the
statement’s harsh tone, disparaging words, ridicule, and rhetoric of
fear certainly created that impression in my own mind and in the view of
the public at large.”
She wrote that she admitted to curiosity about the process followed by the committee to arrive at its statement.
“Did each of the nine bishop members or their theologians read the
book and draw up notes? Did they discuss the points to be made and
debate them pro and con? Did they vote on the final document? I ask
because of my work on faculty and professional committees where factual
distortions are called into question and positions change as people hear
each other’s arguments. The numerous misreadings of Quest flagged in
these observations make me query if the committee might not find a more
satisfactory way of proceeding to assure more accurate outcomes.”
Johnson is a distinguished professor of systematic theology at the
Jesuit-run Fordham University.
She is a former president of the Catholic
Theological Society of America and one of its most well-known members.
The bishops’ March critique upset a number of Catholic scholars and
triggered defenses of Johnson's works.
Among the groups that responded
were the boards of the Catholic Theological Society of America and
College Theology Society.
Both issued statements criticizing the work of
the bishops’ doctrine committee.
The faculty at Fordham was equally indignant. An April 19 statement,
signed by 180 faculty members, defended Johnson as “an esteemed and
cherished member of the Fordham community for over two decades.”
They sent a letter to the committee to convey their “unconditional
support” for Johnson, saying they were “dismayed” at the committee’s
action.
They urged the bishops’ conference “to take steps to rectify the
lack of respect and consideration” shown to a Catholic scholar “who has
given a lifetime of honorable, creative, and generous service to the
church, the academy, and the world.”
Responding to these harsh criticisms, Capuchin Fr. Thomas G.
Weinandy, executive director of the doctrine committee, April 28
addressed a letter to the Department of Theology at Fordham. He said the
doctrine committee “takes seriously your concerns.”
The letter assured the faculty that the committee never intended to
tarnish Johnson’s reputation or impugn her honor or dedication to the
church.
Weinandy stated the doctrine committee “in no way calls into question the dedication, honor, creativity, or service” of Johnson.
He went on to say the committee had written to Johnson reiterating
its willingness to enter into dialogue with her.
He said the committee
would receive “any written observations on the content of the
committee’s statement that she may wish to offer.”