|
|
I would like to add a thought to Kathleen van Schaijik's short editorial note on economics in the May 2000 issue of the Concourse Vol. V, issue 8. One of the Sunday readings of that same week addressed a similar topic.: "For if the eagerness [to give to the support of the Church] is there, it is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have; not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality your surplus at the present time should supply their needs, so that their surplus may also supply your needs, that there may be equality." 2 Cor 8:12-14 This passage perhaps doesn't speak directly of the legitimacy of amassing wealth; it deals more with not feeling pressured to give so much to the support of the Church that one's own family is unnecessarily burdened. However, I think a principle which may be gleaned from this Scripture is that it is acceptable to strive to achieve a surplus. While as Christians we should imitate Christ our Savior who completely emptied Himself, we are not morally bound to live in material poverty. ("Blessed are the poor in spirit," not necessarily poor in material goods.) While I believe this Scripture doesn't discourage the Christian from being rich, it still presents a challenge. Imitating Christ, we are to be generous in supporting our brethren. Essentially, we should live within our means (which is actually a very broad qualification, possibly taking into account one's social status), and given out of our surplus. Whatever is left over after our needs (another potentially broad qualification) have been met, ought to be given to our poorer brethren. Personally, I am all for hard work, personal achievement and striving to do well for oneself in this world. Our country was founded by hard-working individuals who were not ashamed of riches. The important thing to keep in mind is what they did with their wealth. Just consider all the historical monuments, libraries, hospitals and churches that have been built and continue to be maintained by wealthy people with a generous spirit. Finally, consider the history of our Western civilization--especially the period hailed by most as one of the most beautiful and creative: the Renaissance. Could the Renaissance and the Catholic Counter-Reformation have occurred in Europe without the generosity of wealthy patrons, such as the Medici family? I think not. Genevieve Belland
Genevieve Belland graduated from FUS in '98. She has recently taken a position with Robert Royal at the Faith and Reason Institute in Washington, DC. She and her fiance, Gregory Erkens ('98) will be married in November. Reconsidering the term 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit' I have a bone to pick with the term "baptism in the Holy Spirit," which has been used in Concourse discussions about the charismatic renewal, most notably by Ralph Sharafinski. I think Catholics should find another term, for this one is confusing and not an accurate representation of the phenomena as explained. Catholic theology, in order to be somewhat coherent as time goes on, has long been extremely solicitous for precision in with language. Much of the 400-plus year debate over fundamental Christological issues in the early Church was over terminology. Even when the same underlying theologically orthodox position's were held, bishop's would engage in very heated arguments over precise terminology. Once the Church has hammered out the particular meanings of certain theological terms used in official doctrinal expressions of the faith, they have become part of what can truly be said to be a Catholic vocabulary. To be a Catholic theologian at a later time must include embracing this theological patrimony. For the sake of clarity (keeping in mind the universality of the Church and the extremely diverse origins of her theologians around the world), the Church's terminology must be guarded and efforts need to be made to preserve the correct understanding of the terms she uses in her official doctrines. (Consider for example the possible consequences of changing just one word in the Apostles Creed.) The terms "Theotokos," "person," "nature," and "eternally begotten" have precise, technical meanings in Church doctrine, which, if taken to mean something other than what the Church understands them to mean, can turn an orthodox statement of the faith, into heresy. In fact this is a method used commonly by dissenting or otherwise heterodox Catholic theologians to spread confusion and doubt while maintaining a surface appearance of orthodoxy. "Transubstantiation" for example is inauspiciously redefined by an author in an early part of a text. Then it is used ambiguously throughout the work in such a way as to give the appearance of faithfulness to Church teaching, when in reality it is being undermined. This kind of coherent, Catholic universal theological vocabulary, does not exist in Protestant theology. Only among small subgroups is there a decent degree of theological consistency. Hence my concern. (I hope you don't mind my saying that sometimes cradle Catholics have too poor a sense of just how precious and wide ranging the blessed unity within Catholicism (including theological terminology) truly is. To step outside the Church in the world of theology is to enter into a confused morass that in many respects is stuck in disputes the Church solved--by magisterial authority--in the first millennium of her existence.) "Baptism in the Holy Spirit," to my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is thoroughly non-Catholic in its origins. This is a problem. "Baptism," being one of the seven sacraments, has a well defined meaning in Catholic theology, reaching far back in the tradition. In fact the meaning of this term underlies one of the very few instances where the Church has authoritatively defined the specific meaning of a Biblical passage. It seems to me that the Catholic meaning of "Baptism" and the Protestant originated "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" are simply not reconcilable (they have a somewhat analogous relationship at best, but this is not sufficient). I am not saying that the underlying meaning of "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" has no application to Catholic religious experience or theology. I am saying that a different term needs to be used if it is ever to add clarity rather than confusion to theological discourse, since "Baptism" is clearly a long standing term on its own having been well established in its meaning in the Catholic vocabulary for centuries. We are not doing well for the Church when we let slide ambiguities in terminology, which are in part responsible for the lack of unity outside the Catholic Church. Only Catholicism is capable of even attempting to establish a standard theological vocabulary--for anything resembling the doctrinal unity of the Church (resting upon the magisterium and the rock of Peter) does not exist outside the Bark of Peter. Scott Johnston
Scott Johnston is a senior at FUS, majoring in Philosophy and Biology. A convert to Catholicism, he is a member of the pre-theologate program,and hopes to serve the Church as a priest. He is a Contributing Editor of the Concourse. Philosophy department at FUS needs a better theological base Dr. Lee's article in the last issue criticizing the view he has heard expressed at FUS that St. Thomas' philosophy/theology is basically egoistical is quite telling. It is the case that St. Thomas, unlike Duns Scotus, is both a declared saint and a doctor of the Church. Both of these declarations are infallible Magisterial expressions. Thomas was declared a doctor on the basis of his penetrating philosophical and theological insights. Thus, to say that the philosophy and theology of this doctor of the Church is essentially egoistical is to say at least one of the following three things: 1) The philosophy/theology of the Church is essentially egoistical 2) the Church was wrong to pronounce Thomas a doctor of the Church on the basis of his philosophical/theological writings, or 3) the Church's own philosophy/theology is self-contradictory and absurdist. Now, it is certainly the case that a doctor of the Church can be wrong on specific issues: Augustine was not necessarily correct to say that unbaptized babies go to hell, nor was Thomas correct to say that the infused soul goes through vegetative, animal and human stages during the development of the human being in utero. However, the charge Dr. Lee describes as being laid against Thomas is much more sweeping than these specific instances of error. This charge, laid against a doctor of the Church, assumes that the whole basis of Thomas's thought is not just insufficiently deep, but actually erroneous. It assumes Thomas failed to understand the theological virtue of love, which means he could not have understood in any basic sense the God, who is love, or man, who is made in the image of God. Any FUS person who lays out such a charge is essentially denigrating not only Thomas, but also the Church's understanding of and judgement on Thomas' work. Now, it is not the case that anyone at FUS would knowingly lay such a charge at the door of the Church. In my experience, students of philosophy at FUS, both beginning and even many who are advanced in their knowledge, tend to have an inadequate grasp of theology. Thus, those who hold this position in regards to Thomas do so for two reasons 1) they don't understand Thomas and 2) their grasp of theology is so weak that they do not realize the implications of their argument. It is disheartening to see Dr. Lee confirm what many theology graduates have long suspected--the philosophy program at FUS needs stronger theological underpinnings.
Steve Kellmeyer graduated from the FUS MA Theology Program in 1999. He currently serves as Director of Adult Formation at Sacred Heart Parish in Norfolk, NE.
© The University Concourse, October 3, 2000 |
