OK, the theologian is trying to work through the implications of being an international Church. The Vatican continues to believe, in spite of anything their own Bishop Kopernig (a.k.a. Copernicus) taught, that the center of the cosmos is Rome. Phan seems to be attempting to help, but Ben16 (a.k.a. RAT-zinger, the Ortho-dog)insists that he has planted his backside in the chair, on the rock, over the hill, that rises from the centerof the only great city, that is on the favored peninsula, in the northern hemisphere of the only blessed planet in the one galaxy that God has chosen to place sentient life forms. And THAT makes him right?
Excuse me while I snicker in a sarcastic tone.
Welcome to the post-Copernican world, where Einsteinian relativity and the Hubble telescope ought to humble even the most arrogant theologian.

he should just lave the pope behind and become a old catholic. He would be alot better off and happy at that. Jesus is head of the church and the so called pope.

Tilley said, “It’s in a sense cutting off debate before debate is started”.
Does Pope Benedict ever debate?

Danny,
What is an “old catholic”? Of course Jesus is the head of the Church and the pope.

Old Catholics are a group that broke from Rome over the issue of papal infallibility.

Nate W,
Thanks.

Gee! Benny’s stubborn superior attitude shows through again…Getting with the 21st century isn’t in his vocabulary or religon.

The “Old Catholics” are actually closer to Orthodoxy today. And the problem, at least with Benedict XVI, is that he thinks he is not only head of the Roman Church, but head of Jesus as well.

If by “Roman Church” you mean the Roman Catholic Church (and I’m not sure what other church you could mean), I’m confused by your statement that he is not its head, unless you mean that Jesus is its head, which of course is true. Pope Benedict is his vicar on earth, according to Catholic teaching.
I don’t know anything about the details of this particular case, but by “the Vatican” I assume the author means the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict led before his election to the papacy. I didn’t always agree with the hardline stances that then Cardinal Ratazinger made in that position, but any organization as large as this one, that spreads across the entire globe and carries two millenia of tradition, has to have someone who reigns people in and says “no, this isn’t what we believe.” Where the line is drawn is, of course, a matter of great debate.
What I don’t like is to hear is non-Catholics (or Catholics for that matter) berate the pope for making these distinctions as if his sole purpose is to insult or offend others, especially in the invective tone some of you use, referring to the pope as a “RAT” or claiming that he thinks he’s the center of the world or higher than Jesus. He and the other leaders of the Church are doing their jobs in the best way they know how. As much as I may disagree with him, or any other leader of the Church, I would never believe that he doesn’t have the best intentions in mind. Your critique is welcome, but please be civil.
I’ve said it seveal times before, but it amazes me given the diversity of opinion and backgrounds, and the general level of open-mindedness on this board the common thread among the regular posters seems to be virulent anti-Catholic prejudice. I would suggest to anyone who is interested, “The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice” by Phillip Jenkins (Oxford Univesity Press – 2003). I accept if you think the Pope or the Church is too conservative, so do millions of Catholics, but that doesn’t, contrary to what many of you believe, mean that he is evil. Many of you hold such one dimentional views of Catholic leaders I urge you to learn about what the Church teaches on other issues. He probably holds more “liberal” views on some issues (social justice and the death penalty) than 99% of American conservatives (like his predecessor – both were very important figures in the Vatican II by the way) and he’s trying to lead the Church in the best way he knows how.

audobon,
I’m sorry, I misread your last post. You said “he thinks he is not only head of the Roman Church”. I thought you said thatt he thinks he is the head of the Roman church.

MC:
As one who spent 10 years teaching in a Catholic school, I can tell you there was no cheering when Benny was “elected” to his current post. They had hoped for someone with a little idea of what the 21 century is all about, and move the church forwards, not totally backwards. The teachers I worked with were not arrogant about their faith and did not think that just because I wasn’t Catholic that I was “in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.” That to me is arrogance. No religion is better than another, but in Benny’s eyes, no other religion is the “true faith but” his.
I certainly don’t have any prejudice against Catholics, or I wouldn’t have spent 10 years teaching in a Catholic…and I was 1 of 2 teachers who wasn’t Catholic. I just think Benny is not good for your church. He has a control issues and a hard time realizing that condemning other religions by making such statements like the one above is not very diplomatic.

pagansister,
I also did not cheer when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected. I try not to be arrogant about my faith and do not feel that you, for example, as a non-Catholic are “in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation,” even though, these are his words. I think he has damaged the gains the Catholic ecumenical movement has made since Lumen Gentium, although I’m sure that was not his purpose. His diplomatic skills are lacking, obviously, compared to his predecessor. I’m just concerned that his more conservative stances, or the church’s more conservative stances, are all that many liberals seem to see. We don’t get any credit or respect for our other positions. He has become a caricature of a narrow-minded, old fashioned, imperialistic ogre when there is more to him than that. That is the image projected on all Catholics. I know that you have been exposed to intelligent, open-minded Catholics during your career and I’m pleased that in general you were treated well at a Catholic school. He is trying to draw bright lines for a Church that has been very confused in the last forty years, for better or worse.
I appreciate your interest in discussion. It’s nice to actually get to discuss something with someone.

MC;
Yes, I was treated very well in my 10 years at the school. I am better off for the experience. Attended some beautiful Masses in a 100 year church, with all the stained glass, marble etc. of a European Cathedral.
Unfortunately Benny does represent the church and some folks can’t get around the fact that all Catholics do not agree with everything he says.
You don’t sound arrogant to me, and you are doing a fine job of defending your faith.

pagansister,
Thank you.

Pagansister,
Benedict does indeed represent the Church, because, frankly, Apostolic tradition is more constitutive of “the Church” than is public opinion. Benedict has for the most part simply raffirmed what Catholic doctrine has long been, and he has no obligation to abandon that just because some hyper-sensitive pluralists think he’s being arrogant for reaffirming that, by golly, Catholic doctrine teaches that the Catholic Church is the only religious body that possesses the fullness of religious truth.
I personally cannot see how your bland liberalism is even interesting enough to be worth wasting one’s time believing.

NateW:
Fortunately for you, Benny won’t change. He is arrogant. Hopefully when he is gone, a new person will start a forward movement for the RCC. Ever wonder why there is a shortage of priests?????
As I have stated above, IMO no religion is better than any other. Lots of choises in the world of religion…to each his/her own.
“I personally cannot see how your bland liberalism is even interesting enough to be worth wasting one’s time believing.” Whatever. That bland liberalism got a response from you, didn’t it?

I am appropriately chastised for my caustic remarks about B16 and the Vatican heirarchy. Yes, I was (an am) disrespectful of guys who say they are simply doing their jobs as best they can. The reason is that I am frustrated with a group that is capable of so much more, but focuses on the little things that serve only as points of division.
I have attended masses where I have been stunned to silence by the grace and beauty of the ritual and awed by the power of some of the traditions. There is a lot of great work done by many Roman Catholic clergy and lay ( and nuns – never sure where they belong), both theologically as well as politically and socially. So when someone in a leadership position works diligently to undermine what seems to be of the greatest value, I get annoyed and my remarks get kind of nasty.
I maintain that what the church needed was a pastor (a Shepherd) not a theological authoritarian whose “I said so” means less and less. B16 has dismissed the ecumenical movement and othr denominations, so I guess I thought it was simply fair to ofer the same level of care and compassion on someone who manipulated the vote and may have even employed a little ecclesiastical extortion to grab the Shepherd’s Crook for his own.

“And the problem, at least with Benedict XVI, is that he thinks he is not only head of the Roman Church, but head of Jesus as well.”
I love that line. And it’s likely so true.
I wonder what danger Phan faces. Happily they can no longer burn people at the stake (I wonder whether they miss that). They could toss him out of the church, but if they do that to every RC who writes something they don’t like they’ll thin out the attendance more than they may be ready for. Or they might get him fired from Georgetown, but I think Georgetown wants to be a real university, in which case they need to protect their faculty’s academic freedom.

nnms,
Now you’re saying that Georgetown is not a “real university”? Why, because its Catholic? Would it become a “real university” if it severed all ties with Ctholicism and the Jesuits who founded it?

While I certainly have many serious issues with Roman Catholic doctrine, and do not agree as a non-catholic Christian that I do not have “the fullness of the means of salvation,” I would absolutely defend the right of the leadership of the Catholic church to defend its doctrines and positions against its critics, including me, a person who has criticized Roman Catholicism on a number of occasions. But since I am relatively unimportant, they have never defended themselves against me.
When burning at the stake was practiced by Roman Catholics, it was not so much because of the church as it was because of the culture of the times. Justice was swift and brutal in that period of history, and the civil authorities did their own share of burning at the stake. At the time it was an accepted form of capital punishment. Fortunately our culture today condemns such practices, a position our culture has come to at least in part because of the Christian teaching on the sanctity of human life.

>>> Fortunately our culture today condemns such practices, a position our culture has come to at least in part because of the Christian teaching on the sanctity of human life.
Isn’t it funny how Red States support the Death Penalty at a whopping 91%, particularly in the Bible Belt, while the “godless” Blue States claim a merger 9%? (Source: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/deathpenalty/i/death_penalty.htm)
Isn’t it also ironic that the most vocal supporters of the Death Penalty (the President, for example), and those in support of the war, are also self-described Christians?
Hmmm.

>>> Fortunately our culture today condemns such practices, a position our culture has come to at least in part because of the Christian teaching on the sanctity of human life.
Isn’t it funny how Red States support the Death Penalty at a whopping 91%, particularly in the Bible Belt, while the “godless” Blue States claim a merger 9%? (Source: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/deathpenalty/i/death_penalty.htm)
Isn’t it also ironic that the most vocal supporters of the Death Penalty (the President, for example), and those in support of the war, are also self-described Christians?
Hmmm.

>>> Fortunately our culture today condemns such practices, a position our culture has come to at least in part because of the Christian teaching on the sanctity of human life.
Isn’t it funny how Red States support the Death Penalty at a whopping 91%, particularly in the Bible Belt, while the “godless” Blue States claim a merger 9%?*
Isn’t it also ironic that the most vocal supporters of the Death Penalty (the President, for example), and those in support of the war, are also self-described Christians?
Hmmm.
* I have sources on that, but for some reason when I try to submit links with my message, it does not appear.

>>> Fortunately our culture today condemns such practices, a position our culture has come to at least in part because of the Christian teaching on the sanctity of human life.
Isn’t it funny how Red States support the Death Penalty at a whopping 91%, particularly in the Bible Belt, while the “godless” Blue States claim a merger 9%?*
Isn’t it also ironic that the most vocal supporters of the Death Penalty (the President, for example), and those in support of the war, are also self-described Christians?
Hmmm.
* I have sources on that, but for some reason when I try to submit links with my message, it does not appear.

Pagansister,
So it seems that your hatred for the Pope (and by extension, your hatred for any Catholic who hasn’t sold out to your brand of liberalism) is based on your arrogant intolerance of anyone who believes that they’ve been graced with knowledge of religious truth. How can you accuse him of arrogance when you yourself are so arrogant as to refuse to allow any of these religions to go on preaching what they’ve always preached? It’s quite comical, really, that you seem to have taken it upon yourself to be a “pope” of sorts and denounce any religious tradition that can’t be forced into your liberal mould.

Funny thing abut Washington DC. As a shape it was a diamond standing on its point. After the give-away of Arlington (my former home, for 11 years) on the other side of the Potomoc, DC got its present shape. If you look at it from a distance and plot out the TWO Roman Catholic Universities, Catholioc U and Georgetown, you will notice that they are at opposite ends of the city, as far apart as they can be. The bit of geography is symbolic of the differences between them. IMO, Georgetown for the most part is the more enlighened and open to new thought, as compared to Catholic. Both are excellent schools, offering their own perspectives an specialities. We ought to be thankful for their distinctions, as we should in all religious venues, rather than wishing they would all be the same. That B16 has an issue with a G’town U prof. is no surprise at all, and nothing new. Since the rise of JP2 G’town has been a stone in the papal red shoe.

“nnms,
Now you’re saying that Georgetown is not a “real university”? Why, because its Catholic? Would it become a “real university” if it severed all ties with Ctholicism and the Jesuits who founded it?”
No, I assume (especially after jestrfyl’s commendation, Georgetown is a real university. But that can change, and firing a prof. (or not giving them tenure) because of their differences with powerful people is not a way to remain a “real” university.

The title of this article, “The Vatican Investigates U.S. Theologian”, creates a vision of intrigue. Does everyone connected in a position of authority who is Roman Catholic need to be careful or they will be on the Investigation list of the Pope? What an uncomfortable Christian Denomination they belong to. He is very brave, Rev. Peter Phan,to be his own person and still be Catholic.
Enjoyed your comparison Jestrfyl of Georgetown U., and Catholic U. Great that there is two types.

This is late, but here’s an article by Phan some of you might find interesting.

I also appreciated jestrfyl’s explanation of Georgetown and Catholic U. as well as his respect shown for both. I am a fairly moderate Catholic and quite representative of this diversity in the Church, for which it often doesn’t get credit. I am a graduate of both a Jesuit university and a Dominican college and am generally favorable of Georgetown, although I also respect Catholic U. I have deep respect for the Jesuits and I subscribe to their magazine and attend their retreats. That said, without knowing the particulars of this case, I do defend the Congregration of the Doctrine of the Faith’s and Holy See’s right and duty, generally, to drawn lines when it comes to theological matters. The Catholic Church is the largest, most centralized organization on earth (not including, perhaps, the People Republic of China). It must take clear stands to protect its unity. This doesn’t mean that academic debate shouldn’t be encouraged (and I do believe it sometimes is unnecessarily stifled), but an organization the size of the Catholic Church that claims to have received its essential teachings directly from the hands of Jesus Christ has to be very careful about defining and protecting those teachings. A theologian that claims to teach Catholic theology in a Catholic institution is subject to the authority of the Catholic Church. Catholic intellectuals should critique the official teachings of the Church, for examples of this see America Magazine, the Jesuit weekly. The Jesuits often get into trouble, as did the last editor of America, and Pedro Arrupe, a former leader of the Jesuits, but the Jesuits made their name primarily through founding great universities and their unfailing loyalty to the pope, which drove them to lead the counter reformation. Every Jesuit makes a special vow to obey the pope, which most priests do not make, and even Pedro Arrupe, whom Pope John Paul II censured in a very public way by overruling his choice as a successor, was always loyal to the pope.

One of the things that is often forgotten, or simply not known, is that the Society of Jesus (The Jesuits)began as the black shirted enforcers and protectors of the Pope as a result of Martin Luther’s confrontation and concerns for the safety of the Papacy (especially from Henry8). These days they seem to be the one’s closer to Luther than to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (Church Cops). Funny how history has a way of allowing change.