An interview with Rev. Richard McBrien

I have a serious question, that really is not intended to be snarky.

Why should anyone care what McBrien thinks about anything?

He is one Catholic with a couple of books to his credit from 25 years ago. Is he currently doing anything substantive to forward the Gospel in the world? Are people coming to Christ through the Church because of McBrien?

There are many figures in the Church today who are, indeed, publishing books that have a great influence, whose way of explaining and teaching is drawing folks into the Church.

Why not do sympathetic interviews with them?

I do not bestow the title of "Catholic theologian" on Richard McBrien. First of all, one of things about being Catholic is that the Pope and bishops is an essential, mandatory part of the faith, not an external agency imposed as McBrien thinks. He lacks the greatest of all virtues, humility. He has always been so conceited by his supposed intelligence, that he doesn't care what hundreds of popese, thousands of bishops, 21 ecumenical councils, and billions of Catholics down through the centuries have thought, believed and sometimes died for--like most liberals, McBrien's motto should be "i know better." In the interview, his arrogant retort to Cardinal Medeiros about the Cardinal's mother is a perfect illustration of the smug attitude. Fr. McBrien, there are millions more holy pious women like Mrs. Medeiros in the Church than pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals--thank God!

The motto for every Catholic thologian should be "sentire cum Ecclesia." "Sentire" means a combination of thinking/feeling; cum Ecclesia means "with the Church." Now, of course this does NOT mean treating everything that falls from the mouth of a pope or bishop as infallible. And questioning the doctrines of the Church is a good thing, helping us to come to deeper richer insights. And it certainly does not mean overlooking and not publicly condemning the bishops' failures at dealing with the clerical sex abuse crisis. But what 'sentire cum Ecclesia' means is "give the presumption of the doubt first to the Church (although this presumption may be overturned), because the Church is God's family, and in general the Lord doesn't want his family to fail, although many of its individual members might fail. McBrien seems to act from a "sentire contra Ecclesia" position, that popes and bishops are wrong until they prove themselves (through their liberalness) to McBrien's exalted judgment

This interview is a glaring example of just how stunning the level of arrogance is among some commentators of the Catholic church. Father Mcbrien presents himself as some sort of interpreter of the catholic faith and it’s dogmas and tenants…It really is astounding how the very definition of the word catholic which is “ universal “ gets lost by people like Father Mcbrien. Father Mcbrien is no more a “catholic” priest than is a protestant minister of any of the branches of Protestantism when he struts around with his amazing public proclamations about abortion and issues around homosexuality and even much less consequential but still telling issues around the wearing of a roman collar. And the nothing short of astounding postion that Pope John Paul 2 somehow bears direct responsibility for the sexual abuse crisis with his mind boggling connect the dot stream of logic really is amazing from a man who fashions himself as an academic. Father Mcbrien simply and incredibly invents positions and presents them as legitimate “interpretations” of things that any real catholic theologian knows are not subject to interpretation… And when actually asked why he does not leave the church that he so obviously “disagrees” with on so many things, he gives the standard, utterly ridiculous
“ this is the church of my birth “ answer that so many cafeteria Catholics like to give to make themselves feel better about themselves. I wonder if Father Mcbrien has ever considered the possibility that the reason his column is being dropped around the country is that after a certain point in time, it becomes crystal clear to most reasonable people that what is being presented by a person is either legitimate or not. And once again, Mr. Paulson chooses to slant the tone of the interview by specifically referring to Father Mcbrien’s critics as “ conservative “ yet no where is Father Mcbrien “ specifically “ referred to by Paulson himself as “ liberal “. Simply incredible.
joegm1234

I rarely do so, but I feel i must take issue with Michael Paulson about the introductory paragraph to the full interview. There Michael writes about the Catholic Church "riven by internal debates, often about gender, sexuality, authority,...politics, parish closings, handling of the sexual abuse..."

Honestly, those matters are about 1% of who the Catholic Church (or any other Church, for that matter,) is all about. It must be the reporter's perspective, the 'man bites dog' angle which stirs the controversy, makes the headlines, just like one never sees a headline "on thousand planes land safely," only the one crash makes the news--but that doesn't mean crashes are all there is to the aviation industry. That's why you never see a headline "500.000 Catholics went to Mass last Sunday." If 500,000 people were all doing the same thing at the same time, like a march or an outdoor rock concert, it would be news. Most of Catholic (and all other Churches) life is about trying, failing, and sometimes succeeding to put into action Jesus' message of love, building community, collecting money for local soup kitchens and far-off natural disaster victims, how to pay for the boiler that's on its last legs, who will volunteer to teach religious education--you know, the boring mundane stuff.

The world is in constant evolution. Everything changes, nothing stays the same. Richard McBrien is on the side of progression and sees that the world moves forward not backward . Even the church has changed it's views, albeit very slowly, over time and anyone who denies that is ignorant. For those who remain stagnant and stuck as time moves along and evolution continues, will be those who remain in struggle and fear.

Fr. McBrien is the face of dissent in the Church. The media love to quote him on all social issues, because the plays right into its' hands. While we all need prayer, we need to pray that Fr. McBrien sees his proper role and duty in the Church.

Having experienced his teaching, I must agree that the cardinal virtue lacking in O'Brien's thought is humility --- he perceives himself as right, enlightened and possessing truth as if it were cast in some immutable form. His thought like that which he decries is ontological imperalism. That it is perceived as left of center is only coincidential. He is as much a bore as rigid right wingers.

It is not a question of liberal or conservative (unless you are looking at it through the eyes of society), but rather, obedient or dissenting. Fr. OBrien is a dissenter and a self-anointed authority, whose agenda and opinions carry no weight whatsoever.

It is unfortunate that he gets as much press as he does.

Congratulations to Mike Paulson for his choice of subject matter and coverage about McBrien. McBrien is a beacon in the darkness and source of hope for many.
He is a favored person to quote because he speaks clearly and truthfully about the divisions in the Church, not in abstractions designed to conceal more than reveal the realities on the ground.

For those interested in McBrien's writings as opposed to its distortions above, link to richardmcbrien.com for his essays in theology. All the name-calling and drivel about dissent really is tiresome. I heard him speak and found a person of faith and great intellect.

Marc @ 11:31, I agree that everything evolves, but they evolve within their own species, or at least genus. That is, an acorn grows, changes, matures, into an oak tree, not a penguin. Church doctrines developed over time, of course, taking their 'acorn' from Jesus' words or actions, but the doctrines don't evolve into their 180 degree opposite, as Fr. McBrien would have it. He just comes across bitter that he has wasted his life tilting at windmills. In the eyes of a Catholic, the 2nd Vatican council 62-65 was the Holy Spirit updating church teaching and practice for the 20th and 21st centuries. Both Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger (Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI) were active participants in the council, so they should know what the council's documents meant and mean; McBrien was just getting out of the seminary. But then McBrien and his ilk interpreted the documents way out of proportion, trying to create some new Church. But Jesus promised Peter and the other apostles that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Hey, Fr. McBrien, its not too late, get on board before the train leaves the station.

I think what is most strikingly absent from McBrien's endless forays into the spotlight via columns, television and interviews is any indication of any deep relationship with or love of Christ. This really does seem to be just an institution, and we are all playing power-centered institutional games in his mindset. Why does he even care? Does Jesus Christ move him? Inspire him? Give his life meaning? Redeem him?

Compare McBrien's dry, ego-driven ramblings with anything Pope Benedict has written or said, as Pope or as Ratzinger. Ratzinger is animated by friendship with Christ. McBrien gives no indication that he even cares.

Mike, in the midst of the questions you asked, why didn't you ask him about him plagiarizing JND Kelly's book?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6235