stabosz@sun.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) (08/08/90)
I am a Catholic who has recently become interested in Matthew Fox & the whole segment of Catholicism that I hear spoken of as "creation-centered". Can someone tell me what exactly is Fox's status with the Church? He is still a priest, correct? Not been excommunicated, not broken with the Church himself, but just under some kind of silence? From writing, or teaching, or both? Any history on this would be appreciated. I know a little about Meister Eckhart, & believe he ran into similar troubles with similar teachings, is that so? And can someone explain what the root of the problem is? I don't see anything objectionable & have found his writings & the whole movement (as I understand it) to be often very liberating. Is the spectre (and fear of?) Pelagianism at the core of his problems?
hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) (08/12/90)
In article <Aug.8.03.45.46.1990.12971@athos.rutgers.edu> stabosz@sun.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) writes: >I don't see anything objectionable & have found his writings & the whole >movement (as I understand it) to be often very liberating. Is the >spectre (and fear of?) Pelagianism at the core of his problems? I saw Matthew Fox speak in Ottawa, this past winter. I almost left after forty-five minutes, but was glad I stayed to the end. He spent too much time at the beginning talking about what creation spirituality would do for me, and didn't talk about what it was until later. I have a low opinion of sales pitches, and that was what I thought I was getting. Later, he got down to details. I don't think he's exactly a Pelagian, although he does go rather far in stating that original sin is not the most important thing to worry about. He takes ecumenicism perhaps a little further than I'm comfortable with - almost to the point where I'd begin to grumble that if you include everything as Christianity, then it means nothing. He seems to me to want to reconcile the Church and the New Age movements, but perhaps is willing to give too much for that. He began his lecture with a Native American shaman who did a sweetgrass ceremony to centre us all and drive out distractions, for example. I don't mean that that was necessarily going too far, either. He disagrees with Rome, and has been stripped of his status as a Roman theologian - like Hans Kung, Martin Luther, and a good few others. I think that the Anglican Church would regard him as merely liberal, however. He speaks for the priesting of women, for example. He handled some really pointed questions very delicately - when pressed on abortion, he first said that the Roman Church has to stop aborting the spiritual lives of over half of it's members, and then went on to express a moderate opinion that abortion is always wrong but is not always the most wrong thing to do. -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 |
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (08/12/90)
In article <Aug.8.03.45.46.1990.12971@athos.rutgers.edu>, stabosz@sun.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) writes: > I am a Catholic who has recently become interested in Matthew Fox & the > whole segment of Catholicism that I hear spoken of as "creation-centered". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Can someone tell me what exactly is Fox's status with the Church? He is > still a priest, correct? Not been excommunicated, not broken with the > Church himself, but just under some kind of silence? From writing, or > teaching, or both? > Any history on this would be appreciated. I know a little about Meister > Eckhart, & believe he ran into similar troubles with similar teachings, > is that so? And can someone explain what the root of the problem is? > I don't see anything objectionable & have found his writings & the whole > movement (as I understand it) to be often very liberating. Is the > spectre (and fear of?) Pelagianism at the core of his problems? To understand where Matthew Fox is coming from, it is helpful to look back to the late 1800s and the founding of the Theosophical Society. The Theosophical Society started a movement which was a blend of eastern religions, highly influenced by Hinduism. From their pamphlets you find statements which indicate that the only religions that Theosophy is hostile toward are monotheistic religions. In a book written by Helena P. Blavatsky, the founder (ISIS Unveiled), we find statements which are very hostile toward theological Christianity, and especially the Vatican. At the beginning of this century the battle lines were clearly drawn between Christianity and Theosophy (I have specific references if you wish to research this further). Today I'm afraid the two enemies have become closer friends. In Fox's case, he now wears Christianity around his collar but has Theosophy on his heart. In his book _The Coming of the Cosmic Christ_, he rejects monothesim for what he calls "panentheism" an idea completely condemned in Romans 1. And just like ISIS Unveiled, Fox "casts his gauntlet against theological Christianity" trading the faith of his fathers in for New Age religion. As I understand the situation, Fox was silenced for one year, but recently he spoke in Ann Arbor, MI at a Methodist Church. It saddens me that Rome would only silence Fox for only one year considering his New Age theology which "worships the creature rather than the Creator". This branch of Catholicism which is referred to a "creation centered" (Fox calls it "creation centered Spirituality) is nothing more than Hinduism packaged and marketed for the "environment conscious" American mind not well grounded in Scripture or the Faith of our Fathers. Please write to me directly if you wish to correspond further. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
cdalzell@kean.ucs.mun.ca (08/16/90)
In article <Aug.12.04.24.34.1990.16746@athos.rutgers.edu>, bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio > In article <Aug.8.03.45.46.1990.12971@athos.rutgers.edu>, stabosz@sun.udel.edu >> I am a Catholic who has recently become interested in Matthew Fox & the >> whole segment of Catholicism that I hear spoken of as "creation-centered". > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Can someone tell me what exactly is Fox's status with the Church? He is >> still a priest, correct? Not been excommunicated, not broken with the >> Church himself, but just under some kind of silence? From writing, or >> teaching, or both? > >> Any history on this would be appreciated. I know a little about Meister >> Eckhart, & believe he ran into similar troubles with similar teachings, >> is that so? And can someone explain what the root of the problem is? >> I don't see anything objectionable & have found his writings & the whole >> movement (as I understand it) to be often very liberating. Is the >> spectre (and fear of?) Pelagianism at the core of his problems? Eckhart is interesting. As I understand it, his case was never fulloy settled by the Church. Some of his works came under suspicion but he died before a final decision was reached. In any case, he is reported to have said that he had no intention of saying anything contrary to the teachings of the Church and did not display the arrogance which is the hall-mark of the heretic. My recollection is that in the end those studying his works could not really decided if they were orthodox or not since they were, in places, confusing. E. seemed at times to blur the distinction between creature and Creator, almost suggesting that the height of the soul is a part of God, but similar things are said by quite orthodox mystics in a poetic vein. You get into trouble if you say in a metaphysical sense that part of the soul **is** by nature divine, or a part of God. Putting this in the future sense is no better, as in some kind of process theology that would have man ascend towards God through the ages by his own efforts. (This is a kind of palagianism). Eckhart is a strange figure all around. He had the reputation of being a learned and holy man and there is no problem with a lot of what he said. What is interesting is that he seems to attract loonies. He had some orthodox followers, but throughout the centuries one gets periodic Eckhart revivals and often from rather gushful people. The Nazi Rosenberg even hailed Eckhart has the founder of the true German spirituality, etc. etc. Poor E. keeps strange company. As to creation centered spirituality, the name says it all. Christian spirituality moves, in the first place, to God, and secondly back to creation (suffering humanity first, animals and plants second). In the Cosmic Christ, Fox begins by saying that we need a new spirituality **in order** to rescue mother Earth. Any spirituality initiated for this reason can only be a form of idolatry. After some interesting comments about Fox, Mr. Kutz adds > > As I understand the situation, Fox was silenced for one year, but recently > he spoke in Ann Arbor, MI at a Methodist Church. It saddens me that Rome > would only silence Fox for only one year considering his New Age theology > which "worships the creature rather than the Creator". This branch of > Catholicism which is referred to a "creation centered" (Fox calls it "creation > centered Spirituality) is nothing more than Hinduism packaged and marketed > for the "environment conscious" American mind not well grounded in Scripture > or the Faith of our Fathers. Yes, I agree whole heartedly, and I think we have a real problem here. A recent issue of "The Catholic World" was devoted to green spiritualities of various kinds. Fox, incidently, came in for some criticism for being insufficiently radical, but the "syndrome" is larger than he is; it combines waffly mysticism (waffly = pantheistic), a very odd type of radical feminism, and the old- fashioned socialistic sort of criticisms of liberal society decked out in a new form. Not only are these people ignorant of the faith of our fathers, they are also ignorant of their political theories, and those of their opponents. Since this movement appeals strongly to the modern abhorrence for anything that might be thought to bind the individual to something outside himself it is likely to have a wide influence. Catherine Dalzell. Memorial University of Newfoundland.