Controversial Feminist Theologian Honored by U.S. Nuns

on September 6, 2014

Recently, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) bestowed a top honor to Sister Elizabeth Johnson, a feminist theologian who has provoked ire from the Vatican and Holy See for her writings, most notably with her book, Quest for the Living God. Catholic bishops critiqued the book , feeling that it did not appropriately convey the Catholic faith.

This isn’t the first time t he LCWR has been in conflict with the Vatican. Religion News Service, in a note before their full transcript of Johnson’s acceptance speech, has this to say, with italics original:

The LCWR has for two years been the target of an investigation by the Vatican over a range of perceived problems with their doctrinal views and their social justice mission. The sisters reject the accusations.

If the conflict indeed does stand, it is not surprising that the sisters would award such a figure as Elizabeth Johnson.

It was not the award which bothers me, but the possible motivation behind it. There is no need to provoke bishops of one’s own church for  being controversial for its own sake. I’m sure that there are quite legitimate reasons the sisters had for honoring Johnson and I wish they had stuck to that. That a further controversy was created is bothersome. While Sister Elizabeth Johnson may believe as she wishes, but it is for the hierarchy of the Church to interpret and dictate what may be taught in accordance to being right with the Catholic faith.

Sister Elizabeth Johnson also called it “unconscionable” with regards to the investigation into the matter of her being honored. What I deem to be “unconscionable” is her detracting from the real issue at hand by referring to what apparently makes the investigation such a “waste of time.” As Religion News Service quotes:

“When the moral authority of the hierarchy is hemorrhaging due to financial scandals and many bishops who … cover up sexual abuse of children, a cover up that continues in some quarters to this day, and thousands are drifting away from the church … the waste of time on this investigation is unconscionable,” Johnson said.

This is not to say that the scandals of covering up sexual abuse and those to do with finances do not need to be addressed. Of course they do. But the controversy and possible scandal arising out of Elizabeth Johnson’s theology and as to if LCWR is provoking the hierarchy by having bestowed her with such an honor is one that needs to be addressed as well. Trying to move the discussion away from herself does nothing to address the issue at hand, and also makes her seem more hostile to authority.

Elizabeth Johnson is indeed a controversial figure within the church, a reputation which she seems to embrace. And her book sales have gone up as a result of criticisms. More power to her for it. But as someone mired in controversy, there is no need to get any deeper by distracting from the issue at hand.

Elizabeth Johnson, as a theologian, a woman of faith and a professor at Fordham University, she certainly has much to offer the Catholic Church. It is disappointing that she seems more interested in stirring up controversy in her writings and casting aspersions on the leadership of the Church.

  1. Comment by Namyriah on September 6, 2014 at 11:29 am

    Her book should have been titled The Build-Your-Own-God Book. Anyone who thinks the Catholic church is oppressive and restricts what its members can think or write should take heart from books like this. The author teaches religion at Fordham, a high-profile Catholic university in New York, which is about as “officially Catholic” as you can get (in the US, anyway). The US Catholic bishops did, technically, condemn the book—but, since it continues to be available and sell well, that is a moot point, particularly since books like this do a great deal of harm.

    What this author writes is not Catholic, nor would it even qualify as Christian. The audience for this book is the vast “spiritual but not religious” crowd, which, from the financial standpoint, is a highly lucrative audience, not to mention a group that will accept just about any teaching, no matter how fuzzy. As she says in her Intro, the book is “written with a broad audience in mind.” Indeed. Make that “broad enough to please anyone who ever had a `spiritual’ thought in her life.”

    The author claims that “stale, worn-out, concepts of God no longer satisfy.” Really? Aside from some feminists (who have huge influence on church bureaucrats and seminaries), who exactly is not satisfied with the biblical concepts of a just and loving God, one who is both high above us yet desires our love and companionship? Haven’t these “no longer satisfied” people ever read the Psalms, or Isaiah, or the Gospel of John? Men and women have been drawing from those rich wells of spirituality for 2000 years. But of course, telling you to turn to the Bible and the great devotional books of the past isn’t a good way to sell this “challenging” new book, is it? She claims that “unspeakable brutality” of “recent history” has made people seek new images of God. Is she kidding? There is HORRIBLE brutality in the Bible, causing people to question God and eventually to return to him in faith that has been deepened by the challenges of life. As people over two millennia have noticed, the Bible is pretty much universal as to the situations that people must deal with. But, again, you don’t get a reputation as an “innovative” theologian by giving readers a “back to the Bible” message, particularly when your readers are the sort who are more likely to own a book on reincarnation than a Bible.

    The author believes in recycling – specifically, recycling the silly liberation theology that most of us hoped had died a well-deserved death back in the 1970s. It got resurrected thanks to feminism, with nasty patriarchal males joining the nasty capitalists as the Great Satans. Still, liberation theology is what it is: Marxism with a few choice Bible verses sprinkled on top. This anti-Christian theology deserves reburial, and it is shameless that this respected theologian even gives it credence.

    Reading through this book gives you the impression that the author has a low opinion of God and a high opinion of opinion. She finds traditional images of God “inadequate” and not “suitable.” These are words you use when trying to convince your husband to buy new furniture or re-wallpaper the kitchen. I can see why writers like her this want to throw aside “outdated” terms like “Almighty,” because in her telling, God is a pleasant spiritual accessory to life—He/She/It/SpiritThing makes Itself a convenience to humans. I, for one, don’t find that a very appealing God. Some of us still like the all-powerful Father that, until the 20th century, was the focus of most Christian theology. Is it just a funny coincidence that around the time that feminists started scolding men for being masculine, the loopier theologians started writing about a very tame, unthreatening (and, frankly, uninteresting) God/Goddess who wouldn’t have the power to fix a parking ticket? I wonder if it occurred to her to actually poll humans beings—the ones outside her academic bubble, that is—and find out just how many people really are “offended” at referring to God as “Father” and “He.”

    As I read this book I pictured the author and her academic clique sitting around sipping herbal tea and each in turn saying, “Well, I like to think of God as . . .” If there really is a God in charge of the universe, shouldn’t our opinions conform to that reality? Somehow I don’t think that Big Reality is necessarily going to conform to our opinions. This is the problem with academic theologians: they talk about God the way historians talk about the Civil War: it’s interesting, but it has zero effect on the lives they live.

    People who like a domesticated, made-to-fit-your-specifications God/Goddess that was concocted by focus groups of feminists and their he-hen accomplices in Manhattan (or the trendier sections of Marin County or Seattle) must love this book.

  2. Comment by Greg on September 7, 2014 at 6:29 am

    Very well said! I didn’t read Elizabeth Johnson’s book. Now, I don’t have to. You about summed up what I could have suspected. Thanks for saving me a couple of infuriating hours.

  3. Comment by Namyriah on September 8, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Reading it was like getting a re-run of my college days, when loud-mouth feminists (that’s redundant) were in scold mode 24/7 – entertaining in a kind of odd way. Whatever the real religion is, God is a minor player in it.

  4. Comment by Greg on September 8, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    Enjoy!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfi4s8cjLFI

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.