Fr. Peter Dresser apologizes. Sort of.

The Australian priest who had questioned and re-interpreted a number of essential Christological doctrines, has written a letter of explanation and has apologized, although I use the word "apologize" quite loosely in light of his remarks:

I have submitted the following letter to various Catholic agencies for publication or dissemination. In light of recent events I feel an obligation to make a public credal statement, to briefly explain the nature of my book and to apologise to anyone whom I have unwittingly scandalised or hurt. I did this entirely on my own initiative in the hope that peace and goodwill might prevail.

“I can understand why the article in “The Australian” (October 29) has appalled so many people. It has caused scandal and anger, concern and anguish and has hurt me personally. It saddens me that such hysteria has erupted and I feel obliged as a Catholic priest to quell the tempest as best I can.

In other words, he's apologizing that a newspaper printed some of his manuscript and somehow caused a wave of hysteria. Sad. As for having "unwittingly scandalized or hurt" anyone, it's mind-boggling that Fr. Dresser does not understand the serious nature of his overt denial of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, his disparaging remarks about "doctrine and dogma"—clearly aimed at both Magisterial teachings and the works of orthodox theologians—and his denial of the unicity and truthfulness of Christianity. (See my lengthy November 2nd post for more on this.) See, for example, his statement: "Each creed or religion has its own orthodoxy and its own experience and understanding of God.  One’s God cannot be said to be better than another’s.  For a Christian to state that the fullness of redemption and salvation is to be found in Jesus Christ is not an acceptable statement for other faiths or religious traditions.  And it is offensive to proclaim it as universal truth." That is indeed scandalous and heretical for any Catholic, never mind a priest, to state.

At the outset I want to reaffirm my belief in the Divinity of Jesus, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Jesus. This affirmation is entirely unsolicited and comes from the heart of a person who has cherished his Catholic religion from childhood and has no reason to repudiate or disparage its core tenets.

And yet Fr. Dresser's manuscript mentions more than once his frustration, even disgust, with what he calls "the muddle of doctrine and dogma"; there is also his recent article stating, "The Institution continues to exist but the liberating, freeing and inclusive teachings of Jesus remain hidden behind a quagmire of bureaucratic nonsense and doctrine and dogma which remain quaintly irrelevant in the world we live in." Perhaps the word "cherish" means something different than it does on this side of the Pacific?

The comments in the newspaper were taken from a manuscript I compiled prayerfully and reflectively over many years. In that document I attempted to go beyond doctrine and dogma and to discover God’s magnificence and friendship in the world of science and evolution and in the immensity of the universe. It was not an arrogant attempt to spurn or scorn my Catholic theology. It was more an attempt to personalise and retheologise my Catholic faith and so allow my religion to provide greater nourishment for me in my spiritual journey. It was also my intention to emphasise the human nature of Jesus and Mary. It was a very worthwhile and meaningful experience for me and for others with whom I shared it.

In which case, having read several pages of the manuscript, I can only conclude that Fr. Dresser needs to take Theology 101, Christology 101, and Catechism 101, and many other such classes at an orthodox Catholic seminary. Seriously. For example, the chapter entitled "Jesus the Avatar" stated:

No human being can ever be God. And Jesus was a human being.  It is as simple as that!  It would have been much better and certainly much healthier had the Arians had their way in the days of those early Church Councils.  They insisted that Jesus was a human person.  Certainly today among many theologians the conclusion has been arrived at which is fundamentally closer to an Arian way of thinking. Pooh would understand.

Fr. Dresser 1) states that Jesus was not God, at least not in the sense the Church teaches, 2) that the Arians were right and the councils (referring, apparenlty, to the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) were wrong about who and what Jesus was, 3) that those councils taught that Jesus was a human person. The latter remark is misleading in a more subtle way than the first two points since the councils taught and the Church continues to teach that "Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men" (CCC 480) and "The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity" (CCC 470). Or, in the word of the Council of Ephesus (431), "the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man." Back to Fr. Dresser's letter:

The manuscript is not easy to read and so I can readily appreciate that many people have found its content confusing and indeed even “heretical”.

Then why does he blast the newspaper for creating hysteria when he readily admits what is obvioius to those of us who have read some of his manuscript?

Unfortunately people have not appreciated that my explorative theology is not a credal statement.

Huh? So as long as he doesn't titled the manuscript, "My Creedal Statement," it shouldn't be a problem that he either denies, misrepresents, or undermines essential doctrines and dogmas? Does he not comprehend that "explorative theology" does not mean playing outside the sandbox, but (hopefully) carefully examining and thinking about what is in the sandbox and why the sandbox has limits?

I also employed a jargon in the process which has made the document even more confusing for so many.

Translation: my manuscript exhibited both poor thinking, confused scholarship, and sloppy writing.

My sole intention was to make our beautiful Catholic religion and its beliefs more meaningful in our contemporary world. I am distressed that I have caused pain and anguish instead.

He should be. The world and the Church needs Catholics—whether bishops, priests, religious, or laity—who are working to live and explain Catholic doctrine, practice, and devotion in ways that are accessible, clear, inspiring, challenging, interesting, compelling, orthodox, dynamic, and life-changing. When theological exploration turns into authority bashing navel-gazing exercises in syncretistic New Age blatherings, something has gone dreadfully wrong.

With hindsight it would probably have been wise not to have allowed random access to the manuscript. I requested that the web site which hosted this document be closed down and this has happened. At this stage there is very little else I can do except to apologise to anyone who has been scandalised by what was meant to have been a prayerful, refreshing and invigorating document.”

Again, quite weak, since he suggests that the problem is with those who have been scandalized by his "prayerful, refreshing and invigorating document." I found it to be none of those things. In the meantime, still no word, that I know of, from Fr. Dresser's bishop.

By the way, just to end on a positive note, for those who would like to read a prayerful, refreshing and invigorating work of Christology and have not yet read it, I recommend Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI (also see newly published study guide).

Comments

[Ressourcement]

No working on Sunday, Carl. :) --jn

[Ressourcement]

I am pretty sensitive to "theologian bashing" (anyone who knows what "Ressourcement" is could probably guess that...). That said, any priest who would publicly state the following should be excommunicated: "No human being can ever be God. And Jesus was a human being. It is as simple as that! It would have been much better and certainly much healthier had the Arians had their way in the days of those early Church Councils. They insisted that Jesus was a human person. Certainly today among many theologians the conclusion has been arrived at which is fundamentally closer to an Arian way of thinking. Pooh would understand."

Gerald O'Collins once said of Roger Haight's "Jesus Symbol of God" that he "wouldn't die for Haight's Jesus" and that it is a "triumph of relevance over orthodoxy". The same could be said for Dresser.

jn

[Christina]

At the outset I want to reaffirm my belief in the Divinity of Jesus....

No human being can ever be God. And Jesus was a human being. It is as simple as that!...

How does he reconcile these two statements? Is Jesus divine or isn't he?

[Jackson]

"My sole intention was to make our beautiful Catholic religion and its beliefs more meaningful in our contemporary world."

How much rot has flown under this banner! How much longer?!

[Charles E Flynn]

The term "dogma" is frequently used in a pejorative sense in the modern world.

Somewhere in the thousands of pages that Ignatius Press has published, one of the authors makes the point that if the dogmas are true, then instead of being impediments to free inquiry, they are precision instruments for penetrating the nature of reality. One view sees a shackle, the other an electron microscope.

[Victoria]

You can read a transcript of a radio interview which Peter Dresser gave on the website below.

http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/

[Ressourcement]

"...false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretely bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upong themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1).

The Word of the Lord

--jn

[Jackson]

Charles, The Meaning of Dogma, by the excellent Fr. Schall:

http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/HPRweb/schall_dogma.htm

[Jackson]

And see Schall's "Is Heresy Heretical?":

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_heresy_may05.asp

[Charles E Flynn]

Jackson,

Thank you very much for the links to the two articles by Fr. Schall. He never disappoints.