- Feb 5, 2002
- 185,962
- 68,422
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Looking through the rearview mirror of memories is one of the advantages of growing old. Disturbing events that were out of focus years ago take shape to explain current events. It is wise for priests and bishops to revisit the occurrences of several decades ago, when it was so fashionable to question all Church teaching. The pop-theological denial of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus is a prime example.
In the years following Vatican II, everything—from contraception to women’s ordination—was up for grabs. The bodily Resurrection of Jesus was in the mix. Liberal conventional wisdom held that faith in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus was not necessary for us to appreciate His teachings (cf. Protestant theologian Rudolph Bultmann). We were encouraged to focus on the inspiring words that “the early Church placed on the lips of Jesus.”
In the 1980s, the “Priest Perceiver Interview” (PPI) was a popular screening instrument for seminaries. Vocations directors—highly trained in an afternoon PPI workshop—asked questions that included trite, touchy-feely psychology, and garden variety dissent. But the combination of two questions was especially malignant: “Do you believe in the Resurrection?” “What would you say if archeologists discovered the bones of Jesus?”
Young seminarians knew the preferred response: “Yes, I believe the early Church inserted the Resurrection event into the Gospels, but the bodily Resurrection isn’t essential to our faith. The spirit of the teachings of Jesus is the important thing.” More astute (and daring) seminarians would quote St. Paul: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (1 Cor. 15:17) It is disturbing to consider how the vocations apparatchiks induced many seminarians to deny the Catholic faith. How many of those young men are bishops today?
Continued below.
In the years following Vatican II, everything—from contraception to women’s ordination—was up for grabs. The bodily Resurrection of Jesus was in the mix. Liberal conventional wisdom held that faith in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus was not necessary for us to appreciate His teachings (cf. Protestant theologian Rudolph Bultmann). We were encouraged to focus on the inspiring words that “the early Church placed on the lips of Jesus.”
In the 1980s, the “Priest Perceiver Interview” (PPI) was a popular screening instrument for seminaries. Vocations directors—highly trained in an afternoon PPI workshop—asked questions that included trite, touchy-feely psychology, and garden variety dissent. But the combination of two questions was especially malignant: “Do you believe in the Resurrection?” “What would you say if archeologists discovered the bones of Jesus?”
Young seminarians knew the preferred response: “Yes, I believe the early Church inserted the Resurrection event into the Gospels, but the bodily Resurrection isn’t essential to our faith. The spirit of the teachings of Jesus is the important thing.” More astute (and daring) seminarians would quote St. Paul: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (1 Cor. 15:17) It is disturbing to consider how the vocations apparatchiks induced many seminarians to deny the Catholic faith. How many of those young men are bishops today?
Continued below.
The Bishop Perceiver Interview
It is disturbing to consider how the vocations apparatchiks induced many seminarians to deny the Catholic faith. How many of those young men are bishops today?