Aa history Lovers 2010 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page
Yüklə 25,47 Mb.
|
| ideological integration of A.A. into that movement" -- that is, it is a
serious
mistake to speak of early A.A. ever truly being an integrated "part of the Oxford group." If you try to parrot Oxford group principles and practices in the modern world, Father Ford warned, you will end up with something totally different from anything genuine A.A. ever was -- and in the process you will also drive out all your good Catholic members. > > -- Glenn C. (South Bend, Indiana) > > > Father John C. Ford was an important member of > > the small group of Roman Catholic priests, including > > Father Edward Dowling, S.J., Father Ralph Pfau > > (the "Father John Doe" who wrote the Golden Books), > > and Father Joseph Martin, S.S. (whose "Chalk Talk" > > was seen all over the world), who were friends of > > A.A. and/or alcoholics who had recovered in A.A., > > who worked to spread the A.A. message and defend > > the new movement in Catholic circles. > > ================================================= > N.C.C.A.* "BLUE BOOK," Vol. 10, 1960 > MORAL RE-ARMAMENT AND ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS > Reverend John C. Ford, S.J. > > Some of the original inspiration of A.A. came from the Oxford Groups, which are now called MRA, or Moral Rearmament. It was an Oxford grouper who first came to Bill W., the co-founder of A.A. in November, 1934, to tell him how he had found sobriety with the help of God and the Oxford groups. And when Bill W. went to Akron, Ohio, in May, 1935, and almost had a slip, it was through Oxford group people that he was introduced to Doctor Bob S., the other co-founder. But A.A. severed all connection with the Oxford Groups early in its history. The New York A.A.'s withdrew in 1937, the Akron A.A.'s in 1939 -- at a time when the total membership of A.A. in both cities was about a hundred people. > > Some of the reasons for this withdrawal are given by Bill W. in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age. He says that the four absolutes of the Oxford groups (absolute honesty, purity, unselfishness, and love) were too much for recovering alcoholics to appreciate, that they rebelled against the "rather aggressive evangelism" of the Oxford groupers, and could not accept the principle of "team guidance" from the group. Furthermore, the Oxford groups sought prestige through publicity for its prominent members, while A.A. was developing a fundamental principle of anonymity. > > A.A. has always acknowledged the debt it owes to the Oxford groups in its early days. Fortunately, however, when they parted company, A.A. left behind those elements of Buchmanism which are unacceptable to Catholics. For instance, Catholics would object to open confession within the group practiced by many Buchmanites. But in A.A. the fifth of the Twelve Steps reads, "We admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs." A.A. members often "tell their story" at A.A. meetings, but a group confession, in an objectionable sense of the phrase, is not part of their policy or their practice. There are also to be found still traces of Oxford group terminology in A.A.; for instance, the word group itself. And the phrase "group conscience" which occurs in A.A. literature is reminiscent of a Protestant type of private revelation, or at least of a theological position which does not do justice to the unique place occupied by the Church of Christ. In A.A. however, the phrase group conscience, if it ever had definite theological meaning has long since lost it. It merely means the opinion of the major et sanior pars. And although
it is the hope of all concerned that decisions be arrived at prayerfully, or in a spirit of submission to the will of God, it is not the thought of anyone that God has made A.A. the instrumentality of special, private revelations. Besides, the decisions in question do not have to do with religious or theological matters, but only with the practical measures to be taken to help the sick alcoholic to recover. > > Apparently the differences between the fundamental attitudes of the early A.A.'s and the Oxford groupers were so pronounced that there was never a real
ideological integration of A.A. into that movement. There was initial inspiration and association rather than integration. A.A. sprang from the Oxford groups but almost immediately sprang away from them. > ================================================= > > *The N.C.C.A. > > 1949: "National Clergy Conference on Alcoholism" (founded by Father Ralph Pfau, author of the Golden Books) held its first gathering in August at Saint
Joseph's College in Rensselaer, Indiana. > 1971: name change to National Clergy "Council" on Alcoholism > 1974: the phrase "and Related Drug Problems" was added to the name > 1985: name changed to National "Catholic" Council on Alcoholism and Related Drug Problems to indicate that laity were welcome as members > > http://www.nccatoday.org/ > > http://www.aabibliography.com/ralphpfau2.htm > IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 6823. . . . . . . . . . . . When did Father John Ford get sober? From: Glenn Chesnut . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/25/2010 6:28:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Father John C. Ford, S.J. (1902-1989) writes that his own recovery began in the
1940s under treatment with Dr. Silkworth at Towns Hospital in New York. See Mary
Darrah's biography of Sister Ignatia (1992), p. ix, where Ford writes of his telephone conversation with Mary in 1985, "I told Mary of my own alcoholism and recovery from it some forty years earlier under the care of Dr. William Silkworth at New York's Towns Hospital." Exactly forty years earlier would have been in 1945. But Ford was teaching at the Gregorian University in Rome from 1945 to 1946, and
there was no AA in Italy at that time, so there would be problems with dating
his sobriety to just shortly before he went off to Italy. Possible perhaps, but
I remain doubtful unless further evidence should appear indicating that this is what happened. There is a gap in Father Ford's biography between his teaching in Rome (1945-46) and his teaching at Boston College (1948-1951) which I have been unable to fill.
I wish I could find out more about his whereabouts in 1947, and whether he had
any official church assignment during that year. At the very least, that gap certainly appears suspicious to me -- a place where further inquiries would seem wise.
1948, he said in his application that he met someone who was a member of AA, who
took him to several meetings in 1947. So it looks as though Father Ford probably
got sober in AA in 1947. This would be my best supposition, at this stage of my research. P.S. There is another gap though which I have so far been unable to fill. Father
Ford taught at Weston College from 1937 to 1941, and (while he was teaching at Weston College) earned a degree in civil law from Boston College Law School in 1941. But I have been unable to ascertain for sure what he was doing in the period from 1942 to 1944. Could he have gotten sober during this period? That's
a possibility, although that is not the impression he tried to give the people
at the Yale School of Alcohol Studies in his application to attend their summer
school program. P.P.S. Father Ralph Pfau joined AA on Nov. 10, 1943. As far as I can tell, it is
correct to say that Father Pfau -- not Father Ford -- was the first Roman Catholic priest to get sober in AA. Pfau was willing to state that in public, in situations where Ford was also present, so it's hard to imagine him saying that he was the first -- right to Ford's face -- if it wasn't true. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 6824. . . . . . . . . . . . Master Copy Original Manuscript From: Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/25/2010 3:50:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Hi all, I know this has been addressed before, but I'm having trouble finding the answer searching previous posts. My question concerns the master copy of the original manuscript (multilith edition), which has been sold twice at Sotheby's (First time in 2004, second time in 2007 for substantial sums.)
received payment when it was auctioned off the first time? And, do we know the trail of ownership? Lois to Barry L. to ... who?
Brunswick, MD IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 6825. . . . . . . . . . . . When were the circle and triangle officially registered? From: Glenn Chesnut . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/25/2010 11:08:00 PM
which I did not know the answer to. During what period of time was the circle and triangle logo officially registered as a trademark by AA? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark Who did the paperwork and to what trademarks registry was it sent, and when? Sam pointed me to the fact that in the 34th printing (1989) of the third edition of the Big Book, for example, on the copyright page it says:
triangle inside a circle]® are registered trademarks of A.A. World Services, Inc. And Sam had another printing of the third edition, printed a little later, which also had this statement on the copyright page.
the copyright page of the Big Book? IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 6826. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Fr. John Ford: AA rejection of Oxford Group absolutism, etc. From: stalban2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/25/2010 10:44:00 PM
and
>we Methodists don't believe that you have to confess your sins to a member of >the clergy in order to be forgiven by God. Like Anglicans and Lutherans, we >believe that you are allowed to do so, and laypeople sometimes do it, but you
>don't have to do it, and most parishioners don't.) < =============================================== stalban2001 RESPONDS AS FOLLOWS: Let me clarify a bit regarding the Episcopal (Anglican) position on the forgiveness of sins. Like Roman Catholics, Episcopalians believe that priests have the sacramental authority to forgive sins. For most of us, however, this usually happens during the general confession at the Holy Eucharist or at Morning or Evening Prayer.
for
auricular confession during which a penitent meets confidentially with a priest.
This is known as "Reconciliation of a Penitent." Regarding its use, we say this:
all can, none must, some should. Dr. Sam Shoemaker would certainly have known this, and I suspect would have regarded public testimony of sins as spiritually unhealthy. ===============================================
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 5:36:36 PM Subject: Re: Fr. John Ford: AA rejection of Oxford Group absolutism, etc. I am a little confused over #5 below. "public confession of sins to the entire group (instead of AA's Fifth Step private confession)" The Oxford Group advocated "sharing for witness" and "sharing for confession". In Sam Shoemaker's writings he always insisted that sharing for confession be done with a single person only. Can someone clarify the comment, was it a quote attributable to Father John Ford or some other source? God Bless John B. ********************************************** GLENN C'S RESPONSE TO JOHN B: Number 5 was just my attempt at a summary of what Father John Ford said in his
article at one point: "Catholics would object to open confession within the group practiced by many
Buchmanites. But in A.A. the fifth of the Twelve Steps reads, 'We admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.' A.A. members often 'tell their story' at A.A. meetings, but a group confession, in an objectionable sense of the phrase, is not part of their policy or their practice." (You can read the whole of his article in the NCCA Blue Book down at the bottom
of this page.) My intention was to sum up Father Ford's arguments, not to argue either for or against them. But I agree with you, that Father Ford's argument on this issue was not the best
way to express the fundamental problem, and probably involved a misunderstanding and misstatement of the Oxford Group's teaching.
believed
that people could be forgiven for their sins without having to confess them to an ordained Catholic priest. Father Ford would have believed that you couldn't be forgiven until you received the formal words of absolution from a Catholic priest.
diversity in A.A. belief and practice, and Father John Ford followed the principle of anonymity to an extreme. He was instructed by his ecclesiastical superiors, I have been told, to keep the fact that he was a recovering alcoholic a total secret, so as not to bring the Roman Catholic Church into disrepute. As a result, I was unable to determine when he actually got sober in A.A., and he only publicly revealed that he himself was a recovering alcoholic (to the best
of my knowledge) at the very end of his life, when he talked about it (for example) when he was interviewed by Mary Darrah in 1985. I think Ernie Kurtz was aware of it at an earlier point, but I'm not sure when. And Father Ford may have believed that talking too much in AA meetings about our
sins would involve making things public which were intensely personal and should
be kept private, and that attempting to make people talk about all of their worst sins in the public context of a group meeting was bad moral theology and the worst kind of "let it all hang out" modern pop psychology, and that suggesting that this kind of public confession would somehow free you from the
power of your past sins ran totally against good Catholic moral theology. This would involve a gross (and dangerous) confusion between discussions appropriate only to the privacy of the confessional booth, and less sensitive personal matters that were all right to talk about in public. I feel sure that Father Ford believed that members of the Oxford Group on many
occasions talked about personal matters during group meetings, that should only
be talked about between a layperson and that person's priest. (This is Father Ford I'm talking about here -- I'm a Methodist minister, and we Methodists don't believe that you have to confess your sins to a member of the clergy in order to be forgiven by God. Like Anglicans and Lutherans, we believe that you are allowed to do so, and laypeople sometimes do it, but you don't have to do it, and most parishioners don't.) But some of this is supposition on my part. I do agree with you that, on this
issue, Father Ford does not seem to have been aware of details of how the Oxford
Group system actually worked. Glenn C. (South Bend, Indiana) ********************************************** AND THIS WAS THE MESSAGE THAT STARTED THE WHOLE THING OFF: Baileygc23@ SENT IN AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY FATHER JOHN FORD and Glenn C. wrote a short introduction, in which he attempted to sum up Father Ford's position as follows: > > A.A. REJECTION OF FIVE MAJOR OXFORD GROUP PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES > > (1) absolutism > (2) "aggressive evangelism" > (3) the idea of group guidance as a source of private divine revelation > (4) Oxford Group publicity seeking > (5) public confession of sins to the entire group (instead of AA's Fifth Step >private confession) > > The differences between A.A. and the Oxford groupers, Father John Ford says, >was so pronounced from the very beginning that "there was never a real >ideological integration of A.A. into that movement" -- that is, it is a serious
>mistake to speak of early A.A. ever truly being an integrated "part of the >Oxford group." If you try to parrot Oxford group principles and practices in the
>modern world, Father Ford warned, you will end up with something totally >different from anything genuine A.A. ever was -- and in the process you will >also drive out all your good Catholic members. > > -- Glenn C. (South Bend, Indiana) > > ================================================= THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE WRITTEN BY FATHER JOHN C. FORD READ AS FOLLOWS: > N.C.C.A. "BLUE BOOK," Vol. 10, 1960 > MORAL RE-ARMAMENT AND ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS > Reverend John C. Ford, S.J. > > Some of the original inspiration of A.A. came from the Oxford Groups, which >are now called MRA, or Moral Rearmament. It was an Oxford grouper who first >came to Bill W., the co-founder of A.A. in November, 1934, to tell him how he >had found sobriety with the help of God and the Oxford groups. And when Bill W. >went to Akron, Ohio, in May, 1935, and almost had a slip, it was through Oxford >group people that he was introduced to Doctor Bob S., the other co-founder. But >A.A. severed all connection with the Oxford Groups early in its history. The New
>York A.A.'s withdrew in 1937, the Akron A.A.'s in 1939 -- at a time when the
>total membership of A.A. in both cities was about a hundred people. > > Some of the reasons for this withdrawal are given by Bill W. in Alcoholics >Anonymous Comes of Age. He says that the four absolutes of the Oxford groups
>(absolute honesty, purity, unselfishness, and love) were too much for >recovering alcoholics to appreciate, that they rebelled against the "rather >aggressive evangelism" of the Oxford groupers, and could not accept the >principle of "team guidance" from the group. Furthermore, the Oxford groups >sought prestige through publicity for its prominent members, while A.A. was >developing a fundamental principle of anonymity. > > A.A. has always acknowledged the debt it owes to the Oxford groups in its >early days. Fortunately, however, when they parted company, A.A. left behind
>those elements of Buchmanism which are unacceptable to Catholics. For instance, >Catholics would object to open confession within the group practiced by many
>Buchmanites. But in A.A. the fifth of the Twelve Steps reads, "We admitted to >God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs." >A.A. members often "tell their story" at A.A. meetings, but a group confession, >in an objectionable sense of the phrase, is not part of their policy or their >practice. There are also to be found still traces of Oxford group terminology >in A.A.; for instance, the word group itself. And the phrase "group conscience" >which occurs in A.A. literature is reminiscent of a Protestant type of private >revelation, or at least of a theological position which does not do justice to >the unique place occupied by the Church of Christ. In A.A. however, the phrase >group conscience, if it ever had definite theological meaning has long since >lost it. It merely means the opinion of the major et sanior pars. And although >it is the hope of all concerned that decisions be arrived at prayerfully, or in
that >God has made A.A. the instrumentality of special, private revelations. Besides, >the decisions in question do not have to do with religious or theological >matters, but only with the practical measures to be taken to help the sick >alcoholic to recover. > > Apparently the differences between the fundamental attitudes of the early >A.A.'s and the Oxford groupers were so pronounced that there was never a real
>ideological integration of A.A. into that movement. There was initial >inspiration and association rather than integration. A.A. sprang from the >Oxford groups but almost immediately sprang away from them. > ================================================= IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 6827. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Master Copy Original Manuscript From: rpeternixon . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/25/2010 11:35:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Yüklə 25,47 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|