Posted on

80. “Without Mary the Heart is an Orphan”. Another Instance of Francis’ Marianism

May 16th, 2014

Francis’ Marian devotion is one of the defining marks of his spirituality. From his very first acts as Pope to his daily speeches and practices, traditional Marian theology is basic to his Catholic worldview. To evangelical ears his language may at times seem Christ-centered and mission-oriented, but these apparent gospel emphases are always organically related to a strong Marianism that envelops the Pope’s religious narrative and experience. The latest example of his profound Marianism occurred in a meeting with the seminarians in Rome on May 13th. In answering their questions on various topics, the Pope made some interesting comments on the Marian framework that undergirds his theology of the Christian life.

Under the Mantle of the Holy Mother of God

Commenting on the need for vigilance in times of personal turmoil, Francis evokes the counsel of the Russian Fathers to run “under the mantle of the Holy Mother of God”. This Marian protection – the Pope recalls – is also part of the liturgy whereby the faithful declare to find refuge under the “presidium” (haven) of Mary: “sub tuum presidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genitrix”. So, for a priest not to pray to Mary in times of difficulty is for him to be like an “orphan”. When in trouble the first thing a child does is look for his mother, so too should it happen in the spiritual realm. The mediatorial work of Jesus Christ and his total understanding of our needs (the whole point of Hebrews 1-2 and 4:14-16) is here totally overlooked and is instead subsumed under the protection of Mary who is the caring mother of those seeking help. Whereas the Psalmist can cry “For God alone, o my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from Him” (Psalm 62:8), Francis’ advice is to seek the “mantle” of Mary.

The Pope then goes on to underline the link between the motherhood of Mary and the motherhood of the Church. According to him, those who have a “good relationship” with Mary will be helped to have a “good relationship” with the Church and even with their own souls. All three have a “feminine element” which connects them in a transitive and motherly way. Again there is strong emphasis on motherhood that runs through the Mariological worldview. Those who do not have a good relationship with Mary (assuming that this means praying to her, trusting her and seeking her help) are like “orphans”. The Bible, however, teaches that a good relationship with the Church is made possible only through the head of the Church, that is Jesus Christ, and this comes through the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Francis, on the other hand, has a “motherly” way of getting that relationship right.

Either Mother or Mother-in-Law!

At this point the Pope recalls an episode that happened to him while visiting a family in Northern Europe thirty years ago. The members of the family were practicing Catholics and full of enthusiasm for Christ (perhaps influenced by the Protestant culture of their region?). In a conversation they said: “We have discovered Christ and – thank God – we have passed the stage of Madonna. We don’t need her any longer”. “No”, replied the saddened Bergoglio: “This is not a mature faith. Forgetting the mother is always a bad thing, not a sign of maturity”. Again, the question arises: is finding Christ and him alone a step towards or away from Christian maturity?

The last comment concerning this question seems more like a humorous joke. In wrapping up his Marian reflection, Francis concludes by saying “If you don’t want Mary as a mother, she will become your mother-in-law!” An intriguing way of further expanding the motherhood metaphor in non biblical directions.  

The point is that pope Francis believes that a Mariologically-free or even Mariologically-light faith is an orphan-like and immature faith. The real question is whether or not a Christ-centered and mission-oriented faith should focus on Christ instead of intermingling the Gospel with various motherhood ideas that obscure it.

Posted on

79. Peter Didn’t Have a Bank, Did He?

April 15th, 2014

“Peter didn’t have a bank, did he?” Shortly after his election Pope Francis asked this rhetorical question. Peter did not have a bank, of course, but the Vatican does have a bank, and it’s called the Institute for the Works of Religion (Istituto di Opere Religiose, IOR). Its operations have been well known by the public for its record of financial scandals over the last thirty years, often exchanging the “works of religion” for reckless banking. The peak of mismanagement and distrust was reached during Pope Benedict XVI’s reign and was certainly one factor that contributed to his resignation. Pope Francis called for an investigation and formed a commission to help him make decisions concerning the future of IOR.  

The Vatican Keeps the Bank

Francis has been working hard to bring a breath of fresh air both inside and outside the Vatican walls. In many ways he is a Pope who is trying to renew the system from the inside out by giving a personal example of a sober lifestyle full of religious enthusiasm. His statement about Peter and the bank raised some expectations that he would also touch on significant structural changes as far as the institutions of the Vatican are concerned. Some commentators went as far as saying that the Pope was ready to shut the IOR down, thus opening a season of disestablishment of the political adds-on at the center of the Catholic Church.

Last week the decision was finally announced: the Pope confirms “the importance of the IOR’s mission for the good of the Catholic Church, the Holy See and the Vatican City State”. In other words, the bank will continue to exist as is, but with more transparent policies, all while its banking profile remains untouched. For all that Francis is changing, the financial system of the Vatican will not change. Peter did not have a bank, but Popes do, and despite of all his “missional” emphases Francis is no different than his predecessors.

The Thick “Hardware” of the Vatican

What is becoming more and more apparent is that Francis is focusing on the “attitude” of the Church, but he is hardly interested in revising the basic “structure” of the Vatican. His remarks on the outgoing “mission” of the Church revolve around the “operative system” of the Church but leave its “hardware” as it stands. The bank is only one piece of a much larger picture. The Vatican is a state and the Pope is a political leader. The Vatican has a territory, an army, a diplomatic body, civil and penal courts, a prison, and a bank. It issues passports and participates in the international political scene as a sovereign state. The Roman Catholic Church is a church which operates with a state as its center. Its two-sided face is both religious and political.

The political “hardware” exchanges the Church with a political body trusting in man’s protection, rather than encouraging God’s people to serve God’s mission in God’s way. The usual justifications for the “hardware” of the Vatican are that it is the result of its long history and it helps to serve the mission of the Church. These are of course pragmatic reasons rather than biblical ones. Moreover, these justifications have caused the church to become something that goes ways beyond the way Jesus wanted the church to be. “Peter did not have a bank, did he?” was a promising start. In fact, the church does not need to own a bank nor did Jesus ever say or even suggest that the church is supposed to be a political state at heart. Francis’ subsequent reinforcement of the IOR shows that in the system as it stands the reason of state prevails over biblical principles, even for a “revolutionary” Pope.

Posted on

78. The New Saints and Pope Francis

April 5th, 2014

On 27th April two canonizations will take place in Rome. Two Twentieth century Popes will be proclaimed “saints” by the Catholic Church. John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli 1881-1963) and John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła 1920-2005) will be included in the canon, or list, of recognized saints. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church “by canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors” (828).

John XXIII and John Paul II were the two major Popes of the last century. It was John XXIII who convened the Second Vatican Council, the most significant event in contemporary Roman Catholic history. Then it was John Paul II that re-launched Catholicism as a global player, after decades, if not centuries, of prevailing self-defensiveness. The fact that the Church is canonizing the two together on the same day communicates a clear message concerning the present Pope. In a sense Francis wants to be identified with the “pastoral” afflatus of John XXIII while at the same time following the dynamism of John Paul II.

The Pastor Pope

Perhaps the most defining mark of John XXIII was the “pastoral” tone of his pontificate. Gentle in spirit, meek in manners, approachable by the people, Roncalli was the first modern Pope to not be perceived as a king but instead as a pastor. His language was simple and his human frame was humble. By no surprise, his main achievement, i.e. Vatican II, was meant to be a “pastoral” council. John XXIII did not want a rigidly “doctrinal” church that would judge the mistakes of the world but a loving “mother” who would offer protection and understanding for all.

Francis too is perceived as a “pastoral” Pope. Unlike his predecessor, the theologian Ratzinger, Francis continues to insist on the need for a change of attitude, leaving the doctrinal outlook of the Church in the background of what he says. His main message is centered around his pastoral sensitivity. Like John XXIII, Francis wants to embrace the world as it is. He does not want to change any doctrine, but wishes to draw nearer to the world. It is clear that John XXIII’s shadow is behind Francis’ way of interpreting his pontificate.

“To” and “From” the Ends of the Earth

John Paul II, however, is a more complex figure. In his long pontificate, this Pope travelled to the ends of the earth to take a strong Catholic identity and his energetic leadership to a polarized world (East/West and North/South). From the center of Catholicism, John Paul II went to the geographical peripheries to encourage Catholic renewal everywhere. Now, with the Argentinian Francis, the Pope who comes from the ends of the world, the Church travels back to Rome to bring the enthusiasm, the energy, and the concerns of the peripheries. Francis is reversing John Paul II’s journey. The direction of the movement is different (from periphery to center) but the energy that he is investing is similar. John Paul II re-ignited the Roman catholicity inside out, Francis is stirring the Catholic “mission” outside in.  The common thread between the two is that something is moving in a significant way.

The canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II will focus on two past Popes but they will also speak of the present Pope. The pastoral catholicity of the former and the shaking and shaping ability of the latter are marks of Pope Francis. In some important respects Francis is reflected in both of these predecessors and this event will be a further opportunity to stress this identification.

Posted on

77. Where is the Catholic Marriage Going?

March 21st, 2014

The family is at the center of Vatican concerns and activities. A Synod of Bishops is due to meet this coming October and then again in 2015. These important gatherings will address the challenges that the Catholic Church is facing concerning the difficult task of maintaining its traditional teaching in relationship with today’s realities, e.g.  many broken families, many divorces, many “new forms” of family even amongst practicing Catholics, not to mention what happens in secular society. Of course, the issue is huge and multifaceted.

One has to bear in mind that the present-day Catholic concern focuses primarily on the sacramental dimension of the problem. In other words, what does the Church do with the many Catholics who are divorced and are therefore excluded from the Eucharist? Should the Church soften the ban? Should it make provision for more “pastoral” approaches that could allow  their admission under certain circumstances? Ultimately, should the Church change its rigid sacramental categories and come to terms more with the “human”, frail, and transient aspects of marriage?

Kasper’s Way Forward

In preparation for the Synod Cardinal Walter Kasper was asked to introduce the discussion. His lecture (20th February) has stirred the internal debate and is polarizing opinions between reformists and traditionalists. The latest book by Kasper has a programmatic title: Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life (Paulist Press, 2014) and was publicly praised by Pope Francis as the best book he had personally read for some time. It is no chance that Francis has been insisting on “mercy” as the attitude that needs to characterize the Church in all its dealings with people.

Kasper’s lecture is a theological feast that blends Biblical exegesis, patristic writings, canon law and magisterial teaching throughout history. After revisiting all this against the background of the present-day crisis, Kasper envisages some possible “open doors” for those who have had failed marriages and whose conditions of life prevent them from any possible reconciliation. He makes references to the practice of the early church that used to re-admit people who divorced in some specific cases and that is still kept in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

How can a well established Roman Catholic teaching change? Kasper is aware of the newness of his proposal and suggests that the current situation is analogous to that of the Second Vatican Council on issues of ecumenism and religious freedom. The Church had been against both issues for centuries, but “the Council opened doors” by deciding that a “development” should take place and therefore recognized religious freedom and embraced ecumenism. What should prevent the same from happening with the admission of divorced couples to the Eucharist?

The “Sacramental” Bottom-Line

Non-Catholics may fail to understand the depth and the intensity of the problem. It is not so much about the indissolubility of marriage per se and the realization that divorce is part of the fallen world. It has to do with the sacramental theology that lies at the heart of the Roman Catholic religion. According to Catholic doctrine, marriage is a sacrament, i.e. an “efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1131). The essence of marriage is not a human covenant before God, but a divinely appointed channel of grace that is administered by the Church. “Normalizing” the failure means downplaying the sacrament and therefore shaking the sacramental institution that dispenses it. The fact that the discussion is also about the admission to the Eucharist, i.e. another sacrament, nay the chief sacrament, further amplifies the issue.

Any talk about marriage, divorce, re-marriage and the Eucharist is a talk about the sacramental nature of the Church. Kasper quoted the “development” that took place during Vatican II concerning ecumenism and religious freedom. This is true but neither of those issues impinged on the sacramental structure of the Church. They were sacramentally-free developments, so to speak. Re-admitting divorced people to the Eucharist surely has a “pastoral” dimension to it, but it is essentially a dogmatic issue in that it revolves around the identity of the sacrament, i.e. a divinely appointed efficacious sign of grace entrusted to the Church.

The Roman Church is built around the notion of the sacrament. It is a thoroughgoing sacramental institution. Cardinal Kasper (along with Pope Francis?) wants to emphasize the need for “mercy”, but is he counting the dogmatic weight of such a move? A more “human” and “merciful” sacrament will mean a more humble and modest Church, certainly not the Catholic Church that stemmed out of the Councils of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II. 

Posted on

76. The Catholicity of Pope Francis

March 10th, 2013

One year ago (March 13th) Cardinal Bergoglio was elected as pope Francis. Different evaluations of the first year are mushrooming everywhere in the form of books and editorials. They suggest various interpretations of what the Pope has been doing, saying and implementing thus far. As his first anniversary approaches several questions seem appropriate to ask, and all of them assume that something significant has been happening. What has been the “Francis effect” on the church? The simplest answer is that he is envisaging a different kind of catholicity.

Roman Catholic Catholicity

In the Roman Catholic understanding catholicity has to do simultaneously with unity and totality. The basic premise is that multiplicity should be brought into a unity. The Church is seen as an expression, a guarantor and a promoter of true unity between God and humanity and within humanity itself. In Vatican II terms, the Church is a “sacrament of unity”. As long as the institutional structure which preserves this unity remains intact (i.e. the Roman element), everything can and must find its home somewhere within its realm (i.e. the catholic element).

The catholic mindset is characterized by an attitude of overall openness without losing touch with its Roman center. It is inherently dynamic and comprehensive, capable of holding together doctrines, ideas and practices that in other Christian traditions are thought of as being mutually exclusive. By way of its inclusive et-et (both-and) epistemology, in a catholic system two apparently contradicting elements can be reconciled into a synthesis which entail both. In principle, the system is wide enough to welcome everything and everyone. The defining term is not the Word of God written (sola Scriptura) but the Roman Church itself. From a catholic point of view then, affirming something does not necessarily mean denying something else, but simply means enlarging one’s own perspective of the whole truth. In this respect, what is perceived as being important is the integration of the part into the catholic whole by way of relating the thing newly affirmed with what is already existing.

Catholicity allows doctrinal development without a radical breach from the past and also allows different kinds of catholicity to co-exist. Each Pope has his own catholicity project. John Paul II pushed for the church to become a global player, thus expanding the geographical catholicity and its profile with the media. Benedict XVI tried to define catholicity in terms of its adherence to universal “reason”, thus trying to reconnect the chasm between faith and reason that Western Enlightenment had introduced. These catholicity projects are not mutually exclusive, but they all contribute to the overall dynamic catholicity of the Church. They were all organically related to the Roman element that safeguards the continuity of the system.

Mapping Francis’ Catholicity

After one year of his pontificate it is becoming apparent what kind of catholicity Francis has in mind. He wants to build on John Paul II’s global catholicity while shifting emphases from Wojtyła’s doctrinal rigidity to more inclusive patterns. He pays lip service to Ratzinger’s rational catholicity, but wants to move the agenda from Western ideological battles to “human” issues which find appeal across the global spectrum. If Ratzinger wanted to mark the difference between the Church and the world, Francis tries to make them overlap. In shaping the new catholicity he seems closer to the “pastoral” tone of John XXIII, who will be canonized (i.e. declared a “saint”) next April. So there is continuity and development. This is the gist of catholicity. 

Francis has little time for “non-negotiable” truths, and gives more attention to the variety of people’s conscience. He is more interested in warmth than light, more in empathy than judgment. He focuses on attitude rather than identity, and on embracing rather than teaching. He underlines the relational over the doctrinal. For him proximity is more important than integrity. Belonging together has priority over believing differently. Reaching out to people comes before calling them back. Of course all these marks are not pitted against each other, but their relationship is worked out within a new balance whereby the first one determines the overall orientation. Roman catholicity works this way: never abandoning the past, always enlarging the synthesis by repositioning the elements around the Roman center.

Francis calls this catholicity “mission”. The word is familiar and intriguing for Bible-believing Christians, yet one needs to understand what he means by it beyond what it appears to mean on the surface.