Posted on

56. Left Without Words. How Roman Catholicism is Reshaping the Evangelical Vocabulary

April 1st, 2013

“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of words” (Socrates). If you define a word in a certain way you make claims about reality. Our postmodern culture has stirred us to come to terms with the fact that words do not have stable meanings but exist in an flux that drives them in one way or another depending on the interests of their users. This is the current situation of the word “Evangelical”.

A Short History of the Word Evangelical

There was a time in which the word “Evangelical” meant something like this: Biblically, it was defined around the evangel (i.e. the Gospel) as it is truly witnessed in Scripture. Historically it has referred to the XVI century Protestant Reformation and the Evangelical Revivals of subsequent centuries. Doctrinally, it has pointed out to Christian orthodoxy, focusing on the formal principle of Biblical authority (Sola Scriptura) and the material principle of justification by faith alone (Sola gratia and Sola Fide). Experientially, it has majored on the need of personal conversion resulting in a transformed life. Religiously, it has distinguished itself from (often opposed to) Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Liberalism. From John Wycliffe (doctor evangelicus) to Carl Henry, from Martin Luther to John Stott, from Pietism to the Lausanne Movement, there has been a loosely defined, yet shared meaning of the word which was also accepted by non-Evangelicals. It is true that Evangelicals have always discussed the minutiae of what Evangelical really means, of its ins and outs. There are entire bookshelves that are dedicated to these important, at time fierce, debates. Yet the word has retained a rather stable meaning that has fostered common identity and a sense of belonging, well describing a “Christian family” throughout the centuries and in our global world.

We are now witnessing a new attempt to get a handle on the word “Evangelical” in order to give it an altogether different meaning.

Evangelical Catholicism and the Current Genetic Modification

The recent book by George Weigel, “Evangelical Catholicism” (New York: Basic Books, 2013) is a clever attempt to re-engineer the word by overlooking its Biblical focus, by severing its historical roots and replacing them with other roots, by changing its doctrinal outlook, by staffing its experiential ethos differently, and by renegotiating its religious use. In other words, this is a genetic modification of a word.

The basic thesis of the book is that Evangelical Catholicism (EC) is a qualifier of present-day Roman Catholicism as it stemmed from the magisterium of Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), was expounded by Vatican II (1962-1965), found its champion in John Paul II (1978-2005), and was again reinforced by Benedict XVI (2005-2013). It is a new account of the word Evangelical. Whereas previous scholarship referred to this time in Catholic history as marked by “ressourcement” (i.e. re-appropriation of sources: Scripture and Tradition) and “aggiornamento” (i.e. update of approach, not of doctrine), Weigel calls it “Evangelical” Catholicism.

According to Weigel, Evangelical is a qualifying adjective, not a noun. The noun which carries “thick” meaning is Catholicism. Curiously, what used to be termed as “Roman Catholicism” is now shortened to “Catholicism” alone. All the Roman elements of Roman Catholicism are nonetheless part of EC: sacraments, Mariology, hierarchy, traditions, papacy, devotions, etc. To this “Catholicism” Weigel adds the adjective “Evangelical,” which basically refers to the depth of convictions and the passion to make them known. EC is a full orbed Roman Catholicism practiced with strong impetus and missionary zeal. Catholicism is the doctrinal and institutional hardware, while “Evangelical” is the sociological and psychological software. While doctrine deeply remains Roman Catholic, the spiritual mood is called Evangelical.

The Tip of the Iceberg

The major genetic modification surrounding the word “Evangelical” is just the tip of the iceberg of a bigger plan. The whole book mirrors the on-going attempt to change the meaning of words that have historically belonged to the Evangelical vocabulary. “Conversion”, “evangelization”, and “mission” are some examples.

Take conversion for example. It used to be a catchword for Evangelical witness. Evangelicals used it in pointing out the time when they were “not” converted and the time when they “got” converted and believed. According to EC, “conversion” is an on-going process instead of a once-and-for-all experience. We stand in permanent need of being converted and that fits the “sacramental” Roman Catholic view of the Christian life whereby we depend on the sacraments of the Church from beginning to end. EC deconstructs the Evangelical meaning of the word conversion and reconstructs it by saying that it is a life-long process that fully occurs in the sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church. We use the same word but mean different things.

Evangelicals may think that EC is Evangelical in the historical and theological sense, but it is not. It is Roman Catholicism that takes the sociological and psychological “Evangelical” zeal and embodies it into the traditional Roman Catholic faith. EC is a brain transplant of the word “Evangelical” and is aimed at radically re-programming it. It implies that the old use could not stand on its own and that it makes sense only if it is attached to Roman Catholicism. Of course, we operate in a free-market world of words and it is perfectly legitimate for pressure groups to try and change the meaning of words. Nobody can claim words to be their property, but everybody should be concerned when such a radically revisionist plan is put in action.

We started with Socrates and we end with Virgil. In the Aeneid, we are told how the Greeks captured the city of Troy after a long but fruitless siege. The story of the Trojan horse tells us how what seemed to be a victory turned out to be a devastating defeat. EC may appear as an Evangelically friendly project and we may want to welcome it. In actual fact it is an intellectually courageous attempt to re-define what Evangelical means, maintaining the same spelling but giving it a Roman Catholic meaning. It is a different world altogether.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

Posted on

Senza parole. Il tentativo cattolico di ridefinire il termine “evangelico”

1 aprile 2013

recensione a: George Weigel, Evangelical Catholicism. Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church, New York, Basic Books 2013, pp. 291.

“Il principio della sapienza è la definizione delle parole” (Socrate). Se si definisce una parola in un certo modo si fa un’affermazione sulla realtà. La nostra cultura postmoderna ci ha instillato l’idea che le parole non abbiano significati stabili, ma esistono in un flusso che le guida in un modo o nell’altro a seconda degli interessi dei loro utilizzatori.

Questa è la situazione attuale della parola “evangelico”. C’è stato un tempo in cui la parola “evangelico” significava qualcosa di simile a questo: biblicamente, ciò che dice l’evangelo secondo l’insegnamento della Scrittura. Storicamente, in riferimento alla Riforma protestante del XVI secolo Riforma protestante e ai risvegli evangelici dei secoli successivi. Dottrinalmente, è stato un sinonimo dell’ortodossia cristiana, con particolare attenzione al principio formale dell’autorità biblica (Sola Scriptura) e al principio materiale della giustificazione per la sola fede (Sola gratia e Sola Fide). Dal punto di vista spirituale, il termine è stato usato per sottolineare la necessità della conversione personale risultante in una vita trasformata. Sul piano religioso, evangelico ha contraddistinto un movimento distinto rispetto al cattolicesimo e all’ortodossia orientale, così come diverso dal liberalismo. Da John Wycliffe (doctor evangelicus) a Carl Henry, da Martin Lutero a John Stott, dal pietismo al Movimento di Losanna, vi è stato un significato vagamente definito, accettato anche dai non-evangelici. E’ vero che gli evangelici hanno sempre discusso le minuzie di ciò che significa veramente. Ci sono interi scaffali di biblioteche che sono dedicati a questi importanti dibattiti. Eppure, la parola ha conservato un significato piuttosto stabile che ha favorito un’identità comune e un senso di appartenenza nel corso dei secoli e nel nostro mondo globale. Ora stiamo assistendo a un nuovo tentativo di significare la parola “evangelico”, al fine di darle un volto del tutto diverso.
Questo libro di Weigel è un tentativo intelligente di riprogettare la parola recidendo le sue radici storiche e sostituendole con altre radici, cambiando la sua prospettiva dottrinale, e rinegoziando il suo uso religioso. In altre parole, questa è una modificazione genetica di una parola. La tesi di fondo del libro è che il cattolicesimo evangelico (CE) è una qualifica del cattolicesimo romano a partire dal magistero di Papa Leone XIII (1878-1903), passando dal Concilio Vaticano II (1962-1965), e che ha trovato il suo esponente principale in Giovanni Paolo II (1978-2005) ed è stato ancor più rafforzato da Benedetto XVI (2005-2013). Si tratta di una nuova narrazione della parola che ingloba il “ressourcement” (cioè la ri-appropriazione delle fonti: Scrittura e Tradizione) e l’”aggiornamento” (cioè aggiornamento di approccio, non di dottrina).
Secondo Weigel, evangelico è un aggettivo qualificativo, non un sostantivo. Il nome che porta significato e sostanziale è cattolicesimo. Tutti gli elementi romani del cattolicesimo romano sono comunque parte del CE: i sacramenti, la mariologia, la gerarchia, le tradizioni, il papato, le devozioni, ecc. A questo “cattolicesimo” Weigel aggiunge l’aggettivo “evangelico”, che si riferisce essenzialmente alla profondità delle convinzioni e alla passione con cui le si fa conoscere. Il CE è un cattolicesimo a tutto tondo praticato con forte impulso e slancio missionario. Il cattolicesimo è la dottrina e l’hardware istituzionale, mentre “evangelico” è il software sociologico e psicologico. Mentre la dottrina rimane profondamente cattolica, lo stato d’animo spirituale è definito evangelico.
La principale modifica genetica che intacca la parola “evangelico” è solo la punta dell’iceberg di un piano più grande. Tutto il libro rispecchia il tentativo in corso di cambiare il significato delle parole che storicamente appartenevano al vocabolario evangelico. “Conversione”, “evangelizzazione” e “missione” sono alcuni esempi di parole che sono oggetto di risemantizzazione. Si prenda ad esempio la conversione. E’ stata uno slogan per la testimonianza evangelica. Gli evangelici la usavano per segnalare il momento in cui, da non convertiti, sono stati convertiti credendo in Gesù Cristo. Secondo il CE, invece, la “conversione” è un processo, non una esperienza puntilineare. Ci troviamo nella necessità permanente di essere convertiti e qui si inserisce la visione “sacramentale” del cattolicesimo per la quale noi dipendiamo dai sacramenti della Chiesa, dall’inizio alla fine. Il CE di Weigel decostruisce il significato evangelico della conversione e lo ricostruisce dicendo che si tratta di un processo di tutta la vita che si verifica pienamente all’interno del sistema sacramentale della Chiesa cattolica romana. Usiamo la stessa parola, ma intendiamo cose diverse.
Gli evangelici possono pensare che il CE è evangelico in senso storico e teologico, ma non lo è. E’ il cattolicesimo romano che prende lo zelo “evangelico” e lo incardina nella fede tradizionale cattolico-romana. Naturalmente, operiamo in un mondo di libero mercato delle parole ed è perfettamente legittimo che gruppi di pressione cerchino di cambiare il significato delle parole. Nessuno può pretendere la proprietà delle parole, ma tutti dovrebbero essere consapevoli di quando un simile piano revisionista viene messo in atto.

Posted on

56. Rămaşi fără cuvinte. Cum remodelează romano-catolicismul vocabularul evanghelic

„Începutul înţelepciunii este definirea cuvintelor” (Socrate). Dacă defineşti un cuvînt într-un anumit mod, faci anumite afirmaţii despre realitate. Cultura noastră postmodernă ne-a făcut să ne împăcăm cu ideea conform căreia cuvintele nu au înţelesuri stabile, ci există într-un flux care le conduce într-o direcţie sau alta, în funcţie de interesele celor ce le folosesc. Aceasta este situaţia prezentă a cuvîntului „evanghelic”.

Scurtă istorie a cuvîntului „evanghelic”

A existat o vreme în care cuvîntul „evanghelic” însemna ceva de genul: din punct de vedere biblic, era definit în funcţie de Evanghelie, aşa cum este ea cu adevărat mărturisită în Scriptură. Din punct de vedere istoric, se referea la Reforma protestantă din secolul XVI şi la Trezirile evanghelice ale secolelor ulterioare. Din punct de vedere doctrinar, indica spre ortodoxia creştină, concentrîndu-se spre principiul formal al autorităţii biblice (Sola Scriptura) şi principiul material al îndreptăţirii doar prin credinţă (Sola gratia şi Sola fide). Din punct de vedere experienţial, se îndrepta asupra nevoii convertirii personale ce rezultă într-o viaţă transformată. Din punct de vedere religios, se deosebea de (adesea se opunea) romano-catolicism, ortodoxia răsăriteană şi liberalism. De la John Wycliffe (doctor evangelicus) la Carl Henry, de la Martin Luther la John Stott, de la Pietism la Mişcarea Lausanne, a existat un înţeles împărtăşit, chiar dacă definit cu o oarecare largheţe, al cuvîntului, care era de asemenea acceptat de nonevanghelici. Este adevărat că evanghelicii au discutat întotdeauna amănuntele a ceea ce înseamnă cu adevărat „evanghelic”, dedesubturile sale. Există rafturi întregi de bibliotecă dedicate acestor importante şi, uneori, aprinse dezbateri. Totuşi, cuvîntul a reţinut un înţeles mai degrabă stabil care a hrănit o identitate comună şi un sens de apartenenţă, descriind bine o „familie creştină” de-a lungul secolelor şi în lumea noastră globală.

Sîntem acum martorii unei noi încercări de a lămuri cuvîntul „evanghelic” cu scopul de a-i oferi un cu totul alt înţeles.

Catolicismul evanghelic şi modificarea genetică actuală

Recenta carte a lui George Weigel, „Evangelical Catholicism” (New York: Basic Books, 2013) este o încercare iscusită de a reinventa cuvîntul, trecînd cu vederea peste punctul său biblic central, tăind rădăcinile sale istorice şi înlocuindu-le cu alte rădăcini, schimbîndu-i perspectiva teologică, îmbrăcînd diferit ethosul său experienţial şi renegociind folosirea sa religioasă. Cu alte cuvinte, avem de-a face cu o modificare genetică a unui cuvînt.

Teza de bază a cărţii este că catolicismul evanghelic (CE) este un calificativ al catolicismului prezent, aşa cum a izorît acesta din magisterium-ul Papei Leon al XIII-lea (1878-1903), a fost expus de Vatican II (1962-1965), şi-a găsit campionul în Ioan Paul al II-lea (1978-2005) şi a fost din nou consolidat de Benedict al XVI-lea (2005-2013). Este o nouă explicaţie a cuvîntului „evanghelic”. Dacă cercetarea anterioară s-a referit la acest timp din istoria catolicismului ca la un „ressourcement” (i.e. reaproprierea surselor: Scriptura şi Tradiţia) şi „aggiornamento” (i.e. înnoire a abordării, nu a doctrinei), Weigel îl numeşte catolicism „evanghelic”.

Conform lui Weigel, „evanghelic” este un adjectiv calificativ, nu un substantiv. Substantivul care conţine un înţeles „solid” este „catolicismul”. În mod curios, ceea ce obişnuia a fi descris ca „romano-catolicism” este prescurtat acum la „catolicism”. Toate elementele romane ale romano-catolicismului fac, cu toate acestea, parte din catolicismul evanghelic: sacramentele, mariologia, ierarhia, tradiţiile, papalitatea, devoţiunile etc. Acestui „catolicism” Weigel îi adaugă adjectivul „evanghelic”, care se referă în esenţă la profunzimea convingerilor şi la pasiunea de a le face cunoscute. CE este un romano-catolicism deplin practicat cu un elan puternic şi zel misionar. Catolicismul este „hardware”-ul doctrinar şi instituţional, în timp ce „evanghelic” este „software”-ul sociologic şi psihologic. În timp ce doctrina rămîne profund romano-catolică, tonul spiritual este numit evanghelic.

Vîrful aisbergului

Majora modificare genetică a cuvîntului „evanghelic” este doar vîrful aisbergului unui plan mai mare. Întreaga carte oglindeşte încercarea constantă de a schimba înţelesul cuvintelor care au aparţinut istoric vocabularului evanghelic. „Convertire”, „evanghelizare” şi „misiune” sînt cîteva exemple.

Să ne gîndim, de pildă, la convertire. Era în mod obişnuit un cuvînt-cheie pentru mărturia evanghelică. Evanghelicii îl foloseau pentru a indica timpul cînd „nu” fuseseră convertiţi şi timpul cînd s-au convertit şi au crezut. Conform CE, „convertirea” este un proces neîntrerupt, nu o experienţă odată pentru totdeauna. Avem permanentă nevoie de a fi convertiţi, iar acest lucru se potriveşte viziunii romano-catolice „sacramentale” a vieţii creştine, prin care depindem de sacramentele bisericii de la început pînă la sfîrşit. CE deconstruieşte înţelesul evanghelic al cuvîntului „convertire” şi îl reconstruieşte afirmînd că este un proces de o viaţă care are loc pe deplin în sistemul sacramental al Bisericii romano-catolice. Folosim acelaşi cuvînt, dar transmitem lucruri diferite.

Evanghelicii ar putea crede că CE este evanghelic în sensul istoric şi teologic, dar nu este. Este romano-catolicismul care adoptă zelul sociologic şi psihologic „evanghelic” şi îl întrupează în credinţa romano-catolică tradiţională. CE este un transplant cerebral al cuvîntului „evanghelic” şi este ţintit spre o reprogramare radicală a acestuia. El implică faptul că vechea folosire nu putea rezista pe cont propriu şi că are sens numai dacă este ataşat romano-catolicismului. Bineînţeles, noi operăm într-o piaţă liberă a cuvintelor şi este perfect legitim pentru grupurile de presiune să încerce şi să schimbe înţelesul cuvintelor. Nimeni nu poate pretinde să aibă proprietate asupra cuvintelor, dar fiecare ar trebui să fie preocupat atunci cînd un astfel de plan revizionist este pus în acţiune.

Am început cu Socrate şi încheiem cu Vergiliu. În „Eneida”, ni se relatează cum au capturat grecii cetatea Troia după un asediu îndelungat, dar inutil. Povestea calului troian ne spune cum ceea ce părea a fi o victorie s-a transformat într-o înfrîngere devastatoare. S-ar putea ca CE să pară un proiect evanghelic prietenos şi am putea dori să-l întîmpinăm cu bucurie. În realitate, este o încercare curajoasă din punct de vedere intelectual de a redefini ce înseamnă „evanghelic”, menţinînd aceeaşi ortografie, dar dîndu-i un înţeles romano-catolic. Este un cuvînt cu totul diferit.

Roma, 1 aprilie 2013

 

Posted on

55. A Papal Honeymoon … Until When?

A honeymoon is a special time when two lovers live their newly established relationship in a sentimental way, i.e. romantically and enchantingly. In such times, one partner only perceives and highlights the best traits of the loved one but does not see the defects. Honeymoons generally last for a short time and are followed by more realistic and critical appreciations of one another.

What is interesting to notice is what happens in the public domain. In our celebrity culture, honeymoons with global figures are frequent and passionate. Once a person is elected to an important office, the public opinion tends to begin an “affair” with the new powerful figure, selecting and praising all his merits and overlooking the rest, at least at the beginning. This is what has been happening with Pope Francis after his election to the papacy. A global honeymoon is taking place. Among the many sides of it (e.g. in Catholic inner circles, in ecumenical circles), two main angles are worth considering.

The Secular Honeymoon

Comments from the international press have been very generous if not enthusiastic so far. Francis’ image was perceived as “real”, “down to earth”, “personal”, “non presuming”, very different from a “regal” arrogance of more traditional popes. His references to the care of the environment, poverty, and tenderness were highly praised and understood as being very politically correct. His insistence on “mercy” was understood as an open door to different sexual life-styles and moral choices, moving away from a judgmental attitude on the church’s side. His willingness to intermingle with people and his relaxed behavior as far as protocols are concerned were seen as proofs of his desire to be identified with normal people and with ordinary life.

            The international press decided to bypass and consider irrelevant Cardinal Bergoglio’s relationship with the Argentinian political past. No further press investigation was pursed concerning the “dark” years of the totalitarian regimes and the role of the Catholic Church in Latin America. His strong stance against gay marriages in his country was forgotten. His rather conservative positions on moral issues were simply overlooked. Unlike his predecessor, who was a published and public theologian, Pope Bergoglio does not have a record of being a Catholic maitre-à-penser. People that know all his staff say that Pope Francis is on the same page as Benedict XVI in defending the traditional position of the Catholic church in these areas. Yet the secular press fell in love with Francis. Why?

            There may be a sociological explanation to this phenomenon. In this time marked by social crisis, cultural disruption and economic uncertainty, people are eager to find someone that inspires trust and injects hope. Someone who is powerful but nonetheless gives the impression that he is on the same boat as us. A positive father-like figure that can speak simple words of love and distribute psychological caresses. Someone who can identify with the people, sending the message that “I am with you”, and struggling with the same challenges and helping everyone to overcome them. A secular “messiah” that proclaims a “soft gospel” of compassion and resilience. In his first days as Pope, Pope Francis has met expectations. The secular world strongly dislikes the Church but loves the celebrity Pope. What is going to happen when he begins to speak the “hard” sayings of the Catholic Church? The irony of it all is that the cynical, suspicious and disenchanted modern world was re-enchanted by a man using the name of a medieval, primitive and deeply religious saint.

The Evangelical Honeymoon

Comments from the Evangelical world were also marked by the honeymoon attitude. Official statements and the social networks sent out enthusiastic reactions to his election. “Man of God”, “friend of Jesus”, “man of prayer” … these were some of the most common remarks. Francis was also acclaimed as the new national or even continental hero to be proud of, the new Diego Armando Maradona (of my generation) or another Lionel Messi, i.e. a man that embodies the expectations of an entire nation, someone that Evangelical people too want to identify with.

            With all due respect, the idea of a Christ-centered man of God praying to Mary and the saints, bowing in front of an icon and committing himself and his audience to the care of Mary, is difficult to accept from an Evangelical point of view. But this was exactly what Pope Francis did on the first day of his papacy. No one is denying the deep spirituality of Francis or his godly devotion. The problem lies with the Evangelical discernment that tends to select few apparently positive aspects and forgets the negative ones. The outcome is a truncated picture at best, a false assessment at worse.

            The global Evangelical movement does not have celebrities that can compare with those stemming from the worlds of music, sport and politics. Pope Francis apparently filled the gap. Unlike his cerebral predecessor, he knows how to speak to the heart. He knows how to embrace people.

            Evangelical comments were largely based on past personal acquaintances with the former Cardinal Bergoglio. Again, no one for a moment doubts the integrity and warmth of the Pope, but the man can never be separated from his role and his loyalty to his Jesuit mission, which is now papal as well. The Jesuits were founded in 1534 by Ignatius of Loyola and in their turbulent history they have always been committed to serve as “soldiers” of the Pope in order to fight against the (Protestant) heresy and to promote the Catholic mission in the world. Francis is the first Jesuit to become Pope and time will tell just how Jesuit his papacy will be, especially in Latin America where the Evangelical-Catholic border is moving. Will the Jesuit Pope be able to stop the Evangelical expansion? Will he manage to take it back into the Catholic fold? Will he be able to enchant Evangelicals with his manners without changing the doctrinal points of controversy? Will Biblical doctrine still be an issue for Evangelicals in dealing with the Roman Catholic Church at the highest level?

            Anyone who is aware of history should carefully consider these questions. The Spirit is surely able to work miracles even in traditional institutions, but the Bible warns us to not be forgetful of history. Personal relationships are important, but Biblical discernment is bigger than that. It calls for theological awareness, historical alertness, and spiritual vigilance.

            The honeymoon with Pope Francis continues. Yet the mood of the public’s opinion can suddenly change when the fuller mission of the Pope is put on fuller display. What seemed to be a promising marriage may turn into a painful divorce. As for Christians who are experiencing the honeymoon, let the warning of not forsaking the “first love” (Revelation 2:4) of Jesus be a constant reminder of the need to love and to follow Christ and Christ alone.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 21st March 2013

Posted on

54. The Three Tasks of Pope Francis

The election of Cardinal Bergoglio to the papacy responds to three basic concerns that the conclave felt it necessary to address. These concerns helped to sketch the profile of the new Pope and Cardinal Bergoglio fitted it.

The Transitional Task

No one in the curia will ever say the Benedict XVI’s reign was a failure. Yet the impression is that the election of Pope Bergoglio is an implicit admission that the previous papacy achieved less than what was expected, especially as far as the main point of its agenda was concerned, i.e. the relationship with the secular West. After 8 years of Benedict’s reign, the secular West has become more distant from the Church and critical of it. Moreover, the curial Church has given the poorest performance in terms of lack of Christian standards. The Church needed therefore a different Pope.

            Between the traditional yet secularized West and the vibrant yet still “young” Global South, the conclave has chosen the classical “via media”, or “middle way”. Pope Bergoglio is an Argentinian born of an Italian family. He is Latin American but with an European background. He embodies the transition between the Western establishment and the Southern fervor. Perhaps the conclave thought that choosing an African Pope or an Asian Pope would have been a too long and unwarranted stretch. On the other hand, sticking to another European Pope would have been too much of a geo-political conservative move that the Church could not bear. Pope Bergoglio is an in-between figure. Different but not so strange. Similar but not a replica.

            He is also a transitional figure in terms of his age (76). He is not a “young” Pope with the expectation of a long papacy. Neither is he an “old” Pope with not much time in front of him. His papacy will test the willingness of the Church of Rome to move beyond the stand-still position of recent years, but perhaps it will not have enough time to see changes implemented. The conclave did not commit the Catholic Church to a long papacy (like that of John Paul II), but has instead opted to keep the future in sight, waiting to see how this papacy will unfold. All the while the hierarchy will retain the right to make changes if they deem it necessary.

            Pope Bergoglio is presented as an outsider, but in fact he is not. Supported by Cardinal Martini, Bergoglio was the runner up in the 2005 conclave, the one in which Ratzinger became Benedict XVI. He is well known to the cardinals and was apparently considered “reliable” by the conclave. In the top list of candidates prior to the conclave was the Brazilian Scherer, another transitional figure. Scherer, however, was apparently perceived as being too much involved in the politics of the Roman curia to be able to free himself from its maneuvering. Bergoglio is integrated but not organic to the curial world.

The Apologetic Task

The name chosen by the Jesuit Pope is Francis. He mentioned that Francis is a reference to Francis of Assisi (1181-1226). The international press put a lot of stress on this Franciscan symbolism and apparently liked it. Apparently he will combine the Jesuit wit with the emphasis on poverty and frugality. The choice has to do with the willingness to mark an apologetic transition in dealing with the modern world. Ratzinger addressed it by lecturing as a professor, but the West does not like detached, top-down teachers. Ratzinger argued his positions in a very clever and intellectual way, but the West is looking more to celebrities who can ignite imagination. Ratzinger denounced the moral relativism of our day, but the West does not like people who do not practice the “political correctness” of accepting everything. Ratzinger’s strategy ended in a stand-still.

            Pope Francis  began his papacy with a very different apologetic style. Approachable, normal, ordinary, he likes to be with the people, speaking their language and making his message simple. Ratzinger stressed “faith and reason”, Francis is likely to stress “mercy and simplicity”. Ratzinger addressed the West as theologian, Francis is likely to underline the common humanity of all. The difference is significant.

            Will the Church become poor and meek? Will it give priority to a simpler lifestyle? Will it put a stronger emphasis on its spiritual tasks than its secular interests? One thing is to be remembered, Francis of Assisi did not want to reform the whole Church, but wished to receive from the official church the right for his circle of friends to live in poverty. He wanted a niche to pursue his Evangelical ideals, leaving untouched the apparatus of the imperial church. The Church of his time readily gave him what he wanted because she did not feel threatened by him. We will see whether Pope Francis will transition Evangelical poverty from being a niche of the few idealists to being the standard of the worldwide Church. If this is the case, he will have to look at Peter Valdo (1140-1218) who like Francis practiced Evangelical poverty but challenged the official church to do the same. Francis was integrated, Valdo was persecuted.

The Geo-political Task

A final thought on the geo-political significance of the election. Pope Bergoglio comes from a country where, in recent decades, the secular status quo that saw Roman Catholicism being the dominant religion has been shaken by the growth of Evangelical churches and new religious movements of various kinds. This phenomenon designed a new spiritual geography of the country. The same can be said for other Latin American countries. It is interesting that the Catholic Church chose a Pope from Latin America giving him the task of monitoring and presiding over this continental religious border that has become fluid if not weak. The traditional response to the numerical growth of Evangelicals has been labeling them as “sects” and “cults”, but this derogatory approach did not stop millions of people to leave the Catholic Church. Now, the Pope himself will be directly involved in rescuing the continent. Something important is taking place in Latin America and the risk of losing the continent was considered in need of being addressed at the highest level.

            Pope Francis is a transition figure. Time will show how Latin American, how curial, how Jesuit, and how Franciscan he will be. In his first short speech in front of the applauding crowd in St. Peter’s square, the most quoted figure was the Virgin Mary to whom he committed himself and his predecessor. His first appointment in his first day of papacy was visiting the Marian basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome to pray to Mary for guidance and help. More of a Jesuit than a Franciscan way of beginning a papacy.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 18th March 2013

Posted on

53. Papabili. A Short Guide Waiting for the Conclave

The outcome of a conclave can be unpredictable. Whether or not one believes that the Holy Spirit actually works in the election of the Roman pontiff, its results defy easy previsions. As an absolute monarchy, the Vatican does not normally operate according to democratic procedures. The conclave, however, is one of the few instances where each vote counts and the total amount of them (two thirds is the majority for the first 34ballots) determines history. So there is room for political maneuvering and surprises.

The Role of Benedict XVI

Having resigned from office at over 80 years of age means that Benedict XVI will be cut off from the conclave. During the conclave he will be living at Castel Gandolfo, the papal summer residence on the hills outside of Rome. Though physically absent, his influence will be powerful in a couple of respects.

First, as a living former Pope his shadow will be a major factor in determining what the cardinals will decide. It is likely that no cardinal will vote someone that the present Pope would not himself vote. It is unlikely that the conclave will elect someone who would radically depart from Ratzinger’s trajectory, since he will still be around during and after the conclave. Following the new Pope’s election, Benedict XVI will go back to the Vatican where he will live in a former monastery inside the Vatican walls. He will be there and around. The co-habitation with the new Pope suggests that the latter will be somewhat a prolongation of the former. Without voting and without using words, Benedict XVI will have a say in the next election.

Second, his input in the conclave is evident in considering the fact that during his pontificate he has nominated about half of the 117 electors. The composition of the conclave is largely shaped by men personally chosen by Benedict XVI whom he trusted.

There are two counter-elements to be considered. One is that the conclave will not be held in the emotional atmosphere that generally follows the funerals of the previous Pope. It will be more cerebral than sentimental. The other is that, given the unprecedented decision by Benedict to resign and the shock that has caused in the curia, the conclave could be used as a showdown in the Vatican checkerboard. It is clear that Ratzinger’s weakening conditions that led to his resignations were hastened by internal fights and unresolved tensions in various Vatican departments. The conclave will have to decide what to do about them and the outcome could be surprising. Benedict surrendered to the stand-still situation, but the new Pope will have to act.

A List of Candidates

After two non-Italian Popes (the Polish Wojtyła and the German Ratzinger) is it time for an Italian one? If this is the case, then the Archbishop of Milan Angelo Scola (72) is the first and perhaps only option. The Italian candidates, however, could pay the price of a possible showdown. Many of the recent scandals (e.g. Vatileaks and the Vatican bank’s financial opaque maneuvers) originated in the Roman curia which is mainly governed by Italian prelates. Moreover, the Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone (78), himself an Italian, is part of the on-going controversy. So the poor performance of the Italian hierarchy may result in leaving Italians out of the game to wait for the next round.

Two solidly “Ratzingerian” candidates are the Archbishop of Québec Marc Ouellet (68) and the Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schoenborn (68). The French-speaking Canadian Ouellet is the Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops and knows the Vatican machinery very well. His role of selecting the new bishops allowed him to have the pulse of the world-wide Church, though he is not a “charismatic” figure in Weberian terms. Schoenborn is a brilliant theologian that denounced some of the silences over the sex abuses scandal. His bold exposition on this issue could find resistance in some traditional circles. Adding to that, the fact that a growing number of Austrian priests is taking critical stances on the celibacy issue may falter Schoenborn’s candidacy. Another papabile in the same group is the Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan (63). Historically, North-American candidates have been excluded for the simple fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not feel comfortable with the idea of having a Pope coming from a super-power of the world. This emotional and political obstacle should be overcome to give Dolan a chance.

Finally, there are three outsiders. Voices around the world repeatedly say that the time has come for a “black” Pope. Cardinal Peter Turkson (65), Ghanean, is President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and a rising star in Vatican circles. A non-Western Pope would definitely come to terms with the reality of the Christian growth in the Global South and the need to move the axis of the Church toward it. In 2012, however, Turkson caused many eyebrows to raise when he launched a document evoking the creation of a global agency to preside over the world’s economy. “Does he want a Soviet-type of control over the world?”– people asked. Turning to Asia, the Archbishop of Manila (Philippines), Luis Antonio Tagle (56) is another option if the Roman Catholic would turn the page in a more radical way towards becoming a less Western institution. This smiling, apparently simple, yet engaging and charming young cardinal made a positive impression at the last Synod of Bishops for the New Evangelization and attracted immediate positive feedbacks. A middle way solution could be the Archbishop of San Paulo (Brazil) Odilo Pedro Scherer (63), the Brazilian bishop with a German name and European “heart”. Latin America is perceived as being a continent of solid Catholic traditions (like the old Europe), yet expressing the spiritual vitality of the Global South.

An Evangelical Preference?

Given the range of possible candidates, who is the more Evangelically inclined or Evangelical-friendly? This is difficult to say. Here are three criteria that could form a list of Evangelical desires for the next conclave.

First, generally speaking, those ecclesiastical figures with first-hand experience among Evangelicals in their pastoral work tend to be more inclined toward friendly relationship with non-Catholic Christians. It is true that where the Roman Catholic Church is strongly attached to the national state in a privileged position, the leaders tend to have a more “defensive” attitude and inward-looking vision. On the contrary, where the Roman Church experiences the stresses and strains of being a religious institution in the midst of other movements and in the context of a separate political power, there the Church has a more positive attitude towards religious pluralism. To the extent that the next Pope comes from a background of interaction with the plurality of Christian experiences and orientations, the better he will be among evangelicals.

Second, those who have more global perceptions of the state of Christianity surely have a better consideration of Evangelicals than those who are grounded in regional areas where Catholics have a traditional majority status. The challenges of the persecution of Christians, global poverty, and the rising secularism of the West are common concerns that allow conversations and cooperation between different Christians. A Pope who is aware of global trends and who has knowledge of the complex geography of the Christian Churches will be in a better position to appreciate the contribution of Evangelicals around the globe.

Third, some Evangelicals would naturally desire that the Pope be a Bible-focused and Christ-centered leader, less attracted by traditions and devotional practices and more inclined to promote Biblical literacy and personal faith in Jesus Christ. They would like to see a “reformer”-type of a leader, being willing to allow the Word of God to drive the Church in truth and love. In other words, a less “Roman” and a more “catholic” Pope would be the standard Evangelical preference. Other Evangelicals would think that the best Pope will be the one who declares himself redundant, being Jesus Christ the Lord of the Church and the Holy Spirit his only vicar.

Is there such a papabile out there? We shall soon see.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 4th March 2013

Posted on

Bilancio di un pontificato: Benedetto XVI (2005-2013)

(intervista pubblicata su Ideaitalia XVII [2013/1] p. 6)

Attenuata la sorpresa dell’annuncio delle dimissioni di Benedetto XVI e in attesa di un nuovo conclave che eleggerà il nuovo Pontefice romano, sembra un tempo propizio per tracciare un bilancio del pontificato di Joseph Ratzinger. Ne abbiamo parlato con Leonardo De Chirico, teologo evangelico italiano e partecipante al dialogo tra l’Alleanza Evangelica Mondiale ed il Pontificio Consiglio per l’Unità dei Cristiani.

All’inizio del suo pontificato, molti evangelici hanno salutato l’elezione di Ratzinger come un passaggio dal papato tomista e mariano di Giovanni Paolo II ad un papato agostiniano e cristocentrico …

In realtà, il copione del papato di Benedetto XVI è stato lo stesso di quello di Giovanni Paolo II, con qualche variazione ininfluente. La dinamica del cattolicesimo fa sì che gli interpreti possono accentuare un aspetto o l’altro, ma lo spartito non cambia. Nessun aspetto della devozione cattolica è diminuito, né si sono affermate nuove pratiche evangeliche.

Però negli ultimi anni ha scritto tre libri su Gesù …

La sua lettura delle storie evangeliche voleva andare oltre lo scetticismo dell’esegesi liberale, ma è restata dentro l’interpretazione sacramentalista cattolica. A leggere questi libri, pare che Gesù sia stato un prete che dice messa in ogni pagina. In ogni caso, ben venga il tentativo di superare l’analfabetismo biblico.

Uno dei temi del pontificato è stato la critica al “relativismo morale” del nostro tempo. Su questo il papa si è spesso scontrato con la cultura laica.

Bisogna dargli atto di non aver inseguito le mode del “politicamente corretto”. Sui temi dell’etica della vita, però, prima da teologo e poi da papa, ha irrigidito la posizione cattolica fino a farla diventare una sorta di “biolatria”, un’esaltazione del bios a sé stante. Gli idoli della cultura laica non si combattono con altri idoli, ma con un pensiero che non assolutizza nessun dato di realtà e tiene in considerazione tutto, responsabilizzando le persone.

Papa Ratzinger ha parlato spesso dei cristiani come di una “minoranza creativa” composta da persone che credono …

Sì, è vero, ma non c’è stato nessun cambiamento ecclesiologico, né di atteggiamento della Chiesa cattolica rispetto alle posizioni di rendita del passato. Il Papa parlava di “minoranza”, ma la Chiesa che ha governato per otto anni non ha smesso di pensarsi come interprete dell’umanità di tutti e rappresentante del sentimento profondo dei popoli. In concreto, ciò ha significato che i privilegi della chiesa-stato sono rimasti intatti.  Se si parla in modo coerente di “minoranza”, bisogna trarre delle conseguenze concrete, altrimenti rischia di essere solo retorica.

Poi c’è il tema della Nuova Evangelizzazione. Ratzinger l’ha lanciata come programma per i prossimi anni.

Benedetto XVI ha preso atto che la crisi religiosa dell’Occidente attanaglia anche la Chiesa di Roma. Eppure il problema della Nuova Evangelizzazione nasce col Vaticano II. Lì la Chiesa cattolica si è pensata come “madre” di tutti gli uomini. L’adesione, il credo, la pratica, ecc. sono state messe in secondo piano e le chiese si sono svuotate. Ora, si vuole ricorrere ai ripari con la Nuova Evangelizzazione. Ma questo cambiamento è accompagnato da un’autocritica ecclesiologica? Temo di no.

Venendo più a temi vaticani, la “barca di Pietro” è stata recentemente scossa da venti impetuosi …

Sì, e per lo più da temporali interni al Vaticano. Lo scandalo pedofilia, i Vatileaks, gli scontri sullo IOR, il clima di contrapposizione interno alla curia, ecc. hanno mostrato quanto distante sia la realtà concreta della chiesa dall’idea di essere “indefettibile”. Questa insanabile tensione ha sfibrato anche la tenacia di un “duro” come Benedetto XVI.

Cosa cambia con le dimissioni del papa? E’ da secoli che non accade …

Il Vaticano I (1870) ha “divinizzato” la figura del papa accentuando il carattere infallibile del suo ufficio. Il gesto di Ratzinger lo “umanizza”, lo fa tornare coi piedi per terra, quasi fosse un incarico simile a tutti gli incarichi umani, che sono a tempo. La speranza è che le dimissioni aprano una riflessione sul papato: è un ufficio divino? E, ancor più radicalmente, è biblico?

Infine, torniamo al rapporto con gli evangelici. Cosa è cambiato con il pontificato di Benedetto XVI?

A livello mondiale, gli evangelici hanno subìto il fascino di Papa Ratzinger: apparentemente deciso, critico del liberalismo, su posizioni rigidamente pro-vita. Eppure, nella sua famosa conferenza a Ratisbona del 2006, Benedetto XVI ha dichiarato il “sola Scriptura” come una delle degenerazioni della fede. In più, ha più volte parlato degli evangelici come di “sètte”, gruppi tanto fluidi quanto tendenzialmente pericolosi. Senza nutrire ostilità di sorta, gli evangelici devono tenere alta la guardia e continuare a testimoniare l’evangelo, a tempo e fuor di tempo.

Posted on

52. Marks of a Pontificate

Assessing a pontificate is no easy task. Assessing Benedict’s pontificate (2005-2013) is even more difficult. The caliber of Ratzinger as a theologian, the muddy state of present-day Vatican affairs, and the complexity of global religious and moral trends, … these are all factors that call for careful consideration, although his pontificate will perhaps be remembered more for the shocking way it

ended than for what it achieved. Our task here will be more modest. It will take as parameters the main bullet points that characterized Evangelical perceptions of Benedict’s pontificate. It will be an exercise to see to what extent they match reality.

Orthodox

A recurring comment is that Benedict XVI has been an “orthodox” pope. In this case, orthodox means maintaining Nicene Christianity, i.e. the Trinitarian and Christological confession of faith of the early church. In itself, being orthodox is not a distinct feature of any single Pope because it is part of his service. The pope, or any pope, is to be orthodox. Bonifacius VIII, the pope that

introduced the papal tiara in 1300 (indicative of the temporal power), was orthodox. Pope Leo X, the one who excommunicated Martin Luther in 1521, was orthodox. The best and the worst popes were orthodox. Indeed, all 265 Popes since Peter have been orthodox. The business of the Pope is to be orthodox in this Nicene sense.

It may be true that Benedict put a special emphasis on orthodoxy, but he has interpreted his orthodoxy in a Roman Catholic way, like all previous Popes. He has been praying daily to Mary, he has granted indulgences, he has canonized new saints, he has maintained the church-state profile of the Vatican, etc. Contrary to what C.S. Lewis believed, there is no “mere orthodoxy” out there. Nicene Christianity is always colored by subsequent developments in Christian doctrine and practice. It never stands in isolation nor does it exist in an abstract way. Benedict’s pontificate has been a peak of Roman Catholic orthodoxy.

Biblical

It is true that in his catechetical efforts, Benedict has been dealing with the Bible much more than his immediate predecessors. His speeches have largely been Biblical meditations and his recent writings on Jesus have defended the historicity of the Gospel accounts. Much of his reading of Scripture, however, was driven by post-biblical presuppositions that come out of ecclesiastical tradition rather than Scripture itself. The heavily sacramental interpretations of Gospel stories and the over-arching interpretive grid that sees the relationship between Biblical teaching and Roman Catholic practices in terms of linear continuity, are only two examples of “how” Biblical Benedict’s magisterium has been. During his pontificate, the point that distinguished Roman Catholicism from the Protestant tradition was no longer whether or not the Bible is accessible to the people, but “how” it is to be read and lived out.

There is still another aspect to bear in mind. The Pope’s most famous (and criticized) speech, i.e. the 2006 Regensburg lecture, was not about Islam, but revolved around the need to keep the Hellenized combination of “faith and reason” which Thomas Aquinas refined at its best and which the Roman Catholic Church holds onto. In denouncing the threats to the “classic” synthesis, Benedict indicated the “sola Scriptura” of the Reformation as a major breach that eventually caused theological liberalism and present-day relativism. It is interesting that a “Biblical” Pope would have such a low view of the Reformation’s formal principle that brought the Bible back to the center of the life of the Church.

Public Truth

Benedict has courageously stood for basic Judeo-Christian convictions about life, the family, and the welfare of society characterized by freedom and solidarity, even in the midst of criticism from secular intellectual circles. Like his predecessor, John Paul II, Benedict was commended by Muslim and other religious leaders for his tenacious defense of traditional morality in the global world. His Church, however, did not perform well in terms of public transparency and integrity with regards to the sexual abuses scandals, the opaque financial maneuvers, and the appalling intrigues within the Vatican. During Benedict’s reign the distinction between the standards of the official Church and those of the world has been thin if not impalpable. He is not to blame for all this, yet this poor “public” performance sheds light on the overall picture. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Benedict came to the almost unprecedented conclusion to resign from the papal office.

The Pope spoke of Christians as a “minority” and encouraged the Church to re-think its identity accordingly. The fact that he did not take any action to move his Church beyond the privileged status it has in many countries where Catholics are majority puts his record as a “public truth” teller in perspective. Would it not be a “public truth” argument to say that the Church wants to be the church only and not a religious agency with a built in state with its own politics, bank, army, etc., like any other state of the world?

New Evangelization

The New Evangelization was an idea of John Paul II, but Benedict XVI started implementing it by creating a Vatican office dedicated to it and by making it the central theme of the 2012 Synod of Bishops. Pope Ratzinger has come to terms with the idea that the West is largely post-Christian and is in need of being evangelized again by a reinvigorated Church.

The future will tell what the New Evangelization will bring about in terms of spiritual renewal. Yet, so far there has been little self-criticism on the Church’s part as to why the West became more secularized. Does the Church have any responsibility in the secular “schism” that has taken place? No clear answer has come from Pope Ratzinger who has instead blamed the modern world for it.

In the meantime, Benedict has continued calling “sects” those that are engaged in evangelism, including Evangelicals in the Global South, not making the distinction between New Religious movements and Evangelical Christianity.

Beyond extremely positive assessments based on selected aspects of Benedict’s pontificate, Evangelicals have food for thought in order to come to a more nuanced and perhaps realistic view of his office as a Pope.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 25th February 2013

Posted on

51. The Last Lectio of Benedict XVI (before his resignation)

Benedict XVI shocked the whole world announcing his resignation from being the reigning Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries, no Pope had resigned but has instead waited for his death while still holding the office. His announcement was in Latin, not exactly the lingua franca of today’s world. Before getting the attention of the media, journalists had to rush to experts in Latin to be sure of what was going on. In doing something remarkably new, Pope Ratzinger did it in a very old-fashioned way. Even in one of his last acts as Pope, he was both modern and traditional. In a way, he reflected the Roman Catholic way of doing things by maintaining tradition, yet at the same time constantly changing.

            There will certainly be other occasions to assess the trajectory of Ratzinger’s pontificate. Suffice it for now to draw attention to the last lectio he gave to a group of seminarians in Rome on February 8th. This was not his last speech as Pope, but it was his last theologically engaging talk prior to his resignation. In a certain sense, this lectio is a kind of a prism where his Biblical teaching can be seen in a nutshell.

            The text was 1 Peter 1:3-5, a highly dense text full of theological richness, and Benedict XVI applied all his catechetical skills to expound it. His comment was profound as one might expect from a first class theologian. Yet it is also revealing of the particular Roman Catholic blend of his Biblical teaching.

1 Peter as the First Encyclical?

In introducing the letter, Ratzinger said that it was the “first encyclical” sent by the vicar of Christ to the Church. Let’s pause for a moment. An encyclical is – generally speaking – a circulating letter, but – technically speaking – is a letter sent by the Roman Catholic Pope to bishops, clergy, the faithful and the people of good will of his time dealing with doctrinal and/or pastoral issues.

            Historically, encyclicals have been regularly sent by Popes from 1740 onwards. At the very least it is not historically appropriate to give 1 Peter a papal term that wouldn’t be put into use for another 1700 years. Even if we take the more general meaning of encyclical (i.e. a circulating letter), 1 Peter is not the first NT text of the canon in terms of the chronology of its composition. Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians is the earliest document of the New Testament. So, even if the adjective “first” referred to the chronological priority of Peter’s letter, this is not the case in that other apostolic letters were written before Peter wrote his first one.

            Beyond historical details, the message that Benedict wanted to convey was that of an on-going continuity between Peter writing his letter and future Popes writing their encyclicals. The Pope linked this Biblical letter to modern encyclicals and Peter with modern Popes. This claim is hermeneutically loaded with the Roman Catholic understanding of Peter’s office and succession, but does not stand out from the text of Scripture itself.

Peter as the Vicar of Christ?

It is not by chance that in his lectio Benedict XVI talked about Peter as being the “vicar of Christ”. After rightly recalling the way in which Peter introduces himself as an “apostle”, he went on to say that Peter was commissioned to be “the first apostle, the vicar of Christ”. He makes the case that Peter writes from Rome (the Babylon quoted in 5:13) and that his being in Rome has theological significance. As vicar of Christ, and in view of his universal office, Peter had to preside over the Jewish church (Jerusalem) first and eventually the Gentile church (Rome).

            The “vicar” title does not come from Peter himself. The apostle rather talks of himself as an “elder” (5:1) in the company of other elders, thus a fellow-elder. There is no hint in the text that Peter has received the title of “vicar”, whatever the term may mean. Peter does not think of himself as being someone or something that other fellow-elders are not. Moreover, it is rather the case that Peter calls the whole people of God as “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” called to declare the praises of God (2:9). The fact that Peter defines Rome as Babylon may have apocalyptic significance, rather than being a reference to his universal first papacy. Again, Ratzinger’s interpretation is loaded with meanings that belong to the Roman Catholic tradition but cannot be found in the text of Scripture.

            There is much wisdom in Benedict’s last lectio on 1 Peter. Yet it is a wisdom driven by certain Roman Catholic presuppositions that govern his reading rather than being governed by Scripture itself. It is curious that his last theological speech as Pope revolved around Peter, the first Pope according to Benedict XVI.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 12th February 2013

Posted on

50. A Provision to Become Roman-and-Lutheran Catholics?

Between the 18th and 25th of January, the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches organized the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Since 1958, the Week of Prayer has been a yearly exercise of “spiritual ecumenism” (i.e. joint prayer) that involves both the official ecclesiastical bodies of and the grassroots ecumenical movements. Its main theological premise is a call to common prayer for the unity of those who are “baptized”.[1]

At the end of the week, Benedict XVI presided over the final liturgy at St Paul’s basilica in Rome. In his homily, the Pope stressed the fact that unity is both given by God and a responsibility for all Christians. In their efforts towards unity, the doctrinal issues that cause the division between the Roman Catholic Church and other non-Catholic Christians should not be “neglected or minimized”. In this occasion too, Pope Ratzinger insisted on the fact that ecumenism is not a watered down, sentimental unity but is unity in the profession of the same faith, in the celebration of the same Eucharist, and united under the same sacramental ministry in apostolic succession.

            As the Week of Prayer was about to commence, however, a curios event provided another perspective on the big picture of Roman Catholic ecumenism.

A Way Forward for “LutheRomans”?

In presenting his latest book on the main themes of Pope Ratzinger’s thought in a Roman bookshop next to the Vatican, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, who is Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, made a comment on a possible prospect for the ecumenical process. Imagining a future scenario in which significant numbers of Lutherans would want to come in full fellowship with the Roman Church, Müller said that a specific “ordinariate” for them could be created in order to facilitate the transition. An ordinariate is a special diocese which allows full integration into the Roman Church while, at the same time, granting the acceptance of some aspects of the previous liturgical and spiritual tradition.

            The pattern of the ordinariate has been already envisioned and implemented. In 2009 Pope Ratzinger provided for the constitution of “personal ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church”. In this case, the former Anglicans that are now Roman Catholics can celebrate the sacraments according “to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition”. The ordinariate achieves the integration in the Roman system while paying tribute to its “catholicity” that is able to accommodate different traditions.

Archbishop Müller conceded that “the Lutheran world is a bit different from the Anglican one, because among Anglicans there has always been a sector closer to Catholicism.” However, he said, some Lutherans hope for a restoration of full communion with Rome, and the Church should be ready to receive them. He suggested that, as with Anglicans, the Catholic Church might allow Lutherans to preserve “the legitimate traditions they have developed” while becoming members of the Catholic Church. The idea was severely criticized by Lutheran officials.

How Does Visible Unity Work?

Apart from the technicalities of canonical law, what is worth considering is the overall picture that emerges from these comments. It is true that Archbishop Müller did not pronounce an official statement as if the decision was already made. Nevertheless, he expressed ideas that are given serious consideration in Vatican offices at both spectrums of the borders of the Roman Church. On her “right”, Rome is painstakingly trying to resolve the excommunication inflicted to the traditionalist Msgr Lefebvre and his followers in 1998. The means of achieving it is through an ordinariate whereby they could maintain their distinctive liturgical patterns while accepting that other Catholics would adhere to post-Vatican II developments. On her “left”, Rome is opening herself to former Anglicans and now, possibly, to groups of Lutherans wishing to embrace the Roman “catholicity” while keeping some of their Lutheran heritage. The ordinariate is the means by which the catholicity of the Roman Church can stretch itself on all sides while preserving the unity of the system around the sacramental institution.

            The fact that these ideas were publicly spoken of in the ecumenical week is intriguing, but perfectly legitimate if one understands what ecumenism is all about for Rome. On the one hand, the Roman Church prays with other Christians for unity and rejoices for the unity that already exists. On the other, she makes provisions so that the full unity will be achieved through the incorporation of other Christians into her fold. According to the Roman view of unity, there is no contradiction between the two moves. As recalled earlier, the Pope in his homily remembered that Christian unity is not a general “unity-in-diversity” type of union, but the full expression of Christian unity, i.e. professing the same faith, celebrating the same Eucharist, being governed by the same authorities. This full or perfect unity subsists in the Roman Catholic Church alone. Other churches and communities are in one way or another “defective” in some important respects. After the Anglicans, it is now the Lutherans turn to have a special provision made to enjoy a “fuller” Christian life.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 31st January 2013

[1] The Evangelical Alliance Week of Prayer is a different initiative, though it usually runs a week before. It began in 1846, more than a century prior to the ecumenical week, and has a very different theological premise in that it encourages prayer amongst those who are believing Christians. The difference should be noted. Not all those who are baptized are necessarily Christian. The phenomenon of “nominal” Christianity is widespread whereby large numbers of a given population is composed of those who are baptized, but there can be few Christians amongst them.