Category: Vatican Files English

March 12th 2013, Cardinal Bergoglio was elected to the chair of Peter becoming Pope Francis, the 266th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. This count takes for granted that Peter was the first Pope and that an unbroken chain of successors followed up to now. This theological account of Church history is, of course, disputable but that is not the point here. The point is to take advantage of this symbolic event to begin to see what is emerging as far as Francis’ interpretation of the Papacy is concerned.

On-Going Exposure

Francis speaks every day in public. He celebrates Mass every morning at 7:00 AM and a summary of his daily homily quickly becomes available for the media. The gist of it is twittered. His speeches are much simpler and shorter than Benedict XVI’s, the language is plain, and the structure often highlights single important words which form the bulk of his reflection. There is always a personal application and the recipient of it is “us” rather than “you” or “them”. He uses many fewer quotations from Church tradition (the Church Fathers were always present in Ratzinger’s talks) and more references to daily episodes of life and Bible quotations. Francis likes to be surrounded by people. He chose not to live segregated in the papal apartments but to stay in the guest house in the Vatican, sharing the dining room and other common spaces with others. His Wednesday’s public audiences in St. Peter’s square are less concentrated on words and more devoted to personal interactions. He normally goes around the square, stopping his papamobile here and there to touch people, kiss babies, and play with children exchanging hats and receiving gifts. The emotional aspect prevails over the cognitive one. Francis is less of a hieratic, unreachable Pope and more of an “older brother” or fatherly type of Pope who is showing all his charming personality.

From the End of the World to the Edges of the World

As soon as he was elected, Francis told that he was coming from “the end of the world”. Ratzinger had come from the “heart” of Europe, he comes from the ends of the globe from a Euro-centric or Western perspective. He is conscious of his origins in the Global South and his background also determines his goal. He often says that the mission of the Church is to go to the peripheries of the world and to be attracted by those who are outside of the various centers of power and influence. Where he comes from is where he wants to go. Now that he leads the “center” of a global institution, it will be interesting to see what going to the peripheries will mean for a centralized and self-referential organization like the Vatican. Francis seems to be willing to shift the attention to the ends of the world, geographically and socially.

Infiltration Rather Than Confrontation

His style of argumentation is also coming through. Whereas Ratzinger used to be seen as confrontational in his approach to Western culture (often banging on the head of “nihilism”, the “dictatorship of relativism”, etc.), Bergoglio is perceived as a mild person who stirs attention rather than hitting his hearers. On life issues he is traditional but not in an irritating way for secular people. On marriage he is conservative but capable of maintaining an open dialogue with the gay lobby. His strategy seems to be that of infiltration rather than confrontation. On the inter-faith dialogue he always stresses the brotherhood of all religious people, leaving aside the controversial issues. Mercy has the final word. He has an embracing attitude rather than a tug-of-war approach.

Spiritual Ecumenism

This fraternal mood is also true as far as ecumenism is concerned. Francis talks a lot about Christian unity and emphasizes the importance of common prayer and brotherly relationships. Technically, this is what “spiritual ecumenism” is all about, i.e. unity that is expressed in joint prayer, although he has not been using this language so far. All non-Catholic counterparts, from Liberal Protestants to many Evangelicals, seem to like this and have the impression that he is rather easy-going as far as unity is concerned. He recently told the audience in St. Peter’s square that he had spent half an hour in prayer with an Italian Evangelical pastor (June 19th). Less people paid attention to what he had just said before, i.e. that unity means being in fellowship with the Pope and the bishops. Beyond the seemingly Pauline language, he endorsed the Roman Catholic view that unity means to be cum Petro (with Peter) and sub Petro (under Peter). The relationship with the Pope defines Christian unity. Meanwhile, he has been outspokenly Marian in his devotions and very Eucharistic-centered in his teaching.

Poverty, Poverty …

Poverty is a catchword of Bergoglio’s pontificate. The choice of the name Francis was indicative of an entire program. He has certainly given a more sober bent to what it means “to live like a Pope”. He wears an iron cross, instead of a golden one. He uses less luxurious vestments. He calls for a simple lifestyle. In commenting on the recent financial scandals, he humorously said that Peter did not have a bank! The problem is that the Pope has a bank! Will Francis have the courage to close it? The reference to Francis of Assisi marks his grandeur but perhaps his limits as well. Francis spoke of poverty and lived in poverty in the XIII century, but the Church he submitted to remained opulent and went on pursuing its mundane affairs. Will Pope Francis be able or willing to implement Church practices that are marked by simplicity and frugality? Perhaps we should wait another 100 days to answer.

Leonardo De Chirico

Rome, 22nd June 2013

June 1st, 2013

Today “the arts” is a term that captures the imagination of many Evangelical circles. Nowadays if you want to be hip and relevant as you envision your ministry you must talk about the arts. The problem, however, with all this talk about the arts is that it’s difficult to contribute intelligently if there’s no thorough understanding and expertise of the subject. It is not so much a matter of personal acquaintance or preparation, but is rather a matter of cultural insensitivity that at times verges towards naiveté. Broadly speaking, the Evangelical culture has been largely shaped by a suspicious attitude towards the arts, investing more on efficacy than aesthetics, trying to reach results rather than beauty, and aiming at the mind rather than inspiring the imagination. Our senses are poorly acclimated to the artistic life, and therefore cannot be nurtured by its signs and symbols. The outcome is that what we produce in terms of art work is often embarrassing, and what we say about the arts is superficial. But this is only part of the story.

Re-Opening the Dialogue Between the Church and the Arts

The Roman Catholic tradition, however, has followed another direction, going perhaps to the opposite extreme. There we find a saturation with the arts to the point in which there is a risk of idolizing it. Having said that, all Christian traditions have a problem with the arts. Since the end of the XIX century, contemporary arts has largely abandoned its general Christian inspiration. The Church has ceased to be considered the home of the arts and artists have in general felt alienated by Christianity and the church. As a result we have witnessed a significant breach between the two. Contemporary art continues to be deeply religious but seems to be hardly challenged and provoked by the Christian story. How is the Vatican dealing with the issue? The Vatican thinks and acts institutionally thorough its Pontifical Council for Culture. Its president, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, has repeatedly said that the Church needs to reopen a channel of dialogue with artists. In 2009, during Benedict XVI’s pontificate, he arranged a meeting between hundreds of international artists with the Pope in the Sistine Chapel. There, in the “temple” that celebrated the marriage between the Church and the arts (think of Michelangelo painting there for various Popes), the Pope reasserted the fact that the Church used to be and still is the “home” and the “mother” of the arts. He added that there is no reason the two should divorce, but all the reason to reaffirm their mutual friendship.

A Vatican Exhibition in Venice

After a lot of talk and discussion, the Vatican will soon participate in a world-famous art exhibition. The Venice Biennale has for over a century been one of the most prestigious cultural institutions in the world. Ever since its foundation in 1895, it has been in the avant-garde, promoting new artistic trends and organizing international events in the contemporary arts: the International Film Festival, the International Art Exhibition and the International Architecture Exhibition, as well as the Festival of Contemporary Music, the Theatre Festival, now accompanied by accompanied by the Festival of Contemporary Dance. The 55th International Art Exhibition will be open to the public from June 1 to November 24, 2013 at the Giardini, the Arsenale, and in various venues around the city of Venice. The Vatican exhibition is entitled “In Principio” (In the Beginning) and contains the works of artists such as Studio Azzurro, Josef Koudelka, and Lawrence Carroll. Here is how the Pontifical Council describes it: “For this first participation of the Holy See with its own Pavilion at the Venice Biennale, we have chosen a theme that is fundamental for culture and Church tradition and a source of inspiration for many artists: the stories told in the Book of Genesis. Specifically the focus is on the first eleven chapters, as they are dedicated to the mystery of man’s origins, the introduction of evil into history, and our hope and future projects after the devastation that is symbolically represented by the Flood. Wide-ranging discussions on the multiplicity of the themes offered led to three thematic areas being chosen with which the artists have engaged: Creazione (Creation), De-Creazione (Uncreation), and the New Man or Ri-Creazione (Recreation)”. Fascinating.

Two Approaches

Will this exhibition reopen the dialogue? It is difficult to say. What is perhaps worth noticing, however, is the difference between Evangelical and Roman Catholic approaches to the issue. While Evangelicals tend to work bottom-up from a grassroots level, the Catholic Church chooses to work top-down, i.e. from the already accredited art exhibitions down to the worlds of media, scholarship, and the public opinion. While Evangelicals work at random and unconnected, the Catholic Church seems to have a long-term strategy that seeks to gradually implement. While Evangelicals naively think that if they talk about the arts they are “impacting” them and “making a difference”, the Catholic Church is more aware of the need to work in the institutions of the arts in order to hope for a significant result. The road may be longer, but the effects will perhaps be less ephemeral.

Leonardo De Chirico

 

May 10th, 2013 

.  

That Pope Francis has a strong Marian devotion became immediately clear after his election. In his first speech as Pope he committed himself and the world to Mary. The following day his first visit outside of the Vatican walls was to the basilica of St Mary Major where he prayed to Mary. In his homilies he has at times disseminated his Marian piety. Now that the liturgical Marian month (May) has begun, the Pope has further expressed his devotion. On May 3^rd he lead the rosary in the same Marian basilica he visited after being elected and gave a public speech to the people that had gathered there.  

Mary, Salus Populi Romani

This particular basilica is known for hosting and displaying the icon of Mary who is called Salus Populi Romani (i.e. salvation of the Roman people). This is a Marian title that underlines her being the protector of the Roman people. In front of the icon, Pope Francis commented: “We are all here in front of Mary; we prayed for her motherly guidance; we took her our joys and sorrows, our hopes and difficulties; we invoked her with the title Salus Populi Romani to ask for ourselves, for Rome and for the world the gift of health. Yes, she gives health, she is our health”. In expounding his teaching, Francis went on to talk about three ways in which Mary is our health: She helps us grow as men and women, just as a mother cares for her children; She helps us face our difficulties, just as a mother walks with her children; Lastly she helps us make right decisions in life, just as a mother wants her children to live responsibly. Outside of Roman Catholic piety, it is difficult to understand such a profound “motherly” language of devotion to Mary and to square it with a Christ-centered and a Bible-based faith which unequivocally points to Jesus Christ as the only Mediator between God and man. Biblically, these roles relate to the Christological offices of Jesus as Priest and King. Yet Roman Catholicism attributes them to Mary as an extension of Christ’s role as mediator. Out of its synergism the Roman Catholic faith allows, indeed demands, such a veneration of Mary which has theological, spiritual, and emotional dimensions. Mary is seen as the protector of life.

Papal Marianisms

In closing his speech, Pope Francis addressed the crowd by saying: “Thank you for your presence here in the house of the mother of Rome, our Mother. Hurrah to the Salus Populi Romani. Hurrah to Madonna. She is our Mother. Let us entrust ourselves to her because she cares for us like a good mother”. This time the devotional language matched that of sports enthusiasts: Hurrah, hurrah! The magnitude of Mary’s motherly role stirred the heart and soul of many people gathered there. Pope Francis has stressed the fact that he wants to emphasize his role as bishop of Rome and has begun to give this emphasis a distinct Marian flavor. We can now begin to see the trajectory of this present pontificate as far as his Marianism is concerned. The last pope to share such a high view of Mary was John Paul II. His motto was “totus tuus” (i.e. totally yours), and his veneration of Marian icons and his practice of Marian devotions were very evident. Benedict XVI has been portrayed as a less Marian Pope, although he has always prayed to Mary on a daily basis and has included many Marian elements in all his work. After a short recess, Mary is once again a prominent figure with Pope Francis. His pontificate seems to be significantly shaped by Marian theology and veneration.

Leonardo De Chirico

 

Pope Francis on Scripture and the Church

After a month of sparking events surrounding the Vatican, the time has come to shift into a more routine mood. Pope Francis has attracted a lot of attention from the media and has sent various messages of change and renewal. After the initial surprise, the various Vatican departments are coming to terms with a less pompous papacy, and the Pope himself is beginning to shape his own views on a number of open issues that are on the Vatican agenda.

After the first weeks marked by what seemed new and extraordinary, Pope Francis has now begun to do what a Pope in Rome normally does, e.g. presiding over different liturgical events, receiving international delegations, meeting with bishops from around the world, speaking at various occasions, etc. The normal pace of the papacy is beginning to emerge. After using more “pastoral” language in his first homilies that almost everybody seemed to like, the more theological bent of Francis’ thought is coming through as he has more opportunities to deliver speeches of various forms. One of his first opportunities was a speech he gave on April 12th to the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission convened in the Vatican to discuss the theme “The inspiration and the truth of the Bible”. Here is a summary of Francis’ address and a few remarks on this very important subject for all Christians in general, and for Evangelicals in particular.

The Non-Identity Thesis

After commending the Commission for the choice of the topic, the Pope highlighted the nature of Scripture and its relationship to the Word of God. The Bible, according to Francis, is “the testimony in written form to the Word of God”. Scripture is not associated with the Word of God on a one-to-one basis, but is rather perceived as a witness to something co-inherent, yet different. Following this comment, the Pope adds that “the Word of God precedes and exceeds the Bible”. In other words, the Pope does not endorse an identity view between Scripture and the Word but supports a dynamic view of the relationship between the Word of God and the Bible whereby Scripture witnesses to a Word that is before and beyond the Bible. The Word is present in the Bible but not confined to it. The Word is spoken and told by the Bible but the two do not coincide, being that the Bible is only a (partial) witness to the (fuller) Word. According to this view, what the Bible says is what the Word says, but what the Word says is not necessarily what the Bible says.

Francis rightly recognizes that the center of the Christian faith is a “person” and not a book, i.e. the person of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God. Yet the inference is that “the horizon of the divine Word (i.e. Jesus Christ) embraces Scripture and extends over it”. In a rather technical language, Francis goes on to say that the Bible is the “canonical memorial that attests the event of Revelation”. The sentence needs some theological unpacking but it is clear that the “memorial” language coupled with the notion of “attestation” support the view that there is a gap between the Bible and the Word of God. There is nothing original in this account; it has been the theological standard of the Word advocated by the Catholic Church since Vatican II.

 Scripture is Subject to the Church

Once the identity between the Word and the Bible is refused and substituted with the dynamism of a “living” Revelation that exceeds the Bible, there stems the need for an arbiter that is able to recognize the living Word in and beyond the Bible. While Protestant Liberalism submits the Bible to the final judgment of conscience or reason, Roman Catholicism believes that the Magisterium of the Church has ultimate authority over Scripture. This is what Pope Francis believes as well. In quoting Vatican II (which is actually a quotation of Vatican I), he says that “all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God” (Dei Verbum, 12). Of course here Francis is recalling the Roman Catholic view that there is a profound unity between Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church to the extent that one cannot be pitted against the other two and vice versa. The critical point here is that the Magisterium represents the only “living” voice of the Word, and its interpretation of Scripture is what really matters and what finally counts. So, instead of letting Scripture speak to the Church and over the Church by the Spirit, the Church is the only authorized voice of the Word which is witnessed in Scripture, and which also extends beyond it. Again, the Pope quotes Vatican II (which in turn quotes the Council of Trent) when he says that “it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” (Dei Verbum, 9).

 There will be other times when Pope Francis will address theological issues to express his views. However, this speech to the Pontifical Biblical Commission is an indication of the fact that the Pope will presumably not bring change to basic doctrinal issues and that he is rather conservative in his Roman Catholic theological outlook. Actually the emphasis and tone of the speech seem to be willing to draw a line between what the Roman Catholic Church believes and the “Scripture Alone” principle of the Protestant faith.

 Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 Rome, 15th April 2013

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