Category: Vatican Files English

Three Evangelical Protestant Evaluations in the Aftermath of the Council

Vatican II (1962-1965) is widely regarded as one of the most significant events of the Twentieth century. October 11^th will mark the 50^th anniversary of its beginning and the “Year of Faith” that Benedict XVI is about to open officially will be a year-long opportunity to reflect on its legacy.

            Coming to terms with Vatican II is not a task for Roman Catholics alone. Even non Roman Catholic Christians are called to grapple with it. Their perception of present-day Roman Catholicism heavily depends on the way in which they interpret Vatican II.

During and after the Council, there were three Evangelical Protestant theologians who dealt with it at length and in detail. These three approaches are perhaps indicative of different Evangelical readings of Vatican II which have in turn contributed to the shaping of three ways of relating to Rome as a whole.

1. Gerrit Berkouwer and the New Catholicism

Gerrit Berkouwer (1903-1996) was a Dutch Reformed theologian who had a first-hand experience at Vatican II as an official observer on behalf of the “Gereformeerde Kerken”. This experience gave rise to the writing of his book The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism (1965) which he wrote even though the proceedings of the Council were still in progress and the two main ecclesiological documents (Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes) had not yet been approved.

According to Berkouwer, Vatican II is heavily indebted to the Nouvelle théologie (i.e. the new theology) which he had already surveyed in his 1958 book Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought. The Council might be thought of as being the cautious acceptance, even with its tensions and conflicts, by the official Church of the agenda proposed by the “new” theologians which had been opposed by the Curia in previous years.

The “New Catholicism” that Berkouwer envisages is based on ressourcement, i.e. re-appreciation of biblical and patristic sources, and aggiornamento, i.e. an attitude marked by an openness towards inner renewal and new ways of relating to the world.

If Berkouwer’s pre-Vatican II book Conflict with Rome (1958) centered on the gulf between Catholic and Protestant theologies concerning the doctrine of grace, his post-Vatican II New Catholicism revolves around the doctrine of the Church as the real issue still standing between them. Of course, Berkouwer is fully aware that these new emphases do not replace old ones but are simply added to the traditional Roman Catholic outlook, thus making the ecumenical agenda with Rome easier on the one hand, but more nuanced on the other. Before such a scenario, Berkouwer calls for a “realistic ecumenicity” – an ecumenicity which would overcome past polemical attitudes while awaiting further developments within Roman Catholicism.

2. David Wells and the Evangelical Puzzlement

Back in the Seventies, David Wells (b. 1939) was one of the few Evangelical theologians grappling with Roman Catholicism in the aftermath of the Council. In later years, Wells’ focus has progressively turned to another field of research, namely Evangelicalism itself, and this move has left a significant gap in Evangelical reflection on Roman Catholicism.

His book Revolution in Rome (1972) well epitomises an Evangelical sense of puzzlement before the aggiornamento proposed by the Council. The main thrust of his reading of the Council is the observation that Vatican II on some strategic points seems to endorse “mutually incompatible theologies”, one conservative, the other progressive; one restating tradition, the other pushing beyond tradition. These two conflicting tendencies can be found everywhere in Vatican II texts and contribute to the shaping of its overall theology marked by an unmistakably Catholic “both-and” pattern.

Confronted with the inherent stereophony, if not cacophony, of Vatican II, Wells argues that the Council has practised the “juxtaposition of ideas” in such a way that the reception and interpretation of the final redaction of the documents can be traced both along traditional lines as well as along more innovative ones. The main problem in coming to grips with Roman Catholicism is a hermeneutical one, namely “which interpretation is correct?”, “how do we interpret?”, which is all linked to the issue of magisterial authority: “who speaks for Rome today?” From the outlook of Vatican II, Rome appears to have a “divided mind”, as the titles of the chapters of Revolution in Rome clearly shows: “Authority: inward or outward?”, “God: in the earthly or heavenly city?”, “Christianity: a broad or narrow definition?”, “the Church: the people or the pope?”

The book testifies to the Evangelical perplexity in coming to terms with the complexity of the Catholic mindset. Before the interpretative crux of Vatican II, Wells propounds for the view that the Council depicts a temporary and transient balance which will eventually lead to the affirmation of one party over the other. In other words, “wait-and-see” what is going to happen. Meanwhile, Evangelical Protestants need to construe a “new apologetic” in their understanding of Catholicism, because the old apologetic pattern does not fit Rome any longer.

3. Herbert Carson and The Semper Eadem Thesis

In the British scene, the writings of Herbert Carson (d. 2004) well represent the less academic but strongly apologetic way of looking at Rome. His books on Catholicism (Roman Catholicism Today, 1964; Dawn or Twilight? A Study of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, 1976; The Faith of the Vatican, 1996) can be considered as a single, revised and updated work whose main interpretative thrust and theological critique remain constant even when he interacts with different phases of recent Catholic history and theology.

Carson reads Vatican II in terms of the semper eadem thesis, i.e. always the same. The theological structure of Rome may have changed in its linguistic covering but not in its fundamental orientation. According to him, in spite of all appearance suggesting differently, Vatican II has in no way modified its Tridentine, anti-Reformation stance for the simple reasons that, firstly, it has not formally and openly abandoned it and, secondly, the new teaching can be fully harmonised with the old without subverting it. Carson observes that “the tone may be friendlier, and the presentation more acceptable to late twentieth-century readers, yet the decrees of Trent are still there”, particularly as far as transubstantiation, justification by faith and purgatory are concerned. The inevitable conclusion of such a reading is that if Rome is semper eadem, the Evangelical approach to Roman Catholicism will always be the same as well.

After Vatican II, Evangelical Protestants dealt with it in three different ways: Rome really changed (Berkouwer), Rome still has to decide where to stand (Wells), Rome is always the same (Carson). Subsequent Evangelical approaches to Rome depended on which reading of Vatican II was preferred.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 24^th September 2012

 September 3rd, 2012

The recent death of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (1927-2012) provides an opportunity to reflect on wider Roman Catholic trends. He has been one of the most attractive and yet polarizing figures of the last thirty years. Jesuit, scholar, archbishop, popular writer, sought-after opinion leader, he has unwittingly created tensions between his numerous fans both inside and outside of religious circles and his vocal critics in the more conservatives sectors of the Roman Catholic Church. Even his death has seen the two parties commenting on it very differently. Martini’s biography in itself is a trajectory which epitomizes some of the key features of post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, e.g. the Biblical renewal, the openness to the modern world, and the alleged inner conflicts within high-ranking Roman Catholic hierarchy.

1. The Biblical Scholar

Born in Turin in 1927, he entered the Jesuit order in 1944 and was ordained priest in 1952. Martini’s career started in the academy as a New Testament scholar. Professor of textual criticism (1962-1969) and then Rector (1969-1978) of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome (1969-1978), he was eventually appointed Rector of the famous Jesuit Gregorian University (1978). He was able to lecture in Latin, Italian, English and French. Apart from mastering these languages, he also spoke German, Portuguese, Spanish and modern Greek. He could professionally read ancient Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, Aramaic, Syrian, and Arab. He successfully combined intellectual brightness and hieratic attitudes.

            What gives him international reputation is his work in the Committee of the United Bible Societies that lead to the third critical edition of the New Testament text (UBS3) in 1975, though he also participated at the Committee for the second edition. His name together with Aland, Black, Metzger and Wikgren is on the frontispiece of the dark read cover edition of the UBS text that many theological students and practitioners both fear and enjoy opening. His scholarly work is not extensive but gives rise in his later career to dozens of books of Biblical meditations which sell great. He seems to embody the contents of Dei Verbum, one of the major texts of Vatican II calling the Roman Catholic Church to the Word of God.

2. The Archbishop of Milan

In 1979, Pope John Paul II called him to become the Archbishop of Milan, the largest Roman Catholic diocese in the world and one of the “natural” sees for future popes. He had never had direct pastoral experience before, but his reputation opened the way for him. He centered his ministry on some innovative and controversial initiatives, e.g. the “School of the Word” where he invited all kinds of people to preach and lecture on the Bible and the “Chair of the Non-believers” where he invited atheists and agnostics to debate right there in Milan’s cathedral.

            He soon became the “hero” of the left-wing, progressive party of the Roman Catholic Church, though he never officially endorsed such a role. Those who are uncomfortable with the rigidity of Catholic ethics and discipline, be they Catholic or secular, be they intellectuals or celebrities, are attracted by his winsome erudition. Some of his positions appear to be different from those of John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger: for example, Martini desired the softening of the Catholic stance on non-married couples, even same-sex unions, on abortion, on the banning of divorced people from the Eucharist, on end-of-life ethics, on divorce, etc. He went as far as publicly invoking a new Council that would deal with these issues. His views never abruptly questioned the mainstream position, but were well articulated and argued for with intellectual subtlety. They are still appealing to many wandering people, and they are appalling to those with right-wing, conservative views.

3. A Runner for Papacy?

A curious relationship between John Paul II (together with Ratzinger) and Martini developed over the years. For some time he was counted among the possible candidates to become Pope. Sectors of the Roman Catholic Church rallied either around him or against him. Officially, though, Martini was always appreciative of the reigning Pope and John Paul II, and never gave signs of criticism.  The nickname he earned, the “Anti-Pope” (i.e. against the Pope), was a caricature and should instead be changed to “Ante-Pope” (i.e. one going before the Pope, opening ways for him). According to some observers, Martini’s positions, which today are quite controversial, will in the near future become the standard Roman Catholic view.

Wojtyła’s papacy lasted too long and Martini lost his chance to become Pope. When John Paul II died in 2005, Martini was frail in his health. Parkinson’s already had a grip on him. On the first ballot he received a few votes, but he told his supporters not to continue voting for him. Out of that conclave, Cardinal Ratzinger, the strong theologian of John Paul II, became Pope. Martini’s party, it seems, has been defeated for the time being, though Roman Catholic cycles are not easily predictable in the long run. He then retired to Jerusalem, but until his death remained a sought-after ecclesiastical spokesperson who urged the Church to be “human”, “modest” and “compassionate”. Will these terms become the main vocabulary of the future Roman Catholic Church?

4. The Dialectics of Catholicity

According to public opinion Martini represents a view that is polar opposite than that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in the Roman Catholic world. The former has been called “liberal”, “progressive”, “democratic”, “left-wing”, while the latter have been labeled as “conservative”, “traditional”, “authoritarian”, “right-wing”. With these conventional categories, one could map the entire Roman Catholic spectrum. 

            As a matter of fact, the public opinion needs to find polarizations, needs to put one figure against another and needs to find conflicts within a given social body. Many times these polarizations reflect reality, others simply project oppositions that are not there. In the case of Martini, both observations are true. They are true because Roman Catholicism is based on multiple on-going tensions that sway one way or another but are meant to be kept in balance. In other words, John Paul II needed Martini and Martini needed John Paul II. The first maintained balance, while the second explored new fields. Martini spoke to the center-left, while Wojtyła spoke to the center-right, so that the whole spectrum was covered. Roman Catholicism as a whole needs both the defender of the already given balance and the explorer of new settlements.

            In the Roman Catholic system, the Pope is supposed to fight against “anti-popes”, but is likely to encourage “ante-popes” that would stretch the Roman Catholic synthesis further, so that what is now felt as disturbing avant-garde will be center-stage tomorrow. In this sense, the “ante-pope” Martini who arrived too late to become Pope will perhaps serve as a model for future Popes.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

 

In the Roman Catholic calendar, August 15th is dedicated to the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. This is the last dogma that the Roman Catholic Church has promulgated in its history. In facts it was in 1950 that Pius XII issued it as a binding belief for the Catholic faith. Here is how it was defined then and how the Catechism of the Catholic Church accounts for it (n. 966): “the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son”.
From his Summer residence in Castel Gandolfo (25 km from Rome) where he has just completed writing his third book on Jesus, on August 15th Benedict XVI gave a homily on the significance of this dogma for the Church today. While it is interesting to read what the theologian Pope has to say about it, at the same time it is always difficult for a Protestant to address the Marian dogmas in an emotionally detached and a theologically calm way. Yet the exercise is inevitable given the important weight that Mariology has in Roman Catholic life.

1. The Liturgical Driving Force
In the first part of the homily Pope Ratzinger explains the reasons that were behind the decision of the Church to define the dogma of Mary’s bodily assumption: “This truth of faith was known by the Tradition of the Church, was affirmed by the Fathers of the Church and was above all a relevant aspect of the devotion to the Mother of Christ. This liturgical element was the driving force that lead to the formulation of this dogma: it is an act of praise and exaltation of the Holy Virgin”.
While it may be historically questionable to argue the unanimous consensus of the Fathers (which Fathers? At what time?) on this aspect of Mariology, the most important point is the recognition that the dogma grew in the context of popular piety and liturgy, rather than Scripture. As many angles of Roman Catholic Mariology, this dogma too is a reflection of a popular devotion which was left unchecked by Biblical standards and developed across the centuries without being governed by the Word of God.
It is fair to say that Benedict XVI quotes the Bible at this point and argues that this dogma is an outworking of what Mary herself prayed in the Magnificat: “from now on all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). However, there is a gulf between the prophetic utterance about the blessedness of Mary and the highly elaborated Marian dogma of 1950. This biblical support is too loose and vague to define a binding belief such as the bodily assumption of Mary.
The dogma of Mary’s assumption is an example of how the lex orandi, lex credenda dictum (i.e. “the law of prayer is the law of belief”) could work as a self-contained and generative principle of the development of Roman Catholic dogmas. While it is true that we believe what we pray and vice versa, it is important to define what are the standards of the Church’s prayerful life in order for it not to go astray. Since for Rome these standards are the ones of Tradition which contains Scripture but is bigger than Scripture, it is no surprise that the Roman Catholic Church can promulgate dogmas that are historically dependent and theologically based on piety rather than the Bible.

2. Mary is very near
Drawing on some implications of this Marian dogma, Benedict XVI’s homily underlines the nearness of Mary to every man. “Mary has such a big heart that all creation can enter it, as the ex-voto (i.e. votive offerings) from all over the world demonstrate. Mary is near, she can listen, she can help, she is near to us all. God is near and Mary, as she is united to God, is very near and has a heart as big as God’s”.
Here is another example of how a devotion can develop and expand to the point of becoming something other than a Biblical form of Christian piety. What is striking is the comparison between the nearness of God and the nearness of Mary. She is thought of as being nearer than God is. This phrase, in all its apparent simplicity, has enormous theological and pastoral significance. It indicates that Mary is closer than His Son, that she is the first mediator to God, and that she is more readily available for help.
Usually, Mariological language is crafted is such a way as to never downplay the person and the work of Christ. This comparison, however, demonstrates that even Pope Ratzinger believes that although God is near, Mary in even nearer to us. Is the full incarnation of the Son of God, his full humanity and divinity, and the uniqueness of His mediatorship safeguarded and honored by this statement? If you blur the “Scripture Alone” principle, you end up in blurring the “Christ Alone” one.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 21st August 2012

Journeys of Faith is the title of a recent book which contains a number of biographical narratives about people in the US context who have changed their Christian allegiance from one church or tradition to another. [1] It is a fascinating account on the complex reality of religious changes in peoples’ lives.

            Journeys of faith are happening all over the world at all times. Religious migrations are ordinary events whereby people change the direction of their spiritual pilgrimages. In some areas, like Latin America, it is a given that the Roman Catholic community has been declining in its numbers at the expense of various Evangelical and Pentecostal churches for some decades now. Why did it happen? Sociologists and historians are giving some answers. The important issue was recently addressed by Benedict XVI and his comments now deserve some consideration.

1. No Theological Reasons

In receiving the bishops of the Episcopal Conference of Colombia (June 22^nd), Pope Ratzinger spoke about the Latin American context as a region where the Roman Catholic Church has to deal with a growing religious pluralism. Latin America in general, and Colombia in particular, used to be a more “unified” society from the religious point of view, but recent changes have transformed it into an extremely multifaceted area. Benedict XVI explicitly refers to “pentecostal and evangelical communities” as very active realities and primary agents for this change.

            At this point he asks the “why” question before asking the “what to do” question. Instead of providing his own attempt to explain the situation, Ratzinger quotes the document drafted by the 2007 Conference of the Latin American Bishops which provides an interesting insight. The relevant section of the document (n. 22), quoted verbatim by the Pope, can be summarized in this way: most people in Latin America leave the Roman Catholic Church not because of what the “non catholic” groups believe, but because of how they live. The fundamental reason is not doctrinal but instead lifestyle related. The problems they see are not dogmatic, but pastoral. They do not distance themselves from the Catholic Church for theological reasons, but instead out of practical concerns.

            In other words the challenge that Pentecostals and Evangelicals represent for the Roman Catholic Church has little to do with their different doctrines of the Bible, authority, sacraments, the Church, salvation, etc., but with the quality of life they seem to live and to offer to outsiders.

2. The Answer is Even More Catholicism

The “what to do” answer is simple and is a consequence of the “why” question. There is nothing to change as far as the doctrine of the RC Church is concerned. The challenge is to become “better” Catholics: more hospitable, more inclusive, more compassionate. Actually, the Pope encourages the Colombian bishops to achieve this better quality of Catholic life by promoting the “catholic” distinctive features which are near to the Latin American soul: adherence to the traditions of the Church, the deepening of Marian spirituality, and the practice of a richer devotional life. The cure is not less Roman Catholicism and more Evangelicalism, but instead more Roman Catholicism in need of becoming richer and more profound than practical Evangelicalism.

3. Between Hardware and Software

To put it simply, in the Pope’s eyes Evangelicalism does not seem to have a theological “hardware” that is solid enough to be a real alternative to Roman Catholicism. This Pope has repeatedly argued that Evangelicalism is too doctrinally liquid and ecclesiastically unstable to be taken as a serious theological counterpart. However, what Evangelicalism has is a good “software” of the Christian life, a better approach to the spiritual quest than present-day Latin American Catholicism can offer to the people. Catholics should therefore improve their “software” without changing their well  established “hardware”. They should work on the output by reinforcing their DNA. Finally they should better their performance by closely abiding to what their Catechism teaches.

            The Pope’s speech to the Columbian bishops is yet another instance of how Evangelicalism is perceived by Benedict XVI: a curious experiment that attracts people with its ability to grapple with their experiential expectations, but with little theological substance to be a real concern for the Roman Catholic Church. It also reminds us of the way forward that the Pope foresees for the future of his Church: an inner renewal without any doctrinal reform by way of grasping better its past and living tradition.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 18^th July 2012

Instrumentum Laboris are the Latin words for “working tool”. In the ecclesiastical language it is the document that will serve as the basis for discussion at the next Synod of Bishops that will take place at the Vatican (7-28 October 2012) on “The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith”. The eighty page text is the summary of responses received from Episcopal conferences, the Roman Curia and the Religious Orders to a set of questions asked in 2011 about the New Evangelization (NE). About 70% of the various departments of the Roman Catholic Church responded and their feedback was condensed in the Instrumentum Laboris.

            This is not the official document of the Synod but a preparatory one. The final text will be the Post-Synodical Exhortation that the Pope will issue after the Synod. Nevertheless it gives the pulse of what is happening around the NE given the fact that NE will be perhaps the most defining feature of Roman Catholicism for the next decade.

1. Towards a Definition of the New Evangelization

The expression New Evangelization has been floating around since 1979 when John Paul II began to use it. Since then it has become a keyword in his pontificate as well as in Benedict XVI’s. With the Instrumentum Laboris it eventually reaches its technical definition: “Evangelization is the missio ad gentes (i.e. mission to the peoples) directed to those who do not know Christ. In a wider sense, it is used to describe ordinary pastoral work, while the phrase ‘new evangelization’ designates pastoral outreach to those who no longer practice the Christian faith” (n. 85). This will become the standard definition. As it appears, the Christian West is the primary object of the NE where the first evangelization occurred centuries if not millennia ago and where the RC Church has traditionally been strong and influential, but is now losing its grip. The NE is an attempt to call the masses of non-practicing, baptized Catholics back to the life of the Church.

2. An Increasing Concern …

Why is the NE necessary? The main reason is that the Christian world today is going through a “silent apostasy” (n. 69). The portrayed picture of the spiritual condition of the West is rather dark. The different components of the Church report “a weakening of faith in Christian communities, a diminished regard for the authority of the magisterium, an individualistic approach to belonging to the Church, a decline in religious practice and a disengagement in transmitting the faith to the new generation” (n. 48). In short, the modern world is characterized by the “de-Christianization of many ordinary people”.

            As a result of this worrying trend, some are taking the path of secularization (i.e. practical agnosticism), others are trapped in the “spread of sects” (n. 13). The term “sect” is left undefined, so it is impossible to ascertain who they are. In another passage, there is a reference to new religious groups that exercise “emotional and psychological dominance”, promise “prosperity and success in life”, and use “aggressive, proselytizing methods” (n. 66). Clearly, some prosperity gospel movements are involved here, but a more careful description of what is meant by “sect” would be useful, due to the widespread and derogatory usage of the label to indicate various non-Catholic groups.

            The bulk of the document is a rehearsal of various reasons (e.g. cultural, economic, sociological, religious, technological, etc.) for why the “de-Christianization” has taken place and therefore why the NE has become vital for the present and future of the Roman Catholic Church.

3.  … But Little Self-Criticism

Much of the text suggests bits and pieces of analysis of “external” threats that make it urgent to invest in the NE and that the Synod will need to work out in a more organic way. The world (i.e. the West) is to blame for the “silent apostasy”. Secularization is the enemy. Sects are dangerous competitors. Therefore the overall response of the Church should be to do with greater enthusiasm, energy and zeal that which it has been doing thus far. The terms used are “new fervor”, “fresh enthusiasm”, “new incentive”, “rekindled energy”. The message is that the NE is what the Church has been doing for ages, only with more passion and conviction. This is the reason why every practice of the Church is involved in the NE: sacraments, catechesis, popular practices, Marian devotion, etc. The NE is the usual and the whole program of the RC Church which is now being done with more intensity.

            What is striking is the near absence of a self-critical reading of the situation, as if the “de-Christianization” of the West just happened out of the blue, without the Church having any responsibility in the matter. There is no ecclesiological self-questioning (e.g. is there a problem in our vision of the church?), nor theological interrogation (e.g. is secularization also the reflection of our own failures?), nor moral self-analysis (e.g. do the recent scandals and failures have a role in the apostasy of many?). There is instead a thoroughgoing self-affirming attitude. To be honest, there is only one line in the text where the Instrumentum Laboris says that some RC circles ask whether “the lack of effects in evangelization today is the result of ecclesial and spiritual factors” (n. 39). Exactly which factors are not mentioned and the request is not developed further. Later there is a passing comment concerning the fact that some lament “the excessive bureaucratic character of ecclesiastical structures” and  “the excessively formal character of liturgical celebrations” (n. 69). Full stop. One line out of eighty pages.

            The hope is that the Synod will be more self-critical. Today’s “de-Christianization” has much more complex reasons than the sociological ones and Christians of any sort, instead of pointing the finger first, should repent before God for all their sins and be open to change according to the Word of God. This will be the beginning of the New Evangelization.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 27^th June 2012