Posted on

254. Cradle of Tradition, Advocate for Multilateral Politics. The Roman Catholic Appeal To North America and Europe

The Roman Catholic Church attracts different people for different reasons. This simple fact has always been true. However, recent trends in global religious and political affairs are unfolding a new chapter of this old narrative. To put it in broad-brushed terms:
 
Rome attracts North Americans for the traditional outlook of its religious message and Europeans for its political stance in current world events.
 
In a nutshell, the former looks at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, i.e., the doctrinal and devotional teaching of Rome; the latter looks at the Social Doctrine of the Church (of Rome), i.e., the body of teaching especially about peace, dialogue, and international relationships, embodied by the Pope. Of course, this observation is over-simplified, but perhaps it contains an element of truth that is worth pondering on.
 
The Roman Catholic Appeal To North Americans
Over the last decade, there has been an increasing interest in Roman Catholicism in the USA. The phenomenon of conversions to Rome has triggered some attention. Numbers are not massive, but their social media impact is noticeable.
 
To some extent, Roman Catholicism has become a “cool” option in the public’s opinion, especially to those seeking to ground their religious experience in a historical, traditional, liturgical, and (perceived as) authoritative religion.
 
The impressive work of Roman Catholic apologists targeting Evangelicals has played a role in presenting Rome as the cradle of classical Christianity over against the alleged bizarre novelties and shallow performances of Evangelicalism. My conviction is that the credit that Roman Catholicism has in some circles reflects a selective view or a romanticized perception of Rome itself; ultimately, it lacks biblical warrant.

In a recent Master Class on “Why Some Evangelicals Are Tempted by Roman Catholicism and How to Respond,” I suggested five steps to come to terms with these facts:

  1. “Why Do They Cross the Tiber?”: Setting the Stage
  2. “To Be Deep in History Is to Cease to Be Protestant”: The Allure of Tradition 
  3. “Too Smart to Be a Protestant”: The Intellectual Attraction
  4. “Shallow and Consumerist Worship”: The Liturgical Challenge
  5. “Recovering Biblical Christianity”: The Antidote to Rome

I am not going to summarize all the talks here. The point to be underlined is that Rome’s appeal to North Americans is largely defined by an attraction to the intellectual tradition, liturgical sophistication, and institutional unity of Roman Catholicism that can be found in the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is the doctrinal and devotional outlook of Rome that people look for and conform their lives to.
 
In turn, this means that the challenge that Evangelicals perceive is primarily apologetic in the classical sense, e.g., facing Roman Catholic arguments on the biblical canon, the authority of Scripture, the papacy, Mariology, the sacraments, and salvation. Most North American Evangelical responses to the Roman Catholic appeal have tried to be apologetic in this sense. They do so by covering these traditional topics of the debate between Roman Catholicism and the Evangelical faith. While they address single issues with various degrees of competency, what is still lacking is an appreciation of Roman Catholicism as a system in which doctrines, practices, institutions, etc., are all integrated into a whole that is not committed to Scripture alone and to faith alone.

The Roman Catholic Appeal to Europeans
If we cross the Atlantic, we see a significantly different picture. Here, Roman Catholicism has a long tradition and, in some parts (e.g., Southern and Central Europe), is still the majority religion and a pervasive presence in society. However, the powerful blows of secularization have hit hard over the last fifty years. Roman Catholic buildings are everywhere, but they tend to be empty. Roman Catholic practice is low, and traditional identity-markers (e.g., processions, festivals) are blurred. Most people still consider themselves attached to a cultural form of Roman Catholicism, but their lifestyle is disconnected from the moral teachings of the Church.

While pockets exist here and there (e.g., in France and Great Britain) where adult baptisms have recently risen, the overall picture is bleak. Generally speaking, in Europe, there are few or no Roman Catholic apologists (as they can be found in the US) because there is little interest in what the Roman Church believes, and there is no wide-spread desire to embrace a fully orbed form of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. The online presence is marked by the willingness to present Roman Catholicism as a religion of dialogue with all and inter-faith reconciliation. The main message of the still impactful educational institutions focuses on freedom, justice, beauty, solidarity, etc., with little direct connection to Roman Catholic dogmas and commitments. Belonging seems detached from believing, let alone behaving.

There is another side of the coin, however. In recent weeks and months, the centrality of the public voice of the Roman Catholic Church has regained some traction against the background of the rapid decline of the mood in the US-Europe relationships that used to be friendly but are now marked by tensions. The second Trump administration has exacerbated negative impressions by Europeans on the unpredictability of US foreign policy, e.g., tariffs, Greenland, and Canada. The US support for Israeli military operations in Gaza and Lebanon has fueled anti-American sentiments in significant portions of the European youth. Lastly, the US military intervention against Iran has been seen negatively by the European public opinion.

With the US losing its moral high ground gained during the Second World War, with the United Nations having practically disappeared from the scene, and with the European Union being disunited and disoriented, the only voice addressing global issues with a comprehensive perspective is that of the Roman Catholic Pope. Europeans resonate with Pope Leo XIV when he speaks about peace, reconciliation, immigration, multilateral dialogue, diplomatic efforts, solidarity among nations, respect for international law, and against war and exploitation. These are some of the themes of the Social Doctrine of the Church (SDC) that Vatican diplomacy strongly advocates for.
 
Now, European support and identification with the Pope stops when the Roman Pontiff speaks on other topics of the SDC, e.g., abortion, marriage, and euthanasia. Their secular mindset is far away, if not contrary to, the traditional moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Not so with its social teaching applied to international politics and global issues.

In times of media polarization, the one who is resisting Trump and pushing back against the US international politics is the highest voice of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope is seen as the global moral authority who speaks on behalf of peace, the migrants, and unity and against violence, war, and division. Europeans are attracted by this political and social face of Roman Catholicism, certainly not by its doctrinal and devotional message. 

The reality is that Rome is trying to fill the moral/social gap that secularization has left behind. The Roman Catholic Church has both the Catechism and the Social Doctrine. It has the doctrinal card and the social card to play. With the former, it attracts North Americans questioning Evangelicalism; with the latter, it appeals to secularized Europeans navigating a moral void. The two cards are played by the same Church that can handle different games at the same time.
 
In the European context, the Evangelical response to Roman Catholicism cannot simply rehearse the traditional apologetic points, e.g., justification by faith alone and the authority of Scripture, which are based on the doctrinal discourse. Of course, they are essential because they are the grounds of the theological commitments of the Christian faith. Yet in Europe, on the basis of these biblical pillars, Evangelicals need to develop a robust public theology that addresses issues of how the biblical worldview speaks into the social and political issues of our world. They also need to articulate them in a persuasive way by credible voices.  
 
This is to say that while the Evangelical interpretation of Roman Catholicism should remain anchored in Scripture and always aim to see Catholicism as a system, the strategies for addressing it may change according to context. In the present-day US context, the focus seems more doctrinal and devotional, whereas in the European context, attention should be given more to issues of public theology. 

Share Button
Posted on

253. Vatican II, 60 Years After and Two Lessons for Evangelicals

Why on earth is a religious event that took place 60 years ago still passionately debated? Most Evangelicals are puzzled when observing the theological and emotional involvement many Roman Catholics show when thinking about the Second Vatican Council (or Vatican II). Evangelicals may hold the 1974 Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in high regard,[1] but their investment in discussing the texts and the spirit of the Lausanne Movement is only remotely comparable to the heat generated by the legacy of Vatican II in Roman Catholic circles.
 
Vatican II: Great Grace or Cause of all Problems?
On the one hand, it was no less than Pope John Paul II who bluntly stated that Vatican II is “the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.” (Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte, 2001, n. 57). On the other, there are sectors of the Roman Church that are cold toward the Council, if not critical of its outcomes. The issue of what Vatican II means for Roman Catholicism is still at stake.
 
Since the beginning of January, Pope Leo XIV has been focusing on the main texts produced at the Council in his Wednesday morning General Audiences given in St. Peter’s Square. In so doing, he is signaling the permanent relevance of the Council for the Roman Catholic Church and providing his own interpretation of it.

Meanwhile, the theological discussion on Vatican II goes on relentlessly. One of the recent contributions from a group of Italian Roman Catholic theologians is the collection of essays edited by Marco Vergottini, Al cuore del Vaticano II. Una rilettura teologico-fondamentale (Brescia: Queriniana, 2026; English translation: At the heart of Vatican II. A theological-fundamental re-reading).
 
In its four chapters, the book opens some windows on the most important documents, i.e., the four constitutions on divine revelation (Dei Verbum), on liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), on the church (Lumen Gentium), and on the church in the modern world (Gaudium et Spes).
 
More than touching on the details of each chapter, what is interesting is to appreciate how the whole reception of Vatican II is framed, especially as far as the “heart” of the Council and its significance for the present-day Roman Catholic Church is concerned.
 
Beyond the Conflict of Interpretations
Here is the gist of the reflection echoed in the book. The aftermath of Vatican II has been characterized by an ongoing conflict of interpretations. After the first phase, when the texts of the Council were commented on in the context of a very positive attitude towards them and in view of the application of its deliberations, later decades have seen the emergence of a critical reading of the Council, sometimes presented as a “rupture” from the established tradition. Examples of this tendency can be found in the five-volume History of Vatican II edited by G. Alberigo, 1995-2001, and the five-volume Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil edited by P. Hünermann and B.J. Hilberath, 2004-2006.

This reading, which stressed the discontinuity between Vatican II and the pre-Vatican II Church, was opposed by an anti-conciliar sentiment that spread in traditionalist circles. In their eyes, Vatican II was seen in negative terms and as the cause of all problems. Other interpretations wanted to read Vatican II in merely pastoral terms, as if the Council wanted to update the language of the Roman Church and build bridges with the modern world, but not change its doctrinal posture and traditional practices.
 
The tension (at times, the chaos) generated by these discussions led Benedict XVI, in his 2005 Address to the Roman Curia, to move beyond polarization by suggesting a mediation in the “hermeneutics of reform” formula. In pure Roman Catholic style, the two extremes (i.e., discontinuity and continuity) were questioned and replaced with a dynamic category of renewal within the tradition that would account for the developments of the Council while remaining committed to the dogmatic outlook and the self-understanding of the Roman Church inherited from the past.
  
Vatican II as an “Open” Structure
The book wants to highlight the strategic importance of this dynamic principle both in the drafting of the documents and in their subsequent reception, whereby updating and fidelity are not to be pitted one against the other, but combined in a Roman Catholic, organic way.
 
Looking at Dei Verbum in particular, here is how it works: Vatican II absorbed some fundamental principles of the two previous Councils (i.e., Trent and Vatican II), yet wanted to overcome their controversial and apologetic thrust (p.60). In the words of Vatican II itself, “sound tradition” must be retained, and yet “the way remain open to legitimate progress” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 23). 

As far as the Church is concerned, the inherited rigid vision of the Church as the hierarchical perfect society is reiterated, yet expanded to include the importance of the laity in the logic of an ecclesiology of communion rather than mere obedience. In this sense, Vatican II adopted an “open structure,” no longer driven by the desire to separate and divide that was prevalent in past Councils, nor by the impulse to compromise between traditional and progressive positions. Rather, it was guided by the power of navigating “between” polarities.  
 
The Roman Catholic move is not an attempt to choose between positions, but to connect them according to the principle of “hospitality” (p. 164) guaranteed by the Roman Catholic conciliar dynamic system.
 
Two Lessons
What can Evangelicals learn from these Roman Catholic debates? At least a couple of points should be mentioned.
 
First, Evangelicals need a better grasp of what happened at Vatican II, what was produced then, and how it has been received in the Roman Catholic Church. In the past, much attention has been given to Trent (and rightly so), but less attention has been paid to Vatican II. Today, many Evangelicals can be confused about what is going on in Roman Catholicism because of a lack of awareness over the last 60 years. Developing an Evangelical analysis of Vatican II is still a work-in-progress, and homework needs to be done. The danger is to have either outdated, static views of Rome or unwarranted, evangelically hopeful perceptions of it. As the book indicates, Rome evolves in history while remaining committed to itself. Becoming acquainted with the different Roman Catholic voices discussing the legacy of Vatican II is a step forward toward a more theologically mature Evangelical interpretation of it.

 
Second, as intuitive as it may sound, the “Traditional vs. Progressive” grid does not fully fit the reality of Roman Catholicism. It probably fitted the “Conservative-Liberal” divide within 20th-century Protestantism, but it does not neatly apply to Rome. Roman Catholicism has its own way of handling its movements through history. Yes, there are traditional voices, yes, there are progressive tendencies, but the overall direction is not driven by the polarization between the two. One needs to come to terms with the dynamics of the Roman Catholic system that is Roman (i.e., faithful to its centered structure) and Catholic (i.e., open to ongoing absorptions) at the same time.
 
Since the biblical Gospel is not the ultimate criterion, the Roman Catholic system is governed by its self-defined Tradition (which swallows the Gospel and does not submit to it) and can oscillate between the Roman and the Catholic poles. Instead of applying the “Traditional vs. Progressive” opposition in a simplistic way, Evangelicals should study the inner dynamics of Rome that allows it to change but not reform itself according to Scripture.

[1] E.g., The Lausanne Movement: A Range of Perspectives, edited by Lars Dahle, Margunn Serigstad Dahle and Knud Jørgensen (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2014).

Share Button