I am not a Roman Catholic theologian, and so this letter is not addressed to me. As an Evangelical theologian, however, I am seriously engaged in trying to understand Roman Catholic theology, and so this letter interests me. I am referring to the Letter to Catholic Theologians (2026) by Monsignor Antonio Staglianò.
Bishop Staglianò is no ordinary voice in the landscape of contemporary Roman Catholic theology. He is, in fact, the president of the Pontifical Academy of Theology (PATH), whose mission is to promote dialogue between faith and reason and to deepen Christian doctrine following the indications of the Pope.
Staglianò is also the author of books with titles as explosive as Pop-Christology or as evocative as Theology on One’s Knees (all titles are in Italian). He is a masterful orator who likes to quote Kant, Heidegger, and Hölderlin, and makes constant references to quantum physics and the ever-expanding frontiers of AI. During his years as bishop of Noto (Sicily), he attracted some attention for the pop culture references (songs, movies, etc.) that found their way into his homilies, shaped around what he called “pop theology.” In short, despite holding an institutional papal position, Staglianò is anything but a conventional thinker.
In this Letter, Staglianò summarizes what he has written extensively about in recent books and condenses it here into a few pages. It concerns his proposal to embrace what he calls “Christic Enlightenment” to overcome the dictatorship of the “Enlightenment Metaverse” and give theology a place in public debate and in people’s lives. His language may seem esoteric, but it is explained.
Staglianò begins with his interpretation of the current reality: Our age is no longer merely a time of secularization (positive, because it acknowledges pluralism), nor is it a time of secularism (negative, because it is ideological and antithetical to religions). We are in an era of de-Christianization, of de-culturalization, in which the symbols, beliefs, practices, and lived experiences of faith are being displaced and replaced by the blind algorithms of technology.
At the heart of the present-day crisis lies the loss of credibility of Christian Revelation, which is not considered worthy of being taken seriously; indeed, it is perceived as backward in thought and antagonistic to individual freedom. At best, it is relegated to the private sphere of belief but not to that of knowledge, which is the field of scientific reason only. The weight of the Christian narrative has evaporated.
For Staglianò, this cluster of oppositions to Christianity is called the “Enlightenment Metaverse”: a closed system of thought that denies Revelation and defies the knowledge of the faith it appeals to. According to Enlightenment dogma, “faith believes and does not know; reason knows and does not believe” (27).
In this context, there is no place for theology in public discourse; at best, it can aspire to cultivate a niche, secondary historical interest, without any epistemological claims beyond its own parched little garden. Indeed, for Martin Heidegger, the believer is incapable of thinking and must therefore step outside the modus credendi (i.e., the believing mood) if he is to be considered a voice worthy of being heard.
After his assessment of today’s challenge, here begins Staglianò’s pars construens. The “Enlightenment Metaverse” should not be countered by an impossible return to pre-modernity or a nostalgic recovery of Tradition (as Roman Catholic traditionalists would have it). The proposal is to usher in the era of “Christic Enlightenment.” Instead of playing defense, theology must move forward to overcome the Enlightenment challenge, i.e., by proposing an even greater and more demanding Enlightenment. “Christic” does not mean Christ-centered or Bible-focused. In Staglianò’s language, the allusion to Christ in “Christic” means greater, deeper, and wider than the Enlightenment project.
How? By practicing transdisciplinarity (thus becoming literate in the various languages and codes of knowledge), engaging in dialogue with everyone on the basis that everything is theion (divine), and developing the capacity for analogical imagination that can fertilize different categories (for example: the dual nature of Christ and the wave-particle complementarity of quantum mechanics). In doing so, an “unlimited space” (33) opens up in which theology rediscovers its public vocation and its epistemic power.
Staglianò claims to find inspiration from the intellectual lineage that stretches from Augustine, through Thomas Aquinas, and culminates in the 19th-century Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher Antonio Rosmini (38).
There are at least a couple of points that, upon reading the “Letter,” an Evangelical reader might suggest by way of commentary.
The first is that Staglianò’s reading of the “Enlightenment Metaverse” appears to be heavily influenced by the militant atheism of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in Great Britain of the 1990s, which is now outdated. Not that the mainstream scientific community today is favorable toward theology or religions in general, but it no longer seems as oppositional and confrontational as Staglianò portrays it. Dawkins himself is favorable to “cultural Christianity,” which is considered a bulwark against hyper-technological nihilism and totalitarian Islam.
This is to say that the cultural dominance of the “Enlightenment Metaverse” is less evident, and its relationship with theology is more nuanced than the way Staglianò describes it.
The second point is that, however much it is expressed in lively, pop-culture language, Staglianò’s theological framework is the old Thomism rejuvenated by John Paul II in the encyclical Fides et Ratio (1998). According to this, faith takes on reason and science and elevates them by expanding their scope. It is the old Thomist project of integrating Aristotelianism and Christianity that Staglianò would now like to apply to scientism. As Thomas synthesized Aristotle and Christ, so Staglianò wants to befriend the Enlightenment and Christ.
This Thomist approach assumes the neutrality of reason and science and the possibility for them to be elevated to a superior level.
Staglianò rightly acknowledges that men and women are “religious beings”: The relationship with God, however much it may be denied or opposed, cannot be suppressed. This said, after the Fall, all of humanity is “broken” and corrupt, with no possibility of self-redemption. For this reason, reason must not simply be elevated or refined (i.e., the Thomist project), but radically redeemed by Christ (i.e., the Gospel mandate). Thus, the overall framework is not “nature-grace,” as Thomas and Staglianò would say, but “creation/Fall/redemption,” as the Bible teaches.
It seems, then, that Staglianò’s “Christic Enlightenment” is the latest version of the Thomist attempt to absorb reason and science into the Roman Catholic synthesis, without actually reforming much. A more promising path is to recognize Christ’s lordship over all reality (reason and science included), to take every thought captive to Christ according to Scripture (2 Corinthians 10:5), and to commit ourselves to the renewal of the mind (Romans 12:1-2).
