Posted on

75. Liberation Theology, the Prodigal Daughter

February 28th, 2014

There was a time, only a few years ago, when the simple reference to “Liberation Theology” would cause many eyebrows to raise in the Vatican. Those times are now over. What was perceived and even publicly denounced as one of the most dangerous threats confronting the Roman Catholic Church is now seen as a legitimate, if not necessary, stream of its ever expanding life.

Liberation Theology As It Was Then

Liberation Theology was the title of a seminal book published in 1973 by Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez in which he advocated the idea that theology should be at the service of “integral” liberation, i.e. spiritual and economic freedom resulting in social justice. It was a new way of doing theology that would prioritize the people’s cries “from below” rather than the expectations of the ecclesiastical intellectual hierarchy “from above.” It would work its way bottom-up rather than top-down, and would consider the poor as the major theological player rather than the receiving end of decisions made by the rich, and would denounce as oppressive the capitalistic status quo that the Catholic Church would have instead assumed in Latin America. Other noted exponents are Leonardo and Clodoveo Boff of Brazil, Jon Sobrino of Spain, and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay.

Its critics associated Liberation Theology with Marxist ideology, materialistic anthropology, and revolutionary politics that would turn the traditional teaching and practice of the Church upside down. The Catholic Church strongly reacted against it. John Paul II, while paying lip service to some of the concerns expressed by Liberation Theology, was active in trying to silence it as much as he could. In the mid-Eighties his theological watchdog, Cardinal Ratzinger, then heading the Congregation for Sacred Doctrine, worked hard to limit its influence. Those days are now over. Why? Mutatis mutandis, has Liberation Theology changed its basic message or has the Church modified its stance? The latter seems to be the case.

Liberation Theology As It Is Now

Two substantial changes have made this shift possible. One, of course, is that since 2013 the Pope is Latin American. While it is not possible to classify Francis as a liberationist, he nonetheless shares a concern for the poor, an interest in the margins of the world and an appreciation of folk Catholicism. He simply does not seem to see Marxist categories working in and through what Liberation Theology tried to articulate. The “soft Gospel” of the Pope puts less emphasis on theological and ideological issues and in so doing he has significantly softened the controversy. The other change is that the present head of the Congregation for Sacred Docrine is Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller (since 2012), a German like Ratzinger, but, unlike his predecessor, a disciple and admirer of Gustavo Gutiérrez. Rome is now in the position of reassessing Liberation Theology even beyond past critical evaluations and disciplinary measures

Two recent books by Müller illustrate how the Vatican now views Liberation Theology from a completely different perspective. An der Seite der Armen: Theologie der Befreiung (On the Side of the Poor: Liberation Theology) is a 2004 German title that the Cardinal wrote with Gutiérrez himself. Povera per i poveri: La missione della chiesa (Poor for the poor: The mission of the Church) is a 2014 title that has just been published by the Vatican Press.

In these highly sophisticated books, Müller argues that Liberation Theology is a “regional” theology that finds her home in the “catholicity” of the Roman Church and stands in continuity with the classical theology of the church. It was preceded by the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology) which predated Vatican II and was subsequently prepared by the theology of Karl Rahner. From Henri De Lubac Liberation Theology learned that grace works within nature and not from outside of it. From Rahner it embraced the idea that grace is already in nature and not something foreign to it. In Müller’s view, Liberation Theology is a regional application of what mainstream Catholic theology had already affirmed before and after Vatican II.

Liberation Theology is no longer viewed as being a pseudo-theology soaked in Marxist ideology, but is instead a fully recognized daughter of the Church which took seriously the re-orientation that Vatican II gave to Catholic theology and implemented it into the particular context of Latin America. This is the latest exercise of Roman catholicity whereby something that is in apparent conflict is instead seen as a part of the whole, i.e. the Roman Catholic synthesis.

Posted on

75. La Teología de la Liberación, la Hija Pródiga

08 DE MARZO DE 2014

Hubo un tiempo, hace sólo unos pocos años, cuando la simple referencia a la “Teología de la Liberación” hacía arquear muchas cejas en el Vaticano. Aquellos tiempos ya han pasado. Lo que se percibió e incluso se denunció públicamente como una de las más peligrosas amenazas a la que se enfrentaba la Iglesia Católica, se ve ahora como una legítima, por no decir también necesaria, corriente de su vida en constante expansión.

 La Teología de la Liberación como era entonces

 “La Teología de la Liberación”  es el título de un influyente libro publicado en 1973 por el teólogo peruano Gustavo Gutiérrez en el cual defendía la idea de que la teología debería estar al servicio de la liberación “integral”, es decir, la libertad económica y espiritual que surgiría como resultado de la justicia social. Era una nueva forma de hacer teología que priorizaría más el clamor de la gente “desde abajo”, que las expectativas de la jerarquía eclesiástica intelectual “desde arriba”. Haría su camino de abajo hacia arriba más bien que de arriba hacia abajo y consideraría a los pobres como el principal actor teológico antes que recibir el final de las decisiones tomadas por los ricos. También denunciaría como opresivo el  status quo  capitalista que en cambio la Iglesia Católica ha asumido en Latinoamérica. Otros destacados exponentes son Leonardo y Clodoveo Boff de Brasil, Jon Sobrino de España y Juan Luis Segundo de Uruguay.

Sus críticos relacionaron la Teología de la Liberación con la ideología marxista, la antropología materialista y la política revolucionaria, que cambiaría drásticamente la enseñanza y la práctica tradicionales de la Iglesia. La Iglesia Católica reaccionó enérgicamente contra la misma. Juan Pablo II, al tiempo que “de palabra” aparentaba estar de acuerdo con las inquietudes expresadas por la Teología de la Liberación, fue muy activo en tratar de silenciarla tanto como pudo. A mediados de la década de los ochenta su perro guardián teológico, el Cardenal Ratzinger, entonces a cargo de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, trabajó muy duro para limitar su influencia. Esos días se han acabado. ¿Por qué?  Mutatis mutandis , ¿la Teología de la Liberación ha cambiado su mensaje fundamental o la Iglesia ha modificado su postura? Lo último parece ser lo cierto.

 La Teología de la Liberación como es ahora

Dos variaciones sustanciales han hecho posible este cambio. Una es, por supuesto, que desde el año 2013 el Papa es latinoamericano. Si bien no se puede clasificar a Francisco como liberacionista, comparte, no obstante, la preocupación por los pobres, el interés por los límites del mundo y el reconocimiento del catolicismo popular. El, sencillamente, parece que no ve las categorías marxistas funcionando en y mediante lo que la Teología de la Liberación intentaba articular. El “Evangelio suave” del Papa pone menos énfasis en los temas ideológicos y teológicos y al hacerlo así ha suavizado significativamente la controversia. El otro cambio es que el actual dirigente de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe es el Cardenal Gerhard Ludwig Müller (desde 2012), alemán al igual que Ratzinger pero, a diferencia de su predecesor, discípulo y admirador de Gustavo Gutiérrez. Roma está ahora en la posición de valorar de nuevo la Teología de la Liberación, incluso más allá de las pasadas evaluaciones críticas y las medidas disciplinarias.

Dos libros recientes escritos por Müller ilustran la forma en que el Vaticano contempla ahora la Teología de la Liberación desde una perspectiva completamente diferente. “ An der Seite der Armen: Theologie der Befreiung”  (Del Lado de los Pobres: La Teología de la Liberación) es un título alemán que el Cardenal escribió en 2004 con el propio Gutiérrez. “ Povera per i poveri: La missione della chiesa”  (Pobres para los pobres: La misión de la Iglesia) es un título que acaba de publicarse en 2014 por la Vatican Press.

En estos libros tan sofisticados, Müller argumenta que la Teología de la Liberación es una teología “regional” que encuentra su hogar en la “catolicidad” de la Iglesia Romana y continúa con la teología clásica de la iglesia. Fue precedida por la  Nouvelle Théologie  (Nueva Teología) la cual antecedió al Vaticano II y con posterioridad fue preparada por la teología de Karl Rahner. Desde Henri De Lubac, la Teología de la Liberación aprendió que la gracia obra dentro de la naturaleza y no fuera de ella. Desde Rahner adoptó la idea de que la gracia se encuentra ya en la naturaleza y no es algo ajeno a la misma. Desde el punto de vista de Müller, la Teología de la Liberación es una aplicación regional de lo que la corriente principal de la teología católica había ya afirmado antes y después del Vaticano II.

La Teología de la Liberación ya no se considera como una pseudo teología empapada de la ideología marxista, sino una hija plenamente reconocida de la Iglesia que se tomó seriamente la reorientación que el Vaticano II dio a la teología católica y la puso en práctica en el contexto particular de Latinoamérica. Este es el último ejercicio de la catolicidad romana, por el cual algo que está en aparente conflicto es visto en su lugar como una parte del todo, o sea, la síntesis católico romana.

Posted on

74. The UN, the Vatican, and their Political and Theological Abuses

February 14th, 2014

The United Nations’ report on Vatican child protection efforts (5th February) has stirred many reactions on various fronts. In regard to the Catholic Church’s approach to dealing with cases of pedophilia, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has assessed the situation and pointed out some remaining areas of opacity in Vatican procedures concerning such matters. The Committee has also taken the opportunity to recommend certain changes in the ways in which the Catholic Church thinks of reproductive rights and education of sexuality. 

Fighting Abuses and Recommending Politically Correct Changes

For decades cases of pedophilia committed by Catholic priests have been reported without the Church authorities taking immediate action to stop such abuses, to protect the children involved, and to prevent further episodes. The general tendency has been to downplay the reports and safeguard the interests of the institution by trying to maintain the lowest profile possible. Instead of being transparent and honest, the Church has often practiced a self-defensive approach. It needs to be said that Cardinal Ratzinger, then Pope Benedict XVI, has worked hard to change the internal policies and that the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy has varied from place to place, largely depending on the social control that the Church was able to exercise on society and the media.

The UN Committee now surveying the situation acknowledges the improvements and solicits a fully transparent policy against pedophilia. What is perhaps more striking, however, is what the report says beyond pedophilia. The UN document addresses areas such as reproductive rights and discrimination, abortion and contraception and sexuality in general. In recommending stronger actions against sexual abuses against children, it also encourages the Catholic Church to revise its teachings on various “sensible” ethical issues which belong to the traditional Christian moral vision. It criticizes the “conservative” stance on sexuality and pushes for more “progressive” views on life issues. A document that was intended to report on the state of affairs concerning pedophilia is instead become a proposal for re-working the moral teaching of the Church. Is this what a UN agency is meant to do?

Does the Church Need a “Holy See”?

Many observers have rightly criticized this ideological use of a UN report which intrudes on matters that belong to the moral sphere. Some have seen it as an attempt to impose a “politically correct” view on sex and reproductive freedom. Others have questioned the composition of the Committee which is largely influenced by representatives of NGOs that will fight for abortion on demand. All these concerns are matters of serious consideration. The document is more of a “culture war” text than a specific report on a certain issue. The pervasive role of the UN in promoting a secularist “single thought” is apparent. 

Having said all this, there is another fundamental question that is not being addressed, let alone asked by commentators. It is a question that goes beyond the specific contents of the report. Why on earth does the Roman Catholic Church need a “Holy See” for its mission? The Holy See is a sovereign state with full political and diplomatic authority, it’s a territory, an army, and a bank. The Pope is a political monarch. The Holy See is part of the United Nations as a nation among others. Of course, the Holy See is a child of a long historical process whereby the Roman Church in its central institution has developed a dual identity, i.e. a church and a state joined together.

Everyone is a child of its history, but the church should always be ready to change according to the Word of God and concerning things that are contrary to the will of its Master. Jesus Christ, the true head of the church, never intended the church to be a state and its pastors to be political kings. According to the Bible, Caesar and the magistrates have their legitimate authority. While living in the world of Caesar and the magistrates the church has a different calling, not to be confused nor overlapped with the former. While the UN abuses its power in commending a secularist agenda, the Holy See abuses its identity in being what its alleged Lord never wanted it to be. The UN needs to be questioned politically but the Vatican in its institutional outlook needs to be challenged theologically.

 

Posted on

74. La ONU, el Vaticano y sus abusos políticos y teológicos

22 DE FEBRERO DE 2014

El informe de las Naciones Unidas sobre los esfuerzos para la protección de la infancia que hace el Vaticano (5 de febrero) ha provocado muchas reacciones en varios frentes. En lo que se refiere al enfoque que da la Iglesia Católica al tratamiento de casos de pedofilia, el Comité de los Derechos del Niño de la ONU ha evaluado la situación y ha indicado que existen algunas áreas que todavía permanecen opacas en cuanto a los procedimientos del Vaticano en estos asuntos. El Comité también ha aprovechado la oportunidad para recomendar algunos cambios en las formas en que la Iglesia Católica concibe los derechos reproductivos y la educación sexual.

 Luchar contra los abusos y recomendar cambios políticamente correctos

Durante décadas los casos de pedofilia perpetrados por los sacerdotes católicos han sido conocidos sin que las autoridades de la Iglesia hayan tomado medidas inmediatas para detener tales abusos, con el fin de proteger a los niños implicados y prevenir episodios futuros. La tendencia general ha sido restar importancia a los informes y salvaguardar los intereses de la institución tratando de mantener el perfil más bajo posible. En lugar de ser transparente y honesta, la Iglesia ha practicado con frecuencia un planteamiento autodefensivo. Hay que decir que el Cardenal Ratzinger, entonces Papa Benedicto XVI, trabajó duro para cambiar las políticas internas y que la actitud de la jerarquía católico romana ha variado de un lugar a otro, dependiendo en gran medida del control social que la Iglesia era capaz de ejercer en la sociedad y en los medios de comunicación.

El Comité de la ONU que ahora está inspeccionando la situación reconoce que ha habido mejoras y solicita una política completamente transparente contra la pedofilia. Lo que quizás es más llamativo, no obstante, es lo que dice el informe más allá de la pedofilia. El documento de la ONU se orienta hacia áreas tales como los derechos reproductivos y la discriminación, el aborto y la anticoncepción y la sexualidad en general. Al recomendar acciones más contundentes contra los abusos sexuales perpetrados a los niños, también alienta a la Iglesia Católica a revisar sus enseñanzas acerca de varios temas éticos “sensatos” que pertenecen a la visión moral cristiana tradicional. Critica la actitud “conservadora” sobre la sexualidad y presiona para que tenga visiones más “progresivas” en algunos problemas de la vida. Un documento que iba destinado a informar sobre el estado de los asuntos concernientes a la pedofilia, se convertirá en su lugar en una propuesta de reelaboración de la enseñanza moral de la Iglesia. ¿Es esto lo que una agencia de la ONU tiene por objeto?

 ¿Necesita la Iglesia una “Santa Sede”?

Muchos observadores han criticado con razón este uso ideológico de un informe de la ONU que se inmiscuye en materias que pertenecen a la esfera moral. Algunos lo han visto como un intento de imponer un punto de vista “políticamente correcto” sobre el sexo y la libertad reproductiva. Otros han cuestionado la composición del Comité el cual está influenciado en gran medida por representantes de ONGs. que luchan por el aborto libre. Todas estas inquietudes son asuntos que merecen una seria consideración. El documento es más bien un texto de “guerra cultural” que un informe específico sobre un determinado tema. El papel dominante de la ONU en la promoción de un “pensamiento único” secularista es evidente.

Dicho todo esto, hay otra cuestión fundamental que no se aborda y mucho menos se pregunta por parte de los comentaristas. Es un asunto que va más allá de los contenidos concretos del informe. ¿Por qué motivos tiene necesidad la Iglesia Católico Romana de una “Santa Sede” para su misión? La Santa Sede es un estado soberano con plena autoridad política y diplomática, es un territorio, un ejército y un banco. El Papa es un monarca político. La Santa Sede forma parte de las  Naciones Unidas  como un país más entre los otros. Por supuesto, la Santa Sede es descendiente de un largo proceso histórico, por lo que la Iglesia Romana, como su institución central, ha desarrollado una identidad dual, es decir, una iglesia y un estado unidos.

Todo el mundo es hijo de su historia, pero la iglesia debería estar siempre preparada para cambiar conforme a la Palabra de Dios y con referencia a las cosas que son contrarias a la voluntad de su Maestro Jesucristo, la verdadera cabeza de la iglesia, la cual nunca tuvo la intención de ser un estado ni sus pastores reyes políticos. Según la Biblia, Cesar y los magistrados tenían su legítima autoridad. Cuando vive en el mundo de Cesar y los magistrados, la iglesia tiene un llamado diferente, o sea, no confundirse ni solaparse con los primeros. Mientras la ONU abusa de su poder al encomendar un programa secularista, la Santa Sede abusa de su identidad al ser lo que su supuesto Señor nunca quiso que fuera. La ONU tiene que cuestionarse políticamente, pero el Vaticano, en su panorama institucional, necesita ser desafiado teológicamente.

Posted on

73. Restoring Full and Visible Unity?

January 29th, 2014

“Has Christ been divided?” This is the question that Paul rhetorically asks to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:13), and this is also the question that Pope Francis commented upon in his homily at the end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls in Rome. His brief meditation shows the passion that is a defining mark of the present pontificate, but it also restates important aspects of the traditional Roman Catholic view of unity that has been expounded since Vatican II.

A Given and a Goal

The first remark has to do with the understanding of unity as a “goal”. In commenting on the developments of the ecumenical movement, he speaks of “journeying together on the road towards unity,” implying the idea that unity stands ahead of us as if it were a goal to be eventually reached. Unity is therefore in the future tense. What does exactly unity mean here and why is it in the future tense? Later on, the Pope makes a comment that sheds light on these issues. He refers to the prospect of “restoration of full visible unity among all Christians” as the future climax of the ecumenical path. There is need, however, to unpack such a statement.

Firstly there is the idea of “restoration.” According to this view, there was a time in the life of the church when full and visible unity existed. It is not explicitly stated here, but what is perhaps referred to is the “undivided” First Millennium of the church before the East-West Schism (1054 AD) and the Protestant Reformation of the XVI century. This view is common in ecumenical circles but highly problematic from both historical and theological points of view. From its very early years and on, the church has constantly been dealing with inner divisions and conflicts, as the Pauline text testifies to. Before there was a Pope and even after the papacy came into existence, a “golden age” of Christian unity never existed, even within the Roman Catholic Church itself! Unity always stands in tension and under attack. Rather than restoring unity, the Bible urges us to “maintain” the already given unity (Ephesians 4:3) and to equip the body of Christ in order to “attain” the unity of faith (4:13). In other words, from the beginning of the church, unity is both a given and a goal. It is a gift and a task. The restoration model wrongly implies that unity was full in the first stages of the church and was then lost along the way, and now needs to be recovered. Christian unity is instead a given reality amongst those whom the Father has given to the Son (John 17:9) that must be protected and lived out.

Secondly, the Pope makes reference to a “full” and “visible” unity as the goal of ecumenism. According to the Roman Catholic view, “full” means sacramentally full, i.e. same baptism, same eucharist, same ministry. Given the self-understanding of the Roman Church, it means adhering and submitting to the sacramental theology of Rome and the hierarchical nature of its priesthood. “Visible” means that unity needs to accept the visible Papal structure of the Roman Catholic Church as the divinely appointed way for the One Church of Christ. The ecumenical price for full and visible unity is the acceptance of the Roman Catholic view of the Church. All other views are defective and, in the end, partial and invisible.

Prayer to Paul?

In closing his homily, Pope Francis reports that he had previously visited Paul’s tomb in the Basilica with other Christian leaders and they exhorted one another with these words: “Let us pray that he (Paul) will help us on this path as we advance towards unity”. Is Paul really the one to pray to for the advance of unity? Is he really in the position to help? Here again, another fundamental obstacle towards unity arises. According to the Pope, Paul can be prayed to, but the same Paul that taught us about unity was the one that wrote: “I bow my knees before the Father” (Ephesians 3:15). The restoration of Gospel purity and the keeping of Christian unity (as a gift and a task) belong together. Paul was the great apostle of the Gentiles and pointed out the Triune God as the model for our unity (Ephesians 4). We should not seek Paul’s help beyond what God inspired him to write in his letters.

Posted on

73. ¿Restauración de la unidad plena y visible?

28 de Enero de 2014

“¿Está dividido Cristo?” Esta es la pregunta que hace Pablo de forma retórica a los corintios (1 Corintios 1:13), y es también la interrogación que el Papa Francisco ha comentado en su homilía al final de la Semana de Oración para la Unidad de los Cristianos en la Basílica de San Pablo Extramuros de Roma. Su breve meditación muestra la pasión, que es un sello distintivo del presente pontificado, pero también reafirma aspectos importantes del tradicional punto de vista católico romano de la unidad que ha sido expuesto desde el Vaticano II.

UNA PROPUESTA Y UN OBJETIVO
La primera observación tiene que ver con el entendimiento de la unidad como un “objetivo”. En sus comentarios sobre los progresos del movimiento ecuménico, habla de “andar juntos en el camino hacia la unidad”, lo que implica la idea de que la unidad se encuentra delante de nosotros como si fuera una meta a ser alcanzada finalmente. La unidad está, por lo tanto, en un tiempo futuro. ¿Qué significa exactamente la unidad aquí y por qué está en el tiempo futuro? Más adelante, el Papa hace un comentario que arroja luz sobre estas cuestiones. Se refiere a la expectativa de la “restauración de la unidad plena y visible entre todos los cristianos” como el futuro punto culminante de la trayectoria ecuménica. Es necesario, no obstante, desenvolver tal declaración.

Primero está la idea de la “restauración”. Según esta visión, hubo un tiempo en la vida de la iglesia en que existió una plena y visible unidad. No se indica explícitamente, pero quizás se refiere al “indiviso” Primer Milenio de la iglesia antes del Cisma Este – Oeste (1054 d. C.) y de la Reforma Protestante del siglo XVI. Este punto de vista es común en los círculos ecuménicos pero sumamente problemático tanto desde la posición histórica como desde la teológica. Desde sus primeros años, la iglesia sigue constantemente batallando con divisiones y conflictos internos, como lo testifica el texto paulino.

Antes de que hubiera un Papa e incluso después de la existencia del papado, nunca existió una “edad de oro” de la unidad de los cristianos, ¡ni siquiera dentro de la misma Iglesia Católico Romana! La unidad siempre se destaca por estar en tensión y bajo ataque. Más que restaurar la unidad, la Biblia nos anima a “mantener” la unidad que ya nos ha sido dada (Efesios 4:3) y dotar al cuerpo de Cristo con el fin de “alcanzar” la unidad de la fe (4:13). En otras palabras, desde el comienzo de la iglesia, la unidad es tanto una propuesta como un objetivo. Es un don y una tarea. El modelo de restauración implica erróneamente que la unidad era completa en las primeras etapas de la iglesia y que luego se perdió en el camino y ahora necesita ser recuperada. La unidad de los cristianos en cambio es una realidad concedida entre aquellos que el Padre ha dado a su Hijo (Juan 17:9) que debe ser protegida y vivida.

Segundo, el Papa hace referencia a la “plena” y “visible” unidad como el objetivo del ecumenismo. Según la visión católico romano, “pleno” significa completo sacramentalmente, es decir, el mismo bautismo, la misma eucaristía y el mismo ministerio. Dada la autocomprensión de la Iglesia Romana, quiere decir que hay que adherirse y someterse a la teología sacramental de Roma y a la naturaleza jerárquica de su sacerdocio. “Visible” significa que la unidad necesita aceptar la estructura papal visible de la Iglesia Católico Romana como la manera divinamente señalada para la Unica Iglesia de Cristo. El precio ecuménico para la plena y visible unidad es la aceptación del punto de vista católico romano de la iglesia. Todas las demás opiniones son defectuosas y, al final, parciales e invisibles.

¿ORAR A PABLO?
Al terminar su homilía, el Papa Francisco comunica que previamente había visitado la tumba de San Pablo en la Basílica con otros líderes cristianos y se exhortaron mutuamente con estas palabras: “Oremos para que Pablo nos ayude en este camino a medida que avanzamos hacia la unidad”. ¿Es realmente a Pablo a quien hay que orar para avanzar en la unidad? ¿Está él efectivamente en la posición de ayudar? Aquí, de nuevo, se levanta otro obstáculo fundamental hacia la unidad.

Según el Papa, puede orarse a Pablo, pero el mismo Pablo que nos enseñó acerca de la unidad fue quien escribió: “Doblo mis rodillas ante el Padre” (Efesios 3:14). La restauración de la pureza del Evangelio y la preservación de la unidad de los cristianos (como un don y una tarea) se pertenecen conjuntamente. Pablo fue el gran apóstol de los gentiles y señaló al Dios Trino como el modelo de nuestra unidad (Efesios 4). No debemos buscar la ayuda de Pablo más allá de lo que Dios le inspiró para escribir sus epístolas.

Posted on

72. Secular Perceptions of Pope Francis

January 6th, 2014

What others understand is an important clue about what we are saying to them. It is true that the filter of the media is highly intoxicated and that it is able to manipulate everything according to its own interests. Interviews and speeches can be arranged by the media in such a way that they become something different than their original intentions and contents. However, what people are taking in is a combination both of what they want to hear and of what we allow them to hear.

In assessing the first months of Francis’ pontificate, the secular media continues to communicate what their perception is concerning what the Pope has said up to this point. On the one hand there is a widespread fascination about his frugal style, charming personality, and engaging language. On the other, there is an appreciation for his “innovative” theology or lack of insistence on traditional tenets of Roman Catholic doctrine. Two recent comments about Francis’ theology deserve some attention.

The Rejection of Church Dogma

Interestngly, on November 20, when Time initially named Francis as a candidate for the “man of the year” award, the website noted that he was nominated for his “rejection of church dogma.” It was only after some pushback from the tweeting world the Time changed the description to read “rejection of luxury.” In truth, Francis has never jettisoned any church dogma, but the perception of the secular media is worth considering. “Rejecting church dogma” is a gross overstatement, but de-emphasizing, marginalizing, and putting doctrine in the background perhaps gets closer to the point. Francis is perceived as a Pope from whom dogma is less important than attitude, mercy more relevant than truth, and generosity of spirit more apt than the affirmation of traditional belief. Some of his statements (e.g. “Proselytism is a solemn non-sense”, “Who am I to judge a homosexual person?”, “Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them”) have become slogans with which secular people resonate well. They hardly represent a Christian view and it is precisely for this reason that secularists find Francis’ “gospel” a message that is far from church dogma. It is not an open rejection of it, but it is understood as being a significant distancing away from it.

After the dogmatic Benedict XVI, Francis is viewed as a less rigid Pope in terms of doctrine. He is seen as being more relaxed on defending the theological identity of his Church and more committed to focusing on non-divisive issues. Roman Catholics should ask themselves whether him being considered for the “man of the year” honor is a real achievement or istead a matter that should raise concern.

The Abolition of Sin

There is yet another comment that reflects the widespead interpretations of Pope Bergoglio. The editor of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Eugenio Scalfari, who had met with Francis and published their conversation a couple of months ago, wrote an articole (December 29) in which he argues that the greatest achievement of the Pope so far is that he has practically abandoned the traditional doctrine of sin. “He has de facto abolished sin”. He is not saying that Francis has openly declared that the official Roman Catholic theology is wrong on its teaching on sin, rather he suggests that Francis sees mercy standing over sin to the point of practically overshadowing it and making it irrelevant. When he speaks about sin, he does so in reference to himself (“I am a sinner”) or to the structural aspects of sin (e.g. the oppression of the poor), but never implying the idea of radical separation from God and divine judgement. He emphasizes that God is present in every person and in so doing he downplays the tragic reality of sin. It is a de facto abolition.

The secularists applaud this development because they generally think that “sin” is the greatest obstacle for the modern conscience in coming to terms with the Christian religion. Whether or not this is a fair assessment of the Pope’s views remains to be seen. It is, however, a matter of fact that his popularity with the media is based on the perception that the Pope is a dogmatically fluid and open-ended Christian leader. Is this an issue entirely dependent on the manipulation of the media or is it also a sign that Francis is actually saying confusing and misleading things? We are now back to where we started, i.e. what others understand is an important clue about what we are saying to them.

 

 

Posted on

72. Percepciones seculares del papa Francisco

11 de Enero de 2014

Lo que los demás entienden es una pista importante sobre lo que les estamos diciendo. Es cierto que el filtro de los medios de comunicación está sumamente intoxicado y que pueden manipularlo todo según sus propios intereses. Las entrevistas y los discursos pueden ser arreglados por los medios de comunicación de tal forma que llegan a convertirse en algo totalmente diferente de sus contenidos e intenciones originales. No obstante, lo que la gente toma en consideración es una combinación de lo que ellos quieren oír y de lo que nosotros les permitimos que oigan.

Al evaluar los primeros meses del pontificado de Francisco, los medios de comunicación laicos continúan notificando lo que es su percepción en lo referente a lo que el Papa ha dicho hasta este punto. Por una parte, existe una amplia fascinación por su estilo austero, su encantadora personalidad y su lenguaje atractivo. Por otra parte, hay un reconocimiento a su teología “innovadora” o falta de insistencia en los postulados tradicionales de la doctrina católico romana. Dos recientes comentarios acerca de la teología de Francisco merecen cierta atención.

EL RECHAZO DEL DOGMA DE LA IGLESIA
Curiosamente, el 20 de noviembre, cuando Time en principio nombró a Francisco como candidato al premio “hombre del año”, la página web señaló que se le nominaba por su “rechazo del dogma de la iglesia”. Fue después de algún retroceso por parte del mundo de tweeting cuando  Time  cambió la descripción y pasó a decir “rechazo del lujo”. En realidad, Francisco nunca ha desechado ningún dogma de la iglesia, pero vale la pena considerar la percepción de los medios de comunicación seculares. “Rechazar el dogma de la iglesia” es una tremenda exageración, pero restar importancia, marginar y poner la doctrina en segundo plano tal vez se acerca más al punto deseado.

A Francisco se le percibe como un Papa para quien el dogma es menos importante que la actitud, la misericordia más pertinente que la verdad y la generosidad de espíritu más conveniente que la afirmación de la creencia tradicional. Algunas de sus declaraciones (p.e. “El proselitismo es un solemne sinsentido”, “¿Quién soy yo para juzgar a una persona homosexual?”, “Cada uno tiene su propia idea del bien y del mal y debe elegir y seguir el bien y combatir el mal en la forma en que los concibe”) se han convertido en slogans que resuenan bien entre los seculares. Apenas representan la visión cristiana y es precisamente por este motivo que los laicos hallan en el “evangelio” de Francisco un mensaje que queda lejos del dogma de la iglesia. No es un rechazo abierto del mismo, pero lo entienden como un distanciamiento significativo.

Después del dogmático Benedicto XVI, Francisco es considerado un Papa menos rígido en términos de doctrina. Se le ve más relajado al defender la identidad teológica de su iglesia y más comprometido en centrarse en cuestiones no divisivas. Los católico romanos deberían preguntarse si el hecho de ser considerado para el honor de “hombre del año” es un auténtico logro o un asunto que debe suscitar preocupación.

LA ABOLICIÓN DEL PECADO
Aún hay otro comentario que refleja las extensas interpretaciones del Papa Bergoglio. El editor del periódico italiano  La Repubblica , Eugenio Scalfari, que se reunió con Francisco y publicó su conversación hace un par de meses, escribió un artículo (29 de diciembre) en el cual argumenta que la mayor consecución del Papa hasta ahora es que ha abandonado prácticamente la tradicional doctrina del pecado. “Ha suprimido  de facto  el pecado”. No está diciendo que Francisco ha declarado abiertamente que la teología católico romana oficial está equivocada en sus enseñanzas sobre el pecado, sino que más bien sugiere que Francisco percibe que la misericordia está por encima del pecado hasta el punto de eclipsarlo prácticamente y hacerlo irrelevante. Cuando habla del pecado, lo hace en referencia a sí mismo (“Yo soy un pecador”) o aludiendo a los aspectos estructurales del pecado (p.e. la opresión de los pobres), pero nunca implicando la idea de la radical separación de Dios y del juicio divino. Subraya que Dios está presente en todas las personas y al hacerlo así minimiza la trágica realidad del pecado. Esto es una abolición de facto .

Los secularistas aplauden esta evolución porque en general piensan que “el pecado” es el mayor obstáculo para que la conciencia moderna haga las paces con la religión cristiana. Si se trata o no de una evaluación justa de los puntos de vista del Papa, está por ver. No obstante, es una cuestión de hecho que su popularidad entre los medios de comunicación se basa en la percepción de que el Papa es un líder cristiano dogmáticamente fluido y abierto. ¿Es éste un tema totalmente dependiente de la manipulación de los medios de comunicación o es también un síntoma de que Francisco realmente dice cosas confusas y engañosas? Ahora volvemos donde hemos empezado, es decir, lo que los demás entienden es una pista importante sobre lo que les estamos diciendo.

Posted on

71. Ecumenism of Blood

December 20th, 2013

The fact that Pope Francis gives interviews to both the religious and secular press is no longer a surprise. Time magazine chose him as “man of the year” because of his more relaxed and open approach to the media. This attitude was expressed in an interview that was published in the Italian daily newspaper La Stampa on 15th December. The conversation began with a reflection on Christmas but then proceeded to other topics including interesting comments on the Pope’s views on Christian unity.

Is Christian Unity a Priority for You?

It was this question that was abruptly posed to Pope Francis during his interview with La Stampa. He responded with the following: “Yes, for me ecumenism is a priority. Today there is an ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before killing them they do not ask them whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Their blood is mixed. To those who kill we are Christians. We are united in blood, even though we have not yet managed to take necessary steps towards unity between us and perhaps the time has not yet come … Those who kill Christians don’t ask for your identity card to see which Church you were baptized in. We need to take these facts into consideration.”

These are important words that take into account what happens around the world. Christians who are persecuted in different minority situations belong to different churches and traditions, but they are persecuted mainly because their public faith stirs opposition. Their ecclesiastical identity is definitely secondary. More than their attachment to a church (whatever it might be), what comes first is their allegiance to Christ and His Gospel. It is their personal faith as followers of Jesus that incites persecution against them. In the global world, the neat denominational distinctions and ecumenical complexities make very little sense. The heart of the matter is the heart of the Gospel.

What is Unity Based On?

There is still something to be said about what the Pope states concerning the “ecumenism of blood”. It seems that while recognizing the astonishing reality of Christians being persecuted, notwithstanding their secondary labels, the Pope still thinks about unity in terms of the old Roman Catholic and ecumenical categories. When he refers to “baptism” as marking the Christian identity he echoes the mainstream idea in ecumenical circles, i.e. that Christian unity is based on baptism. According to this view, to be baptized means to be Christian and thus to be united with God and with other Christians. This is the standard Roman Catholic doctrine (e.g. Unitatis Redintegratio 3.22) and ecumenical teaching (e.g. the 1982 Lima Report entitled Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry).

The ecumenism of blood is instead based on a personal faith in Jesus Christ. It is not opposed to baptism, of course, but it is not based on it. It is likely that some of these martyrs are not even baptized or do not formally belong to any historic Christian church. Yet they are believers in Jesus Christ and this is what really counts for their salvation and our unity as a whole as a body of believers. On the other hand, many who are baptized and are canonically members of a religious institution are not Christian at all. The phenomenon of nominalism in the West demonstrates that one can be baptized and yet be totally opposed or indifferent to the Gospel and its message. Christian unity is not based on baptism, but on a personal faith in Jesus Christ. Those who are united are those who are Christian believers in the biblical sense.

Re-thinking Ecumenism

The ecumenism of blood should serve as an encouragement in the re-thinking of our theology concerning Christian unity, beyond sentimental accounts of the persecuted Christians and towards a better Biblical grasp of what is means for the Church to be “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”. According to Vatican II and subsequent magisterial teaching, Christian unity is threefold: professing the same faith, celebrating the same Eucharist, and being united under the same sacramental ministry in apostolic succession in submission to the Papal office. Paradoxically, this understanding of unity is one of the greatest obstacles to Christian unity because it derives unity from a sacrament administered by a church and confuses unity with being under a specific religious institution. The martyrs that the Pope refers to do not fit this definition of unity, and yet they are nonetheless considered to be truly unified Christians.

The ecumenism of blood shows that these dimensions are not necessary for real unity to take place. Instead they only serve as additional burdens and add-ons. Pope Francis has, however, rightly emphasized the reality of the ecumenism of blood. But time will tell whether or not his “ecumenical priority” will stop paying lip-service to it or will instead encourage him to think of ecumenism beyond mere ecumenical stereotypes and towards more biblically warranted patterns. The unity of these martyrs with the Roman Catholic Church may be “imperfect”, but their unity with Christ is perfect and this is what really matters.

 

Posted on

70. Trent, 450 Years Later

December 16th, 2013

This year marks the 450th anniversary of the closing of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the most important event of the Roman Catholic Church in the modern era. A special commemorative event took place in the city of Trent with the presence of an official representative of Pope Francis.

Trent in a Nutshell

The Council of Trent was the official response of the Catholic Church to the XVI century Protestant Reformation. The issues of the Reformation (grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone) were rejected as they were affirmed by the Reformers (mainly Luther) and recast in a sacramental framework that highlighted the contribution of human works and the mediating agency of the church. Actually, Trent declared the incompatibility of the Reformation with what became then the official doctrine of the Church of Rome and the unwillingness of Rome to undertake a process of radical revision in biblical perspective. In order to do that, Trent solidified the theology of the sacraments, hitting with a series of “anathema” those who held Protestant beliefs. Trent intervened in clarifying the Roman position (through decrees and canons) and in launching a series of changes that would impact the life of the Church.

Trent was not an isolated event. The post-Trent phase of the Church was marked by a staunch polemical attitude, first against Protestantism, and then against modernity. If Trent was the Roman response to the Reformation, the season of the Marian dogmas (1854: immaculate conception of Mary; 1950 bodily assumption of Mary), and papal infallibility (1870) were responses to the ideological challenges of Modernity.

Trent’s Heritage

Five centuries later, the Roman Catholic Church has definitely adopted a different pastoral and ecclesial “style” than that of Trent, but it has not substantially changed it, nor denied it in whole or in part. There is no point in which Vatican II moves away from the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent. At Vatican II, Trent was kept in the background and remained within the framework of Roman Catholicism. The “Tridentine paradigm” was put, so to speak, in historical perspective, but not forsaken nor forgotten. Vatican II has metabolized Trent but in no way abandoned it.

With the 1999 “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Lutheran Federation, Trent was updated in its language and emphases, but reiterated in its substance. The two positions were juxtaposed and held compatible, thus working with a “both-and” scheme that is quintessentially the Roman Catholic way of developing its doctrinal system. The Tridentine “anathemas” were lifted for those who hold the doctrines of the Reformation if reinterpreted ecumenically, but the theological core of contemporary Catholicism is still steeped in its Tridentine content: it is the institutional church that mediates the grace of God through its sacramental system. Grace alone was and is still rejected. A clear indication of this is the case is that nothing has changed in important areas like indulgences, Purgatory, the sacramental prerogatives of the Church, the cult of the saints, etc.

Pope Francis on Trent

On the occasion of the official celebration in Trent (Dec 1st), Pope Francis sent a special envoy to Trent together with a letter. In it he says that the anniversary “behooves the Church to recall with more prompt and attentive eagerness the most fruitful doctrine which came out of that council. Certainly not without cause, the Church has for a long time already accorded so much care to the Decrees and Canons of that Council that are to be recalled and observed”. “No doubt,” the letter continues, “with the Holy Ghost inspiring and suggesting, it especially concerned the Fathers not only to guard the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine, but also to more clearly enlighten mankind”. The same Spirit, according to the Pope, now guides the Church “to restore and meditate upon the most abundant doctrine of Trent”.

Quoting Benedict XVI, Francis ends the letter by saying that (the Church) “is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remains the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God”. It is the Pope that affirms the continuity between Trent and the present-day Roman Catholic Church. It is not a static continuity in that the Church “develops” over time, but is a continuity in which the Church changes, while always remaining the same. Both-and, again!