Posted on

96. The “Catholic” Month of Pope Francis

November 30th, 2014

“Marriage is between a man and a woman”. “Unborn life is as precious and unique as any life”. “Euthanasia is an unwarranted abuse of human freedom”. “Adoptive children have the right to have a father and a mother”. These are standard Roman Catholic positions on various hotly debated moral issues of our generation. So what’s the fuss about it? They were spoken and argued for by Pope Francis in two different speeches over the last few weeks.[1] After months of confusing messages sent by him about homosexuality (“Who am I to judge?”), the good in every “loving relationship” be it married or not, the need for the Church to stay away from the heat of present-day ethical debates, his uneasiness towards anything “non-negotiable”, Pope Francis has finally said things “Catholic”. While he has always aligned himself to traditional Roman Catholic moral theology (he is the Pope, after all!), he has never gone public on these issues in such a clear-cut way and in such a short period of time.

The Aftermath of the Synod

This “Catholic” month by the Pope comes after the Synod on the family where the Catholic Church experienced a turbulent time of controversy among high-rank cardinals and bishops. Some progressive voices pushed for an update of the Church’s moral stance on human sexuality and human relationships. Strongly supported by secular public opinion, all applauding this “revolutionary” Pope, sectors of the Church thought that the gap between the Church and the Western masses could be bridged by the Church adopting a more relaxed, less confrontational approach to these issues. The 2014 Synod witnessed a clash between these voices and more traditional ones, resulting in a temporary stand-still waiting for next year’s Synod, which will be re-convened on the same topic.

Where does Pope Francis stand in all this? In the months preceding the Synod, he repeatedly advocated for a “outward looking” Church, i.e. a Church less concerned with dogmas and moral principles and more interested in getting closer to people, irrespective of their individual choices and deliberately abstaining from passing moral judgments on their moral lives. This consistent stream of messages seemed to create a sort of momentum and to form the background for significant changes in the Church that the Synod was meant to introduce. Things went differently, however. In the meantime, significant criticism by important circles of the Catholic Church became outspoken and hit the Pope himself for his wavering and blurred words. This “Catholic” month by Francis can be thought of as a reassurance that he stands for the traditional moral teaching of the Church and has in no way changed his mind. After months of pushing a seemingly progressive agenda, the Catholic pendulum is swinging the opposite way in order to regain stability until the next move.

Where Does He Stand?

A standing question remains though. Where does the Pope really stand on these issues? How do we account for this apparent U-turn? Who is able to grapple with what he has in mind? And, more generally, do we really know where he stands on a number of key doctrinal and pastoral points? So far, he has been keen to build bridges with all kinds of people, movements, and networks. A growing number of people around the globe call the Pope “a friend”. Many evangelical leaders are in their midst. They have the impression that the Pope is very approachable and a transparent person, easy to become familiar with and quick to tune in. He seems to speak their language and to understand their hearts. He appears to be close to everyone. The evidence, however, is more complex. He is certainly capable of getting close to all, calling anyone “brother” and “sister”, but how many people know what lies in his heart? He is certainly able to combine evangelical language, Marian devotions, and “politically correct” concerns, while retaining a fully orbed Roman Catholic outlook. Do we really know Pope Francis? How much of this complexity is the result of him being a Jesuit? How much do we know about the depth of his theology and the all-embracing nature of his agenda?

The Bible wants our communication not to be trapped in a “yes” and “no” type of language at the same time (2 Corinthians 1:18-20) but to speak plainly about what we have in our hearts. Pope Francis’ language tends to say “Yes, yes” and “No, no” with the same breadth. The Word of God also urges us “to speak truthfully” (Ephesians 4:25) and to avoid “twisted words” (Proverbs 4:24). No one can throw a stone here because in this matter we are all sinners. Yet what the Pope has been saying so far did send contradictory messages. This “Catholic” month has shown an important side of Pope Francis, but the full picture is still a work in progress. The impression is that so far we have been collecting only superficial sketches of the Pope and that the real work is still to be done.

Posted on

95. Roman Catholic Theology and Practice by Gregg Allison. A Review

November 19th, 2014

Gregg R. Allison, Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014. 496 pps. $28.00. This review is also posted on http://9marks.org/review/book-review-roman-catholic-theology-by-gregg-allison/

Since the time of Gerrit Berkouwer’s The Conflict with Rome (1948) and Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism (1962), evangelical theology has been lacking a thorough assessment of Roman Catholicism that penetrates the real theological issues at stake. There has been little work on the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), and many evangelicals don’t have the tools to grasp theologically what happened then and how it has been impacting the Roman Church since. Growing numbers of people are impressed by the “aggiornamento” (update of language and expressions without substantial change) that is taking place in Rome and are asking whether or not the Reformation is definitely over. Most of these analyses are based on a pick-and-choose approach to Roman Catholicism. Bits of its theology, fragments of its practice, pieces of its history, and sectors of its universe are considered as representing the whole of Roman Catholicism. When the big picture of the Roman Catholic theological cathedral is lost, interpretations become superficial and patchy.

Professor Allison’s new book is good news to all those who have long desired a reliable theological guide in dealing with Roman Catholicism. Based on a painstaking analysis of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, it covers the all-embracing trajectory of Roman Catholic theology and practice. Instead of juxtaposing ephemeral impressions and disconnected data, Allison provides a theological framework that accounts for the complexity of the Roman Catholic system and its dynamic unity.

In the first chapter he sets the theological framework that will give orientation to his analysis of the Catechism. In Roman Catholicism there are two main axes that form its background. On the one hand, the “nature-grace interdependence” and, on the other, the “Christ-Church interconnection.” Historically, the Roman magisterium has given assent to both the Augustinian tradition (philosophically influenced by Neoplatonic thought) and the Thomistic tradition (emerging from a Christian reinterpretation of Aristotle via Aquinas). Whereas Augustinianism has stressed the corrupting reality of sin and the utter primacy of grace, Thomism has given a more positive account of human nature’s intrinsic disposition towards the operations of grace. Both traditions manage to coexist, in that the Roman Catholic system provides a sufficiently capable platform which can host both, while not being totally identified nor identifiable with any one of them. This is another significant pointer to the catholicity of the system itself.

The spheres of nature and grace are thus in irreversible theological continuity, as “nature” in Catholicism incorporates both creation and sin, in contrast to the Reformed distinction between creation, sin, and redemption. This differing understanding of sin’s impact means grace finds in “Roman” nature a receptive attitude (enabling Catholicism’s humanistic optimism), as against a Reformed doctrine whereby entrenched sin leaves us unaware of our reprobate state. This stark anthropological difference underpins even Catholicism’s veneration of Mary. The Roman Catholic epistemological openness, its trust in man’s abilities, and its overall reliance on the possibility of human co-operation all converge in the articulated theology regarding the biblically sober figure of Mary. In this respect, Mariology expresses, therefore, the quintessential characteristics of the Roman Catholic nature-grace motif.

Secondly, Roman Catholicism needs a mediating subject to relate grace to nature and nature to grace—namely, the Roman Church—and thus Allison speaks of the “Christ-Church interconnection.” The Church is considered a prolongation of the Incarnation, mirroring Christ as a Divine-human reality, acting as an altera persona Christi, a second “Christ.” It is therefore impossible for Roman Catholicism to cry with the Reformers solus Christus, for this would be seen as breaching the organic bond between Christ and the Church. The threefold ministry of Christ as King, Priest, and Prophet is thus transposed to the Roman Church—in its hierarchical rule, its magisterial interpretation of the Word, and its administration of the sacraments. There is never solus Christus (Christ alone), only Christus in ecclesia (Christ in the Church) and ecclesia in Christo (the Church in Christ).

At this point, Allison offers his detailed analysis chapter by chapter of the Catechism, summarizing its main tenets and offering an intrigued yet critical evangelical assessment. The picture that comes out is different from what Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom wrote in their 2005 Is The Reformation Over? In that book, Noll and Nystrom argued that “evangelicals can embrace at least two-thirds” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Later, they admit that when the Catechism speaks of Christ, it interweaves him to the Church to the point of making them one, which is unacceptable for evangelicals who consider the exaltation of a created reality an instance of idolatry. So, on the one hand, there is an apparent “common orthodoxy”; on the other, there is a profound difference on the meaning of its basic words (e.g. Christ, the church, etc.).

Building on the “nature-grace interdependence” and the “Christ-Church interconnection,” Allison helps the reader to make sense of both areas of agreements and disagreements while always pointing to the hermeneutical grid that was set at the beginning. For example, the Catechism teaches a doctrine of “justification by faith.” What the catechism means, though, is a synergistic work that is not forensic in nature but transformative and that is administered via the sacramental system of the Church and by taking into account one’s own merits. The word is the same but the theological meaning, which is confirmed by the devotional practices of Rome, is far away from the biblical understanding of the doctrine of justification. The same is true as far as all key gospel terms are concerned.

Roman Catholicism is an all-encompassing system and one needs to approach it as such, trying to make sense of its teachings not as if they were isolated items but trying to penetrate the fact that they belong to a dynamic yet organic system.

In dealing with Roman Catholicism, especially in times of mounting ecumenical pressure, evangelical theology should go beyond the surface of theological statements and attempt to grasp the internal framework of reference of Roman Catholic theology. From there, one may try to assess it from an evangelical perspective.

This is exactly the point that is tackled by Allison’s book and its main contribution. Professor Allison’s masterly book is to be commended for its biblical depth, theological acuteness, historical alertness, and systemic awareness. Evangelical theology has finally begun to do its homework in parsing the vision of present-day Roman Catholicism. My hope is that this landmark book will re-orientate evangelical theology away from its attraction towards a shallow ecumenicity with Rome towards a serious dialogue based on the Word of God. The Reformation according to the gospel is as alive and relevant as ever.

Posted on

95. ‘Teología y Práctica Católico Romana’, de Gregg Allison

14 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2014
Desde la época de The Conflict with Rome [El conflicto con Roma] de Gerrit Berkouwer (1948) y de Roman Catholicism [El Catolicismo Romano] de Loraine Boettner (1962), a la teología evangélica le ha faltado la evaluación exhaustiva del catolicismo romano que penetra en los verdaderos problemas teológicos que están en juego. Ha habido pocas obras sobre el concilio Vaticano II (1962-1965) y la mayoría de evangélicos no tienen los instrumentos suficientes para captar teológicamente lo que sucedió entonces y como ha continuado impactando a la Iglesia Romana.
Un número creciente de personas están impresionadas por el “aggiornamento” (puesta al día del lenguaje y las expresiones sin un cambio sustancial) que tiene lugar en Roma y se preguntan si la Reforma ha terminado definitivamente. Muchos de estos análisis se han hecho escudriñando y escogiendo una aproximación al catolicismo romano. Los pedacitos de su teología, los fragmentos de sus prácticas, los segmentos de su historia y los sectores de su universo están considerados como si representaran la totalidad del catolicismo romano. Cuando la gran imagen de la catedral teológica católico romana se pierde, las interpretaciones se vuelven superficiales y dispersas.
El nuevo libro del Profesor Allison es una buena noticia para todos aquellos que han deseado durante mucho tiempo una guía teológica fiable cuando tratan con el catolicismo romano. Cimentado sobre un esmerado análisis del Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica de 1992, incluye la trayectoria global de la teología y la práctica católico romanas. En lugar de la yuxtaposición de impresiones efímeras y datos desconectados, Allison proporciona un marco teológico que representa la complejidad del sistema católico romano y su dinámica unidad. En el primer capítulo establece el marco teológico que dará orientación a su análisis del Catecismo.
En el catolicismo romano hay dos ejes principales que forman su historial. Por una parte, la “interdependencia naturaleza-gracia” y, por la otra, la “interconexión Cristo-Iglesia”. Históricamente, el magisterio romano ha dado el asentimiento tanto a la tradición Agustiniana (filosóficamente influenciada por el pensamiento neoplatónico) como a la tradición Tomista (emergente de una reinterpretación cristiana de Aristóteles a través de Aquino). Mientras que el agustinianismo ha hecho hincapié en la realidad corruptora del pecado y la absoluta primacía de la gracia, el tomismo ha dado una consideración más positiva a la intrínseca disposición de la naturaleza humana hacia las operaciones de la gracia. Ambas tradiciones consiguen coexistir, siempre y cuando el sistema católico romano proporcione una plataforma lo suficientemente poderosa para poder albergar a las dos, al mismo tiempo que no está completamente identificado ni es identificable con ninguna de ellas. Este es otro indicador significativo de la catolicidad del propio sistema. Los ámbitos de la naturaleza y la gracia están, pues, en continuidad teológica irreversible, como la “naturaleza” en el catolicismo incorpora tanto la creación como el pecado, en contraste con la distinción Reformada entre la creación, el pecado y la redención. Esta comprensión diferente de la repercusión del pecado significa que la gracia encuentra en la naturaleza “Romana” una actitud receptiva (permitiendo un optimismo humanista del catolicismo) frente a una doctrina Reformada por la que el pecado arraigado nos deja inconscientes de nuestro reprobable estado. Esta rígida diferencia antropológica respalda incluso la veneración del catolicismo a María. La apertura epistemológica católico romana, su confianza en la capacidad del hombre, y su dependencia total sobre la posibilidad de la cooperación humana convergen en la articulada teología en lo que se refiere a la bíblicamente sobria figura de María. En este sentido, la mariología expresa, por tanto, las características por excelencia de los motivos naturaleza-gracia católico romanas. Segundo, el catolicismo romano necesita un sujeto mediador para relacionar la gracia con la naturaleza y la naturaleza con la gracia -es decir, la Iglesia Romana- y así Allison habla de la “interconexión Cristo-Iglesia”.
La Iglesia es considerada una prolongación de la Encarnación, reflejando a Cristo como una realidad Divina-humana, actuando como una altera persona Christi, o sea, un segundo “Cristo”. Por consiguiente, es imposible para el catolicismo romano clamar con los reformadores solus Christus, ya que esto se vería como un rompimiento del vínculo orgánico entre Cristo y la Iglesia. El triple ministerio de Cristo como Rey, Sacerdote y Profeta es así transpuesto a la Iglesia Romana, en su regla jerárquica, su interpretación magisterial de la Palabra y su administración de los sacramentos. Nunca hay solus Christus (sólo Cristo), únicamente Christus in ecclesia (Cristo en la Iglesia) y ecclesia in Christus (la Iglesia en Cristo). Al llegar a este punto, Allison hace su detallado análisis, capítulo a capítulo, del Catecismo, resumiendo sus principales principios y ofreciendo una evaluación evangélica fascinante aunque crítica.
La imagen que nos llega es diferente de la que Mark Noll y Carolyn Nystrom escribieron en su tratado de 2005 Is The Reformation Over? [¿Ha terminado la Reforma?] En este libro, Noll y Nystrom argumentaban que “los evangélicos pueden aceptar al menos dos tercios” del Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica. Más adelante, admiten que cuando el Catecismo habla de Cristo, se entrelaza con la Iglesia hasta el punto de hacer de los dos uno, lo cual es inaceptable para los evangélicos que consideran la exaltación de la realidad creada un caso de idolatría. Así, por una parte, hay una aparente “ortodoxia común”; por la otra, existe una profunda diferencia sobre el significado de las palabras básicas (p.e. Cristo, la iglesia, etc.). Sobre la base de la “interdependencia naturaleza-gracia” y la “interconexión Cristo-Iglesia”, Allison ayuda al lector a encontrar sentido a ambas áreas de acuerdos y desacuerdos al tiempo que apunta siempre a la red hermenéutica que se estableció al principio. Por ejemplo, el Catecismo enseña una doctrina de “justificación por la fe”.
Aunque, lo que el catecismo quiere decir, es un trabajo sinérgico que no es forense en su naturaleza pero sí transformador y que se administra a través del sistema sacramental de la Iglesia y teniendo en cuenta los méritos propios. La palabra es la misma pero el significado teológico, que es confirmado por las prácticas devocionales de Roma, está lejos del entendimiento bíblico de la doctrina de la justificación. Lo mismo es cierto en cuanto concierne a todos los términos clave del evangelio. El catolicismo romano es un sistema que lo abarca todo y se necesita abordarlo como tal, intentando dar sentido a sus enseñanzas, no como si fueran temas aislados sino tratando de penetrar en el hecho de que pertenecen a un sistema dinámico aunque orgánico. Al tratar con el catolicismo romano, especialmente en tiempos de creciente presión ecuménica, la teología evangélica debería ir más allá de la superficie de las afirmaciones teológicas e intentar captar el marco interno de referencia de la teología católica. Desde allí, se puede probar valorarlo desde una perspectiva evangélica.
Este es exactamente el punto abordado por el libro de Allison y también su mayor contribución. El libro magistral del Profesor Allison es encomiable por su profundidad bíblica, su agudeza teológica, su atención histórica y su conciencia sistémica. La teología evangélica ha empezado finalmente a hacer su tarea al analizar la visión del actual catolicismo romano. Mi esperanza es que este libro de referencia reorientará la teología evangélica desde su atracción a un ecumenismo superficial con Roma hacia un diálogo serio fundamentado en la Palabra de Dios. La Reforma según el Evangelio es tan viva y relevante como siempre.
Teología y Práctica Católico Romana: Una Evaluación Evangélica de Gregg R. Allison. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014. 496 pps. 28 $. Esta reseña también está publicada en http://9marks.org/review/book-review-roman-catholic-theology-by-gregg-allison/
Posted on

94. A New Era Between Catholics and Evangelicals?

November 7th, 2014

Visiting the Pope has become something popular amongst Evangelical leaders around the world. Nearly every month there are Evangelicals from the four corners of the globe that are received by Francis either in private conversation, or around the table of a shared meal, or in the context of more official meetings. Pope Francis seems to have targeted Evangelicals of all stripes (from highly liturgical sectors of Protestantism to prosperity gospel gurus with all variances in between) in order to build bridges with these Christians who have traditionally stayed outside of mainstream ecumenical circles but who nonetheless represent the wing of the Church that is growing more than any other. This phenomenon of Evangelical leaders taking “selfies” with the Pope and then becoming prominent spokesmen of unity with the Roman Catholic Church needs to be examined more carefully.

Against the backdrop of this growing trend of Evangelical leaders visiting the Pope, the visit of the World Evangelical Alliance and its official delegation of representatives from all over the world on November 6th is perhaps the first time that such a vast delegation has been granted an audience by a Roman Pontiff. The significance and importance of this visit is attested to by the fact that the Pope’s address to the WEA delegation has been made public through the Vatican Press Bulletin which is its official outlet (http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2014/11/06/0823/01747.html).

United in Baptism?

The Pope began his address by referring to baptism as the grounds by which unity can be accomplished. After quoting Ephesians 4:13 on attaining to the unity of the truth, Francis went on to say that “this truth is grounded in our Baptism, by which we share in the fruits of Christ’s death and resurrection. Baptism is God’s priceless gift which we have in common”. Interestingly, this is a typical Roman Catholic statement. Whereas Evangelicals would tend to say that unity is grounded in God’s grace received through faith in Jesus Christ, the Pope spells out a different view. According to him it is the “sacrament of baptism”, an ecclesial sacrament, that is the basis for Christian unity. The standard Evangelical conviction is that all believers in Jesus Christ are already united (“We Believe in the Unity of the Spirit of all true believers”, says WEA’s Statement of Faith), but the Pope here presents a different perspective: it is those who are baptized that are united. A person baptized by the church may or may not be a believer as the phenomenon of Nominal Christianity clearly demonstrates, and yet the Pope and his Church think that baptism represents sufficient grounds for unity. A question must be raised at this point: are the Evangelical leaders who seem to be such big fans of the Pope aware of this?

That Christians are already united in baptism is a shared ecumenical conviction but it is not the historic Evangelical position. The Pope reinforced it when he spoke about “the profound unity brought about by grace in all the baptized” (then by quoting the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio, 13). How can Christians be united by grace with those who are baptized but that do not profess and live out their faith in Jesus? The point is that when Evangelicals talk about unity with the Pope and the Pope talks to them about unity, they are using the same word but they mean different things.

No Mere Personal Relationship with Christ

The insistence on baptism as the grounds of unity is demonstrated in another comment made by Francis in his speech. Insisting on the pre-eminence of baptism over faith, the Pope said that “the Gospel is not merely about our personal relationship with God”. It is more than that. This language of having a “personal relationship with God” is dear to Evangelicals and is one of the defining marks of their spirituality. Pope Francis likes to use it too. However, the reference to the sacrament of baptism which is for him sufficient grounds for unity and that precedes a personal relationship with God puts this phrase into context. According to Francis, unity is based on baptism, not on personal relationship with Christ. Evangelicals also believe that the Christian life is more than having a personal relationship with Christ. Yet they believe that this is the foundation upon which the full Christian discipleship must be built. Regardless of which view of baptism they hold to, it is nonetheless personal faith that is central. For Francis, God’s grace comes to us not by faith alone but through the sacramental system administered by the Church. This is not merely a minor point of difference.

The speech included an appeal to enter a “new era of relations between Catholics and Evangelicals”. But if they still don’t agree on what is the basis of Christian unity and there is no indication of openness to change according to the Gospel, how can there be a “new era”?

Posted on

94. ¿Nueva Era entre católicos y evangélicos?

08 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2014
Visitar al Papa se ha convertido en algo muy popular entre los líderes evangélicos de todo el mundo. Casi todos los meses evangélicos procedentes de las cuatro esquinas del globo son recibidos por Francisco ya sea en una conversación privada, en torno a una mesa compartiendo una comida o en el contexto de reuniones más oficiales. El Papa Francisco parece haber dirigido su objetivo hacia los evangélicos de todas las tendencias (desde los sectores altamente litúrgicos del protestantismo a los gurús del evangelio de la prosperidad, con todas las variaciones que hay en medio) con el fin de construir puentes con estos cristianos que tradicionalmente han permanecido fuera de la corriente principal ecuménica pero que, no obstante, representan el ala de la Iglesia que crece más que cualquier otra. Este fenómeno de los líderes evangélicos haciéndose “selfies” con el Papa y después transformándose en portavoces prominentes de la unidad con la Iglesia Católico Romana necesita examinarse más detenidamente.
En el ambiente de esta tendencia creciente de líderes evangélicos visitando al Papa, la visita de la delegación oficial de la Alianza Evangélica Mundial (WEA por sus siglas en inglés) con representantes de todo el mundo, el día 6 de noviembre, constituye posiblemente la primera vez que ha sido concedida una audiencia a una delegación tan extensa por parte del Romano Pontífice. El significado y la importancia de esta recepción lo atestiguan el hecho de que la alocución del Papa a la delegación de la WEA se hizo pública a través del canal oficial del Boletín de Prensa del Vaticano, que es su medio oficial.
¿Unidos en el Bautismo?
El Papa empezó su discurso haciendo referencia al bautismo como uno de los terrenos en los cuales la unidad podría alcanzarse. Después de citar Efesios 4:13 como ejemplo para la consecución de la unidad de la verdad, Francisco continuó diciendo que “esta verdad se fundamenta en nuestro bautismo, por el que compartimos los frutos de la muerte y de la resurrección de Cristo. El bautismo es un don inestimable de Dios que tenemos en común”. Curiosamente, ésta es una afirmación típica católico romana. Mientras que los evangélicos tenderían a decir que la unidad se basa en la gracia de Dios recibida mediante la fe en Jesucristo, el Papa explica detalladamente un punto de vista diferente. Según su opinión, el “sacramento del bautismo”, un sacramento eclesial, es la base para la unidad de los cristianos.
La convicción estándar evangélica es que todos los que creen en Jesucristo ya están unidos (“Creemos en la Unidad del Espíritu de todos los creyentes verdaderos”, dice la Declaración de Fe de la WEA), pero el Papa presenta una perspectiva diferente: son aquellos que están bautizados los que están unidos. Una persona bautizada por la iglesia puede o no ser un creyente como demuestra claramente el fenómeno del Cristianismo Nominal y, a pesar de todo, el Papa y su Iglesia creen que el bautismo representa una razón suficiente para la unidad. En este punto debe plantearse una pregunta: ¿Son conscientes de esto los líderes evangélicos que parecen ser tan entusiastas fans del Papa? Que los cristianos ya están unidos por el bautismo es una convicción ecuménica compartida, pero no es la posición evangélica histórica. El Papa la reforzó cuando habló sobre “la profunda unidad producida por la gracia en todos los bautizados” (citando el documento del Vaticano II Unitatis Redintegratio, 13). ¿Cómo pueden los cristianos estar unidos por la gracia con los que están bautizados pero que no profesan ni viven su fe en Jesús? La cuestión es que cuando los evangélicos hablan sobre la unidad con el Papa y el Papa habla con ellos sobre la unidad, todos usan la misma palabra pero en realidad quieren decir cosas diferentes.
No es una Mera Relación Personal con Cristo
La insistencia en el bautismo como la base de la unidad se demuestra en otro comentario que hizo Francisco en su disertación. En su reiteración en la preeminencia del bautismo sobre la fe, el Papa dijo que “el Evangelio no es meramente acerca de nuestra relación personal con Dios”. Es más que esto. Este lenguaje de tener una “relación personal con Dios” es apreciado por los evangélicos y es una de las marcas definitorias de su espiritualidad. Al Papa Francisco también le gusta utilizarlo. No obstante, la referencia al sacramento del bautismo que para él es una base suficiente para la unidad y que precede a una relación personal con Dios pone esta frase en su contexto. Según Francisco, la unidad se funda en el bautismo, no en la relación personal con Cristo. Los evangélicos también entienden que la vida cristiana es más que tener una relación personal con Cristo, aunque creen que éste es el fundamento sobre el cual debe construirse el completo discipulado cristiano. Independientemente de la visión que posean sobre el bautismo, es en todo caso, la fe personal lo que es central.
Para Francisco la gracia nos es dada no por la sola fe sino por medio del sistema sacramental administrado por la Iglesia. Esto no es meramente un aspecto menor de la diferencia. El discurso incluía un llamamiento para entrar en una “nueva era de relaciones entre los católicos y los evangélicos”. Sin embargo, si todavía no están de acuerdo en lo que consiste la base de la unidad de los cristianos y no hay ninguna indicación de apertura al cambio según el Evangelio, ¿cómo puede haber una “nueva era”?
Posted on

92. Pablo VI, un beato para tranquilizar a los conservadores perplejos

01 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2014
La Iglesia Católico Romana tiene otro beato, o un bienaventurado, a quien la Iglesia le reconoce la capacidad de interceder a favor de las gentes que oran en su nombre. El pasado 19 de octubre el Papa Francisco beatificó a Giovanni Battista Montini (1897-1978), que llegó a ser Pablo VI (1963-1978). Un intelectual sofisticado y reservado, bien versado en literatura francesa moderna y teología, Montini se convirtió en Papa durante el Concilio Vaticano Segundo y se le encomendó la difícil tarea de finalizar el Concilio y gestionar los turbulentos años que siguieron al mismo. Pablo VI tuvo que luchar con el “espíritu” del Concilio que para muchas personas, dentro y fuera de la Iglesia, significaba la adaptación a los cambios radicales que tuvieron lugar en la sociedad occidental durante los años sesenta. Sin ser un líder natural, Montini encarnó el drama de una iglesia que sólo había alcanzado el mundo con sus palabras optimistas de apreciación pero que también se retiraba hacia unas actitudes más cautelosas.
El Momento de la Beatificación
La beatificación de Pablo VI llega al final de un Sínodo que debatió la posibilidad de un reposicionamiento de la Iglesia Católica en los asuntos concernientes a la familia. Esta reunión de obispos discutió abiertamente la readmisión de personas divorciadas en la Eucaristía, así como también un acercamiento más positivo a las nuevas formas de familia, p.e. las uniones civiles y las relaciones homosexuales. No se tomó ninguna decisión final, pero el hecho de que se previesen e incluso se defendieran ciertos cambios por parte de algunas voces progresistas hizo que los intransigentes tradicionales teman ahora que un cambio de paradigma importante esté a punto de ocurrir. El Papa Francisco convocó el Sínodo y parecía que aprobaba estos cambios, insistiendo siempre en que la Iglesia necesita tener la mente abierta. Si bien, al mismo tiempo, no quería dar la impresión de estar completamente al lado de los que deseaban volver a discutir la valoración moral católica de las diferentes relaciones humanas.
En este punto la beatificación de Pablo VI salta a la palestra. En los círculos católicos siempre se ha representado a Pablo VI como el Papa que, con su Encíclica Humanae Vitae de 1968, se oponía a los métodos anticonceptivos y se consolidaba en la moral católica tradicional en medio de la “revolución sexual”. Es factible que Francisco supiera que el Sínodo podía abrir nuevos caminos hacia el entendimiento católico de la familia y que los conservadores se perturbaran por estos cambios. Sin embargo, quería que Pablo VI fuera beatificado al final del Sínodo para enviar el mensaje que, por una parte la Iglesia Católica puede actualizar su visión y, por la otra, honrar sus tradiciones. Es tanto una realidad viva como tradicional. Por consiguiente, el momento de la beatificación demuestra la habilidad de una institución que es tradicional sin llegar a ser tradicionalista o, por decirlo de otra manera, hace los cambios sin perder su herencia. La beatificación ha sido un mensaje tranquilizador a esta sección de la circunscripción católica que se sintió desconcertada y perpleja con el resultado del Sínodo.
El Pacto de Lausana y el Evangelii Nuntiandi
Pablo VI debería ser también recordado por un interesante paralelismo de algo que sucedió en el Movimiento Evangélico durante su pontificado. En 1974, como resultado del Congreso Internacional de Evangelización Mundial convocado por Billy Graham y organizado por John Stott, el Pacto de Lausana llamó a la iglesia a implicarse en la evangelización del mundo con el Evangelio bíblico. Hasta entonces la palabra “evangelización” y el vocabulario asociado a la misma se habían tratado con suspicacia en los círculos católico romanos debido a la utilización y a las connotaciones “protestantes”. La misión y la catequesis eran más tradicionales y fueron los términos preferidos por mucho tiempo. Es solamente después del Vaticano II que el lenguaje de la evangelización empezó a usarse.
Fue en realidad Pablo VI con su Exhortación Apostólica de 1975 Evangelii Nuntiandi, quien ayudó a la Iglesia Católica a aceptar y utilizar la palabra “evangelización”, dándole una connotación católica. Es interesante resaltar que fue después de Lausana cuando la Iglesia Católica comprendió la importancia del vocablo para su misión. Al resistirse a la relajación de la moral católica, Pablo VI captó la necesidad que tenía la Iglesia de explorar la importancia de la evangelización. Ahora el Papa Francisco habla más de la “misión” que de la “evangelización” y quiere que la Iglesia sea “una casa abierta” a todos los seres humanos, dejando a un lado las preocupaciones que desgastaron completamente a Pablo VI.
Posted on

93. Who Are We to Judge? The Synod on the New Forms of the Family

October 31st, 2014

“Whom am I to judge?” answered Pope Francis to a question on homosexuals. Who are we to judge? … seems to be the sequel of his answer by the Synod that met in mid October to discuss various critical issues about the family and the Church’s responsibility in addressing them. We are perhaps dealing with a significant development in the Roman Catholic Church, something along the line of the “aggiornamento” (i.e. update of attitudes and approaches) that took place at Vatican II and after. The pre-Synod debate chiefly concentrated on the possibility to re-admit to the Eucharist those who went through a divorce. Given the fact that, according to Roman Catholic teaching, marriage is a once and for all sacrament administered by the Church, should those who have broken marriages be given the sacrament of the Eucharist or not? The debate was polarized between progressive voices (like Cardinal Walter Kasper, for example) who favored a relaxation of the prohibition and conservative ones (like the North-American Cardinals) who opposed it. No final decision has been made yet. Next year’s second session of the Synod will make it and ultimately the Pope will promulgate it. There are tensions within the Catholic Church but the majority seems to have taken a line marked by openness towards change, not only as far as the re-admission to the Eucharist is concerned, but also towards re-positioning the Catholic Church in the much bigger discussion about the different forms of human relationships.

The Law of Graduality

The report drafted after the initial discussion (Relatio post disceptationem) contains some revolutionary statements and some significant silences. It highlights the positive value of each relationship, considered as always a good thing in itself. The Church wants to speak a word of hope to each relationship but the document refrains from passing over moral judgments on the kind of relationship that is envisaged. The report appeals to the “law of graduality”, i.e. each form of relationship is an imperfect form of good that needs to be encouraged to flourish. No distinction is made between heterosexual marriage and homosexual relationship, co-habitation and unions of various kinds. The good of a relationship is always in a “gradual” form and no relationship is totally deprived of it. Therefore, while recognizing standing and unresolved moral issues, positive words are used to describe homosexual relationships and non-married unions. This is the first time that something similar happens in a semi-official Vatican document.

The “law of graduality” allows to recognize the positive elements that exist in every situation, even in those that the Church has traditionally defined as sinful. Stress is put on “imperfect forms of good” that are present everywhere. Traditional Roman Catholic teaching has often underlined the “objective” nature of sinful acts (e.g. the adulterous and the homosexual intercourses), but the document leaves aside any reference to a black-and-white moral picture when it comes to assessing the present-day forms of relationship. Each relationship has different shades of good and this is the point the Church wants now to focus on. It is true that the final report (Relatio Synodi) moderates some of these statements and puts them more clearly in the context of the traditional teaching of the Church. The point is that the principle of the Roman catholicity (i.e. the development and widening of catholic synthesis) has been working here. A more extreme position is after mitigated and then one year is taken for the debate to go on until the final decision will come. Having said that, Pope Francis’ question “Who am I to judge?” has become the question of the majority of the Synod. It is now clear that the Pope’s “merciful” attitude has gained attention and has become wide-spread amongst the Catholic hierarchy.

The Vatican II Paradigm

Where does this feasible but not-yet official change come from? Some observers might argue that it is a capitulation to the spirit of the age that blurs any moral distinctiveness and elevates individual choices as the paramount criterion of what is good. Though there may be some truth in it this analysis is nonetheless incomplete. It was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) that provided the tools that the Synod is now applying to the issue of sexuality and the family. Let’s see what happened then and how it impacts today’s discussion.

Before Vatican II, all non-Catholics were thought of as being heretics, schismatics or pagans. You were either in the Church or outside and against it. The Council introduced a new way of looking at non-Catholic people. While the Catholic Church retained its conviction to have access to the full sacramental salvation, other believers were considered as revolving around it depending on the distance or nearness to the center. The other religions reflected different degrees of truth and blessing and were seen in a fundamental positive way. The point is that each religion contained elements of truth that needed to be appreciated and that formed the basis for a re-discovered universal brotherhood. Vatican II abandoned the clear-cut in/out approach to embrace the principle of graduality: instead of denouncing the others’ errors, each religion became to be seen as having some good in it.

The same model is now applied to the different relationships. There is some good in a homosexual relationship although it remains distant from the ideal relationship. There is some good in a co-habitation outside of marriage although it is still irregular. There is some good in any loving relationship. It may be weak, defective, and even contradictory, but the Church wants to speak a word of understanding and hope for all. Although Pope Francis has not yet made this position official, everything that he has been saying and doing so far points to this direction. After his “Who am I to judge?”, the majority in the Synod is saying “Who are we to judge?”

Posted on

92. Paul VI, A Beatus to Reassure the Perplexed Conservatives

October 24th, 2014

The Roman Catholic Church has another beatus, or blessed one, whom the Church recognizes as having the capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in his or her name. On October 19th Pope Francis beatified Giovanni Battista Montini (1897-1978) who became Paul VI (1963-1978). A reserved and sophisticated intellectual, well versed in modern French literature and theology, Montini became Pope during the Second Vatican Council and was given the difficult task of concluding the Council and handling the turbulent years that followed. Paul VI had to wrestle with the “spirit” of the Council that for many inside and outside the Church meant an adaptation to the radical changes that Western society was going through during the Sixties. Not a natural leader, Montini embodied the drama of a Church that had just reached out to the world with its optimistic words of appreciation but had to also retreat to more cautious attitudes.

The Timing of the Beatification

Paul VI’s beatification comes at the end of a Synod that discussed the possibility of a re-positioning of the Catholic Church on matters concerning the family. This gathering of bishops openly debated the re-admission of divorced people to the Eucharist as well as a more positive approach towards new forms of family, e.g. civil unions and homosexual relationships. No final decision was made, but the fact that certain changes were envisaged and even advocated for by some progressive voices made traditional hardliners fear that a significant paradigm shift is about to occur. Pope Francis called the Synod and appeared to welcome these changes, always insisting that the Church needs to be open-minded. At the same time, though, he did not want to give the impression of entirely siding with those who want to re-discuss the Catholic moral assessment of different human relationships.

At this point the beatification of Paul VI comes to the fore. In Catholic circles Paul VI is always portrayed as the Pope who with his 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae opposed contraceptive methods and sticked to traditional Catholic morality in the midst of the “sexual revolution”. It is feasible that Francis knew that the Synod could have broken new ground in the Catholic understanding of the family and that conservatives would have been upset by these changes. Yet he wanted Paul VI to be beatified at the end of the Synod to send the message that, on the one hand the Catholic Church can update its vision and, on the other, honor its traditions. It is both a living and a traditional reality. Therefore the timing of the beatification demonstrates the cleverness of an institution that is traditional without becoming traditionalist or, to put it differently, that changes without losing its heritage. The beatification was a reassuring message to that section of the Catholic constituency that felt puzzled and perplexed with the outcome of the Synod.

The Lausanne Covenant and Evangelii Nuntiandi

Paul VI should also be remembered for an interesting parallel to what was happening in the Evangelical Movement during his pontificate. In 1974, as a result of the Congress on World Evangelization convened by Billy Graham and shaped by John Stott, the Lausanne Covenant called the church to be engaged in evangelizing the world with the biblical gospel. Up to that point the word “evangelization” and the vocabulary associated with it had been treated with suspicion in Roman Catholic circles due to its “protestant” usage and overtones. Mission and catechesis were more traditional and were the preferred terms for a long time.

It is only after Vatican II that the language of evangelization began to be used. It was actually Paul VI with his 1975 Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi that helped the Catholic Church to accept and use the word “evangelization” giving it a Catholic connotation. It is interesting that it was after Lausanne that the Catholic Church understood the importance of the term for its mission. While resisting the relaxation of Catholic morality, Paul VI caught the need for the Church to explore the significance of evangelization. Now Pope Francis speaks more about “mission” than “evangelization” and wants the Church to be “an open house” for all human beings, leaving aside the concerns that completely wore out Paul VI.

Posted on

91. Ecumenism in All Directions. Pope Francis and the Unity of the Church

October 8th, 2014

Nothing is substantially new, but everything is affirmed and lived out in a really new way. This is how Cardinal Walter Kasper, former head of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, summarizes Pope Francis’ approach to ecumenism. In a foreword to a book that analyses the major papal speeches and acts as far as the unity of the church is concerned (Riccardo Burigana, Un cuore solo. Papa Francesco e l’unità della chiesa, Milano: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2014), Kasper argues that from his first address after being elected to his daily words and gestures, ecumenism has been central to what Francis has been doing thus far.

As is often the case in the Roman Catholic Church, there is no substantial change in the overall doctrinal framework. The Catholic approach to ecumenism is still the same without additions or subtractions. The final goal of ecumenism is to bring the whole church cum Petro (with Peter, i.e. in fellowship with the Pope) and sub Petro (under Peter, i.e. in submission to the Pope). Having said that, emphases and attitudes do change and this Pope certainly has a distinct way of interpreting his mission as a chief promoter of the ecumenical cause.

Ecumenism of Friendship

The book reflects the on-going commitment of Pope Francis to foster his view of Christian unity. After reading it, here are some observations that can be made. His ecumenical initiatives are based more on personal contacts with leaders of different churches and organizations than on institutional channels. In performing his role the Pope does not totally depend on Vatican bureaucracy but instead retains his own sphere of initiative. This relational aspect is often underlined as the primary way to foster mutual trust and deeper relationships. In Francis’ view, theological dialogues are less important than personal acquaintances. Nothing changes as far as the long term goal of the Pope presiding over the whole church is concerned, but this is not the issue that the Pope likes to focus on. The important thing for him is to say that we are friends, brothers, sisters, already “one” in some sense.

He wants different ecumenical partners and friends to be valued, listened to, cared for, and even admired. He wants to affirm them and wants them to feel appreciated. Theological and ecclesiastical alignments are secondary. Anyone interested in what is happening with this Pope should note that the paradigm he is operating under is that of an ecumenism of friendship rather than one of convictions. The two are not opposed, but the emphasis for him lies on the former, not the latter.

In his 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Francis made clear that time is more important than space. What he meant is that those who set their lives in long-term trajectories are better suited to achieve something than those who concentrate on the here and now. The overwhelming appreciation of the ecumenical partners and the on-going investment in personal relationships are two tracks of the ecumenical path that is consistent with this view.

Closer to All?

Another impressive mark of Pope Francis’ ecumenism is that he manages to get closer to all his ecumenical partners without making distinctions between them. He has similar words, attitudes, and approaches to Eastern Orthodox of various stripes, Liberal protestants, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and other kinds of Christians. Theologically speaking this is rather awkward because the closer you get to the sacramentalism and the devotions of the East, the farther away you go from the liberal agenda of most Western protestant churches, and vice versa. Furthermore as you draw nearer to the “free” church tradition of Pentecostalism you at the same time distance yourselves from the highly hierarchical and sacramental ecclesiology of both the Roman and the Eastern traditions. Not so for Pope Francis. As already pointed out, this is not his approach. He invests in relationships with all people while leaving aside theological traditions and ecclesiastical settlements. He wants to get closer to all.

A further illustration of this point is that as he draws nearer to all Christians, Pope Francis is also determined to draw nearer to all people, be they religious or secular. The same brotherly and appreciative afflatus is what marks the Pope’s attitude towards Jews, Muslims, and agnostic intellectuals. Divisive issues are left aside whereas the “brotherly” dimension is always in the foreground. The Pope is clearly pushing with the same intensity the relational side of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue as if they were two intertwined paths to achieve the overall catholic goal: cum Petro and sub Petro.

The point is that one’s objective is to draw nearer to everyone, this means that the driving concern is not biblical truth and love that is a principled and discerning criterion but the catholicity of friendship that is much more flexible and fluid. While appreciating the friendly tone, the keeping of Christian unity cannot be a matter of friendship alone. Unity in truth is what Jesus prayed for in John 17, and unity in truth and love is what Paul wrote about in Ephesians 4.

 

Posted on

91. Ecumenismo en todas las direcciones

18 DE OCTUBRE DE 2014
Nada es sustancialmente nuevo, pero todo se concibe y se vive de una forma totalmente nueva. Así es como el Cardenal Walter Kasper, antiguo director del Consejo Pontificio para la Unidad de los Cristianos, resume el enfoque que hace el Papa Francisco del ecumenismo. En el prólogo de un libro que analiza los principales discursos y actos papales referentes a la unidad de la iglesia (Riccardo Burigana, Un cuore solo. Papa Francesco e l’unità della chiesa [Un solo corazón. El Papa Francisco y la unidad de la iglesia], Milán: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2014), Kasper sostiene que desde su primera alocución después de ser elegido hasta sus palabras y gestos cotidianos, el ecumenismo ha sido el tema central de todo lo que Francisco ha estado haciendo hasta ahora. Como ocurre a menudo en la Iglesia Católico Romana, no hay un cambio trascendente en el marco doctrinal general. La aproximación católica al ecumenismo es todavía la misma sin adiciones ni sustracciones. El objetivo final del ecumenismo es traer a toda la iglesia cum Petro (con Pedro, o sea, en comunión con el Papa) y sub Petro (bajo Pedro, es decir, con sumisión al Papa). Una vez dicho esto, los énfasis y las actitudes cambian y este Papa tiene ciertamente una manera distinta de interpretar su misión como principal promotor de la causa ecuménica.
EL ECUMENISMO DE LA AMISTAD
El libro refleja el compromiso incesante del Papa Francisco para promover su visión sobre la Unidad de los Cristianos. Después de leerlo, se pueden hacer las siguientes observaciones. Sus iniciativas ecuménicas están basadas más en contactos personales con líderes de diferentes iglesias y organizaciones que a través de los canales institucionales. En el desempeño de su papel el Papa no depende totalmente de la burocracia vaticana sino que conserva su propia esfera de iniciativa. Se subraya con frecuencia este aspecto relacional como la forma principal de fomentar la confianza mutua y lazos más estrechos. Según el punto de vista de Francisco los diálogos teológicos son menos importantes que los contactos personales. Nada cambia en lo que concierne al objetivo a largo plazo del Papa presidiendo toda la iglesia, pero este no es el asunto sobre el cual al Papa le gusta concentrarse. Lo importante para él es decir que los amigos, los hermanos, las hermanas, ya somos “uno” en cierto sentido. El quiere diferentes copartícipes y amigos ecuménicos para evaluarles, escucharles, atenderles e incluso admirarles. Quiere afianzarles y desea que se sientan apreciados. Los alineamientos eclesiásticos y teológicos son secundarios.
Cualquiera que esté interesado en lo que sucede con este Papa debería notar que el paradigma bajo el que está operando es el de un ecumenismo de amistad en lugar de uno de convicciones. Los dos no son opuestos, pero él pone el énfasis en el primero, no en el último. En su exhortación Evangelii Gaudium de 2013, Francisco dejó claro que el tiempo es más importante que el espacio. Lo que quiere decir es que aquellos que fijan en sus vidas trayectorias a largo plazo están mejor adaptados para conseguir algo que los que se concentran en el aquí y ahora. La abrumadora apreciación de los socios ecuménicos y la continua inversión en relaciones personales son dos pistas del sendero ecuménico que es coherente con esta opinión.
¿MÁS CERCA DE TODOS?
Otra marca impresionante del ecumenismo del Papa Francisco es que logra acercarse a todos sus socios ecuménicos sin hacer distinciones entre ellos. Tiene similares palabras, actitudes y aproximaciones hacia los ortodoxos orientales de varias bandas, los protestantes liberales, los anglicanos, los evangélicos, los pentecostales y otras clases de cristianos. Teológicamente hablando esto es más bien incómodo porque cuanto más se acerca uno al sacramentalismo y las devociones del Este, más lejos se va de la agenda liberal de la mayoría de las iglesias protestantes occidentales y viceversa. Además, a medida que se aproxima uno más a la “libre” tradición de la iglesia del Pentecostalismo se distancia al mismo tiempo de la eclesiología sumamente jerárquica y sacramental, tanto de las tradiciones romanas como de las orientales.
Pero no es así para el Papa Francisco. Como ya se ha señalado, este no es su enfoque. El invierte en relaciones con todo el mundo mientras deja de lado las tradiciones teológicas y los arreglos eclesiásticos. Quiere acercarse a todos. Una ilustración adicional a este punto es que mientras se aproxima a todos los cristianos, el Papa Francisco también está determinado a estar cerca de todas las gentes, ya sean religiosas o seglares. Las mismas fraternales y apreciativas inspiraciones es lo que caracteriza la actitud del Papa hacia los judíos, los musulmanes y los intelectuales agnósticos. Las cuestiones que causan división se dejan aparte, mientras que la dimensión “fraternal” está siempre en primer plano. El Papa está claramente empujando con la misma intensidad el lado relacional del ecumenismo y el diálogo inter-religioso como si ambos fueran dos caminos entrelazados para conseguir la totalidad del objetivo católico: cum Petro y sub Petro. El caso es que si el objetivo propio es acercarse a todo el mundo, esto significa que la preocupación principal no se dirige hacia el amor y la verdad bíblicos, que es el criterio de sensatez y de principios, sino a la catolicidad de amistad que es mucho más flexible y fluida. Al tiempo que reconocemos el tono simpático, el mantenimiento de la unidad de los cristianos no puede ser sólo un asunto de amistad. Unidad en la verdad es por lo que Jesús oró en Juan 17 y unidad en la verdad y el amor es sobre lo que Pablo escribió en Efesios 4.