Posted on

90. Church Planting in Rome?

September 29th, 2014

Catholic missiology speaks of “plantatio ecclesiae” to describe the process of church planting where currently there is no church. The rationale of this “plantatio” is that once the (Roman Catholic) church is planted there is no need to plant another church. This is even truer in the city of Rome! In the city where the Holy See has its center and where the heart of the Roman Catholic Church lies, how does one dare to plant a church? The Church (capital C) is already there by definition! So, church planting in the shadow of the Vatican requires extra-homework in order to identify a biblical warrant before embarking on such a task.

Spiritual Barriers
Church planting in Rome encounters lots of cultural and religious barriers: non-catholics are often perceived as sects, awkward people, foreigners, or new religious movements. Sometimes,  unfortunately, the evangelical performance (e.g. narrow-mindedness, tribal mentality, over-sensitivity to differences, estrangement from the real world) confirms these stereotypes. The intent, however, should be to show that evangelical churches are biblical, classical, orthodox, protestant churches that cherish church history, the heritage of the Church Fathers, and have a long legacy in the history of Christianity while reflecting a spiritual vitality that is lacking in so many spheres of the religious world.

Then there are the spiritual and theological roadblocks. Here the whole issue of mediation comes to the fore. How do we draw near to God? The standard Catholic view is that one approaches God through the sacramental system of “mother” Church. Many words that are used are the same (e.g. grace, cross, gospel, salvation), but they mean very different things and their meanings have to be addressed. Church planters must avoid the danger of assuming that terms such as grace, faith, Jesus, church, cross, and gospel, are understood as they are biblically defined. Dismantling old patterns and constructing new ones is an on-going task. Gently but firmly people need to distance themselves from catholic institutional/sacramental baggage and be exposed to the Gospel afresh.

Finally, there is the personal dimension. The ordinary Roman is struck by the personal element of the Gospel. Usually they have no concept of it. Their religion is mainly a set of practices and traditions, but not something that involves their whole life. Therefore community life, church life, and family life are all important ways to convey the practical difference that a saving faith in Jesus Christ brings to everyday life.

Ecclesiological Challenges and Gospel opportunities

The majority of Roman Catholic countries are as poorly evangelized as most secular countries in Europe. Rome is no exception. The vast majority are nominal Christians who have a loose sociological belonging to the community and no saving faith in Jesus Christ. For the most part Roman Catholic practice is based more on Folk Catholicism (e.g. devotions and processions) than Biblical Christianity. The reading of the Bible was prohibited for centuries and this censorship has produced a high level of biblical ignorance. People think they are “Christian” because they were baptized as infants and are part of a “Christian” culture, but there is little if no sense of personal engagement as far as the Gospel is concerned. Beyond the outward religious surface, there is a blend of religious and secular idolatries along with a mixture of pre and post-modern idolatries. While the presence of the institutional church is pervasive, the impact of the Gospel is minimal and significantly obscured by social convenience and practical indifference.

Rome therefore is a mission field and church planting is key to evangelism and Gospel transformation. Rome is certainly not accustomed to being a city where religious pluralism and the plurality of churches are welcomed. Over the centuries the Church has always been presented in the singular and anyone outside of the (Roman Catholic) Church was considered a heretic and/or a schismatic. The claim of being a “church” outside of the Roman Catholic Church is countercultural but something that most people find intriguing. This is especially true in celebrating the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist being the center-piece of the entire Roman Catholic system where its sacramental, hierarchical, and dogmatic dimensions intersect). Here church planters are sending the message that the Christian church is certainly “one” and therefore “catholic” but not exclusively “Roman”. Church planting deconstructs the Roman Church’s claim to be the only church and emphasizes the “unity” of the church in terms of Gospel faithfulness instead of institutional adherence to the papal system.

In Rome there is much cynicism about the church and religion in general, as is the case in the rest of Europe. The cultural climate is skeptical and so opportunities exist to introduce the Gospel based on the virtuous circle of evangelical truth, evangelical community, and evangelical culture. Church planting is key to this goal because it joins believing and belonging, proclamation and service, the personal and the communal, creative contextualization and obedience to the Word of God. “Plantatio ecclesiae” used to be an action that went from Rome to the rest of the world. Now as ever it needs to be a commitment that reaches Rome as any other part of the world.

Posted on

90. Roma, punto de misión

04 DE OCTUBRE DE 2014
La misionología habla de “plantatio ecclesiae” para describir el proceso de plantar una iglesia en una zona donde no hay ninguna. La razón fundamental de esta “plantatio” es que una vez la iglesia (católico romana) está instalada no es necesario plantar ninguna otra iglesia. ¡Esto es incluso más cierto en la ciudad de Roma! En la ciudad donde la Santa Sede tiene su centro y donde se encuentra el corazón de la Iglesia Católico Romana, ¿quién se atreve a plantar una iglesia? ¡La Iglesia (con mayúscula) ya existe, por definición! De este modo, la plantación de iglesias a la sombra del Vaticano requiere una tarea extra para identificar un mandato bíblico antes de embarcarse en semejante labor.
OBSTÁCULOS ESPIRITUALES
La plantación de iglesias en Roma tropieza con una gran cantidad de barreras religiosas y culturales: los no católicos a menudo son percibidos como sectas, gente torpe, extranjeros o movimientos religiosos nuevos. Algunas veces, lamentablemente, la actuación evangélica (p.e. la estrechez de miras, la mentalidad tribal, el exceso de sensibilidad a las diferencias y el alejamiento de la vida real) confirma estos estereotipos. El propósito, no obstante, debería ser mostrar que las iglesias evangélicas son bíblicas, clásicas, ortodoxas; iglesias protestantes que valoran la historia de la iglesia, el patrimonio de los Padres de la Iglesia y que tienen un largo legado en la historia del cristianismo, al tiempo que reflejan una vitalidad espiritual que les falta a tantas esferas del mundo religioso. Después, están las trabas teológicas y espirituales. Aquí todo el tema de la mediación pasa al primer plano. ¿Cómo nos acercamos a Dios? El punto de vista católico estándar es que las personas se relacionan con Dios mediante el sistema sacramental de la “madre” iglesia. La mayoría de las palabras que se utilizan son las mismas (p.e. la gracia, la cruz, el Evangelio, la salvación), pero quieren decir cosas muy diferentes y sus significados tienen que ser abordados. Los fundadores de iglesias deben evitar el peligro de suponer que términos tales como gracia, fe, Jesús, iglesia, cruz y Evangelio son comprendidos tal y como están definidos bíblicamente. Desmantelar los viejos patrones y construir de nuevos es una labor continua. Suave pero firmemente la gente necesita distanciarse del bagaje sacramental/institucional y descubrir el Evangelio de nuevo. Por último, existe la dimensión personal. El católico ordinario es alcanzado por el elemento personal del Evangelio pero, por lo general, no tiene conciencia de ello. Su religión es principalmente un conjunto de prácticas y tradiciones, pero no algo que involucra a toda su vida. Por consiguiente, la vida de comunidad, la vida de iglesia y la vida de familia son todos aspectos importantes para transmitir la diferencia práctica que una fe salvadora en Jesucristo trae a la vida cotidiana.
RETOS ECLESIOLÓGICOS Y OPORTUNIDADES DEL EVANGELIO
La casi totalidad de los países católico romanos están tan pobremente evangelizados como los países más laicos de Europa y Roma no es una excepción. La gran mayoría son cristianos nominales que tienen una pertenencia sociológica a una comunidad débil y ninguna fe salvífica en Jesucristo. Para la mayor parte de los católicos romanos la práctica se basa más en el catolicismo popular (p.e. devociones y procesiones) que en el cristianismo bíblico. La lectura de la Biblia estuvo prohibida durante siglos y esta censura ha producido un alto nivel de ignorancia bíblica. La gente cree que son “cristianos” porque fueron bautizados siendo niños y forman parte de una cultura “cristiana”, pero hay poco o ningún sentido de compromiso personal en lo que se refiere al Evangelio. Más allá de la superficie religiosa exterior, existe una mezcla de idolatrías religiosas y seculares junto con una combinación de paganismo pre y post moderno. Mientras que la presencia de la iglesia institucional es ominipresente, el impacto del Evangelio es mínimo y está oscurecido considerablemente por las conveniencias sociales y la indiferencia práctica. Roma es, por tanto, un campo de misión y la plantación de iglesias es la clave para el evangelismo y la transformación a través del Evangelio. Roma no está ciertamente acostumbrada a dar la bienvenida al pluralismo religioso y a la diversidad de iglesias. A lo largo de los siglos la Iglesia se ha presentado siempre como única y cualquiera fuera de la Iglesia (Católico Romana) era considerado un hereje y/o un cismático. La reivindicación de ser una “iglesia” fuera de la Iglesia Católico Romana es contracultural, pero es algo que la mayoría de la gente encuentra intrigante. Esto es especialmente cierto cuando se celebra la Cena del Señor (la Eucaristía es la parte central de todo el sistema católico romano donde se entrecruzan sus dimensiones dogmáticas, jerárquicas y sacramentales). Es aquí donde los fundadores de iglesias envían el mensaje que la iglesia cristiana es indudablemente “una” y, por consiguiente, “católica”, pero no exclusivamente “romana”. La plantación de iglesias deconstruye la reclamación de la Iglesia Romana de ser la única iglesia y enfatiza la “unidad” de la iglesia en términos de fidelidad al Evangelio en lugar de una adhesión institucional al sistema papal.
En Roma hay mucho cinismo sobre la iglesia y la religión en general, al igual que en el resto de Europa. El clima cultural es escéptico, por lo que existen oportunidades para introducir el evangelio basado en el círculo virtuoso de la verdad evangélica, la comunidad evangélica y la cultura evangélica. La plantación de iglesias es la clave para este objetivo ya que se une la creencia y la pertenencia, la proclamación y el servicio, lo personal y lo comunitario, la contextualización creativa y la obediencia a la Palabra de Dios. “Plantatio ecclesiae” solía ser una acción que iba desde Roma al resto del mundo. Ahora, como siempre, se necesita que haya un compromiso que alcance a Roma como a cualquier otra parte del mundo.
Posted on

89. La Unidad ¿esfera o poliedro?

27 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2014
Al Papa Francisco no le gustan las esferas; le gustan los poliedros. En varios de sus recientes discursos y en diferentes contextos ha utilizado la imagen del poliedro para ilustrar lo que tiene presente cuando piensa en la unidad, es decir, la unidad de los cristianos y la unidad de la humanidad. En geometría elemental, un poliedro es una figura sólida de tres dimensiones con caras planas, bordes rectos y esquinas agudas o vértices. Sin entrar en demasiados detalles técnicos, la idea básica es que a un poliedro le falta la armonía y las proporciones de una esfera, pero conserva la unidad de un sólido. Y no sólo eso, tiene distancias variables desde su centro y no una sola manera de estar relacionado con él. Puede ser un tipo torpe de unidad, pero todavía mantiene el conjunto.
UNIDAD EN EL MUNDO GLOBAL
Francisco empezó a hablar inicialmente del poliedro en el contexto de la globalización. En un mensaje dirigido a un festival celebrado por la Doctrina Social de la Iglesia, que abordó la cuestión, dijo: “Me gustaría traducir el tema en una imagen: la esfera y el poliedro. Tomemos la esfera para representar la homologación, como una clase de globalización: es lisa, sin facetas e igual a sí misma en todas sus partes. El poliedro tiene una forma similar a la esfera, pero es multifácetico. Me gusta imaginar a la humanidad como un poliedro, en el cual las formas múltiples, a la hora de expresarse, constituyen los elementos que componen la familia humana en una pluralidad. Y esto es la verdadera globalización. La otra globalización, o sea la de la esfera, es una homologación” (6 de dic. de 2013).
Según este punto de vista, la globalización como una esfera puede llevar a la uniformidad cultural y a la homologación social, mediante las cuales un modelo de desarrollo y una forma de vida se convierten en el centro de lo que significa ser humano y el mundo entero debe ajustarse a ello. La globalización como un poliedro, por otra parte, permite múltiples soluciones que son diferentes unas de otras manteniendo al mismo tiempo relaciones vitales entre sus componentes. En este último, la homogeneidad no se impone y se fomenta la multiplicidad. En su Exhortación Apostólica del año 2013 Evangelii Gaudium, Francisco elaboró un trabajo sobre los peligros de reducir el mundo a un modelo económico único y a un paradigma cultural monolítico. Esta globalización trae “una economía de exclusión”, “la nueva idolatría del dinero”, “un sistema financiero que gobierna en lugar de servir” y “desigualdad que genera violencia”. La globalización, al querer moldear el mundo en un modelo único, lo que hace es matarlo. Por el contrario, si se celebra la diversidad del mundo hace que éste florezca. El centro de este poliedro es la humanidad común que todos los seres humanos comparten, mientras las diferentes caras representan las particularidades culturales que no pueden exprimirse ni ser ignoradas por la globalización.
LA UNIDAD DE LOS CRISTIANOS
Lo que es interesante de la utilización por parte de Francisco de estas imágenes geométricas es como las aplica al ámbito del ecumenismo. La unidad de los cristianos tiene sus propias metáforas bíblicas, tales como la de un único cuerpo con una cabeza y muchos órganos y partes (1 Corintios 12). En su visita a la Iglesia Pentecostal italiana (28 de Agosto de 2014) Francisco desarrolló su idea del ecumenismo como un poliedro: “Estamos en la era de la globalización, y nos preguntamos qué es la globalización y lo que podría ser la unidad de la iglesia: quizás una esfera, donde todos los puntos son equidistantes del centro, ¿todos iguales? ¡No! Esto es uniformidad. ¡Y el Espíritu Santo no crea la uniformidad! ¿Qué figura podemos encontrar? Estamos pensando en el poliedro puesto que el poliedro es una unidad, pero con todas las partes diferentes; cada una tiene su peculiaridad y su carisma. Esto es unidad en la diversidad”. Leyendo entre líneas, parece claro que la unidad como una esfera es el ecumenismo católico romano pre-Vaticano II, por el cual los otros cristianos eran drásticamente invitados a “volver” al redil católico y cumplir sus doctrinas y prácticas bajo la autoridad del Papa.
Con el Vaticano II el catolicismo romano actualizó su proyecto ecuménico y adoptó un tipo de círculo concéntrico de la unidad en el que la Iglesia única y sola “permanece en” la Iglesia Católico Romana y las otras iglesias y comunidades gravitan alrededor de su centro según su grado de proximidad o distancia. De acuerdo con el Vaticano II y las posteriores enseñanzas magisteriales, la unidad de los cristianos es triple: 1. profesar la misma fe, 2. celebrar la misma Eucaristía (es decir, en la forma católico romana) y 3. estar unidos bajo el mismo ministerio sacramental en la sucesión apostólica (o sea, bajo el Papa). ¿Cómo encaja un tipo poliedro de unión, como la promovida por el Papa Francisco, en esta visión de la unidad? Por ejemplo, en lo que se refiere al segundo signo mencionado antes, ¿está diciendo el Papa que la comprensión sacrificial de la Eucaristía y la teología de la transubstanciación pertenecen al centro de la unidad de los cristianos o son detalles que se pueden acomodar a las diferencias? ¿O dice el Papa que la sucesión apostólica, que es la base de la estructura jerárquica de la Iglesia Católico Romana, forma todavía parte del centro o es una variable secundaria para la unidad de los cristianos?
Los poliedros son sólidos fascinantes y el uso de Francisco de la imagen del poliedro invita a la reflexión. No obstante, el problema para la unidad de los cristianos no radica primordialmente en la metáfora que utiliza, sino en la visión teológica que la nutre. Si la Eucaristía católica y el sistema sacramental católico forman parte del centro de la unidad de los cristianos, pueden hacerse referencias a las esferas o a los poliedros tanto como se quiera, pero la sustancia del problema es que la unidad todavía gravita alrededor de la Iglesia Católico Romana y sus distintas perspectivas y no alrededor del Evangelio bíblico que llama a todos los cristianos a ajustarse a la mente de Cristo.
Posted on

89. Is Unity Like a Sphere or a Polyhedron?

September 18th, 2014

Pope Francis does not like spheres: he likes polyhedrons. In various recent speeches and in different contexts he used the image of the polyhedron to illustrate what he has in mind when he thinks of unity, i.e. Christian unity and the unity of mankind. In elementary geometry, a polyhedron is a solid of three dimensions with flat faces, straight edges and sharp corners or vertices. Without going into too many technical details, the basic idea is that a polyhedron lacks the harmony and proportions of a sphere but retains the unity of a solid. Not only that, it has variable distances from its center and not a single way of being related to it. It may be an awkward type of unity, but it still holds the solid together.

Unity in the Global World

Francis first began talking about the polyhedron in the context of globalization.  In a message to a festival on the Social Doctrine of the Church, which addressed the issue, he said: “I would like to translate the theme into an image: the sphere and the polyhedron. Take the sphere to represent homologation, as a kind of globalization: it is smooth, without facets, and equal to itself in all its parts. The polyhedron has a form similar to the sphere, but it is multifaceted. I like to imagine humanity as a polyhedron, in which the multiple forms, in expressing themselves, constitute the elements that compose the one human family in a plurality. And this is true globalization. The other globalization — that of the sphere — is an homologation” (Dec 6th, 2013).

According to this vision, globalization as a sphere can lead to cultural uniformity and social homologation whereby one model of development and one way of life become the center of what it means to be human and the whole world must conform to it. Globalization as a polyhedron, on the other hand, allows for multiple solutions that are all different from one another while still maintaining vital relationships between its components. In the latter, homogeneity is not imposed and multiplicity is encouraged. In his 2013 Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Francis elaborated on the dangers of reducing the world to a single economic pattern and a monolithic cultural paradigm. This globalization brings “an economy of exclusion”, “the new idolatry of money”, “a financial system which rules rather than serves”, and “inequality which spawns violence”. Globalization, by desiring to mould the world into a single pattern, kills it. Conversely, if it celebrates the world’s diversity it causes it to flourish. The center of this polyhedron is the common humanity that all human beings share while the different faces represent the cultural particulars that cannot be squeezed nor overlooked by globalization.

Christian Unity

What is interesting in Francis’ use of these geometric images is how he applies them to the realm of ecumenism. Christian unity has its own biblical metaphors, such as that of a single body with a head and many organs and parts (1 Corinthians 12). In his visit to the Italian Pentecostal church (August 28th, 2014), Francis developed his idea of ecumenism as a polyhedron: “We are in the age of globalization, and we wonder what globalization is and what the unity of the Church would be: perhaps a sphere, where all points are equidistant from the center, all are equal? No! This is uniformity. And the Holy Spirit does not create uniformity! What figure can we find? We think of the polyhedron: the polyhedron is a unity, but with all different parts; each one has its peculiarity, its charism. This is unity in diversity”.

Reading between the lines, it seems clear that unity as a sphere is pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic ecumenism whereby other Christians were drastically invited to “come back” into the Catholic fold and to conform to its doctrines and practices under the rule of the Pope. With Vatican II, Roman Catholicism updated its ecumenical project and embraced a concentric circle type of unity in which the one and only Church “subsists in” the Roman Catholic church and other churches and communities gravitate around this center according to their degree of nearness or distance from it. According to Vatican II and subsequent magisterial teachings, Christian unity is threefold: 1. professing the same faith, 2. celebrating the same Eucharist (i.e. the Roman Catholic way), and 3. being united under the same sacramental ministry in apostolic succession (i.e. under the Pope).

How does a polyhedron kind of unity as advocated by Pope Francis fit this view of unity? For example: as far as the second mark of unity is concerned, is the Pope saying that the sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist and the theology of transubstantiation belong at the center of Christian unity or are they particulars that can accommodate differences? Or is the Pope saying that apostolic succession, which is the basis of the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, is still part of the center or is it a variable that is secondary to Christian unity?

Polyhedrons are fascinating solids and Francis’ use of the image of a polyhedron is thought-provoking. However, the problem for Christian unity does not primarily lie in the metaphors used, but in the theological vision that nurtures it. If the Catholic Eucharist and the Catholic sacramental system are part of the center of Christian unity, one can make reference to spheres or polyhedrons all he likes, but the substance of the problem is that unity still gravitates around the Roman Catholic Church and its distinct outlook, and not around the biblical Gospel that calls all Christians to conform to the mind of Christ.

Posted on

88. Is Scripture True Only in a “Limited” Way? The Truth of the Bible According to the Pontifical Biblical Commission

August 28th, 2014

The “Biblical Renewal” is one of the most significant movements that has both preceded and followed the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). After centuries of prohibiting the circulation of the Bible in the vernacular languages and forbidding access to it, the Roman Catholic Church has been working hard to reconnect with the Scriptures. Leo XIII’s encyclical Provvidentissum Deus (1893) defended a high view of the inspiration of the Bible while Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) welcomed historical-critical methods into Catholic exegesis. These two magisterial statements are the tracks within which the present-day Roman Catholic approach to the Bible can be found. A traditional appreciation of the Bible as an inspired book, on the one hand, and a critical reading of it which questions the clarity and finality of Scripture, on the other, are the two poles that open the door for the intervention of the Magisterium for the interpretation of Scripture.

Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (1965) is the highest authoritative statement on the Bible which combines the two emphases within the framework of a triangular dialectics between Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium. A summary of Dei Verbum was offered by Pope Benedict XVI in his letter Verbum Domini (2010) in which he writes that the Word of God “precedes and exceeds sacred Scripture, nonetheless Scripture, as inspired by God, contains the divine word” (17). Here we find the classic reference to inspiration, but also the preceding existence of Tradition that envelops the Bible and speaks through the church’s Magisterium. According to Catholic teaching the Bible only “contains” the Word and this difference between Scripture and the Word allows for both critical readings of the Bible and the need for a human authority to discern what it contains and what it doesn’t.

The most recent pronouncement on this doctrine is an extended document released by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (February 22, 2014), which is the Vatican’s official study group on biblical issues. The title well captures the discussed topic: “The Inspiration and the Truth of Sacred Scripture”. This 250-page text is basically an elaboration of what Dei Verbum had argued as far as the scope of biblical inerrancy is concerned, i.e. that the Bible “teaches, without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (11). What, though, is the significance of relating inerrancy to “the sake of our salvation?” Is it then a kind of inerrancy that is limited only to the message of salvation? What about the rest of the Bible? Is it without error? And how can that which is related to salvation be distinguished from the rest? And who can discern what is without error and what is instead disputable? Roman Catholic theology has been discussing these issues since Vatican II and the Pontifical Biblical Commission has now entered this very important debate.

The document attempts to reaffirm and expand on what Dei Verbum highlights. The truth of the Bible is affirmed but is related to the “project of salvation” (3), the “salvific plan” (4), and “our salvation” (63). The detailed biblical overview on the truth of Scripture is understood as limiting the inerrancy of the text to its soteriological purpose. As for the rest, “in the Bible we encounter contradictions, historical inaccuracies, unlikely accounts, and in the Old Testament there are precepts and commands that are in conflict with the teaching of Jesus” (104). More specifically, the Abrahamic narratives are considered more as interpretations than historical facts (107), the crossing the Red Sea is more interested in actualizing the Exodus than reporting its original events (108), most of the book of Joshua has little historical value (127), and Jonah’s story is an imaginary account (110). In the New Testament, the reference to the earthquake in the passion’s narratives is a “literary motif” rather than a historical report (120). More generally, the Gospels have a normative value in affirming Jesus’ identity but their historical references have a “subordinate function” (123): in other words, the theology of the Gospels is valid, but their historical reliability is less important. How the two aspects can be neatly distinguished is not explained. In the end the truth of the Bible is “restricted” to what it says about salvation (105).

Another section of the document deals with the “ethical and social issues” raised by the alleged truth of the Bible, e.g. the theme of violence and the place of women. The hard and “offensive” texts of Scripture (e.g. the conquest narratives and the imprecatory Psalms) are not read in Catholic services due to “pastoral sensitivity” (125). According to the document, how can they be the Word of God is difficult to say. Again, the standard criterion to discern the inerrancy of the text is to “look at what it says about God and men’s salvation” (136) leaving the rest to the historical-critical readings and cultural sensibilities of the time. In a telling final statement, the document says that “the goal of the truth of Scripture is the salvation of believers” (144). The implication is that the Bible says beyond salvation (however defined) is not to be taken as necessarily true in the same sense.

What about the role of the Church in this matter? Since the truth of the Bible is not plenary but needs to be discerned according to its salvific purpose, it is the Church that mediates the acceptance and the proclamation of the truth of Sacred Scripture (149). It is the Church (the Roman Catholic Church) that selects and limits what is the truth of Scripture. According to the document then the Bible is true as far as its message of salvation is concerned and as far as higher criticism dictates. Ultimately, it is the Church that defines the truth of Scripture and rules over it.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document “The Inspiration and the truth of Sacred Scripture” argues for a “limited inerrancy” of Scripture (limited to the message of salvation) and reiterates historical-critical views about the un-reliability of the historical accounts of both the Old and the New Testament. It is a Roman Catholic blend of traditional and critical views of the Bible which finally exalts the role of the Church. While rejoicing for some fruits of the “biblical renewal” that is taking place in Roman Catholicism, especially as far as the encouragement to all to read the Scriptures is concerned, the battle for the truth of Scripture still rages. In no way has Rome come closer to Sola Scriptura, i.e. the obedience to the self-attesting Word of God written that truly witnesses to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholicism has nuanced its position and has relaxed the sharp edges of its opposition, but it still maintains the prominence of the Church over the Bible.

Posted on

87. The Marian Message of Pope Francis to Korea

August 22nd, 2014

The Papal visit to Korea (August 13th-18th, 2014) was his first trip to Asia and many commentators have already highlighted different geo-political aspects of it. Asia is one of the most promising regions in the world for the Roman Catholic in terms of potential growth. This is the reason why Pope Francis will visit Sri Lanka and the Philippines in January of 2015. Asia is inevitably related to China, where there is an on-going diplomatic challenge for the Vatican and its prudent attempt to deal with the Chinese government and the unsettled situation of Christian churches there. This is why Francis extensively spoke on the theme of “dialogue” and the fact that Christians in no way intend to “invade” anyone or any place. He was in Korea but certainly had China in the back of his mind and wanted to send a message there as well. Korea itself is a divided nation and the Pope addressed the painful memories and the reality of the separation between North and South Korea. On a more symbolic level, Asia is also very evocative for Jesuits in general. Five centuries ago Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) was the first Jesuit to go to China, and so the Jesuit Pope also feels the Asian attraction that is typical of many Jesuits.

Geo-political considerations aside, there were two main spiritual emphases of the visit: the usual Marian framework of Pope Francis and the elaboration of his missional view as far as the discipline of dialogue is concerned. This File concentrates on the first item while another one will deal with the second.

Mary, Mother of Korea

The Papal visit coincided with the Asian Youth Day but most importantly with the solemn celebration of the assumption of Mary, body and soul, into the glory of heaven (August 15th). This Marian dogma was promulgated in 1950 and fits very well the overall spirituality of Pope Francis. In his homily during the celebration he invited the Korean audience “to contemplate Mary enthroned in glory beside her divine Son”. He called Mary “Mother of the Church in Korea” asking her help “to be faithful to the royal freedom we received on the day of our Baptism”. The queenly glory of Mary was coupled with the motherhood of Mary for the whole nation of Korea. Although the Bible teaches that “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Psalm 46:1), it was Mary that was presented to the faithful as an ever ready helper on the spiritual journey.

In praising Mary, the Pope went on to say that “In her, all God’s promises have been proved trustworthy”. Actually, the Bible says that “all the promises of God find their Yes in Him”, i.e. in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). This is an example of how the logic of Catholic Mariology works its way through: it takes what belongs to Christ and extends it to his mother, although the Bible does not prescribe nor does it allow such an extension to take place.

The final invocation was also telling: “And now, together, let us entrust your Churches, and the continent of Asia, to Our Lady, so that as our Mother she may teach us what only a mother can teach: who you are, what your name is, and how you get along with others in life. Let us all pray to Our Lady”. Again, the motherhood of Mary was strongly emphasized to the point of attributing the discovery of our identity to her instead of Christ in whom we are saved and through whom we have received a new name. In so doing Mary joins Christ with the risk of taking his place.

Obtaining the Grace of Perseverance?

A final comment on the Mariology of the Papal visit is in order. During the Mass for the beatification of 124 Korean martyrs (August 16th), Francis ended his homily with these words: “May the prayers of all the Korean martyrs, in union with those of Our Lady, Mother of the Church, obtain for us the grace of perseverance in faith and in every good work, holiness and purity of heart, and apostolic zeal in bearing witness to Jesus in this beloved country, throughout Asia, and to the ends of the earth”. The idea is that the prayers of those whom the Church proclaims to be blessed “obtain for us the grace of perseverance”. Perseverance seems to be a human “work” that is obtainable through the efforts of the living and the dead.

In returning to Rome, after the long flight from Korea, Pope Francis stopped on his way to the Vatican at the basilica of Saint Mary Major, the largest Marian church in Rome, to thank Mary for the successful results of his trip to Asia. Saint Mary Major was the first church the Pope ever visited after becoming Pope and the dedication of his pontificate to Mary was the first official act of his reign. This church and what it represents is very dear to the him. The point is that Francis’ seemingly biblical language and “evangelical” attitude is always thought of and lived out in a thoroughly Marian framework, in both Rome and Korea alike.

Posted on

88. ¿La Escritura es verdad sólo de forma limitada? La verdad de la Biblia según la Pontificia Comisión Bíblica

07 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2014
La “Renovación Bíblica” es uno de los movimientos más significativos que han precedido y han seguido al Concilio Vaticano Segundo (1962-1965). Después de siglos de prohibir la circulación de la Biblia en las lenguas vernáculas y de vetar el acceso a la misma, la Iglesia Católico Romana hace un gran esfuerzo para volver a conectar con las Escrituras. En la encíclica de León XIII Provvidentissum Deus (1893) se defendía un alto concepto de la inspiración de la Biblia mientras que en la encíclica Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) de Pío XII se acogieron los métodos histórico críticos en la exégesis católica. Estas dos declaraciones magisteriales son las pistas en las cuales puede encontrarse la actual aproximación católico romana a la Biblia. Un reconocimiento tradicional de la Biblia como libro inspirado, por una parte, y una lectura crítica que cuestiona la claridad y la finalidad de las Escrituras, por la otra, son los dos polos que abren la puerta a la intervención del Magisterio para la interpretación de las Escrituras.
La Constitución Dogmática Dei Verbum (1965) del Vaticano II es la más alta declaración autoritativa sobre la Biblia que combina los dos aspectos dentro del marco de una dialéctica triangular entre la Tradición, la Escritura y el Magisterio. El Papa Benedicto XVI hizo un compendio de Dei Verbum en su carta Verbum Domini (2010) en el que dice que la Palabra de Dios “precede y trasciende la Sagrada Escritura; sin embargo ésta, en cuanto inspirada por Dios, contiene la palabra divina” (17). Aquí encontramos la clásica referencia a la inspiración, pero también la precedente existencia de la Tradición que envuelve a la Biblia y que habla a través del Magisterio de la iglesia. Según la enseñanza católica la Biblia “contiene” únicamente la Palabra y esta diferencia entre la Escritura y la Palabra permite tanto la lectura crítica de la Biblia como la necesidad de una autoridad humana para discernir lo que contiene y lo que no es así.
El más reciente pronunciamiento sobre esta doctrina es un extenso documento publicado por la Pontificia Comisión Bíblica (22 febrero 2014), que es el grupo de estudio oficial del Vaticano de los asuntos bíblicos. El título capta bien el tema discutido: “La Inspiración y la Verdad de la Sagrada Escritura”. Este texto de 250 páginas es básicamente una elaboración de lo que Dei Verbum había argumentado en lo que se refiere al alcance de la infalibilidad bíblica, es decir, que la Biblia “enseña sin error, la verdad que Dios quiere poner en las escrituras sagradas en aras de nuestra salvación” (11). Aunque, ¿cuál es el significado de relacionar la inerrancia con “el bien de nuestra salvación”? ¿Es, entonces, una clase de infalibilidad que está limitada solamente al mensaje de la salvación? ¿Qué pasa con el resto de la Biblia? ¿Es sin error? Y, ¿cómo puede distinguirse lo que está relacionado con la salvación del resto? Y, ¿quién puede discernir lo que es sin equivocación de lo que es controvertible? La teología católico romana ha estado discutiendo estos temas desde el Vaticano II y la Pontificia Comisión Bíblica ha entrado ahora en este debate tan importante.
El documento intenta reafirmar y expandir los aspectos más destacados de Dei Verbum. La verdad de la Biblia se afirma pero se relaciona al “proyecto de salvación”(3), el “plan salvífico”(4) y “nuestra salvación”(63). La visión general bíblica detallada sobre la verdad de la Escritura se entiende como una limitación de la inerrancia del texto a su propósito soteriológico. En cuanto al resto, “en la Biblia encontramos contradicciones, inexactitudes históricas, relatos improbables, y en el Antiguo Testamento hay preceptos y mandamientos que están en conflicto con la enseñanza de Jesús” (104). Más concretamente, las narraciones abrahámicas están más consideradas como interpretaciones que como hechos históricos (107), el cruce del Mar Rojo está más interesado en describir el Exodo que en relatar sus eventos originales (108), la mayor parte del libro de Josué tiene escaso valor histórico (127) y la historia de Jonás es una leyenda imaginaria (110). En el Nuevo Testamento, la referencia al terremoto en la narración de la pasión es un “adorno literario” más bien que un informe histórico (120). De manera más general, los Evangelios tienen un valor normativo al afirmar la identidad de Jesús, pero sus referencias históricas tienen una “función subordinada” (123): en otras palabras, la teología de los Evangelios es válida, pero su fiabilidad histórica es menos importante. La forma en que pueden distinguirse ordenadamente los dos aspectos no se explica. Al final, la verdad de la Biblia queda “restringida” a lo que dice sobre la salvación (105).
Otra sección del documento trata de los “temas éticos y sociales” planteados por la supuesta verdad de la Biblia, p.e., el problema de la violencia y el lugar de la mujer. Los duros y “ofensivos” textos de la Escritura (p.e. los relatos de conquistas y los salmos imprecatorios) no se leen en los servicios católicos debido a la “sensibilidad pastoral” (125). Según el documento, es difícil de explicar cómo pueden ser aquellos Palabra de Dios. De nuevo, el criterio estándar para discernir la infalibilidad del texto es “mirar lo que dice acerca de Dios y la salvación de los hombres” (136), dejando el resto a las lecturas histórico críticas y a las sensibilidades del tiempo. En una enérgica declaración final, el documento dice que “el objetivo de la verdad de la Escritura es la salvación de los creyentes” (144). La consecuencia es que lo que la Biblia dice más allá de la salvación (independientemente de la definición) no tiene que tomarse como necesariamente cierto en el mismo sentido.
¿Qué hay del papel de la Iglesia en este asunto? Comoquiera que la verdad de la Biblia no es completa sino que necesita discernirse según su propósito salvífico, es la Iglesia la que media en la aceptación y la proclamación de la verdad de la Sagrada Escritura (149). Es la Iglesia (la Iglesia Católico Romana) la que selecciona y limita lo que es la verdad de la Escritura. Entonces, de acuerdo con este documento, la Biblia es verdad hasta donde su mensaje de salvación se refiere y en la medida en que la alta crítica dicta. En última instancia es la Iglesia la que define la verdad de la Escritura y reglamenta sobre ella.
El documento de la Pontificia Comisión Bíblica “La Inspiración y la verdad en la Sagrada Escritura” argumenta a favor de una “inerrancia limitada” de la Escritura (restringida al mensaje de la salvación) y reitera los puntos de vista histórico críticos sobre la no fiabilidad de las narraciones históricas tanto del Antiguo como del Nuevo Testamento. Es una combinación católico romana de enfoques tradicionales y críticos de la Biblia que finalmente exalta el papel de la Iglesia. Al tiempo que hay una satisfacción por algunos frutos conseguidos por la “renovación bíblica” que tiene lugar en el catolicismo romano, especialmente en cuanto al estímulo que se ofrece a todo el mundo a leer las Escrituras, la batalla por la verdad de la Escritura todavía brama. De ninguna manera Roma se ha acercado a la Sola Scriptura, es decir, la obediencia a la auto fidedigna Palabra de Dios, escrita por los que verdaderamente fueron testigos de la persona y de la obra de Jesucristo. El catolicismo romano ha matizado su posición y ha relajado los afilados bordes de su oposición, pero todavía mantiene la preeminencia de la Iglesia sobre la Biblia.
Posted on

86. Redefining Fraternity. At What Cost?

August 11th, 2014

“Where is your brother?” asked God to Cain (Genesis 4:9). This standing question challenges all people not to harm one’s brother. The assumption though is that the identity of the brother is clear enough. Therefore the issue is: who is my brother? The Bible has two answers to this question: brothers and sisters are those who belong to the same family group. Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 13:55-56), i.e. people who were part of his inner family circle. According to Scripture brothers and sisters are also those who do the will of the Father who is in heaven (Matthew 12:50), i.e. people who belong to the same spiritual family that has God as Father, Jesus as Lord and Savior and the Spirit as guarantee. On the one hand there is the natural family (or people group) and on the other there is the “household of faith” (Galatians 6:10).

What about the rest? The Bible says that all other people are “neighbors”, people who are around us, near or far, but who live where we live and share part of our journey. “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29) is the other standing question for all people. Neighbors are all those who are next to us and we are called to love them as ourselves (Matthew 22:39).

Towards a Genuine Fraternity Between Christians and Muslims?

The Bible draws a distinction between natural or spiritual brotherhood and general neighborhood, though the Vatican no longer recognizes such a distinction. In a message sent to Muslims at the end of  Ramadan and significantly entitled “Towards a genuine fraternity between Christians and Muslims” (June 24th, 2014), the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue reaffirmed the idea that Christians and Muslims are “brothers and sisters”. The message itself traces the origin and the official endorsement of this language from John Paul II to Francis:

Pope Francis … called you  “our brothers and sisters” (Angelus, 11 August 2013). We all can recognize the full significance of these words. In fact, Christians and Muslims are brothers and sisters in the one human family, created by the One God. Let us recall what Pope John Paul II said to Muslim religious leaders in 1982: “All of us, Christians and Muslims, live under the sun of the one merciful God. We both believe in one God who is the creator of man. We acclaim God’s sovereignty and we defend man’s dignity as God’s servant. We adore God and profess total submission to him. Thus, in a true sense, we can call one another brothers and sisters in faith in the one God.” (Kaduna, Nigeria, 14 February 1982).

What is happening here is the blunt re-definition of what it means to be brothers and sisters. First, while being “in Christ” becomes only one way of being brothers and sisters, fraternity is extended to all those who live “under the sun”, i.e. “the one human family”. Secondly, as far as Muslims are concerned, fraternity is further consolidated by the shared belief in “one God” whom is adored by both Christians and Muslims. The result is that they are truly “brothers and sisters in faith in the one God”.

An Unwarranted Stretch

The re-definition of what it means to be brothers and sisters is an attempt to blur what the Bible expects us to distinguish. Neighbors become brothers and sisters. Our common humanity takes over the spiritual connotation of being “in Christ” as the basis for the shared fraternity. What are the implications of such a stretch? Here are two main ones.

First, Popes John Paul II and Francis are taking the responsibility to reconstruct Biblical language forsaking its own meaning and reshaping it at the service of the Roman Catholic view of the Church representing the whole of humanity, Muslims and all others included. The assumption is that the finality of Scripture is undermined, the clear meaning of Scripture is questioned and the living tradition of the Church is thought of being entitled to “actualize” Scripture by way of changing its plain message.

Second, there is a whole set of crucial issues related to this re-definition. What does “genuine fraternity” mean in theological and soteriological terms? It seems to mean that the Biblical God and the Muslim Allah are the same God who accepts worship indifferently, both in the Christian way and in the Muslim way. After all, we are all “brothers and sisters” under Him. Moreover, it seems to imply that, as brothers and sisters “in faith in the one God”, Christians and Muslims will ultimately be saved as Christians and Muslims. The universality of salvation is clearly envisaged, if not openly stated. This message is a further extension of the very “catholic” theology stemmed from Vatican II which shifted the locus of salvation from the profession of the faith in Jesus Christ to the shared humanity of all created beings. However it remains to be seen whether or not this is biblical at all.

Beside these serious biblical flaws, you don’t need this re-defined fraternity to love Muslims and to seek to live in peace with them, as the Vatican message wants everybody to do. There is no reason to distort the plain words of Scripture: a biblically defined neighborhood is more than sufficient to promote civic engagement and peaceful co-existence with all men and women.

Posted on

86. Redefinir la fraternidad, ¿a qué precio?

16 de Agosto de 2014

“¿Dónde está tu hermano?” Preguntó Dios a Caín (Génesis 4:9). Esta pregunta permanente desafía a todos los individuos a no dañar a su hermano. Siempre y cuando se presuma que la identidad del hermano está lo suficientemente clara. Por lo tanto, el asunto es: ¿quién es mi hermano?

La Biblia tiene dos respuestas a esta pegunta: hermanos y hermanas son los que pertenecen a un mismo grupo familiar. Jesús tenía hermanos y hermanas (Mateo 13:55-56), es decir, personas que formaban parte de su círculo familiar íntimo. Según las Escrituras los hermanos y las hermanas son también aquellos que hacen la voluntad del Padre que está en los cielos (Mateo 12:50), o sea, la gente que pertenece a la misma familia espiritual que tiene a Dios como Padre, a Jesús como Señor y Salvador y al Espíritu Santo como garantía. Por una parte hay la familia natural (o grupo de individuos) y por la otra está la “familia de la fe” (Gálatas 6:10).

¿Qué pasa con el resto? La Biblia dice que todas las demás personas son “prójimos”, gente que está en nuestro entorno, cerca o lejos, pero que vive en nuestro ambiente y comparte parte de nuestro trayecto. “¿Quién es mi prójimo?” (Lucas 10:29) es la otra pregunta que se hace todo el mundo constantemente. Prójimos son todos los que tenemos cerca y somos llamados a amarles como a nosotros mismos (Mateo 22:39).

¿Hacia una fraternidad auténtica entre cristianos y musulmanes?

La Biblia traza una distinción entre la hermandad natural o espiritual y los semejantes en general, aunque el Vaticano ya no reconoce esta diferencia. En un mensaje enviado a los musulmanes al final del Ramadán y titulado significativamente “Hacia una auténtica fraternidad entre cristianos y musulmanes” (24 junio 2014), el Consejo Pontificio para el Diálogo Inter-Religioso reafirmó la idea de que los cristianos y los musulmanes son “hermanos y hermanas”. El mensaje en sí mismo sigue la pista del origen y la aprobación oficial de este lenguaje desde Juan Pablo II a Francisco:

 El Papa Francisco … os llamó “nuestros hermanos y hermanas” (Angelus, 11 Agosto 2013). Todos nosotros reconocemos la riqueza de significado de estas palabras. En realidad, cristianos y musulmanes son hermanos y hermanas de una sola familia humana, creada por el Unico Dios. Recordemos lo que dijo el Papa Juan Pablo II a algunos líderes religiosos musulmanes en 1982: “Todos nosotros, cristianos y musulmanes, vivimos bajo el sol de un único Dios misericordioso. Todos creemos en un solo Dios creador del hombre. Aclamamos la soberanía de Dios y defendemos la dignidad del ser humano como siervo de Dios. Adoramos a Dios y le profesamos una sumisión total. En este sentido podemos llamarnos unos a otros hermanos y hermanas en la fe en un solo Dios”  (Kaduna, Nigeria, 14 febrero 1982).

Lo que está pasando aquí es una redefinición contundente de lo que significa ser hermanos y hermanas. Primero, si bien estar “en Cristo” se convierte únicamente en una forma de ser hermanos y hermanas, la fraternidad se extiende a todos los que viven “bajo el sol”, o sea, “la familia humana”. Segundo, en lo que se refiere a los musulmanes, la fraternidad se consolida aún más por la creencia compartida en “un solo Dios” que es adorado tanto por los cristianos como por los musulmanes. El resultado es que éstos son verdaderamente “hermanos y hermanas en la fe en el único Dios”.

Una extensión injustificada

La redefinición de lo que quiere decir ser hermanos y hermanas es un intento de desenfocar lo que la Biblia espera que distingamos. Los “prójimos” se convierten en hermanos y hermanas. Nuestra humanidad común asume la connotación espiritual de estar “en Cristo” coma la base para la fraternidad compartida. ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones de tal extensión? A continuación indicamos dos de las principales.

Primero, los Papas Juan Pablo II y Francisco toman la responsabilidad de reconstruir el lenguaje bíblico abandonando su propio significado y remodelándolo al servicio del punto de vista católico romano de la iglesia que representa al conjunto de la humanidad, incluidos los musulmanes y todos los demás. La presunción es que la finalidad de las Escrituras se ve socavada, su claro sentido es cuestionado y la Iglesia a través de su viva tradición se considera en el derecho de “actualizar” las Escrituras mediante el sistema de cambiar su llano mensaje.

Segundo, existe todo un conjunto de cuestiones cruciales relacionadas con esta redefinición. ¿Qué significa “fraternidad auténtica” en términos teológicos y soteriológicos? Parece indicar que el Dios bíblico y el Alá musulmán son el mismo Dios que acepta la adoración indistintamente, tanto en la forma cristiana como en la musulmana. Al fin y al cabo, todos somos “hermanos y hermanas” bajo El. Además, parece presuponer que, como hermanos y hermanas “en la fe en el único Dios”, los cristianos y los musulmanes serán salvos en última instancia como cristianos y musulmanes. La universalidad de la salvación está claramente prevista, si no se indica abiertamente. Este mensaje es una extensión adicional de la teología muy “católica” surgida del Vaticano II que desplazó el locus de la salvación de la profesión de la fe en Jesucristo a la humanidad compartida de todos los seres creados. No obstante, queda por ver si esto es o no es bíblico en absoluto.

Además de estos graves errores bíblicos, no se necesita esta fraternidad redefinida para amar a los musulmanes y procurar vivir en paz con ellos, como quiere el mensaje vaticano que haga todo el mundo. No hay ninguna razón para distorsionar las llanas palabras de las Escrituras: un “prójimo” bíblicamente definido es más que suficiente para promover el compromiso cívico y la coexistencia pacífica con todos los hombres y mujeres.

Posted on

85. Francis’ Apology To Pentecostals In Search of Significance

August 3rd, 2014

Offering apologies is a highly regarded habit even in secular circles. We are surrounded by words of apology everywhere; as customers on the metro, on trains, and on TV. But in the midst of all the rhetoric of apology are there ways to discern the truthfulness of it all? Parents quickly learn to assess their children’s apologies. To say “I am sorry” is not in and of itself a true apology. One needs to show a sense of guilt, of being aware of what he is asking apology for and doing something about what went wrong. Pope Francis’ words of apology to Italian Pentecostals were considered the high point of his visit to his pastor friend Giovanni Traettino (July 28th). They referred to the nasty discriminations that Pentecostals had to suffer under the Fascist regime in the Thirties when they were deemed a threat to the stability of the social order and severely ostracized.

A Confusing Apology

The Pope’s “apology” was curious. The persecutions of 1935 against Pentecostals were implemented by the Fascist government and police, not by the Catholic church. However, Francis offered his apology for these persecutions. The Catholic church had no direct role but was the main social agent that supported the culture of discrimination. What he could have apologized for, however, was the centuries-long sin of the Catholic church that has constantly been against religious freedom. Interestingly Francis never mentioned religious freedom but only made reference to one single episode of intolerance. Then, in his apology he did not speak of the Catholic church as being responsible for opposing religious freedom but he only spoke of the sin of “catholic brothers and sisters” who persecuted Pentecostals. While the Catholic Church of the time was totally in agreement with the Fascist regime in opposing minorities and providing its cultural legitimacy in exchange of favors and privileges, Francis downplayed the role of the Church and focused on individuals. He apologized as “pastor” of those individuals who persecuted Pentecostals but he did not take responsibility for the Church they represented and that he represents. According to Catholic teaching the Church per se never errs, it is only the children of the church that sin. On the one hand, then, he apologized for the sins he did not commit. On the other he didn’t apologize for the sins his Church committed. A confusing way of offering an apology.

An Inconsequential Apology

Furthermore, spiritually speaking any apology is real if it implies restoration and compensation for those who were wronged, at least to some extent. The Pope’s apology was rhetorical but not practical. He did not speak of a commitment to finally accept and implement full religious freedom in Italy. The Catholic Church is the main obstacle in recognizing equal rights and opportunities to all religious groups, but Francis was silent on the whole issue. He only spoke words of “apology” without having institutional title to do that, without being serious about the sins of the Church and without suggesting practical ways towards a better solution for religious freedom for all. Fascism is over, persecutions against Pentecostals are over, but religious freedom is still an issue for the country that the Catholic Church considers “home”. What’s the significance of offering an apology if there is no change of mind and practical steps towards a better settlement for religious freedom?

One positive aspect of his apology was his rejection of the word “sect”. “You are not a sect” – he said to his Pentecostal audience. The label “sect” applied to Evangelicals and Pentecostals was regularly used by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Francis’ immediate predecessors. No word of apology was offered for such derogatory language that has been standard in many Papal speeches concerning Evangelicals. Here he could have offered an apology on behalf of his Church and its leaders but he remained silent. Apologies are less significant for things that belong to a distant past than for things that are happening now. In spite of all the emotional fuss that his apology originated, Francis chose a confusing and inconsequential way of saying “sorry” while maintaining the idea that his Church never makes mistakes.