Author: Leonardo De Chirico

John Paul II is now “blessed”, according to the canon law of the RC Church. The ceremonies that took place in Rome between April 30^th and May 1^st were followed by a couple million people who were present in one or more of the events and celebrations, and by millions of people around the world who were watching on TV, or observed by means of other media outlets. It is true that the events in Rome were a bit overshadowed by the royal wedding in London, on the one hand, and the shooting of Bin Laden in Pakistan, on the other. The impression is that these two world events somewhat obscured the beatification of John Paul II, at least from a media point of view. The latter, however, was impressive and thought-provoking.

It so happens that I was not in Rome when the ceremonies took place. I was actually in the USA visiting churches and promoting Gospel work in Rome. For this reason I had the opportunity to observe the beatification from a distance, as most people would normally do. Instead of being an eye-witness and fully immersed in the events, I had the chance of being a distant observer with little internet access, some exposure to TV coverage, and only and quick perusal of one or two secular newspapers. In a sense, this is the way that most people would normally have access to Vatican events, and more generally to issues related to Roman Catholicism (grabbing some bullet points, listening to some catchwords, or watching some selected pictures, and that’s all). Little theological awareness, little help in grasping the big picture, and little analysis of what happened. Is this the way in which most Evangelicals form their evaluation of Roman Catholicism?

I was impressed by what I could not gather from a distance. Here are two main pieces of information that stood out to me as a “normal” busy person looking superficially at what took place in Rome.

A memorial service?

The first bit of information I picked up was that what took place in Rome had actually been a “memorial service” celebrating the political achievements, the charming personality, and the ecclesiastical success of John Paul II. The framework was the celebrity status applied to a global-scale religious figure. In a world in which few people deserve praise, John Paul II was commended as a “hero” of his time. A memorial service is something that is palatable to most people, Evangelicals included. There is nothing wrong in nurturing the memory of a person and treasuring the lessons of their life. This, however, is not the main thrust of the beatification. Beatification is a recognition by the RC Church that the person beatified can be presented to the faithful as an intercessor for their needs, worries, sickness, etc. The faithful are encouraged to pray the beatus in order to receive healing and protection. The faithful are encouraged to bow down before the beatus, to have sacred pictures of the beatus, and to develop a fully-orbed devotion for the beatus. In other words, beatification is a decision by the RC Church to add another mediator to the thousands that are already there. Beatification touches on the mediatorship of Jesus Christ. Christ alone is not sufficient in himself, but shares his mediator role with other figures that the RC Church recognizes as “blessed” (and then eventually “saints”). Notwithstanding RC uneasiness to acknowledge this, beatification is a subtraction from the sufficiency of Christ’s work and the full humanity of his person. The “blessed” is added to Christ. Therefore holding a “memorial service” is one thing, perhaps even compatible with basic Biblical teaching, though always in danger of paying too much tribute to the celebrity culture. Proclaiming beatus upon a person is very different in that it diverts the faithful away from Christ and towards the beatus himself. Unfortunately, the latter meaning was absent from what I could gather as a distant observer.

 

A Christ-centered message?

The other impression that was apparent from what I was exposed to was that the general tone of the celebrations was Christ-centered. Few quotations from Benedict XVI’s homily were mentioned and they seemed to refer to John Paul II’s relationship with Christ. The pope was praised as a “servant of Christ” and a “follower of Christ”. (By the way, these expressions are the same that Billy Graham uses in his forward of a picture book on John Paul II that was on display in the US airports’ bookshops). What the media failed to do, however, was to present the Marian framework which was the framework of the whole celebration. On Saturday night more than 300,000 people gathered for a Marian vigil of prayer, all singing totus tuus (“wholly yours”, the Pope’s motto expressing his devotion to Mary), and prayed to Mary all night. Moreover, the homily of Benedict XVI contained many references to the Marian spirituality of John Paul II, commending it to the faithful as the way to uphold Christian witness in today’s world. On Sunday the coffin of John Paul II and the relics of his blood were displayed in St. Peter’s square for veneration by the people. Had I not had a basic knowledge of RC and a bit of spiritual curiosity to go beyond the headlines, I would have had the impression that the beatification was indeed Christ-centered, which in actual fact was not.

The beatification of John Paul II was a reminder of several challenges that we all face. First, relying on the general media as a first point of reference to the reality and accuracy of events is often misleading. Second, relying on a superficial awareness of RC helps in developing a distorted picture of it, and as a result an inaccurate understanding emerges. Third, if most Evangelicals rely on the general media and on a superficial awareness of RC, it is not surprising that we are naive (to say the least) in our evaluation of it.

 

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 14^th May 2011

Roman Catholicism is accomplished at handling both macro and micro dimensions of its universe. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a breathtaking synthesis of the millenary-old wisdom of the Church. It provides an instance of the ability of the RC Church to master and condense history, doctrine, and culture. Yet the same ability is observable in a careful analysis of a liturgical celebration. Every gesture, movement, action, word, etc., is a part of the whole which informs it.  Attention to both universals and particulars belong in the same RC realm.

The combination of both macro and micro dimensions will be displayed in the intensive 3-day beatification of John Paul II. More than 300.000 people are expected to be in Rome for this event and the program is a reflection of the “catholic” breadth of the Church as well as of her “roman” character. The catholicity of the Church will be demonstrated by the presence of all the cardinals and especially by the participation of the massive number of people at the various stages of the beatification: the Marian prayer vigil on Saturday,April 30^th; the beatification ceremony on Sunday, May 1^st; and the thanksgiving Mass on Monday May 2^nd. The whole celebration will be marked by a strong Marian accent given the particular Marian devotion of John Paul II, but also by a powerful presentation of the heroic virtues of the previous Pope.

The Saturday night Marian prayer vigil is an attempt to honor the Marianism of the former Pope and to commend it to the faithful. The open air vigil will commence with a procession behind the Maria Salus Populi Romani (“Mary the salvation of the Roman people”), a Byzantine Marian icon that is deemed to be the protector of the Romans, followed by her enthronement at Circus Maximum. The elevation of the icon is a symbol of Mary being the object of public hyper-veneration, i.e. the unique tribute of honor that the RC Church pays to her. The crowd will then join in the singing of the hymn Totus Tuus (“Wholly yours”), echoing John Paul II’s motto that indicated his total commitment to Mary. A Marian rosary will follow in satellite link with five Marian sanctuaries: Krakow (Poland), Bugando (Tanzania), Harissa (Lebanon), Guadalupe (Mexico) and Fatima (Portugal). These places were all visited by John Paul II during his long pontificate and video excerpts of his speeches on Mary will be shown on large screens. During the night the crowd will be encouraged to join in prayers to Mary. The beatification ceremonies will be a great boost to Marian spirituality .

The following day the beatification ceremony will be held in St Peter’s square, accompanied by Wojtyła’s coffin which will be taken out of its present location. During the ceremony, the Pope will be officially presented to the RC Church as a recipient of petitions and intercessions of the faithful. Prayers to him and votive masses will be encouraged in RC practice and piety. Then the crowd will pay homage to the coffin in a prolonged and visual expression of communion between the living and the dead. It will perhaps take days to ensure that all present will have an opportunity to do so. After praying to Mary, the people will pray to John Paul II. Prayer will be one of the catchwords of the beatification event, yet one always needs to ask to whom prayer will be presented and in which spiritual framework.

Outside of the RC theological and doctrinal framework, it is difficult to come to terms with these deep convictions and widely practiced patterns of spirituality. Some Evangelicals would like to think that they are peripheral and non-essential, related only to fringe movements and folk religious expressions. Yet reality says that this is not the case. We are dealing with the core of the RC faith, appealing especially to the masses and totally integrated into the doctrinal outlook of the RC Church. After a book on Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI will highlight Mary of John Paul II. His faith allows – or better – demands to do both in the same breath. The beatification of John Paul II will be a display of the RC’s ability to strongly uphold what other Christians would consider as far away from basic Christianity.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 11^th April 2011

Atheism has been at the center of the RC Church’s worries since the time of the Counter-Reformation. During the peak of the clash between the Enlightenment and the Vatican in the XIX century, Pope Pius IX issued the Syllabus (1864) in which “atheism” was added to the dreadful list of modern mistakes. A century later, Vatican II inaugurated a milder approach to atheism by attempting to engage its adherents in dialogue and to listen to their concerns. Gaudium et Spes – one of the Council’s main documents – addressed the issue of atheism in nuanced terms, challenging the church to go beyond mere confrontation. A Vatican Secretariat for the dialogue with Non-Believers was formed in 1965, then in 1988 it was turned into a Pontifical Council (a higher status) and eventually merged with the Pontifical Council for Culture (1993). After the fall of Communism, that had proclaimed “God is dead”, it seemed that atheism was going through a steady decline in appealing to present-day society as an alternative to traditional Christianity. More than atheism, however, the religion of our time seemed to be a new form of idolatry, i.e. egolatry (the cult of the self). But September 11, 2001 changed once more the tide in the West. As a reaction to the resurgence of religious-political fanaticism, a new and rampant atheism has become vocal and is capturing media interest and the imagination of the youth. It is a highly ideological and very antagonist form of atheism. What is the RC Church doing to confront this challenge on a global scale? One attempt is called the “Courtyard of the Gentiles”.

 

A symbolic place for meeting “strangers”

The choice of the name (Courtyard of the Gentiles) brand is highly evocative. The Second Temple in Jerusalem had a courtyard where the “gentiles” were allowed in. It was a place of meditation, listening, observation and dialogue, as well as a place of business (e.g. Jesus was not happy with its transformation into a market-place). Priests and scribes often gathered there to meet and dialogue with inquiring foreigners. The new initiative of the Pontifical Council for Culture wishes to set up an itinerant courtyard to become a place of dialogue with atheists in a spirit of mutual respect and desire to engage in meaningful exchange. Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, an erudite biblical scholar and able communicator, is the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture and the main inspirer of the “Courtyard of the Gentiles”. In his project, the first phase will try to involve those atheists who are perhaps as serious as believers in asking fundamental questions about God, life, evil, freedom, etc. The harshest and most offensive atheists (à la Richard Dawkins, for example) are for the moment outside of the Courtyard’s radar. It should be noted, however, that both practical and militant atheists are a top priority on the RC Church’s agenda.

 

The “catholic” scope

The first event was in Paris (24-25 March 2011) where the three-day initiative involved UNESCO, the Sorbonne and the Institut de France on the general theme of “Enlightenment, religions and common reason”. Academic events, festivals and concerts, among other things, were all part of the Courtyard. The hope is that it will become a catalyst for further and on-going opportunities for dialogue with non-believers. Of course local RC parishes and other RC movements will be all involved. Churches will be open and prayer vigils will be organized. Academics and Taizé groups, cardinals and fringe intellectuals, pop music bands and vanguard artists, celebrities and ecclesial movements, liturgies and hyper-technological shows…will all be on display, demonstrating the catholicity of the RC Church in action. It will be a highly organized and well thought-out apologetic exercise in RC fashion, both elitist and popular, both traditional and innovative, both word-oriented and image-oriented, both Catholic and ecumenical. After Paris, the courtyard will be set up in Tirana (2011), Stockholm (2011), Prague (2012), Assisi (2012), Geneva (2012), Québec (2012), Marseille (2013), Moscow (2013), Chicago and then Washington (2013). The website has lots of information (www.atriumgentium.org) and gives an idea of the breadth of the project. Will it succeed, however, in bringing people back to the Church?

 

A test-case for Benedict XVI’s papacy

Pope Benedict XVI’s agenda has fully emerged , and is now being implemented. From the beginning of his pontificate he said that the secular and post-Christian West should be the primary target of the RC Church. Both baptized, non-practicing Catholics, and perhaps baptized yet un-believing people are the main target. The New Evangelization, on the one hand, and the “Courtyard of the Gentiles”, on the other, are the tools that will be used to try to make a difference in both camps. Ratzinger’s papacy will be largely measured around their success or failure.

 

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 28^th March 2011

March 21st, 2011

It is too early to say whether it will become a theological classic, but Jesus of Nazareth (second part) by Benedict XVI is already a commercial asset. The first printing of 1,200,000 copies in twenty-one languages (and some e-book editions as well) makes it a good business for both author and publishing houses. Launched in time to be an ideal gift for the Easter season, it will probably sell more than the first volume that was published in 2007 and that sold 2 million copies. The first volume covered the life of Jesus from his birth to the great miracles and sermons, whereas this second one recounts the apex of Jesus’ ministry, i.e. his passion, death and resurrection. Though the two books present different elements of the Gospels, there is close continuity and coherence in Ratzinger’s approach to Jesus’ life.

The hermeneutics of Vatican II

One important feature of the Pope’s portrait of Jesus has to do with biblical hermeneutics. How do we read the Gospels? Ratzinger knows that the historical-critical school has nurtured skepticism, if not agnosticism, towards the Gospels as reliable accounts of the life of Jesus. The outcome has been the alleged chasm between the Jesus of history (unknowable in the main) and the Christ of faith (based on ‘mythological’ theologizing by the authors). While not renouncing the historical-critical methods and extensively conversing with liberal exegetes (mainly Germans), Ratzinger wants to recover the faith-element inherent in the Gospels, both as an essential ingredient of their formation and as a fundamental principle of their interpretation.

He calls for a hermeneutical “both-and” approach to the Gospels, i.e. open to critical-historical readings but within the context of a hermeneutics of faith. In the preface he argues that his sketch of Jesus’ life is an exercise of what Vatican II intended for Biblical interpretation. In fact  Dei Verbum (the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) n. 12 says that the reading of the Bible should search out the manifold characteristics of the text within the whole of Scripture and under the “judgment of the Church” whose living tradition is the on-going stream of Revelation.

One note of comparison is worth mentioning. The Evangelical scholar I.H. Marshall identifies three ways in which contemporary biblical scholarship is concentrating on areas more congenial to Evangelicals: the recognition that all biblical books are theological documents with a theological message; that they are all literary texts to be studied in their final form rather than in terms of sources; and that they should be studied canonically as part of the Bible as a whole (Beyond the Bible. Moving from Scripture to Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker 2004, pp. 19-20). Dei Verbum’s approach (and therefore Ratzinger’s) comes close to this, especially in its emphasis on the unity of Scripture and the legitimate place of faith in the reading process.

Yet it is different in equally important issues. First, it wants to retain historical-critical methods by modifying them rather than denouncing their anti-supernatural presuppositions and their arrogance to supersede Scripture. Second, while pushing aside the final judge of a self-claimed universal “reason”, it installs another final judge in the magisterium of the (RC) Church. Tota Scriptura (the whole of Scripture) is recognized but is not allowed to be Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) in that Scripture is viewed always as a part of a wider reservoir of Revelation which is authentically guarded and taught by the Church.

Strong points and question marks

Let’s first consider the strong points. He tends to practice what John Calvin called the “harmony of the Gospels”, i.e. the attempt to read the Synoptics and John’s Gospel together as much as possible, thus complementing each other rather than giving conflicting accounts. Outward discrepancies between the Gospels are generally treated as differences in emphasis, in perspective, and in intention. If taken together, the Gospels give a fuller picture rather than a fragmented one. Admirable also is the constant reference to the Old Testament as the over-arching framework for the words and deeds of Jesus. He also affirms the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and strongly advocates for its pivotal significance for the Christian faith. These are all welcome features of Ratzinger’s book.

            A few points of contention are also worth noting. For instance, one overt concession to historical-critical methods pushes Ratzinger to say that the Lord’s eschatological discourse has been constructed through different redaction stages and are not the actual words of Jesus as they were spoken. There is also a persistent sacramental reading of the episodes of Jesus’ life as if they were naturally connected to the RC understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of Jesus and the Church. This is true, for example, as far as the narratives regarding the entry to Jerusalem and the announcing of the destruction of the temple are concerned. Then, commenting on the priestly prayer in John 17 Ratzinger finds clear hints to the apostolic succession in the RC way. Finally, touching on the sensitive issue of the responsibility of the Jews in the death of Jesus, he denies any and goes on to say that Christians do not need to worry about the evangelization of the Jews because “all Israel” will be saved, thus leaving the reader with the idea that purposeful evangelism is not for the Jews.

Expiation and universalism

Perhaps the most serious problem with Ratzinger’s account has to do with expiation. Since the cross occupies a central place In the Gospel narrative, the book ponders on it quite extensively, expounding the doctrine beyond the Gospels themselves. His treatment resounds with what he had already presented in his 2005 encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) and tries to balance God’s justice and God’s love, looking at the cross as the mystery in which the two are combined. Yet  even in his profound comments there are two missing points: propitiation and penal substitution. While God’s justice is often referred to, no place is given to God’s wrath (e.g. Luke 3:7; John 3:36) and the role of the cross in appeasing it. The harsh words of Jesus about God’s judgment are somewhat sentimentalized. Moreover, while expiation is exegeted in its ‘covering’ aspect, no attention is given to the legal exchange that took place at the cross. While Isaiah 53 is used as a background narrative for the meaning of the cross, it is not understood in penal substitutionary terms. The meaning of the sacrifice of Jesus being for “many” or for “all” further complicates the point. The issue here is different from the Calvinist-Arminian debate about the extension of the atonement. Ratzinger’s preoccupation with carefully defining the words is more in line with the “catholic” (i.e. universal), inclusivist view of all mankind being linked to the cross of Jesus, taking therefore a universalist slant.

Pope Benedict XVI has admirably written a Gospel portrait of Jesus of Nazareth that wishes to present the “real” Jesus. More than the “real” one, however, the picture that comes out of the book is that of a “saint” Jesus, i.e. a figure that is astonishingly adherent to RC expectations.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

March 11th, 2011

A missional turn in the Roman Catholic Church?

The “New Evangelization” looks set to become a key catchphrase in RC circles in the future. The phrase was introduced and used extensively by John Paul II during his long pontificate as it was one of his ways of facing the effects of secularization in the Western World. Pope Benedict XVI has been consistently referring to the New Evangelization in his teaching, but in 2010 a new Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization was established as a way to formalize the emphasis he placed on it with the desire to spread it out long-term and world-wide.  John Paul II had the vision and provided the language (coining a new Hollywood-style Marian title: Mary the “Star of the New Evangelization”!) but Benedict XVI is spelling out what that means .

Further, Pope Benedict XVI has recently announced that the next Synod of Bishops will take place in October 2012 on the topic of the New Evangelization. That means that all RC bishops throughout the world will convene in Rome to discuss it. The following steps will be taken:

1. a preparatory document is set out (Lineamenta) calling for response and feedback;

2. Based on the bishops’ written answers a working tool will be prepared (Instrumentum Laboris) that will serve as official text for the Synod,

3. After the Synod (perhaps one or two years later) the Pope will issue a Post-Synodal Exhortation which will be part of his magisterium. So both Lineamenta and Instrumentum Laboris are preliminary and provisional documents, whereby the final Exhortation has magisterial value.

We are now in the Lineamenta phase. The 60-page text (in eight official languages) has been sent to Bishops and presented to the press. Its full official title is The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith. By November 2011 feedback will be gathered in order to draft the Instrumentum Laboris in time for the October 2012 Synod. What is the significance of the Lineamenta?  There is one in particular. .

What does “New” mean?

The phrase New Evangelization has been circulating for at least three decades in Popes’ speeches and documents. But in the Lineamenta, perhaps for the first time, the meaning of “new” is expounded, at least in part. The document argues that “Evangelization” has three main meanings:

1. The ordinary, on-going mission of the church;

2. The “first” evangelization to non-Christian people;

3. The “new” evangelization to the baptized, yet non-evangelized.

It is clear that, whilst always connected to the first two applications, the “new” evangelization is specifically addressed to the people who are registered in the RC Church’s books in that there were baptized and are counted as Roman Catholics in official statistics, yet they are practically un-churched, spiritually pagan, in need to be regained to the Church, though they are sacramentally part of it. They are RCs in the cultural sense, yet you would not find them at the Sunday mass and they would have naïve beliefs and embarrassing lifestyles if measured by the RC Catechism.

The New Evangelization is addressed to “nominal” Roman Catholics, though the word “nominal” is not used in the document. Recent global statistics say that the total number of Roman Catholics around the world is on the increase: in 2009 there were 1,181 billion people who have been baptized (1,3% more than 2008). Yet, these figures tell only half of the truth. The real concern for the RC Church is the increase of secularized Roman Catholics, especially in the Western World but also in parts of the Majority World. These people “belong” without “believing” (quite the opposite than in the Evangelical world where people may believe without belonging). The New Evangelization is the means by which they may belong and believe, being both quantitatively and qualitatively part of the RC Church. The other concern, especially in Latin America, is the loss of people who were baptized in the RC Church but are now affiliated to “sects” – a derogatory term that is also used to stigmatize Evangelicals. According to Lineamenta, the tools of the New Evangelization are two very traditional but well established patterns of spiritual formation: a renewed emphasis on catechism (i.e. transmitting the RC faith) and renewed efforts towards catechumenate (i.e. fostering discipleship).

The underlining ecclesiological crux

The New Evangelization is not primarily about mission to the unbelieving world. It is mainly addressed to reverse the tide within RC Christianity i.e. it is more of an internal affair, rather than a missional goal. Its task is to recapture to the Church those who have been baptized, perhaps christened, attend funerals and weddings, yet live lives which are alien to the standards of the RC Catechism.

The Lineamenta document sets the scene for the global discussion on the New Evangelization and raises many questions to which Bishops will respond. One big issue is missing though. While there is a frank realization of the problem, the awareness of the causes seems defective. Certainly, secularization explains much of present-day Western detachment from traditional Church’s rites and patterns. But one has to ask a deeper question which has to do with the ecclesiology emerged from Vatican II (1962-1965). The big question that Vatican II addressed was an ecclesiological one: what kind of church do we want? A church of the faithful, a confessing church, a church that matches faith and practice? Or a “catholic” church, the people’s church, whatever this means in terms of lack of faithfulness and integrity? A church that majors on conversion and discipleship or a church that wants to be all-embracing and all-inclusive? Ecclesiologically, the question was: do we want a church of the baptized ones (leaving aside what happens after infant baptism) or a church of disciples? Vatican II unequivocally answered: the former, while preserving the apparatus of the latter! That answer has serious consequences that are evident to all, RC hierarchy included.  Secularization is one explanation of the lack of spiritual depth in Western RC, but the other explanation lies in the Vatican II ecclesiology.  The Lineamenta document speaks much of secularization and skips over the tenets of RC present-day ecclesiology as if they were not part of the issue at stake. Here are some questions that should be addressed instead:

–       is it baptism (whatever the theology behind it) or conversion the turning point for Christian life?

–       Do the pagan-Christians need just to be aware of who they are already or do they need conversion from idols to God?

–       Is church discipline a qualifying mark of the church or is it an optional add-on?

We will see how the Synod responds. Will the New Evangelization be merely a pastoral initiative to bring people back, leaving everything else untouched, or will it be an opportunity to ask more fundamental questions about the church of Jesus Christ?

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

February 21st, 2011

The Roman Catholic Church is master at celebrating special years: the year of Jubilee, the Holy year, the Marian year, the Year for priests, etc. In a sense, every year is a “special” occasion for something. So it was with the Pauline Year (PY). Designed to celebrate the bimillennium of the birth of St Paul, which historians place between the years 7 and 10 AD, the PY included a series of liturgical, cultural and ecumenical events, as well as various pastoral and social initiatives, all inspired by Pauline spirituality. It took place between June 28^th 2008 and June 29^th 2009 and had as its center the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls (Rome). This massive Basilica was built by Emperor Constantine (IV century AD) over the burial place of the apostle Paul and is one of the four great Roman basilicas. The occasion to assess the outcomes of the PY was given by a 500-page book entitled L’anno paolino (The Pauline Year) that was officially presented in a press conference at the Vatican on February 9^th. The book is a reference tool with all kinds of information on what took place during the PY.

Ecumenical (little) achievements

One of the chief aims that stirred Benedict XVI to proclaim the PY was to have a catalyst event that would foster the ecumenical cause on behalf of Christian unity. Since Paul is a central figure for both Eastern and Western sides of the church, the idea to celebrate a Pauline year took shape. Particular attention was given to ecumenical gatherings that would re-invigorate Christian unity on the basis of a common and renewed appreciation of Paul. For Eastern Orthodox churches, the PY was meant to highlight Paul’s missions to the East and the great legacy of his teachings about the “mystery” of the faith. Solemn events and liturgies were performed during the year, even though the success has been mainly symbolic. No real breakthrough was achieved in the name of Paul as far as the Eastern front of RC ecumenism. For Protestant churches, the PY was crafted to underline the importance of justification by faith and other Pauline themes dear to Protestant hearts. The hope was to give another chance to the 1999 Joint Declaration between Roman Catholics and Lutherans on justification which promises much (i.e. agreement on the basics of the Gospel) yet is delivering very little in terms of a deepened Christian unity. During the PY, divisions over gay unions and how to respond to the challenges of secular culture further divided the relationship between historic Protestants and the RC Church. On the whole, the PY was wishful thinking as far as ecumenism is concerned. In theory it was a great idea (though quite unsubstantiated historically), but in reality it was quite the flop.

Paul’s relics

Apart from ecumenical analyses, another feature of this special year is worth mentioning. The ambitious program desired to honor the great themes of Paul’s letters: creation, sin, salvation, grace, faith, and mission. Pauline scholarship afforded the chance to produce books and convene conferences. Opportunities were created to read Paul afresh or, for most people, to read him for the first time. All this is welcome, yet it is interesting to note how Benedict XVI closed the PY. In a solemn liturgy the Pope announced a recent discovery. In the marble sarcophagus in which according to tradition Paul’s body was buried, bones of a skeleton dating to the first century AD had been found and analyzed. It is possible that these skeletal remains belong to the Apostle Paul, though no certainty can be established. The point of the Pope’s announcement was to state that these relics were going to be displayed for public veneration. While underlining great Pauline and Biblical themes such as salvation and grace, and faith and mission, the PY encouraged at the same time practices that are far from Pauline and Biblical spirituality. Paul himself wrote that the “living letter” of his service are living men and women who follow his teaching (2 Corinthians 3:2-3), rather than his dry bones calling people to bow down before them.

A Pauline church?

These comments generate a fundamental question: How is it possible to combine Paul and the veneration of relics? How is it feasible to square the spirituality of justification by faith and the cult of the dead? How is it legitimate to nurture a Christ-centered life and folk-religion practices? How is it possible to produce fine Pauline scholarship while fostering anti-Pauline habits? In fact for the RC Church not only is it possible, but it’s also mandatory. The RC worldview demands complexio oppositorum (the combination of the opposites) as its paradigm without having Scripture alone as its decisive criterion. The issue at stake is not questioning the Pauline nature of the RC Church. In a sense, the RC Church is a Pauline church. The issue is that, besides the Pauline element, the RC Church is also Petrine, Marian, Papal, Imperial, Roman, Tridentine, folk-oriented, etc. Pauline teaching is only one aspect of the whole and the whole goes far beyond the other canonical strands of the Bible. It is a “catholic” whole in the sense that it wishes to embrace all. The standing question is whether or not the PY was an opportunity to return to the Gospel or a chance to expand Roman catholicity. The latter is closer to the truth.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

February 7th, 2011

Karol Wojtyla (1920-2005), since1978 better known as Pope John Paul II, has been one of the most influential men of the XX century. A quick look at the titles of biographies about him shows the magnitude of the man: “The man of the end of the millennium” (L. Accattoli), “Witness to hope” (G. Weigel), “The man of the century” (J. Kwitny), “Pilgrim of the absolute” (G. Reale), “The defeater of communism” (A. Santini). As is always the case with human analyses of human biographies, celebrative voices abound as well as critical readings. Other titles point to the controversial aspects of his life: “Victory and decline” (C. Cardia), “The Pope in Winter: The Dark Face of John Paul II’s Papacy” (J. Cornwell), “The Wojtyla enigma” (J. Arias), “The last Pope king” (L. Sandri).

His life was at the centre of the major affairs of the XX century: the tragedy of Nazism and the trauma of the Second World War, the apex and fall of Communism, the Second Vatican Council and its debated implementation, the apparent triumph of Western democracy and the oppressive costs of globalization for the Majority world, the fracture of ideologies and the rise of secular hedonism. Wojtyla played a significant role in all these major events. Supporters have acclaimed his achievements in terms of navigating, surviving and overcoming the dangerous streams of our post-something world. Critics have pointed out the double-faced, contradictory trajectory of his life and his very backward looking Catholic outlook.

2011 will mark the beatification of John Paul II and the official ceremony will take place on May 1^st in St. Peter’s square. Two million people are expected to take part in this massive event that will capture the attention of the whole world. So it is proper to examine the significance of the proposed beatification and how John Paul II’s legacy can be properly assessed.

First, we should inquire about the meaning of beatification in RC eyes. Beatification (from Latin beatus, blessed) is a recognition accorded by the RC Church of a dead person’s virtues and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in his or her name. The “blessed” (so she/he is named thereafter) becomes the recipient of petitions and intercession of those who offer them. Beatification is the third of four steps in the canonization process, with the highest recognition being the sainthood of an individual. Since 1983, in order to be recognized as “blessed”, the RC Church demands that one miracle be proven to have taken place through the intercession of the person. The process towards beatification can only begin five years after the person’s death. However, in John Paul II’s case, it began much earlier. Many still remember what happens at his funerals when the crowd began to shout: “santo subito!” (“Make him a saint now!”), thus putting pressure on the hierarchy to treat him as an extraordinary case – something that even a scrupulous Pope like Benedict XVI dared not to address.

The theological significance of beatification lies in several key RC doctrines. According to Vatican II, the saints “do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth” through Christ’s mediation (Lumen Gentium, n. 49, quoted also in the Catechism, n. 956). The saints, in whose category the blessed belong, have an intercessory role on the basis of their merits which are considered within the framework of the mediation of Jesus Christ. On this basis the Christian people are encouraged to pray to the blessed for healing, protection, favor, and to nurture a profound devotion to him/her made of pilgrimages, prayer groups and chains, folk spirituality, etc. Notwithstanding all the best intentions and motivations, Evangelical eyes find it difficult not to consider the theological fabric of beatification as a means that moves people away from Christ. In this respect, it is interesting to note that John Paul II himself, in his 27 years of papal reign, proclaimed as blessed 1338 people and as saints 482 people, more than all his predecessors taken together since the XVI century! In fact, it was in 1588 that modern procedures were established for the beatification process and prior to John Paul II the RC Church proclaimed 1319 as blessed and 296 as saints.

Second, how do we assess John Paul II’s legacy? Because of the stature of the man, the question is overwhelming in every respect. Amongst the vast amount of books available, one guide in particular worth noting is Tim Perry’s edited book The Legacy of John Paul II: An Evangelical Assessment (Downers Grove, IL: IVP 2007, pp. 327). The chief reason of interest is that it is one of the few attempts to provide an evaluation from an Evangelical point of view. The book bears witness to the fact that it was under John Paul II that Evangelical attitudes toward RC began to change and become friendly, if not even cooperative. This Pope was the one who called his Church to be engaged in mission, encouraged the pro-life front, welcomed some of the Evangelical concerns in relation to Bible literacy and liturgical variety, and seemed to be closer to the Majority world than his predecessors. It also witnesses to the fact that some Evangelicals today speak of the Pope as “Holy Father” (Timothy George, pp. 309-312) – something that is not biblically natural. Moreover, in evaluating the over-all theology of his 14 encyclicals, some Evangelicals can say that it is “Bible-based, humanity-focused, Christ-centered and mission-attuned” (Jim Packer, p. 8) – something that sounds like a full endorsement.

Certainly there has been a significant shift of attitude and John Paul II has made quite an impression on many Evangelicals. The book edited by Perry contains positive comments on each encyclical signed by Wojtyla and the tone is close to admiration, with some minor criticism. Of course much of it is a fair summary of what the Pope wrote, yet selective in many ways. For instance there is no mention that each encyclical ends with an invocation to Mary, which does not represent a Christocentric and biblical pattern. Moreover, there is little recognition to the fact that, besides the Bible, papal encyclicals quote even more extensively sources of the tradition of the Church. The Bible is only one source amongst many, and apparently not the decisive one. On specific contents, Faith and Ratio (Faith and Reason, 1998) combines Aristotelian reason and Thomistic faith, a choice that leaves out many Biblical strands. Ecclesia de Eucharistia (The Church from the Eucharist, 2003) reinforces the traditional RC doctrine of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, its re-enactment of Jesus’ death and the practice of adoration of the host. Ut Unum Sint (That They Be One, 1995) claims that the Pope is willing to change the forms of his universal ministry but not the substance of his petrine office that supplements the headship of Christ on the church. Redemptoris Mater (The Mother of the Redeemer, 1987) is a Marian-centered re-telling of salvation history, something that the Bible does not encourage. The list could go on and on, yet one point must be further elaborated.

Marian devotion was a characterizing feature of John Paul II’s life. He believed the so-called secrets of Fatima, in which Mary played a decisive role, deviating the bullet when the Pope was shot in 1981 by the terrorist Ali Agca. Apparently, the Pope believed in Marian providence, considering Mary a major player in world affairs, both earthly and cosmic, both material and spiritual. For this reason he was able to dedicate planet earth to her at the beginning of the new millennium, along with the human family and new century, pleading for protection and guidance all the while. Moreover, his personal motto was totus tuus, totally yours, with “yours” referring to Mary. In honor of his highly Marian spirituality, the beatification ceremony will take place on May 1^st, at the beginning of the Marian month according to the RC liturgical calendar.

The question remains: Is the legacy of John Paul II Bible-based and Christ-centered? The answer is not as simple and straightforward as Tim Perry’s book seems to indicate. His strong Marianism, for instance, is a defining feature of his life that always qualifies the rest. The months ahead will be another opportunity to come to terms with his pontificate, his achievements and contradictions, and indeed his inherently Roman Catholic legacy.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

 

January 28th, 2011

One of the prerogatives of the teaching office of the Pope is to hold the cathedra Petri (Peter’s chair). St. Peter’s basilica hosts the relics of a chair that tradition traces back to the apostle Peter (though, like most relics, they were produced in the Middle Age). The cathedra Petri is part of the altar, so as to indicate the unique combination of the teaching and sacramental role of the Pope. The First Vatican Council (1870) introduced the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex-cathedra (from the chair). This is not a physical reference to the chair, though the Pope often speaks literally from the chair when presiding over rites and functions in St. Peter’s. Ex-cathedra refers to particular conditions which confer the mark of infallibility to his teaching. Besides this unique expression of papal authority, the chair also refers to his ordinary teaching office which takes place in different forms, such as encyclicals, exhortations, speeches, books, media (both written and audio), and occasions like papal visits and the presence of regular audiences.

As part of his ordinary, weekly teaching office, the Pope delivers a catechetical speech on Wednesdays in the context of a general audience which is attended by a couple thousand pilgrims, visitors, etc. The presentation is in Italian, though written summaries of the speech in other languages are distributed to the public. All texts are readily available on the Vatican website (www.vatican.va). Generally the Pope follows series on the liturgical calendar, doctrinal topics, the lives of saints, Church traditions, etc. On January 12^th, the topic of the catechesis was particularly interesting in that it touched on purgatory.

Belief in purgatory is part of the RC doctrine concerning the afterlife. It was elaborated in the Middle Ages and then stated doctrinally by the Councils of Florence (1438) and Trent (1563). It is also taught in the 1992 Catechism (nn. 1030-1032). This is to say that it is well entrenched in the tradition of the RC Church and her present-day doctrinal horizon. Purgatory basically refers to the ‚Äúfinal purification‚Äù of the saved ones in order to achieve the holiness necessary to enter heaven. The premise of purgatory is that salvation is not by grace and faith alone, but is by grace and what is achieved by means of merit and works. Purgatory is the last “work” required to get to heaven, i.e. a time of purification that lasts in proportion to what still needs to be purified. While it contains reminiscences of the language of 1 Corinthians 3:15 and 1 Peter 1:7, the driving force of its development has been the practice of prayer for the dead, as the RC Catechism honestly acknowledges. In fact, RC doctrine believes that prayers, indulgences and works of penance can be offered on behalf of the dead so that their purification through purgatory is accelerated.

In one of the first catechesis of the new year, Benedict XVI returns to the doctrine of purgatory in the context of a devotional talk on Saint Catherine of Genoa. She was a XV century mystic who is best known for her vision of purgatory. According to the Pope, Catherine does not add new revelation on purgatory, yet her visions underline the fact that it is an “interior fire” that prepares the soul for full communion with God. Rather than a physical place of fire, as portrayed by Dante’s imagination in the Divine Comedy, purgatory is depicted by Catherine of Genoa as an inner fire which elevates man’s path towards God.

The Pope makes it clear that this mystical intelligence does not alter the traditional doctrine, but expands it towards its mysterious borders. The physical, spatial dimensions of purgatory are enriched further by the mystical development. It is a matter of adding other elements to the already consolidated doctrine and not questioning its well established profile.

Purgatory has already been at the center of Benedict XVI’s magisterium in a more ample treatment. His second encyclical, Spe Salvi (Saved in hope, 2007), contains telling comments on judgment in the afterlife. In the papal encyclical, God’s judgment is a combination of justice and grace. Few people (if any) receive only his justice (i.e. punishment), and few people receive His full grace (i.e. immediate salvation). Instead most people receive both justice and grace, then purgatory is this intermediate state of the soul that discloses both (nn. 45-48). In the afterlife the soul goes through a time of purification, deserving neither justice or grace. In Spe Salvi as well, the Pope stresses the importance of prayers and acts of suffrage on behalf of the dead in order to speed their time of purification. This is based on a belief on “communion” between the living and the dead that allows the suffrage of the former for the latter.

The doctrine of purgatory is part of the RC doctrinal web that impinges on grace, sin, salvation and eternal life. It is not a disposable, secondary appendix, but an essential part of the RC view of the ordo saluti. Thus far, Benedict XVI has been re-stating and expanding its doctrinal core, adding some mystical suggestions rather than changing it towards a more biblical picture of the afterlife.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

January 11th, 2011

The Bible is central in the long-standing controversy between the Protestant Reformation and Roman Catholicism. So any pronouncement coming from the Pope on the topic is to be read carefully by all those who live a Bible-centered faith. The pronouncement we are talking about comes after a specific Synod that took place in 2008 when Roman Catholic bishops discussed the following issue: “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church”. After synods discuss, it is customary for the Pope to issue a written document which summarizes the gist of the proceedings and states them authoritatively. This is also the case of the 2010 Post-Synodical Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini (VD, the Word of the Lord) by Benedict XVI.

The document recalls the RC teaching on the Bible as it has been articulated and taught in¬† the XX century. In particular, VD acknowledges the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (God’s Word) as the paramount doctrinal reference for the Roman Catholic theology of the Word of God and sees itself in total continuity with the Council. What is most interesting is the relationship between the Word and the Bible that is envisaged by VD.

To start with, VD claims that the Word of God “precedes and exceeds sacred Scripture, nonetheless Scripture, as inspired by God, contains the divine word” (17). VD claims that the Bible is the Word of God in the sense that it contains the Word. There is the Bible and there is also a further word beyond the Bible that makes the Bible not sufficient on its own. What is at stake here is not the divine inspiration of the Bible (which VD firmly affirms), but the sufficiency of the Bible and its finality. For Pope Ratzinger, the Bible is the Word of God in some sense, but the Word of God is bigger than the Bible. The latter contains the former.

For Protestant readers especially, a comment is here in place. Liberal theology has developed its own theology of the Word whereby the relationship between the Word and the Bible is thought of in dialectical and existential ways. In other words, for some versions of liberal theology, the Bible is a (fallible) testimony to the Word and it becomes the Word of God, if it ever becomes so, when the Spirit speaks through it. Now, the RC version of the Word-Bible relationship is articulated in a different way. The premise is the same (i.e. the Bible contains the Word), but the outworking of the Word comes through the tradition of the RC Church. The gap between the Word and the Bible is not existential but ecclesial. The Church is the cradle of the Word, both in its past and written form (the Bible) and in its on-going utterances (Tradition). In this respect, Benedict XVI writes: “The Church lives in the certainty that her Lord, who spoke in the past, continues today to communicate his word in her living Tradition and in sacred Scripture. Indeed, the word of God given to us in sacred Scripture as an inspired testimony to revelation, together with the Church’s living Tradition, it constitutes the supreme rule of faith” (18). The Bible is upheld, but the Bible is always accompanied and surmounted by the wider, deeper, living tradition of the Church which is the present-day form of the Word. Amongst other things, this means that the Bible is not sufficient in itself to give access to the Word and is not the final norm for faith and practice. The Bible needs to be supplemented by the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is “a significant expression of the living Tradition of the Church and a sure norm for teaching the faith” (74).

Thus VD maintains a dynamic view of the Word whereby the Bible is a divinely appointed container of the Word. Yet the final reference point of the Word is the Church from which the Bible comes from and through which the present-day Word of God resounds.

Lots of questions arise from the painted picture by VD which is totally coherent with Vatican II and indeed the Council of Trent. Since VD is not a systematic treatise, but rather a written exhortation, only few points are dealt with in terms of explaining how the Church relates to the Word.

Firstly, the role of “private revelations” (e.g. Marian visions and on-going revelations accredited by the RC Church). Beside the Bible, they “introduce new emphases, give rise to new forms of piety, or deepen older ones” (14). Private revelations are the basis for the Marian cults of Lourdes, Fatima, and Medjugorie, for example. For Evangelicals, these cults cannot be squared with basic Biblical teaching, yet the normative point for “private revelations” is the Church’s tradition, not the Bible alone. For RC, basing the faith on the Bible is important, yet inconclusive. There are further standards for spiritual discernment that go beyond Scripture.

Secondly, the “ecclesial” reading of the Bible. According to VD, Scripture must never be read on one’s own. Reading must be always an “ecclesial experience”, i.e. something done in communion with the Church. The issue at stake is not only methodological, as if private readings were to be replaced by study groups at a parish level presided over by a priest, but also hermeneutical. “An authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmony with the faith of the Catholic Church” (30). Reading the Bible needs to be an exercise done in accordance with the institutional church, both in its forms and outcomes. Apparently, there is much wisdom in these statements, especially considering the real risks of fancy, individualistic, awkward interpretations by isolated readers of the Bible. Yet, there is something missing here. For a Church that has forbidden for centuries the reading of the Bible in vernacular languages, it is at least unfortunate that not a single word of repentance is offered. For a Church that has prevented the people from having access to the Bible until fifty years ago, it is at least puzzling that not a single word is spent to underline the Church‚Äôs need for self-correction and vigilance. Moreover, if reading the Bible must always be done under the rule of the institution, what happens if the institution itself is caught in error, heresy or apostasy? How does the Spirit correct a sinful church if not by the biblical Word? In the history of the Church, the teaching of the Bible had to sometimes be played against the institutional church and against its consensus. Only a self-proclaimed indefectible Church can ask total submission to “the watchful eye of the sacred magisterium” (45) without having a final, ultimate bar. Here at stake is the question: Who has the final word? The Bible or the RC Church? Since the Church is “the home of the word” (52), VD responds: the latter!

Thirdly, the practice of Biblical interpretation. A properly defined RC reading of the Bible requires the acceptance of the unity of the whole of Scripture (“canonical exegesis”), as well as obedience to the living Tradition of the whole Church and the combination between the historical-critical and the theological level of interpretation (34). The RC Church fears two extremes: On the one hand it fears the critical arrogance which severs the Bible’s unity and rejects its divine origins; on the other, the fundamentalist approach which offers “subjective”, “arbitrary”, and “anti-ecclesial interpretations” (44). Two brief comments are possible. 1. In the public opinion, Benedict XVI is often depicted as a champion of the “spiritual” reading of the Bible (e.g. his acclaimed book Jesus of Nazareth, 2007). Yet VD readily acknowledges the benefits of historical-critical methods (32) while rejecting their extreme claims when they are contrary to “theological” considerations. Though not himself a liberal, Ratzinger does not belong to the same typology of Biblical conservative scholarship that can be found in Evangelical circles. Any simplistic overlap muddies the waters. 2. Fundamentalism is not defined in any way, yet is the recipient of strong criticism. No reference to fundamentalist literature is offered but instead negative statements are made as far as the dictation-theory is concerned, or the lack of appreciation of Biblical language as being conditioned by times and cultures. Who on earth believes that the Bible was mechanically dictated or that its language is an angelic reality? The impression is that VD plays against a straw man here.

Fourthly and finally, the liturgical context of a proper approach to Scripture. Reading the Bible as an ecclesial experience means that it needs to occur in a liturgical context set forth by the RC Church. “The privileged place for the prayerful reading of sacred Scripture is the liturgy, and particularly the Eucharist, in which, as we celebrate the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacrament, the word itself is present and at work in our midst” (86). The hearing of God’s Word is fruitful when certain conditions are present: the administration of the Eucharist (54) and other sacraments (61), the Liturgy of the Hours (62), the practice of gaining indulgences (87), and recital of the Holy Rosary (88). According to VD, the Bible can never be alone, but must always be surrounded by ecclesiastical paraphernalia which inform, direct and govern Biblical reading and interpretation. In so doing, the Bible is never free to guide the Church, but always conditioned by some extra-biblical practices of the Church.

The papal pronouncement encourages the reading of the Bible and this is good news. The fundamental question remains: Whose word is the Verbum Domini? The Bible’s and/or the Church’s?

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org