Posted on

107. Preaching According to a Vatican Handbook

May 1st, 2015

Historically speaking, the sermon (in Catholic language: the homily) has hardly been on the top priority list of the Roman Catholic Church. The standard Catholic liturgy is centered around the Eucharist, “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Lumen Gentium n. 11), not around the preached Word. More attention has been given to sacramental celebration than Gospel proclamation. Moreover, Catholic spirituality has been shaped more by various devotions than the public exposition of the Word of God. With exceptions, of course, preaching has largely been peripheral, tending towards moralism and catechizing rather than paying adequate attention to the biblical text. Vatican II (1962-1965) stirred the Catholic Church to re-focus on Scripture, not altering the centrality of the Eucharist and the overall sacramental framework, but adding to both a more biblical flavor. To which extent this goal has been achieved is an on-going disputed matter.

In Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel) – his 2013 Exhortation – Pope Francis devoted several paragraphs (nn. 135-175) to encourage Catholic priests to be serious about preparing and delivering the homily, perhaps out of a dissatisfaction about the way they normally deal with it. Now the Vatican department responsible for overseeing worship and the sacraments has released a “Homiletic Directory”, i.e. a 150-page manual for preachers which contains guidelines on how to preach appropriately.

The Sacramental Canopy

Ars preadicandi (the art of preaching) is the technical expression which is used in the handbook to indicate the homiletic skills that are required of the preacher. Before highlighting the more practical suggestions, the handbook sets the theological framework for the homily. Since it is the Eucharist that makes the Church (quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1396), preaching is put under this sacramental canopy. This means that Christ is really present in the Eucharist but only analogically so (i.e. in a weaker, more remote way) in the preached Word. The Word proclaims Christ but it is the Eucharist that actualizes the paschal mystery of Christ (n. 10). The Word announces the Gospel but it is the Eucharist that transforms people (n. 14). Preaching then accompanies the Eucharist, but its ultimate significance rests on the “real presence” of the Eucharist.

According to the Protestant Reformation, the Church is constituted by the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. Put differently, the Word comes logically and theologically first whereas the Catholic manual is faithful to the Roman Catholic reversal of the order and actually conflates the preaching of the Word into the Sacrament (sacrament in the singular, given the absolute prominence of the Eucharist above all other sacraments). The fact that the homily has “an intrinsically liturgical nature” (n. 5) confirms that this new Vatican emphasis on preaching derives the proclamation of the Word from the sacramental priority of the Eucharist.

A Handbook for Good Catholic Preaching

Coming to more practical matters, the handbook delineates the sermon as having the following features: short, not a lecture, not too abstract, not an exegetical exercise, not a personal testimony only (n. 6), in line with the concerns of the people and out of a maternal attitude towards it (n. 8). These last two aspects are very close to the “theology of the people” of Pope Francis, i.e. a special attention reserved to the people’s piety, devotions, and expectations. On the whole, the homily is presented as having more negative dangers to avoid than positive models to look at.

The manual then highlights the specific tasks of preaching in the liturgical year marked by Easter, Lent, Advent, Christmas and Epiphany and within a three-year cycle. A strong emphasis is put to the responsibility to preach the faith of the Church (as enshrined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) within the context of the “living Tradition of the whole Church” (n. 17). Scripture is seen as part of Tradition of which the Church is the living voice. On the one hand, the homily comes theologically second with regard to the Eucharist; on the other it is embedded in the tradition of the Church that controls it. Doesn’t this model run the danger of being a defensive mechanism that ends up in muzzling God’s word? If this is the case, how can the preached Word stand above the church?

As Paul wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16). Will this handbook help Roman Catholics to be more exposed to the preaching of the Word of God, or will it reinforce what the Roman Catholic Church already is and will continue to be?

 

Posted on

106. Should Evangelicals Love Pope Francis?

April 13th, 2015

(This Vatican File was written together with Reid Karr, a dear friend and a colleague in Gospel ministry in Rome)

On the day before Easter Peter Wehner, a columnist for the New York Times, wrote an interesting and thought provoking article titled “Why Evangelicals Should Love the Pope.”[1] Three main concerns about it can be raised and briefly presented.

The Straw Man

Pitting Franklin Graham against Pope Francis on how to address the moral crisis of our time is very easy but totally arbitrary. With his seemingly harsh language and judgmental arguments against homosexuality, Franklin Graham represents a still significant portion of US Evangelicals, yet a minority of Evangelicals globally considered. In speaking to the US context, Graham may have right-wing political overtones that do not fit  the whole Evangelical family. North American socio-political categories are not useful to account for its complexity. Lots of Evangelicals, both inside and outside of the US, deal with the same issues with a different attitude and language. On the other hand, Pope Francis speaks on the same issues in more pastoral terms and in doing so he is able to overlook specific situations. When he does address concrete cases, he does so using strong language. For instance, in his recent visit to the Philippines (Jan 16, 2015), he spoke about the prospect of introducing same-sex marriage as an “ideological colonization” of family life to resist and fight against. Not exactly the tender tone that Wehner wants us to believe. Francis may seem softer and milder only because he speaks about these issues “in general” and in a more pastoral tone. Before contrasting Graham and Pope Francis, Wehner should wait until the Pope visits the US this coming September when he will speak at the World Meeting of Families. Is he so sure that Francis will speak merciful words only? Until then, he should have instead compared Franklin Graham and Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the staunch Archbishop of New York. Perhaps the difference between the two is not so sharp as it appears to be between Graham and the Pope. In the article Graham is depicted as the Shakespearean fool and Francis as the wise man of the story: a much too simplistic picture of reality to be true.

The Tip of the Iceberg

In calling Evangelicals to love the Pope, the NYT article has a sentimentalized view of the Pope. It focuses on some aspects of the papal language, but fails to give readers the fuller picture. In the same period in which Francis met with prisoners and social outcasts, he also presided over pompous Easter celebrations in St Peter’s basilica with all the richness and power of the Roman Catholic church on full display. Where was Francis’ humility in all these splendorous liturgies and costly events? Moreover, about the same time in which Francis spoke about the church being a “field hospital”, he confirmed and reinforced the existence and necessity of the Vatican bank which is a world-wide power structure that deals with all sorts of financial activity. Wehner highlighted the “loving” words of the Pope and overlooked the rest. This is a common practice in the religious analysis of the papacy: a carefully selected picture of the Pope becomes his full representation, thus failing to provide an accurate account of the whole. The humble and frugal aspects of the Pope as a person have little to do with the political and imperial aspects of his role. Below the surface and the tip of the iceberg is the iceberg itself, which in this case is the last absolutist monarchy that can be found on earth. Serious reflection should be devoted to the reality of the iceberg rather than focusing on the tip only.

What About the Gospel?

“Welcoming all”, “showing compassion”, “all inclusive” seem to be the mainstream and politically correct expressions of the “gospel of the day.” Pope Francis is a champion of this kind of gospel presentation. Many secular people, as well as many Evangelicals, are fascinated by the seemingly generous scope of his message. In his article Wehner quotes Pope Francis as saying, “Without mercy, we have little chance nowadays of becoming part of a world of ‘wounded’ persons in need of understanding, forgiveness and love.” Truer words could not be spoken. But this statement represents the tip of the iceberg. We should be responsible and look below the surface and identify what is giving form to and supporting the Pope’s words and actions.

Where does sin fit into the Pope’s view? What about repentance and faith in Christ alone? What about turning back from idolatry and following Christ wholeheartedly? What about putting the Word of God first? After visiting the prisoners in Naples and speaking words of mercy and forgiveness, the Pope went to the city cathedral to kiss the liquefied blood of St. Gennaro, a medieval practice related to the beseeching of a blessing of the patron saint upon the city. Where is the biblical gospel in this?

What should concern every Christian above all else is the salvation of those who don’t know Christ as Savior. We can talk about mercy and forgiveness and love and taking Christ to the farthest and darkest places of the earth all we want, but what really matters is the message we proclaim and embody to the lost and hurting we encounter. What then is the message of salvation? If asked how one is forgiven and saved from his or her sins, how would Pope Francis respond? The article does not delve into these controversial waters. He and other Evangelicals who share his sentiments would do well to examine what’s below the tip of the iceberg.

Posted on

105. Conservative? Liberal? Radical? Who is Francis?

March 31st, 2015

Two years ago Cardinal Bergoglio was elected as Pope Francis. With the precision of German technology, Cardinal Walter Kasper published the book Pope Francis’ Revolution of Tenderness and Love (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2015) right in time to celebrate the second anniversary of his reign. In this volume, which has been produced in several languages, Kasper has collected some lectures on the Pope that he has given around the world in the past two years. Though each chapter stands on its own, Kasper sketches a coherent theological and pastoral portrait of Pope Francis, highlighting “tenderness” and “love” as two defining marks of the pontificate. Many of his evaluations of the Pope are shared by a large sector of progressive public opinion, both inside and outside of the Roman Catholic Church. What is really interesting is the way in which Kasper tackles one of the charges that often creeps in when commenting on the present Pope: is he liberal?

Radical?

Kasper summarizes the directions of Francis’s pontificate using some evocative words: surprise, mercy, renewal, ecumenism, dialogue, the poor. Each word describes a segment; taken together they form the axes of Francis’ worldview and action. The German Cardinal is aware that the Pope is often perceived as being attuned to the “liberal” spirit of the age: strong on social issues, relaxed in doctrine, wishing to include anyone at all cost.

Kasper disagrees with this assessment and suggests that Francis is not a liberal but a radical. Radical in the etymological sense of the Latin word “radix”: root or originating principle. According to Kasper the Pope is challenging the Church to be radical in the sense of re-discovering the roots of the Gospel which are joy, mission, frugality, solidarity with the poor, freedom from legalism, and collegiality. Kasper argues that the Pope’s tendency is not to run after the political correctness of Western liberalism, but to call all Christians to recover the living source of their faith, i.e. the roots of the Christian life. Francis is a radical Pope who has impressed a different style, language, and emphases to the Papacy out of his desire to embrace and to live out the fundamental principle of the Gospel.

A Selected Radicalism

Kasper’s reading of Francis is clever and insightful. It encourages us to move beyond the usual polarizations between “liberals” and “conservatives” within the Church by introducing a third category, that of “radicals”. Two brief comments can be suggested. First, Francis appears to be radical on certain issues and much less so on others. He is radical on poverty, but is silent on the massive financial power of his Church. He seems to be radical on mercy, but never mentions original sin and divine judgment over all sinners outside of Christ. He is radical in advocating for simplicity, but keeps the expansive apparatus of an empire like the very system of which he is the head. He is radical in denouncing the tragedies of unethical capitalism, but seems to be much less outspoken towards the immoral deviations of personal sexual life. In other words, his radicalism is somewhat selective. Radical here, much less so there. In a certain sense, “liberals” are radical on social issues, while “conservatives” are radical on doctrinal issues. Everyone is radical in some sense. There are different shades of radicalism. Francis’ radicalism is much closer to the liberal version than the conservative one. Therefore, playing a bit with words, the question is whether or not his radicalism is radically different from a more liberal tendency. Historically speaking, the root of theological liberalism lies in the preference given to religious feelings over doctrinal expressions. And this is exactly what the Pope seems also fond of doing. If mercy and tenderness describe the overall message of Francis, they sound more like liberal catchwords than traditional ones.

In a certain sense, the Protestant Reformation was a radical movement motivated by an aspiration to go ad fontes (back to the Bible), back to the Word of God, and aimed at recovering the radical Gospel of solus Christus (Christ alone) and sola gratia (grace alone). There is very little of this form of Christian radicalism in Francis’ pontificate. Some accents seem to point to the need of being exposed to the written Word of God and yet many more are still placed on practices and traditions which can hardly be found in Scripture. Some of the language of the Pope seems to resemble Gospel emphases, yet the substance of it is still heavily sacramental and hierarchical. Borrowing the title of Kasper’s book, Francis’ insistence on mercy and tenderness lies within the context of a less institutional, but still unreformed, traditional Roman Catholicism.

Posted on

104. Two Years with Pope Francis. An Interview

March 20th, 2015

This interview was posted on http://evangelicalfocus.com/europe/438/2_years_of_Francis

You can listen to the interview at http://evangelicalfocus.com/multimedia/449/Leonardo_de_Chirico_2_years_of_Pope_Francis

“FRANCIS IS OPEN TO ALL, EVANGELICALS ARE ONLY ONE PIECE IN HIS VISION”
Italian Vatican expert Leonardo de Chirico looks back to the first 2 years of Pope Francis: “His popularity is more of a social media phenomenon than a real one”.

 

1. The pope seems to have gained praise from almost everyone, including left-wing thinkers, LGBT movements, and media have been massively interested in every move he has done since then. What are some keys of this massive instantaneous success? How much in Francis’ popularity is a charismatic character and a good Communications strategy and how much is a real change in Catholicism?

Many indicators speak of a successful Pope in terms of audience and popularity, especially outside of the Catholic Church where normally Popes hardly gained the status of a celebrity. Francis broke some language and symbolic codes that made previous popes remote and unapproachable figures. Francis is perceived as a transparent, down-to-earth, one-of-us type of person. His breaking of codes makes many Catholics uncomfortable. This is perhaps one of the reasons why recent polls show that in spite of such popularity Catholic practice in the West hasn’t really improved in terms of attendance and obedience to the Catholic church.

2. Some Evangelicals in Europe say: “I like this pope, he is humble, he has his feet on the ground, talks about Jesus a lot…” It’s not difficult for anyone to like Francis. So, should we position ourselves as in favor of the pope or do you think there is a need to make a distinction between the sympathy for  person (Jorge Maria Bergoglio) and the institution he actually represents (the papacy)?

Bergoglio knows the language that Evangelicals use (e.g. “conversion”, “mission”, “personal relationship with Jesus”). He appears to be near but one has to understand what he means by using these words. I don’t think we mean the same things. Moreover, I wonder how he can be near to evangelicals given his published opinion (and never retracted) about Luther and Calvin having destroyed man, poisoned society, and ruined the church! I found it difficult to have sympathy for that! Then, for sure he also represents an institution that grew outside of biblical standards and he has not been reforming it according to the Gospel yet.

Thinking of Europe, do you think the Catholic Church is still in time to stop the loss of believers and even see young people go to mass?

The progressive erosion of the number of practicing Catholics is still going on even under Francis. His popularity is more of a social media phenomenon than a real one. Some sectors within the Catholic Church think that some “liberal” measures like admitting to the Eucharist those who have divorced or those who live in gay relationships will cause them to go back to the fold. The example of dying Protestant liberal churches which already provided for it should tell them that this is not the way to refill the churches of people. It’s the quickest way to empty them.

The Pope has been very clear and outspoken on internal in the Catholic Church, like  sexual child abuse. Why do you think there was so much silence with other popes before him?

The basic idea was that the institutional church needed to be protected from outsiders’ scrutiny. All nasty things were therefore covered up. This defensive attitude goes back to the fierce battle that the Catholic Church fought against the Enlightenment and the Revolutionary thought of XIX century. The late Benedict XVI began to introduce measures of transparency as far as the sexual abuses are concerned and Francis followed the same direction.

Have there been important doctrinal/theological changes since Francis is in charge? What are the main theological ideas of Francis?

Francis is not a professional theologian. I think he is influenced by two main sources, i.e. the present-day Jesuit theology and his Latin American context. When he argues that everyone is ok if one follows his conscience, he is building on and popularizing Karl Rahner’s views about “anonymous Christianity”. According to Rahner (1904-1984) we are Christians because we are humans. Similarly, Francis locates grace in our humanity. Or think of Jesuit Jacques Dupuis (1923-2004) who looked for a way to combine salvation in Christ and universal salvation in inter-religious dialogue. When Francis speaks of universal brotherhood or universal mercy, he is popularizing this kind of theology.

Then, his Latin American theological background is evident in his deeply felt Mariology – which has many folk spirituality attachments – and his “theology of the people” which is keen in making the people’s concerns and aspirations central, without asking whether or not they are biblically warranted.

What does Pope Francis think about Evangelical Christians? For instance, are Evangelicals saved if we believe in Jesus Christ? Are we still “cults”…?

Besides his criticism of Luther and Calvin, Francis seems to have a high view of evangelicals. He has many evangelical friends especially in Argentina. He recently mentioned the ability of evangelical preachers to relate to the biblical text in a helpful way. He seems to like the less-liturgical forms of charismatic spirituality. He seems to use a language that emphasizes the “personal” element of the Christian faith. In his recent interview to a Mexican journalist he clearly distinguished between evangelicals who are serious Christians and prosperity gospel groups which he named as “sects”.

You talked in one of your articles published at Evangelical Focus about the big devotion Francis has to Mary, calling her “Holy Mother of the Church” (https://vaticanfiles.org/2015/02/101-holy-mother-of-god-three-times/). How is this exaltation of Mary a problem in a biblical view of Christianity?

With all due respect for the Church Fathers, the great teachers and pastors of the early church, Marianism is a negative legacy of Patristic Christianity. It started to attributing to Mary what the Bible ascribes to Jesus. By applying syllogistic thinking, what could be said of Jesus could also be said of Mary. In this way nearly all the Christological titles have also become Mariological ones. Then Mariology became a doctrine which developed significantly in its own terms, outside of biblical standards. The recent Mariological dogmas, i.e. her immaculate conception (1854) and bodily assumption (1950), are children of this kind of development. Francis is totally at home with this Mariological framework and is a strong Marian devotee, especially of Our Lady of Aparecida in Brazil. His first act as Pope was to pay tribute to the icon of Mary Salus Populi Romani, Mary salvation of the Roman people.

Finally, the pope looks open to dialogue with other confessions, also with Evangelicals. How should we as Evangelicals react to it? Should be take steps to get closer to the Vatican, as some suggest? Are there social issues in which Catholics and Evangelicals could be “cobelligerent”? (pressing for more protection for the persecuted church, human trafficking, environmental care..)

Francis is open to all, be they Christians or non-Christians, religious or secular people. Evangelicals are just one piece in his vision. What he has in mind is a unity like a polyhedron: for him there are different ways to relate to the Catholic Church, but Rome maintains central stage. I think dialogue is important in the awareness though that the Catholic Church is not just like any other Christian denomination. It has at its center a political state, the Vatican; it still has an “imperial” structure with global claims and financial power; it has dogmas which are not based on the Bible alone; it legitimizes practices embedded in idolatry. This applies to the Church as an institution and not to all individual Catholics, of course. As for being co-belligerent, yes, on single issues and topics we should be open to work with anyone who is interested in supporting them.

 

Posted on

103. Evangelicals and Catholics Together (1994-2015)

March 9th, 2015

Twenty years is a sufficient time to reflect on the current trajectory initiated of the “Evangelical and Catholics Together” (ECT) initiative. Over the years this informal North American project spurred by Chuck Colson and Richard Neuhaus has produced a substantial series of documents on various doctrinal and moral topics. More than that ECT has set a friendly tone to a complex relationship that was previously marked by distance and even mutual opposition. I have already critically dealt with the context and the content of ECT elsewhere,[1] and so my primary concern here is to reflect on two commitments that ECT has embodied thus far and that perhaps represent its major on-going legacy.

Togetherness

The title of the initiative has proven to have had a far-reaching and programmatic value and has superseded in importance of the more than several thousand words of its texts. Evangelicals and Catholics stand together. They confess together. They pray together. They are together. They belong together. More than anything else the insistence on them being together is what really seems to matter. The outcome is that one group cannot be thought of without the other and vice versa. They continue to be distinct as Evangelicals and Catholics, but they are and shall be always together. Few of those familiar with ETC will be aware of the existing differences between Evangelicals and Catholics (which the ECT documents readily admit), but all of them will remember the emphasis on togetherness. In a world heavily characterized by religious conflicts and divisions, the psychological attachments of the word “together” prevail over the informational import of the initiative. Being together is an overarching commitment that addresses deeply felt concerns. The point is subtle because nowadays no one likes to be perceived as divisive and sectarian.

Generally speaking, togetherness is a highly valued condition. Biblically, however, it needs to be qualified in order not to become an intrusive idol. Togetherness, in fact, can become an idol if it is made an absolute in itself and is not defined by biblical truth. If this is the case, it can lead to unwarranted alliances and dangerous forms of unity, forcing people to say only “nice” things and only those things that do not question what is assumed as an already given unity. There is a whole stream of biblical teaching instructing God’s people to be aware of the dangers of forming spurious alliances (e.g.: Leviticus 20:26; 1 Kings 8:53; Proverbs 13:20; 2 Corinthians 6:17). The point here is that all references to togetherness need to be safeguarded and counter-balanced by a biblically defined theology of separation. Christian identity must define both sides according to the Word of God. ECT does recognize areas of difference, but its overall framework is to stress Evangelicals and Catholics being together in spite of being separated in very substantial ways. The former is stronger than the latter and ultimately defines the relationship. Therefore ECT has not only been an opportunity for dialogue and mutual understanding, it has from the beginning assumed the unity that needs instead to be biblically demonstrated. In this sense, ECT contains in its title a programmatic statement which is somewhat one-sided and over-stretched.

The Part for the Whole

The second remark has to do with another characteristic of ECT, namely its tendency to project what can be said of a single part onto the whole. Take, for instance, those who have been involved in the dialogue. The Catholic signatories of ECT are all biblically informed and very much influenced by a historically significant Protestant culture which has contributed to the shaping of their religious worldview. They are culturally close to their Evangelical counterparts and share with them important contours of the Christian life. All of this is mediated by a pluralist setting (i.e the USA) which crucially benefited from a Protestant input. Their attachment to Catholic popular devotions is discrete, and their underlining of certain Roman Catholic teachings and practices, which can hardly be found in Scripture, is almost unnoticeable. This is a very selected group of Roman Catholics and yet ECT, while legitimately speaking of them as “Catholics”, does so as if they embodied the whole or at least the majority of Catholics. Those who have at the very least a minimal experience outside of certain North American intellectual circles know that the bigger picture is much different. In many parts of the world Catholicism is largely defined by other religious commitments than those of ECT. What ETC says may apply to a group of people (be they Evangelicals or Catholics), yet the impression is given that the US Catholics with whom Evangelicals supposedly stand together are representative of the billion plus Catholics around the world. It is an overstatement, to say the least.

Secondly, the exchange between the part and the whole occurs also as far as the theological framework of the dialogue is concerned. Typically, each topic that is discussed by ECT is analyzed thematically, exploring the areas of agreement along with the points that need further study or where divergences can be found. In this way it is difficult if not impossible to get to the crux of things, i.e. the core issues which prevent Evangelicals and Catholics from being together on basic issues. Little attention is given to doctrinal presuppositions, spiritual assumptions, and the bigger theological frameworks that inform each one’s theological traditions. The outcome is that each document contains a cahier de doléances concerning the remaining areas of divergence but does not provide suggestions for coming to terms with what is at stake fundamentally between the two groups. It tends to go around it without tackling it.

Instead of ECT, perhaps a better and more realistic title for the next twenty years would be ECD: Evangelicals and Catholics in Dialogue.

[1] Christian Unity vis-à-vis Roman Catholicism: a Critique of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together Dialogue, “Evangelical Review of Theology” 27:4 (2003) pp. 337-352. https://vaticanfiles.org/2015/02/christian-unity-vis-a-vis-roman-catholicism-a-critique-of-the-evangelicals-and-catholics-together-dialogue/