Posted on

81. “Not a School of Samba”. Francis and the Catholic Charismatic Movement

June 9th, 2014

It was an impressive picture. During the first week-end of June 50.000 people gathered together in the Olympic Stadium of Rome not for a football match but instead to see Pope Francis as he joined the Catholic Charismatic movements for their annual celebration. In his speech the Pope gave a bit of an auto-biographical story of his encounter with these Renewal movements. Today, one Catholic out of ten claims to be charismatic (120 million people on the whole) and most of non-Western Roman Catholicism is heavily influenced by Charismatic spirituality.

 

From Skepticism to Full Endorsement

In his speech, Francis candidly recalled that his first impressions of the movement were rather mixed. The charismatic way of singing and worshipping seemed to him more of a “school of samba” than a properly defined Catholic liturgy. His reservations, however, were overcome as he better understood the movement. From a skeptical observer, Bergoglio became a staunch supporter of it.

 

Bergoglio’s personal change of mind over time reflects the journey that the Catholic Church as a whole made in its evaluation of the movement. From an initial puzzlement over what appeared to resemble the manners of Evangelical Pentecostalism, the Catholic Church worked hard to create a space for Charismatics within the wide fold of Roman Catholicism. The attempt went in a twofold direction. First, it made sure that the Charismatic experience was grafted into the sacramental system of the Catholic Church. Speaking in tongues and the other supernatural events were then considered as subsequent realizations of the already received sacraments administered by the Church. It was not something different or new or disruptive, but something that was grounded in the traditional sacramental theology and actually reinforced it, although in its own unique way.

 

Once the theology was safeguarded a second move was necessary, i.e. strictly connecting the movement to the hierarchical structure of the Roman Church. Pentecostalism was a child of the “free church” or even “para-church” mentality, based on the spontaneity of the group and the prominence of the experience of the individual, which is far from the ordinary Catholic sense of belonging to the mother Church. Paul VI and John Paul II suggested an institutional framework for the Catholic Charismatics whereby the first article of their statutes would insist that the movement was part of the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of its bishops and ultimately under the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

 

In so doing, both the theology and the institution of the Church were preserved and the Charismatic movement became all in all a “child” of the Catholic Church. From being a potential threat, it became a powerful arm of the present-day Roman Church and one its main hopes for the future. In the early Seventies the initial turning point of the Catholic approach occurred at the Gregorian University of Rome (the flagship Jesuit academic institution), and now the Jesuit Pope fully confirms the extremely positive attitude of the Church as a whole toward the Catholic Charismatics.

 

The Role of Renewal Movements Within the System

The Catholic Charismatic movement is just of the many contemporary renewal movements that operate within the Roman Catholic Church. This institution, beside its hierarchical apparatus, is innervated by different movements, each one bringing its own “gift” (singular) to the Church which in turn holds all the “gifts” (plural). Renewal movements have always been in and around the church with their specific vocation. The Roman Church as a system has fought those movements that would not integrate themselves into the sacramental theology and hierarchical structure of the Church, but has welcomed those that were willing to become an organic part of it. The Protestant Reformation is an example of the former, the Franciscan movement an example of the latter. These integrated renewal movements have become means to stretch the catholicity of the system without changing its core.

 

The same thing happened with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Once appeased by the Roman sacraments and the Papal structure, the system has been able to fully metabolize it. As other renewal movements in the course of history, the Charismatic Renewal is a means for the expansion of the system that adds to it and solidifies it, without purifying and changing it.

Posted on

82. ¿Un Mini-Asís para Tierra Santa?

21 DE JUNIO DE 2014

Asís es la pequeña ciudad donde Francisco de Asís (1181-1226) vivió la mayor parte de su vida y ahora se ha convertido en el destino de miles de peregrinos cada año. Asís es también el lugar donde en 1986 el Papa Juan Pablo II convocó una reunión de oración por la paz y diferentes líderes religiosos se unieron para orar, cada uno a su modo y a su propio D(d)ios. Esta iniciativa de plegaria inter-religiosa planteó algunas inquietudes dentro de la Iglesia Católica así como también fuera de ella. ¿Era una aprobación del universalismo religioso? ¿Era una forma de minimizar las afirmaciones exclusivas del Evangelio? ¿Se dio la impresión de que todas las religiones son iguales? ¿Qué clase de teología apoyó aquella oración inter-fe y multireligiosa? Aunque el Papa Benedicto intentó gestionar algunos de estos temas, el debate todavía continúa.

Ahora el Papa Francisco ha entrado en el debate de una manera muy impredecible. Durante su reciente visita a Tierra Santa invitó al Presidente Israelí Shimon Peres y al Líder Palestino Mahmoud Abbas a orar por la paz en la región (8 de Junio). En cierta forma esto fue una especie de acontecimiento mini-Asís.

EL PODER DE LOS SÍMBOLOS Y LA CONFUSIÓN INHERENTE
La oración tuvo lugar en el Vaticano, pero la escena fue muy similar a lo que sucedió en Asís. El Papa (ataviado con sus ropas blancas habituales) se sentó en el centro de un semicírculo, con las delegaciones israelitas y palestinas (todos ellos vestidos con trajes oscuros) a ambos lados. La cúpula de San Pedro los sombreaba a todos. Era la misma composición que en Asís, reconociendo al Papa como el “centro” del diálogo inter-fe y presidiendo las oraciones inter-religiosas. En sus cortos discursos, tanto Peres como Abbas elogiaron fácilmente el liderazgo estratégico del Papa al traer la reconciliación. Todos los símbolos presentes apoyaron firmemente la opinión de que el Papado es una institución clave para guiar a toda la humanidad unida.

La principal diferencia es que en Asís Juan Pablo II invitó a los líderes religiosos, mientras que Francisco reunió a líderes  políticos  para orar. Independientemente de lo que cada uno piense de la oración inter-fe, el evento de 1986 fue al menos coherente, en tanto que fueron llamados líderes religiosos para tomar parte en el mismo. Ahora, Francisco quería en su lugar presidentes para orar con él. El significado de esta decisión no puede ser fácilmente sobrestimado. El Papa es también jefe de un estado (es decir, la Ciudad del Vaticano) y, por consiguiente, lleva dos sombreros, por así decirlo. Es un igual de ambos líderes políticos y religiosos. No obstante, al pedir al Presidente Israelí rezar una oración judía y al Presidente Palestino una oración musulmana, les atribuyó erróneamente el papel de ser representativos de las religiones mayoritarias de sus países. Intercambió sus responsabilidades de representar a  todos  los ciudadanos (p.e. los cristianos israelíes y los cristianos palestinos incluidos) dándoles el sombrero de líderes religiosos judío y musulmán.

La confusión radica en el corazón de la Iglesia Católico Romana. Debido a que el Papa es tanto un líder religioso como un jefe de estado, la distinción entre lo que pertenece a la esfera de la religión y a la del estado queda significativamente enmascarada. Francisco invitó a sus colegas jefes de estado y les solicitó llevar a cabo un deber religioso como si fueran líderes religiosos. Proyectó su propia identidad dual (religiosa y política) en sus huéspedes. Esto no representa de ninguna manera una relación saludable entre los dos ámbitos.

PERPLEJIDADES PERMANENTES
La reunión mini-Asís de 2014 empleó un lenguaje similar al que se había utilizado en 1986. En su oración Francisco invocó a Dios como “el Dios de Abraham, el Dios de los Profetas, el Dios del Amor”, quien nos llama a vivir “como hermanos y hermanas”. Defendió firmemente la idea de que tenemos que “reconocernos mutuamente como hijos del mismo Padre”. “Hermano” fue la palabra usada con más frecuencia en su discurso y la paternidad universal de Dios fue el marco teológico del acontecimiento.

Ahora todo este lenguaje es ambiguo en el mejor de los casos. Puede utilizarse para indicar la necesidad que tienen los pueblos de diferentes antecedentes y religiones de vivir juntos y en paz como si fueran hermanos y hermanas. O puede significar que ya son hermanos y hermanas, hijos del mismo Padre, sin importar las convicciones religiosas que tengan. El énfasis puesto en la idea del “mismo Dios” indica claramente que la última interpretación es lo que realmente quiere decir Francisco. El hecho de que una oración cristiana (con una invocación a María, “la hija de la Tierra Santa y nuestra Madre”), una plegaria judía y una plegaria musulmana fueran ofrecidas una después de la otra, todas conteniendo referencias a “el mismo Dios – la misma humanidad”, apunta a la idea de que todas las religiones son al final buenas en sí mismas, siempre y cuando restauren y mantengan la paz. Esto es realmente con lo que se quedó la mayoría de la gente del mini-Asís del Papa Francisco. Después de las prudentes reservas del Papa Benedicto, el “espíritu de Asís” todavía respira en el Vaticano.

 

Posted on

80. “Sin María, El Corazón queda Huérfano”

24 DE MAYO DE 2014

La devoción mariana de Francisco es uno de los signos que definen su espiritualidad. Desde sus primeros actos como Papa hasta sus discursos y prácticas diarias, la teología mariana tradicional es básica para su cosmovisión católica.

A los oídos evangélicos su lenguaje puede parecer, a veces, centrado en Cristo y orientado a la misión, pero estos énfasis del Evangelio aparentes están siempre orgánicamente relacionados con un fuerte marianismo que envuelve la narrativa y la experiencia religiosa del Papa. El último ejemplo de su profundo marianismo sucedió en un encuentro con los seminaristas en Roma el pasado 13 de mayo. Al contestar sus preguntas sobre varios temas, el Papa hizo algunos comentarios interesantes sobre el marco mariano que subyace en su teología de la vida cristiana.

BAJO EL MANTO DE LA SANTA MADRE DE DIOS
Comentando acerca de la necesidad de vigilancia en tiempos de confusión personal, Francisco evoca el consejo de los Padres Rusos de ponerse “bajo el manto de la Santa Madre de Dios”. Esta protección mariana, recuerda el Papa, forma también parte de la liturgia por la cual el creyente declara encontrar refugio bajo el  “presidium”  (refugio) de María:  “sub tuum presidium configimus, Sancta Dei Genitrix”  (bajo tu protección nos refugiamos, santa Madre de Dios). De este modo, no rezar a María en tiempos de dificultad, para un sacerdote es como ser “huérfano”.

La primera cosa que un niño hace cuando está afligido es buscar a su madre, y lo mismo debería suceder en el reino espiritual. La obra mediadora de Jesucristo y su total comprensión de nuestras necesidades (el punto central de Hebreos 1-2 y 4:14-16) aquí se pasa por alto totalmente y a su vez es subsumido bajo la protección de María quien es la madre que cuida a los que solicitan ayuda. Mientras el salmista puede clamar “¡Confiad siempre en El! ¡Habladle en oración con toda confianza! ¡Dios es nuestro refugio! (Salmo 62:8), el consejo de Francisco es buscar el “manto” de María.

Entonces el Papa continúa subrayando el vínculo que hay entre la maternidad de María y la maternidad de la Iglesia. Según él, a aquellos que tienen una “buena relación” con María se les ayudará a tener una “buena relación” con la Iglesia e incluso con su propia alma. Las tres tienen un ”elemento femenino” y los conecta de una forma transitiva y maternal. De nuevo hay un enérgico énfasis en la maternidad que corre a través de la cosmovisión mariológica. Los que no tienen una buena relación con María (suponiendo que esto signifique rezarle, confiar en ella y pedir su ayuda) son como “huérfanos”.

La Biblia, no obstante, enseña que una buena relación con la Iglesia es posible sólo mediante la cabeza de la Iglesia, o sea Jesucristo, y esto se produce mediante el Espíritu Santo (1 Corintios 12). Francisco, por otra parte, tiene una manera “maternal” de conseguir esta relación correcta.

¡LA MADRE O LA SUEGRA!
En este momento el Papa recuerda un episodio que le ocurrió hace treinta años cuando visitó a una familia en el Norte de Europa. Los miembros de esta familia eran católicos practicantes y estaban llenos de entusiasmo por Cristo (¿quizás influenciados por la cultura protestante de su comarca?). En una conversación dijeron: “Hemos descubierto a Cristo y, gracias a Dios, hemos pasado la etapa de la Madonna. Ya no la necesitamos”. “No”, respondió Bergoglio entristecido: “Esto no es una fe madura. Olvidar a la madre es siempre una mala cosa, no una señal de madurez”. Otra vez, surge la pregunta: encontrar a Cristo y sólo a El ¿es un paso hacia la madurez cristiana o es alejarse de la misma?

El último comentario concerniente a esta cuestión parece más bien una broma chistosa. Al terminar su reflexión mariana, Francisco concluye diciendo: “Si tú no quieres a María como una madre, ¡se convertirá en tu suegra!” Una manera curiosa de expandir aún más la metáfora de la maternidad en direcciones no bíblicas.

El caso es que el Papa Francisco cree que una fe libre de mariología o incluso con una mariología ligera es como una criatura huérfana y es también una fe inmadura. La verdadera cuestión es si una fe centrada en Cristo y orientada hacia la misión debería concentrarse en Cristo en lugar de entremezclar el Evangelio con varias ideas maternales que no hacen más que oscurecerlo.

Posted on

80. “Without Mary the Heart is an Orphan”. Another Instance of Francis’ Marianism

May 16th, 2014

Francis’ Marian devotion is one of the defining marks of his spirituality. From his very first acts as Pope to his daily speeches and practices, traditional Marian theology is basic to his Catholic worldview. To evangelical ears his language may at times seem Christ-centered and mission-oriented, but these apparent gospel emphases are always organically related to a strong Marianism that envelops the Pope’s religious narrative and experience. The latest example of his profound Marianism occurred in a meeting with the seminarians in Rome on May 13th. In answering their questions on various topics, the Pope made some interesting comments on the Marian framework that undergirds his theology of the Christian life.

Under the Mantle of the Holy Mother of God

Commenting on the need for vigilance in times of personal turmoil, Francis evokes the counsel of the Russian Fathers to run “under the mantle of the Holy Mother of God”. This Marian protection – the Pope recalls – is also part of the liturgy whereby the faithful declare to find refuge under the “presidium” (haven) of Mary: “sub tuum presidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genitrix”. So, for a priest not to pray to Mary in times of difficulty is for him to be like an “orphan”. When in trouble the first thing a child does is look for his mother, so too should it happen in the spiritual realm. The mediatorial work of Jesus Christ and his total understanding of our needs (the whole point of Hebrews 1-2 and 4:14-16) is here totally overlooked and is instead subsumed under the protection of Mary who is the caring mother of those seeking help. Whereas the Psalmist can cry “For God alone, o my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from Him” (Psalm 62:8), Francis’ advice is to seek the “mantle” of Mary.

The Pope then goes on to underline the link between the motherhood of Mary and the motherhood of the Church. According to him, those who have a “good relationship” with Mary will be helped to have a “good relationship” with the Church and even with their own souls. All three have a “feminine element” which connects them in a transitive and motherly way. Again there is strong emphasis on motherhood that runs through the Mariological worldview. Those who do not have a good relationship with Mary (assuming that this means praying to her, trusting her and seeking her help) are like “orphans”. The Bible, however, teaches that a good relationship with the Church is made possible only through the head of the Church, that is Jesus Christ, and this comes through the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Francis, on the other hand, has a “motherly” way of getting that relationship right.

Either Mother or Mother-in-Law!

At this point the Pope recalls an episode that happened to him while visiting a family in Northern Europe thirty years ago. The members of the family were practicing Catholics and full of enthusiasm for Christ (perhaps influenced by the Protestant culture of their region?). In a conversation they said: “We have discovered Christ and – thank God – we have passed the stage of Madonna. We don’t need her any longer”. “No”, replied the saddened Bergoglio: “This is not a mature faith. Forgetting the mother is always a bad thing, not a sign of maturity”. Again, the question arises: is finding Christ and him alone a step towards or away from Christian maturity?

The last comment concerning this question seems more like a humorous joke. In wrapping up his Marian reflection, Francis concludes by saying “If you don’t want Mary as a mother, she will become your mother-in-law!” An intriguing way of further expanding the motherhood metaphor in non biblical directions.  

The point is that pope Francis believes that a Mariologically-free or even Mariologically-light faith is an orphan-like and immature faith. The real question is whether or not a Christ-centered and mission-oriented faith should focus on Christ instead of intermingling the Gospel with various motherhood ideas that obscure it.

Posted on

79. Peter Didn’t Have a Bank, Did He?

April 15th, 2014

“Peter didn’t have a bank, did he?” Shortly after his election Pope Francis asked this rhetorical question. Peter did not have a bank, of course, but the Vatican does have a bank, and it’s called the Institute for the Works of Religion (Istituto di Opere Religiose, IOR). Its operations have been well known by the public for its record of financial scandals over the last thirty years, often exchanging the “works of religion” for reckless banking. The peak of mismanagement and distrust was reached during Pope Benedict XVI’s reign and was certainly one factor that contributed to his resignation. Pope Francis called for an investigation and formed a commission to help him make decisions concerning the future of IOR.  

The Vatican Keeps the Bank

Francis has been working hard to bring a breath of fresh air both inside and outside the Vatican walls. In many ways he is a Pope who is trying to renew the system from the inside out by giving a personal example of a sober lifestyle full of religious enthusiasm. His statement about Peter and the bank raised some expectations that he would also touch on significant structural changes as far as the institutions of the Vatican are concerned. Some commentators went as far as saying that the Pope was ready to shut the IOR down, thus opening a season of disestablishment of the political adds-on at the center of the Catholic Church.

Last week the decision was finally announced: the Pope confirms “the importance of the IOR’s mission for the good of the Catholic Church, the Holy See and the Vatican City State”. In other words, the bank will continue to exist as is, but with more transparent policies, all while its banking profile remains untouched. For all that Francis is changing, the financial system of the Vatican will not change. Peter did not have a bank, but Popes do, and despite of all his “missional” emphases Francis is no different than his predecessors.

The Thick “Hardware” of the Vatican

What is becoming more and more apparent is that Francis is focusing on the “attitude” of the Church, but he is hardly interested in revising the basic “structure” of the Vatican. His remarks on the outgoing “mission” of the Church revolve around the “operative system” of the Church but leave its “hardware” as it stands. The bank is only one piece of a much larger picture. The Vatican is a state and the Pope is a political leader. The Vatican has a territory, an army, a diplomatic body, civil and penal courts, a prison, and a bank. It issues passports and participates in the international political scene as a sovereign state. The Roman Catholic Church is a church which operates with a state as its center. Its two-sided face is both religious and political.

The political “hardware” exchanges the Church with a political body trusting in man’s protection, rather than encouraging God’s people to serve God’s mission in God’s way. The usual justifications for the “hardware” of the Vatican are that it is the result of its long history and it helps to serve the mission of the Church. These are of course pragmatic reasons rather than biblical ones. Moreover, these justifications have caused the church to become something that goes ways beyond the way Jesus wanted the church to be. “Peter did not have a bank, did he?” was a promising start. In fact, the church does not need to own a bank nor did Jesus ever say or even suggest that the church is supposed to be a political state at heart. Francis’ subsequent reinforcement of the IOR shows that in the system as it stands the reason of state prevails over biblical principles, even for a “revolutionary” Pope.