Posted on

79. Pedro no tenía ningún banco, ¿verdad?

14 DE ABRIL DE 2014

“Pedro no tenía ningún banco, ¿verdad?” Poco después de su elección el Papa Francisco hizo esta pregunta retórica. Pedro no tenía ningún banco, por supuesto, pero el Vaticano sí que tiene uno, el llamado Instituto para las Obras de Religión (Istituto di Opere Religiose, IOR). Sus operaciones son bien conocidas por el público debido a su récord de escándalos financieros durante los últimos treinta años, intercambiando con frecuencia las “obras de religión” por obras bancarias temerarias. La cima de la mala gestión y la desconfianza se alcanzó durante el reinado del Papa Benedicto XVI e, indudablemente fue uno de los factores que contribuyó a su dimisión. El Papa Francisco solicitó una investigación y formó una comisión para que le ayudara a tomar las decisiones concernientes al futuro del IOR.

El Vaticano mantiene el Banco
Francisco ha trabajado duro para llevar un soplo de aire fresco tanto dentro como fuera de los muros del Vaticano. En muchos aspectos es un Papa que está intentando renovar el sistema desde dentro hacia fuera dando ejemplo personal de un estilo de vida sobrio lleno de entusiasmo religioso. Su declaración acerca de Pedro y el banco suscitó ciertas expectativas en el sentido de que también haría significativos cambios estructurales en lo que se refiere a las instituciones del Vaticano. Algunos comentaristas llegaron a decir que el Papa estaba dispuesto a cerrar el IOR, empezando así una etapa de derogación de la expansión política en el centro de la Iglesia Católica.

Hace dos semanas se anunció por fin la decisión: el Papa confirma “la importancia de la misión del IOR para el bien de la Iglesia Católica, la Santa Sede y la Ciudad del Vaticano”. En otras palabras, el banco continuará existiendo tal como es, pero con una política más transparente, todo ello mientras el perfil bancario se mantiene intacto. Con todo lo que Francisco está cambiando, el sistema financiero del Vaticano no variará. Pedro no tenía un banco, pero los Papas sí, y pese a todos sus énfasis “misionales” Francisco no es diferente de sus predecesores.

 El espeso “hardware” del Vaticano
Lo que es cada vez más evidente es que Francisco se está centrando en la “actitud” de la Iglesia, pero apenas se interesa en la revisión de la “estructura” fundamental del Vaticano. Sus observaciones sobre la “misión” abierta de la Iglesia giran en torno al “sistema operativo” de la Iglesia pero dejan su “hardware” tal y como está. El banco es únicamente una pieza de un cuadro mucho más grande. El Vaticano es un estado y el Papa es un líder político. El Vaticano tiene un territorio, un ejército, un cuerpo diplomático, tribunales civiles y penales, una cárcel y un banco. Expide pasaportes y participa en la escena política internacional como un estado soberano. La Iglesia Católico Romana es una iglesia que opera con un estado como su centro. Su doble cara es a la vez religiosa y política.

El “hardware” político intercambia la Iglesia con un cuerpo político que confía en la protección del hombre, en lugar de alentar al pueblo de Dios a servir a la misión de Dios en el camino de Dios. Las justificaciones habituales que se dan para razonar el “hardware” del Vaticano son que se trata del resultado de su larga historia y que ayuda a servir a la misión de la Iglesia. Estas son, claro está, defensas más pragmáticas que bíblicas. Además, estas excusas han sido la causa de que la iglesia se convierta en algo que va más allá de la forma que Jesús quería que tuviera la iglesia. “Pedro no tenía ningún banco, ¿verdad?” fue un comienzo prometedor. En realidad, la iglesia no necesita un banco y Jesús nunca dijo, ni tan siquiera sugirió, que la iglesia debería llegar a ser, en el fondo, un estado político. El posterior fortalecimiento del IOR demuestra que en el sistema, en su forma actual, la razón de estado prevalece sobre los principios bíblicos, aun para un Papa “revolucionario”.

Posted on

78. The New Saints and Pope Francis

April 5th, 2014

On 27th April two canonizations will take place in Rome. Two Twentieth century Popes will be proclaimed “saints” by the Catholic Church. John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli 1881-1963) and John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła 1920-2005) will be included in the canon, or list, of recognized saints. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church “by canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors” (828).

John XXIII and John Paul II were the two major Popes of the last century. It was John XXIII who convened the Second Vatican Council, the most significant event in contemporary Roman Catholic history. Then it was John Paul II that re-launched Catholicism as a global player, after decades, if not centuries, of prevailing self-defensiveness. The fact that the Church is canonizing the two together on the same day communicates a clear message concerning the present Pope. In a sense Francis wants to be identified with the “pastoral” afflatus of John XXIII while at the same time following the dynamism of John Paul II.

The Pastor Pope

Perhaps the most defining mark of John XXIII was the “pastoral” tone of his pontificate. Gentle in spirit, meek in manners, approachable by the people, Roncalli was the first modern Pope to not be perceived as a king but instead as a pastor. His language was simple and his human frame was humble. By no surprise, his main achievement, i.e. Vatican II, was meant to be a “pastoral” council. John XXIII did not want a rigidly “doctrinal” church that would judge the mistakes of the world but a loving “mother” who would offer protection and understanding for all.

Francis too is perceived as a “pastoral” Pope. Unlike his predecessor, the theologian Ratzinger, Francis continues to insist on the need for a change of attitude, leaving the doctrinal outlook of the Church in the background of what he says. His main message is centered around his pastoral sensitivity. Like John XXIII, Francis wants to embrace the world as it is. He does not want to change any doctrine, but wishes to draw nearer to the world. It is clear that John XXIII’s shadow is behind Francis’ way of interpreting his pontificate.

“To” and “From” the Ends of the Earth

John Paul II, however, is a more complex figure. In his long pontificate, this Pope travelled to the ends of the earth to take a strong Catholic identity and his energetic leadership to a polarized world (East/West and North/South). From the center of Catholicism, John Paul II went to the geographical peripheries to encourage Catholic renewal everywhere. Now, with the Argentinian Francis, the Pope who comes from the ends of the world, the Church travels back to Rome to bring the enthusiasm, the energy, and the concerns of the peripheries. Francis is reversing John Paul II’s journey. The direction of the movement is different (from periphery to center) but the energy that he is investing is similar. John Paul II re-ignited the Roman catholicity inside out, Francis is stirring the Catholic “mission” outside in.  The common thread between the two is that something is moving in a significant way.

The canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II will focus on two past Popes but they will also speak of the present Pope. The pastoral catholicity of the former and the shaking and shaping ability of the latter are marks of Pope Francis. In some important respects Francis is reflected in both of these predecessors and this event will be a further opportunity to stress this identification.

Posted on

77. Where is the Catholic Marriage Going?

March 21st, 2014

The family is at the center of Vatican concerns and activities. A Synod of Bishops is due to meet this coming October and then again in 2015. These important gatherings will address the challenges that the Catholic Church is facing concerning the difficult task of maintaining its traditional teaching in relationship with today’s realities, e.g.  many broken families, many divorces, many “new forms” of family even amongst practicing Catholics, not to mention what happens in secular society. Of course, the issue is huge and multifaceted.

One has to bear in mind that the present-day Catholic concern focuses primarily on the sacramental dimension of the problem. In other words, what does the Church do with the many Catholics who are divorced and are therefore excluded from the Eucharist? Should the Church soften the ban? Should it make provision for more “pastoral” approaches that could allow  their admission under certain circumstances? Ultimately, should the Church change its rigid sacramental categories and come to terms more with the “human”, frail, and transient aspects of marriage?

Kasper’s Way Forward

In preparation for the Synod Cardinal Walter Kasper was asked to introduce the discussion. His lecture (20th February) has stirred the internal debate and is polarizing opinions between reformists and traditionalists. The latest book by Kasper has a programmatic title: Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life (Paulist Press, 2014) and was publicly praised by Pope Francis as the best book he had personally read for some time. It is no chance that Francis has been insisting on “mercy” as the attitude that needs to characterize the Church in all its dealings with people.

Kasper’s lecture is a theological feast that blends Biblical exegesis, patristic writings, canon law and magisterial teaching throughout history. After revisiting all this against the background of the present-day crisis, Kasper envisages some possible “open doors” for those who have had failed marriages and whose conditions of life prevent them from any possible reconciliation. He makes references to the practice of the early church that used to re-admit people who divorced in some specific cases and that is still kept in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

How can a well established Roman Catholic teaching change? Kasper is aware of the newness of his proposal and suggests that the current situation is analogous to that of the Second Vatican Council on issues of ecumenism and religious freedom. The Church had been against both issues for centuries, but “the Council opened doors” by deciding that a “development” should take place and therefore recognized religious freedom and embraced ecumenism. What should prevent the same from happening with the admission of divorced couples to the Eucharist?

The “Sacramental” Bottom-Line

Non-Catholics may fail to understand the depth and the intensity of the problem. It is not so much about the indissolubility of marriage per se and the realization that divorce is part of the fallen world. It has to do with the sacramental theology that lies at the heart of the Roman Catholic religion. According to Catholic doctrine, marriage is a sacrament, i.e. an “efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1131). The essence of marriage is not a human covenant before God, but a divinely appointed channel of grace that is administered by the Church. “Normalizing” the failure means downplaying the sacrament and therefore shaking the sacramental institution that dispenses it. The fact that the discussion is also about the admission to the Eucharist, i.e. another sacrament, nay the chief sacrament, further amplifies the issue.

Any talk about marriage, divorce, re-marriage and the Eucharist is a talk about the sacramental nature of the Church. Kasper quoted the “development” that took place during Vatican II concerning ecumenism and religious freedom. This is true but neither of those issues impinged on the sacramental structure of the Church. They were sacramentally-free developments, so to speak. Re-admitting divorced people to the Eucharist surely has a “pastoral” dimension to it, but it is essentially a dogmatic issue in that it revolves around the identity of the sacrament, i.e. a divinely appointed efficacious sign of grace entrusted to the Church.

The Roman Church is built around the notion of the sacrament. It is a thoroughgoing sacramental institution. Cardinal Kasper (along with Pope Francis?) wants to emphasize the need for “mercy”, but is he counting the dogmatic weight of such a move? A more “human” and “merciful” sacrament will mean a more humble and modest Church, certainly not the Catholic Church that stemmed out of the Councils of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II. 

Posted on

77. ¿Hacia dónde va el matrimonio católico?

29 de Marzo de 2014

La familia está situada en el centro de las preocupaciones y actividades del Vaticano. Se está preparando un Sínodo de Obispos que tiene previsto congregarse el próximo octubre y luego de nuevo en 2015. En estas importantes reuniones se abordarán los desafíos que la Iglesia Católica está enfrentando con referencia a la difícil labor de mantener sus enseñanzas tradicionales en relación con las realidades de hoy en día, p.e., muchas familias desestructuradas, gran cantidad de divorcios así como copiosas “nuevas formas” de familia, incluso entre católicos practicantes, por no mencionar lo que ocurre en la sociedad secular. Por supuesto, este problema es enorme y multifacético.

Hay que tener en cuenta que la inquietud católica actual se concentra ante todo en la dimensión sacramental del problema. En otras palabras, ¿qué hace la Iglesia con los numerosos católicos que están divorciados y, por consiguiente, excluidos de la Eucaristía? ¿Debería la Iglesia suavizar las prohibiciones? ¿Debería establecer disposiciones para métodos más “pastorales” que pudieran permitir su admisión bajo ciertas circunstancias? Por último, ¿debería cambiar la Iglesia sus rígidas categorías sacramentales y aceptar los aspectos más pasajeros, frágiles y “humanos” del matrimonio?

 La Forma de Avanzar según Kasper

En vistas a la preparación del Sínodo se le pidió al Cardenal Walter Kasper que presentara el debate. Su conferencia (el 20 de febrero) ha suscitado la discusión interna y está polarizando las opiniones entre los reformistas y los tradicionalistas. El último libro de Kasper lleva el programático título:  “Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life”  (Misericordia: La Esencia del Evangelio y la Clave para la Vida Cristiana) (Paulist Press, 2014) y fue elogiado públicamente por el Papa Francisco como el mejor libro que personalmente había leído en bastante tiempo. No es casualidad que Francisco haya estado insistiendo en la “misericordia” como la actitud que debe caracterizar a la Iglesia en todas sus relaciones con la gente.

La conferencia de Kasper es una fiesta teológica que mezcla la exégesis bíblica, los escritos patrísticos, el derecho canónico y la enseñanza magisterial a lo largo de la historia. Después de revisar todo esto en el contexto de la crisis actual, Kasper contempla algunas posibles “puertas abiertas” para aquellos que han fracasado en sus matrimonios y cuyas condiciones de vida les impiden una posible reconciliación. Hace referencia a las prácticas de la iglesia primitiva que readmitían a las personas que se habían divorciado en algunos casos determinados y estas mismas costumbres todavía se mantienen en las Iglesias Ortodoxas Orientales.

¿Cómo puede un católico romano bien establecido enseñar un cambio? Kasper es consciente de la novedad de su propuesta y sugiere que la presente situación es análoga a la del Concilio Vaticano Segundo en los temas del ecumenismo y la libertad religiosa. La Iglesia ha estado en contra de ambos temas durante siglos, pero “el Concilio abrió las puertas” decidiendo que debía producirse una “evolución” y, por consiguiente, reconoció la libertad religiosa y abrazó el ecumenismo. ¿Qué impediría que sucediera lo mismo con la admisión de las parejas divorciadas en la Eucaristía?

 La Línea de Fondo “Sacramental”

Los no católicos puede que fracasen en comprender la profundidad y la intensidad del problema. No se trata tanto de la indisolubilidad del matrimonio  per se  y del discernimiento de que el divorcio forma parte del mundo caído. Tiene que ver con la teología sacramental que se halla en el corazón de la religión católico romana. Según la doctrina católica, el matrimonio es un sacramento, es decir, un “signo eficaz de la gracia, instituido por Cristo y confiado a la Iglesia por el cual nos es dispensada la vida divina”  (Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica, n. 1131).  La esencia del matrimonio no es un pacto humano ante Dios, sino un canal de la gracia divinamente designado que es administrado por la Iglesia. “Normalizar” el fracaso significa la minimización del sacramento y, por lo tanto sacudir la institución sacramental que lo dispensa. El hecho de que la discusión sea también acerca de la admisión en la Eucaristía, o sea, otro sacramento, mejor dicho el principal sacramento, amplifica más el tema.

Cualquier conversación sobre el matrimonio, el divorcio, el casarse de nuevo y la Eucaristía es un coloquio acerca de la naturaleza sacramental de la Iglesia. Kasper citó la “evolución” que tuvo lugar durante el Vaticano II concerniente al ecumenismo y a la libertad religiosa. Esto es cierto, pero ninguna de aquellas cuestiones incidía en la estructura sacramental de la Iglesia. Eran avances “sacramentalmente libres”, por así decirlo. Readmitir a personas divorciadas en la Eucaristía tiene seguramente una dimensión “pastoral” hacia las mismas, pero es fundamentalmente un tema dogmático en cuanto que gira en torno de la identidad del sacramento, es decir, un signo eficaz de la gracia divinamente instituido y confiado a la Iglesia.

La Iglesia Romana está construida alrededor del concepto del sacramento. Es una institución sacramental profunda. El Cardenal Kasper (¿junto con el Papa Francisco?) quiere resaltar la necesidad de la “misericordia”, pero ¿tiene en cuenta el peso dogmático de tal acción? Un sacramento más “humano” y “misericordioso” significará una Iglesia más humilde y modesta, que sin duda no será la Iglesia Católica que surgió a raíz del Concilio de Trento, del Vaticano I y del Vaticano II.

Posted on

76. The Catholicity of Pope Francis

March 10th, 2013

One year ago (March 13th) Cardinal Bergoglio was elected as pope Francis. Different evaluations of the first year are mushrooming everywhere in the form of books and editorials. They suggest various interpretations of what the Pope has been doing, saying and implementing thus far. As his first anniversary approaches several questions seem appropriate to ask, and all of them assume that something significant has been happening. What has been the “Francis effect” on the church? The simplest answer is that he is envisaging a different kind of catholicity.

Roman Catholic Catholicity

In the Roman Catholic understanding catholicity has to do simultaneously with unity and totality. The basic premise is that multiplicity should be brought into a unity. The Church is seen as an expression, a guarantor and a promoter of true unity between God and humanity and within humanity itself. In Vatican II terms, the Church is a “sacrament of unity”. As long as the institutional structure which preserves this unity remains intact (i.e. the Roman element), everything can and must find its home somewhere within its realm (i.e. the catholic element).

The catholic mindset is characterized by an attitude of overall openness without losing touch with its Roman center. It is inherently dynamic and comprehensive, capable of holding together doctrines, ideas and practices that in other Christian traditions are thought of as being mutually exclusive. By way of its inclusive et-et (both-and) epistemology, in a catholic system two apparently contradicting elements can be reconciled into a synthesis which entail both. In principle, the system is wide enough to welcome everything and everyone. The defining term is not the Word of God written (sola Scriptura) but the Roman Church itself. From a catholic point of view then, affirming something does not necessarily mean denying something else, but simply means enlarging one’s own perspective of the whole truth. In this respect, what is perceived as being important is the integration of the part into the catholic whole by way of relating the thing newly affirmed with what is already existing.

Catholicity allows doctrinal development without a radical breach from the past and also allows different kinds of catholicity to co-exist. Each Pope has his own catholicity project. John Paul II pushed for the church to become a global player, thus expanding the geographical catholicity and its profile with the media. Benedict XVI tried to define catholicity in terms of its adherence to universal “reason”, thus trying to reconnect the chasm between faith and reason that Western Enlightenment had introduced. These catholicity projects are not mutually exclusive, but they all contribute to the overall dynamic catholicity of the Church. They were all organically related to the Roman element that safeguards the continuity of the system.

Mapping Francis’ Catholicity

After one year of his pontificate it is becoming apparent what kind of catholicity Francis has in mind. He wants to build on John Paul II’s global catholicity while shifting emphases from Wojtyła’s doctrinal rigidity to more inclusive patterns. He pays lip service to Ratzinger’s rational catholicity, but wants to move the agenda from Western ideological battles to “human” issues which find appeal across the global spectrum. If Ratzinger wanted to mark the difference between the Church and the world, Francis tries to make them overlap. In shaping the new catholicity he seems closer to the “pastoral” tone of John XXIII, who will be canonized (i.e. declared a “saint”) next April. So there is continuity and development. This is the gist of catholicity. 

Francis has little time for “non-negotiable” truths, and gives more attention to the variety of people’s conscience. He is more interested in warmth than light, more in empathy than judgment. He focuses on attitude rather than identity, and on embracing rather than teaching. He underlines the relational over the doctrinal. For him proximity is more important than integrity. Belonging together has priority over believing differently. Reaching out to people comes before calling them back. Of course all these marks are not pitted against each other, but their relationship is worked out within a new balance whereby the first one determines the overall orientation. Roman catholicity works this way: never abandoning the past, always enlarging the synthesis by repositioning the elements around the Roman center.

Francis calls this catholicity “mission”. The word is familiar and intriguing for Bible-believing Christians, yet one needs to understand what he means by it beyond what it appears to mean on the surface.