Posted on

1. L’engagement du Vatican dans la Nouvelle Evangélisation ?

Rome, le 18 octobre 2010

Il n’est pas courant qu’un nouveau Conseil Pontifical soit mis en place au Vatican, étant donné le caractère conservateur de cette institution. Le pape Benoît XVI vient pourtant de rendre public le motu proprio (intitulé Ubicumque et semper, “partout et toujours”) qui établit un Conseil pontifical pour la promotion de la nouvelle évangélisation. L’une des raisons pour lesquelles cette mesure mérite que l’on y prête une attention toute particulière est qu’il s’agit d’une initiative sur du long terme. La préoccupation qui est au cœur de l’appellation du Conseil a également une importance capitale, en particulier pour des évangéliques qui se complairaient dans l’idée qu’ils ont un « monopole » sur tout ce qui touche à l’évangélisation. Nous avons là affaire à un bureau du Vatican dont l’objectif est de favoriser la nouvelle évangélisation de l’Occident. Les évangéliques devraient également prêter attention à la longue citation d’Evangelii nuntiandi, un document du Vatican relatif à la mission, datant de 1975, et que beaucoup d’observateurs ont considéré comme l’équivalent catholique romain de la Déclaration de Lausanne de 1974. La mission au sein des pays occidentaux est donc l’une des priorités du Vatican.

Le pape Ratzinger a toujours été préoccupé par le fait de chercher à se confronter aux défis de l’Occident sécularisé. De bien des manières ses premières années en tant que pape peuvent être analysées comme une tentative de faire face à ce problème. La mise en place de ce nouveau Conseil en est le versant « institutionnel ». La lettre fait référence à des thèmes qui sont chers à Benoît XVI : il souligne la diminution progressive de la pratique du christianisme dans les pays industrialisés ainsi que l’abandon continuel des valeurs chrétiennes dans les sociétés occidentales, qui conduisent au mieux à de l’indifférence, au pire à des attitudes antichrétiennes. Pour faire simple, le pape pense que la « sécularisation » est le principal ennemi spirituel de l’Eglise. Il appelle l’Eglise à se lancer dans une phase de revitalisation de sa vie intérieure pour faire face aux tendances séculières. La lettre pontificale Ubicumque et semper n’inclut pas une théologie bien définie de la nouvelle évangélisation. Cependant, il y a des pistes qui méritent peut-être que l’on s’y arrête et qui mettent en perspective cette nouvelle mesure du Vatican.

La rhétorique de la déchristianisation progressive de l’Europe est une constante dans les allocutions papales depuis la Révolution française. « Qui pèse ces choses a droit de craindre qu’une telle perversion des esprits ne soit le commencement des maux annoncés pour la fin des temps, et comme leur prise de contact avec la terre, et que véritablement “le fils de perdition” dont parle l’Apôtre (II Thess. II, 3) n’ait déjà fait son avènement parmi nous. Si grande est l’audace et si grande la rage avec lesquelles on se rue partout à l’attaque de la religion, on bat en brèche les dogmes de la foi, on tend d’un effort obstiné à anéantir tout rapport de l’homme avec la Divinité ! » Ces mots pourraient être ceux de Ratzinger, mais ils furent écrits par Pie X en 1903 dans son encyclique E supremi apostolatus (n. 5). D’une certaine manière, il n’y a rien de nouveau sous le soleil. Les Eglises se sont retrouvées à croiser le fer avec différentes formes de sécularisation depuis au moins trois siècles. La nouveauté, c’est peut-être que les Eglises institutionnelles risquent de perdre leur statut privilégié dans une société pluraliste. Il semblerait que la sécularisation actuelle ne s’accommode guère des arrangements entre l’Eglise et l’Etat antérieurs à la Révolution. Est-ce cela dont Ratzinger a le plus peur ?

Dans son évaluation des dangers de la sécularisation, Benoît XVI accuse cette dernière de toutes sortes de maux. Son analyse est correcte de bien des manières. Mais il manque quelque chose d’important. Il ne fait aucune mention de la responsabilité de l’Eglise dans la situation misérable de la chrétienté occidentale. L’Eglise a-t-elle vraiment travaillé d’arrache-pied pour proclamer avec intégrité l’Evangile au monde moderne qui l’observait ? L’Eglise a-t-elle été fidèle à la Parole de Dieu ? L’Eglise est-elle dans une certaine mesure responsable d’avoir au moins en partie provoqué ces inquiétantes tendances sécularistes ? L’Eglise devrait-elle examiner ses propres péchés avant de pointer du doigt le monde ? Ce document ne s’occupe pas de cela. Il n’en pose même pas la question !

L’Eglise est encouragée à promouvoir la nouvelle évangélisation et à raviver son ardeur pour la mission d’influencer la société. Ce document n’exprime pas d’espoir de conversion à l’Evangile, comme l’exprimerait la Déclaration de Lausanne. Il espère plutôt la restauration d’une société chrétienne au sein de laquelle les valeurs chrétiennes seraient honorées, mises en pratique, et l’Eglise reconnue comme influençant et défendant la société. Que vise l’évangélisation ? Veut-elle favoriser la nostalgie d’une « société chrétienne » telle qu’elle a pu exister en Europe dans le passé ? Mais ces sociétés étaient-elles chrétiennes au sens de l’Evangile ? Ne devrions-nous pas accepter le défi d’évangéliser l’Occident sans chercher à simplement revenir en arrière ?

Pour finir, un commentaire sur les outils que le pape Benoît XVI considère comme cruciaux pour réaliser cette tâche. En première ligne se trouve « l’utilisation du Catéchisme de l’Eglise catholique, comme formulation essentielle et complète du contenu de la foi ». Que le chef de l’Eglise catholique romaine fasse la promotion de l’utilisation du Catéchisme est parfaitement légitime. Cependant, le peuple de l’Evangile se serait attendu à ce que le pape encourage la lecture, l’étude et le partage de la Bible. De toute évidence, pour lui le Catéchisme contient la Bible, et non l’inverse.

Posted on

83. What Francis Really Thinks of the Reformation (and of Calvin in Particular)

June 23rd, 2014

Friendly. Appreciative. Always wanting to stress commonalities and to lay aside differences. This has been the popular image of Pope Francis in his dealings with non-Catholics thus far. Many are impressed by his easy-going style that often seeks to affirm others. This may have been the rule but now there is an exception, and a very significant one. The recent re-publication of a lecture on the history of the Jesuits that Archbishop Bergoglio gave in Argentina in 1985 indicates the kind of harsh assessment that he gave of the Protestant Reformation in general and of John Calvin in particular. The lecture was re-published in Spain in 2013 and then translated into Italian in book form (Chi sono i gesuiti, Bologna: EMI, 2014). Since there is no indication that he has changed his mind, we have to consider the contents of the book an accurate reflection of what Francis still thinks of the Protestant Reformation.

Protestantism as the Root of all Evils

In examining the history of the Jesuits Bergoglio gives special attention to their interactions with the Reformation and their role in the Latin-American missions. According to him the inevitable consequences of the Reformation are the annihilation of man in his anxiety (resulting in existential atheism), and a leap in the dark by a type of superman (as envisaged by Nietzsche). Both outcomes lead to “the death of God”, and a kind of “paganism” that manifests itself as Nazism and Marxism. All this originating from the “Lutheran position”! Bergoglio argues that the Reformation is the root of all the tragedies of the modern West, from secularization to the death of God, from totalitarian regimes to ideological suicides.

There is nothing new under the sun. This disparaging and appalling view of the Reformation has been the common reading of modern European history by scores of Counter-reformation Catholic polemists until recent decades. Bergoglio did not invent it. He rather reaffirms it as if more thorough historical research and theological and cultural analyses never took place after the Council of Trent. What can we make of his friendly tones towards Protestants if he really thinks that the “Lutheran position” is to be blamed for all the evils of Western civilization?

John Calvin the Spiritual Executioner

There is more. Bergoglio makes a distinction between Martin Luther the “heretic” and John Calvin the “heretic” and “schismatic”. The Lutheran heresy is “a good idea gone foolish”, but Calvin is even worse because he also tore apart man, society, and the church. As for man, Bergoglio’s Calvin split reason from the heart, thus producing the “Calvinist squalor”. In society, Calvin pitted the bourgeoisie against the other working classes, thus becoming “the father of liberalism”. The worst schism happened in the church, however. There Calvin “beheaded the people of God from being united with the Father”. He beheaded the people of God from its patron saints. He also beheaded it from the mass, i.e. the mediation of the “really present” Christ. In summary, Calvin was an executioner that destroyed man, poisoned society, and ruined the church!

To say that Bergoglio does not like Calvin is an understatement. He has strong feelings against him. But are we sure that he understands Calvin beyond totally biased and outdated clichés? 2017 will mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation and will be an opportunity for Francis to go back to more recent history books and get a fairer and more accurate picture of what happened from the XVI century onwards. If he does not revise his assessment of the Reformation all “ecumenical” language will be a superficial mask hiding a real hatred for Luther and (especially) Calvin.

Posted on

82. A Mini-Assisi for the Holy Land?

June 17th, 2014

Assisi is the small town where Francis of Assisi (1181- 1226) lived most of his life and is now a destination for thousands of pilgrims every year. Assisi is also the place where in 1986 Pope John Paul II convened a prayer meeting for peace where different religious leaders came together to pray, each one in his own way and to his own G/god(s). This inter-religious prayer initiative raised some concerns within the Catholic Church as well as outside of it. Was it an endorsement of religious universalism? Was it a way to downplay the exclusive claims of the Gospel? Did it give the impression that all religions are equal? What kind of theology supported that inter-faith and multi-religious prayer? Although Pope Benedict tried to address some of these issues, this debate continues.   

Now Pope Francis has entered the debate in a most unpredictable way. During his recent visit to the Holy Land he invited the Israeli President Shimon Peres and the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to pray for peace in the region (June 8th). In a way this was a mini-Assisi type of event.

The Power of Symbols and the Inherent Confusion

The prayer took place in the Vatican, but the scene was very similar to what happened in Assisi. The Pope (dressed in his usual white robes) sat at the center of a semi-circle, with the Israeli and Palestinian delegations (all dressed in dark black suits) at his right and left hand sides. St. Peter’s cupola overshadowed them all. It was the same setting of Assisi with the Pope being recognized as the “center” of inter-faith dialogue and presiding over inter-religious prayers. In their short speeches both Peres and Abbas readily praised the strategic leadership of the Pope in bringing reconciliation. All the symbols present strongly supported the view that the Papacy is a key institution in bringing the whole of humanity together.

The main difference is that in Assisi John Paul II had invited religious leaders whereas Francis brought political leaders together to pray. No matter what one thinks of inter-faith prayer, the 1986 event was at least coherent in that it called religious leaders to take part. Now, Francis wanted presidents to pray with him instead. The significance of this can be hardly overestimated. The Pope is also head of a state (i.e. the Vatican City) and therefore wears two hats, so to speak. He is a peer of both religious and political leaders. In asking the Israeli President to pray a Jewish prayer and the Palestinian President to pray a Muslim prayer, however, he wrongly attributed to them the role of being representatives of the majority religions of their countries. He exchanged their responsibilities of representing all citizens (e.g. Israeli Christians and Palestinian Christians included) by giving them the hat of Jewish and Muslim religious leaders.

The confusion lies at the heart of the Roman Catholic Church. Because the Pope is both a religious leader and a head of state the distinction between what belongs in the realms of both religion and state is significantly blurred. Francis invited his fellow heads of state and asked them to perform a religious duty as if they were religious leaders. He projected his own dual-identity (religious and political) onto his guests. This in no way represents a healthy relationship between the two spheres.

Standing Perplexities

The 2014 mini-Assisi gathering also used similar language that was used in 1986. In his prayer Francis invoked God as “God of Abraham, God of the Prophets, God of Love” who calls us to live “as brothers and sisters”. He strongly advocated the idea that we have to “acknowledge one another as children of one Father”. “Brother” was the most frequently used word in his speech and the universal Fatherhood of God was the theological framework of the event.

Now this whole language is ambiguous at best. It can be used to indicate the need for peoples of different backgrounds and religions to live together in peace as if they were brothers and sisters. Or it can mean that they are already brothers and sisters, children of the same Father, no matter what their religious convictions are. The stress on the “same God” idea strongly suggests that the latter interpretation is what Francis really meant. The fact that a Christian prayer (with a final invocation to Mary, “the daughter of the Holy Land and our Mother”), a Jewish prayer, and a Muslim prayer were offered one after the other, all containing references to the “same God-same humanity”, points to the idea that all religions are in the end good in themselves, provided that they restore and maintain peace. This is actually what most people took from the mini-Assisi of Pope Francis. After the cautious reservations of Pope Benedict, the “spirit of Assisi” still breathes in the Vatican.

Posted on

83. Lo que Francisco piensa realmente de la Reforma (y de Calvino en particular)

28 DE JUNIO DE 2014

Cordial y elogioso. Deseando siempre subrayar los aspectos comunes y dejar de lado las diferencias. Esta ha sido la imagen popular del Papa Francisco en sus relaciones con los no católicos, hasta ahora.

Muchos están impresionados por su estilo complaciente que con frecuencia busca influir en los demás. Esta puede que haya sido la norma, pero ahora hay una excepción y muy significativa. La reciente reedición de una conferencia perteneciente a la historia de los jesuitas, que el Arzobispo Bergoglio dio en Argentina en 1985, indica la clase de severa evaluación que dio de la Reforma Protestante en general y de Juan Calvino en particular. Esta conferencia se publicó de nuevo en España en 2013 y después se tradujo al italiano en forma de libro ( Chi sono i gesuiti  [Quienes son los jesuitas], Bologna: EMI, 2014). Puesto que no hay ninguna indicación de que haya cambiado su mentalidad, tenemos que considerar el contenido del libro una exacta reflexión de lo que Francisco todavía piensa de la Reforma Protestante.

El protestantismo es la raíz de todos los males

Al examinar la historia de los jesuitas Bergoglio presta una atención especial a sus interacciones con la Reforma y a su papel en las misiones latinoamericanas. Según él, las consecuencias inevitables de la Reforma son la aniquilación del hombre en su ansiedad (dando como resultado el ateismo existencial) y un salto en la oscuridad por una especie de superman (conforme a lo previsto por Nietzsche). Ambos resultados conducen a “la muerte de Dios” y a una clase de “paganismo” que se manifiesta como el nazismo y el marxismo. ¡Todo esto surge a partir de la “posición de Lutero”! Bergoglio argumenta que la Reforma es la raíz de todas las tragedias del Occidente moderno, desde la secularización a la muerte de Dios, desde los regímenes totalitarios a los suicidios ideológicos.

Nada hay nuevo bajo el sol. Este punto de vista despectivo y atroz de la Reforma ha sido la lectura común de la historia moderna europea debido a las puntuaciones dadas por los polemistas católicos de la Contrarreforma hasta décadas recientes. Bergoglio no lo ha inventado. Más bien lo reafirma como si una más exhaustiva investigación histórica y análisis culturales y teológicos no hubieran nunca tenido lugar después del Concilio de Trento. ¿Qué podemos hacer con sus tonos amistosos hacia los protestantes si él realmente cree que tiene que culparse a la “posición Luterana” por todos los males de la civilización occidental?

Juan Calvino el ejecutor espiritual

Todavía hay más. Bergoglio hace una distinción entre Martín Lutero el “hereje” y Juan Calvino el “hereje” y “cismático”. La herejía Luterana es “una buena idea nacida insensata”, pero Calvino es todavía peor porque desgarró al hombre, a la sociedad y a la iglesia; puesto que para el hombre, el Calvino de Bergoglio escindió la razón del corazón, produciendo así la “miseria calvinista”. En la sociedad, Calvino enfrentó la burguesía contra las otras clases trabajadores, convirtiéndose de esta forma en “el padre del liberalismo”. No obstante, el peor cisma sucedió en la iglesia. Allí Calvino “descabezó al pueblo de Dios de su unión con el Padre”. Dejó al pueblo de Dios sin sus santos patrones. También lo descabezó de la misa, es decir, la mediación de Cristo “realmente presente”. En resumen, ¡Calvino fue un ejecutor que destruyó al hombre, envenenó a la sociedad y arruinó a la iglesia!

Decir que a Bergoglio no le gusta Calvino es una atenuación. Experimenta fuertes sentimientos contra él. Pero, ¿estamos seguros de que entiende a Calvino más allá de los clichés anticuados y totalmente sesgados? El año 2017 será el 500º aniversario de la Reforma Protestante y Francisco tendrá una oportunidad para volver a los libros de historia más recientes y obtener una imagen más justa y precisa de lo que ocurrió desde el siglo XVI en adelante. Si no revisa su evaluación de la Reforma todo el lenguaje “ecuménico” será una máscara superficial que oculta un verdadero odio a Lutero y (especialmente) a Calvino.

 

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.