Posted on

85. Francis’ Apology To Pentecostals In Search of Significance

August 3rd, 2014

Offering apologies is a highly regarded habit even in secular circles. We are surrounded by words of apology everywhere; as customers on the metro, on trains, and on TV. But in the midst of all the rhetoric of apology are there ways to discern the truthfulness of it all? Parents quickly learn to assess their children’s apologies. To say “I am sorry” is not in and of itself a true apology. One needs to show a sense of guilt, of being aware of what he is asking apology for and doing something about what went wrong. Pope Francis’ words of apology to Italian Pentecostals were considered the high point of his visit to his pastor friend Giovanni Traettino (July 28th). They referred to the nasty discriminations that Pentecostals had to suffer under the Fascist regime in the Thirties when they were deemed a threat to the stability of the social order and severely ostracized.

A Confusing Apology

The Pope’s “apology” was curious. The persecutions of 1935 against Pentecostals were implemented by the Fascist government and police, not by the Catholic church. However, Francis offered his apology for these persecutions. The Catholic church had no direct role but was the main social agent that supported the culture of discrimination. What he could have apologized for, however, was the centuries-long sin of the Catholic church that has constantly been against religious freedom. Interestingly Francis never mentioned religious freedom but only made reference to one single episode of intolerance. Then, in his apology he did not speak of the Catholic church as being responsible for opposing religious freedom but he only spoke of the sin of “catholic brothers and sisters” who persecuted Pentecostals. While the Catholic Church of the time was totally in agreement with the Fascist regime in opposing minorities and providing its cultural legitimacy in exchange of favors and privileges, Francis downplayed the role of the Church and focused on individuals. He apologized as “pastor” of those individuals who persecuted Pentecostals but he did not take responsibility for the Church they represented and that he represents. According to Catholic teaching the Church per se never errs, it is only the children of the church that sin. On the one hand, then, he apologized for the sins he did not commit. On the other he didn’t apologize for the sins his Church committed. A confusing way of offering an apology.

An Inconsequential Apology

Furthermore, spiritually speaking any apology is real if it implies restoration and compensation for those who were wronged, at least to some extent. The Pope’s apology was rhetorical but not practical. He did not speak of a commitment to finally accept and implement full religious freedom in Italy. The Catholic Church is the main obstacle in recognizing equal rights and opportunities to all religious groups, but Francis was silent on the whole issue. He only spoke words of “apology” without having institutional title to do that, without being serious about the sins of the Church and without suggesting practical ways towards a better solution for religious freedom for all. Fascism is over, persecutions against Pentecostals are over, but religious freedom is still an issue for the country that the Catholic Church considers “home”. What’s the significance of offering an apology if there is no change of mind and practical steps towards a better settlement for religious freedom?

One positive aspect of his apology was his rejection of the word “sect”. “You are not a sect” – he said to his Pentecostal audience. The label “sect” applied to Evangelicals and Pentecostals was regularly used by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Francis’ immediate predecessors. No word of apology was offered for such derogatory language that has been standard in many Papal speeches concerning Evangelicals. Here he could have offered an apology on behalf of his Church and its leaders but he remained silent. Apologies are less significant for things that belong to a distant past than for things that are happening now. In spite of all the emotional fuss that his apology originated, Francis chose a confusing and inconsequential way of saying “sorry” while maintaining the idea that his Church never makes mistakes.

Posted on

84. Roman Catholic Ecumenism: Let the Italian Evangelicals Speak

July 23rd, 2014

Defining it as “historical” may be an overstatement. However, what happened on July 19 is a landmark in 150 years of Italian evangelicalism. For the first time ever, nearly 100 percent of Italian evangelical churches and bodies (85 percent of the 500.000 Italian Protestants) signed a common statement reinforcing their evangelical commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This statement provides biblical standards to assess the mounting ecumenical pressure coming from the Roman Catholic Church to expand its catholicity at the expense of biblical truth.

Never before have Italian evangelicals reached such a large consensus and spoken with one voice on such a crucial topic. The churches and bodies that endorsed this statement represent the near totality of evangelicals who have a conservative Protestant theology and a strong evangelistic commitment.

No Minority Report

Italy is a unique place. Vatican City is “in” Italy, exercising widespread influence. The Roman Catholic Church has been a major religious, cultural, and political force for centuries. Religious minorities have been persecuted for ages. The Italian Reformation gave to the wider church some excellent men in the 16th and 17th centuries (including Peter Martyr Vermigli, Jerome Zanchi, and Francis Turretini) but was prevented from taking root in the country. Still today the situation is unbalanced with the Roman Catholic Church having enormous privileges while other religious groups are discriminated. Italian evangelicals have many reasons to be resentful. However, this is not the point of the new statement. With this document they are sending the message that their assessment is not a result of historical frustration. They want to look at Roman Catholicism according to biblical principles. It is not a minority report. It wants to be a truly biblical report.

Italian evangelicals are increasingly puzzled by the way in which evangelicals globally relate to the Roman Catholic Church and to Pope Francis in particular. Some analysis is based on personal impressions or the seemingly evangelical language of the pope, or on truncated bits of information that fall short of taking notice of the complexity of Roman Catholicism. There is much naiveté and superficiality. The wider evangelical Protestant family needs to hear the voice of their Italian fellow-brothers and sisters who look at Roman Catholicism from inside and with long experience in dealing with its full ideological and symbolic force.

‘Italian Evangelicals on Contemporary Catholicism’

Here is the full text:

Following a round table promoted by the Italian Evangelical Alliance, the Federation of Pentecostal Churches, the Assemblies of God in Italy, the Apostolic Church, and the Pentecostal Congregations held in Aversa on 19th July 2014 at the Pentecostal College of Religious Sciences on the topic of “Roman Catholicism in Evangelical Perspective,” the above mentioned churches and bodies, being alerted by the recent ecumenical openings by national and international evangelical and Pentecostal circles with regards to the Roman Catholic Church and its present-day pontiff, without passing judgment on the faith of individual people, believe nonetheless that it is incompatible with the teaching of Scripture to have a church that operates as mediator of salvation and that presents other figures as mediators of grace since God’s grace comes to us by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8) and without the agency of other mediators (1 Timothy 2:5).

They also believe that it is incompatible with biblical teaching to have a church that took the liberty to add dogmas (such as the Marian dogmas) to the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3; Revelation 22:18).

They also believe that it is incompatible with the teaching of Scripture to have a church whose heart is a political state that is a legacy of an “imperial” church from which it has inherited titles and prerogatives. Christian churches must refrain from imitating “the princes of this world” and follow the example of Jesus who came to serve and not to be served (Mark 10:42-45).

Furthermore they also believe that what appear to be similarities with the evangelical faith and spirituality of sectors of Roman Catholicism are not in themselves reasons for hope in a true change.

All the standing theological and ethical differences considered, they cannot initiate nor advocate for ecumenical initiatives with regard to the Roman Catholic Church.

They invite all evangelicals at the national and international levels to exercise a healthy biblical discernment (1 John 4:1) without falling into unionist initiatives that are contrary to Scripture and instead renew their commitment to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20).

Why “Reconciled Diversity” is Not the Way Forward

“Reconciled diversity” is a technical expression in ecumenical theology firstly used by 20th-century Lutheran theologian Oscar Culmann. More and more evangelicals think that this is the way forward. It basically means that you agree to disagree and that you accept your ecumenical partner as is.

However, the Roman Catholic Church is not a simple denomination. It is a church-state, with a monarch, political claims, and an army. It has never renounced any unbiblical dogma of the past and has all the apparatus in place to exercise “imperial” practices. Do we really want to say that we accept to be different with such an entity? While it is true that evangelicals should point to the fact that we are united with those who trust in Christ alone for their salvation, they should still find the Catholic church as an institution to be in need of radical reformation according to the Word of God. There is no “reconciled diversity” with sin and rebellion and with “arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). Quite the contrary!

If evangelicals apply the “reconciled diversity” approach to the Roman Catholic Church as it stands they will stop being a prophetic voice according to the gospel, and they will become part of the present-day religious cacophony. The Bible warns God’s people to make alliances with a “splintered reed of a staff which pierces the hand of anyone who leans on it” (2 Kings 18:21). Biblically speaking, “reconciled diversity” grossly misunderstands the nature of the Roman Catholic Church and fails to be faithful to the task of maintaining unity in biblical truth and love.

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

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.