Posted on

92. Paul VI, A Beatus to Reassure the Perplexed Conservatives

October 24th, 2014

The Roman Catholic Church has another beatus, or blessed one, whom the Church recognizes as having the capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in his or her name. On October 19th Pope Francis beatified Giovanni Battista Montini (1897-1978) who became Paul VI (1963-1978). A reserved and sophisticated intellectual, well versed in modern French literature and theology, Montini became Pope during the Second Vatican Council and was given the difficult task of concluding the Council and handling the turbulent years that followed. Paul VI had to wrestle with the “spirit” of the Council that for many inside and outside the Church meant an adaptation to the radical changes that Western society was going through during the Sixties. Not a natural leader, Montini embodied the drama of a Church that had just reached out to the world with its optimistic words of appreciation but had to also retreat to more cautious attitudes.

The Timing of the Beatification

Paul VI’s beatification comes at the end of a Synod that discussed the possibility of a re-positioning of the Catholic Church on matters concerning the family. This gathering of bishops openly debated the re-admission of divorced people to the Eucharist as well as a more positive approach towards new forms of family, e.g. civil unions and homosexual relationships. No final decision was made, but the fact that certain changes were envisaged and even advocated for by some progressive voices made traditional hardliners fear that a significant paradigm shift is about to occur. Pope Francis called the Synod and appeared to welcome these changes, always insisting that the Church needs to be open-minded. At the same time, though, he did not want to give the impression of entirely siding with those who want to re-discuss the Catholic moral assessment of different human relationships.

At this point the beatification of Paul VI comes to the fore. In Catholic circles Paul VI is always portrayed as the Pope who with his 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae opposed contraceptive methods and sticked to traditional Catholic morality in the midst of the “sexual revolution”. It is feasible that Francis knew that the Synod could have broken new ground in the Catholic understanding of the family and that conservatives would have been upset by these changes. Yet he wanted Paul VI to be beatified at the end of the Synod to send the message that, on the one hand the Catholic Church can update its vision and, on the other, honor its traditions. It is both a living and a traditional reality. Therefore the timing of the beatification demonstrates the cleverness of an institution that is traditional without becoming traditionalist or, to put it differently, that changes without losing its heritage. The beatification was a reassuring message to that section of the Catholic constituency that felt puzzled and perplexed with the outcome of the Synod.

The Lausanne Covenant and Evangelii Nuntiandi

Paul VI should also be remembered for an interesting parallel to what was happening in the Evangelical Movement during his pontificate. In 1974, as a result of the Congress on World Evangelization convened by Billy Graham and shaped by John Stott, the Lausanne Covenant called the church to be engaged in evangelizing the world with the biblical gospel. Up to that point the word “evangelization” and the vocabulary associated with it had been treated with suspicion in Roman Catholic circles due to its “protestant” usage and overtones. Mission and catechesis were more traditional and were the preferred terms for a long time.

It is only after Vatican II that the language of evangelization began to be used. It was actually Paul VI with his 1975 Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi that helped the Catholic Church to accept and use the word “evangelization” giving it a Catholic connotation. It is interesting that it was after Lausanne that the Catholic Church understood the importance of the term for its mission. While resisting the relaxation of Catholic morality, Paul VI caught the need for the Church to explore the significance of evangelization. Now Pope Francis speaks more about “mission” than “evangelization” and wants the Church to be “an open house” for all human beings, leaving aside the concerns that completely wore out Paul VI.

Posted on

91. Ecumenism in All Directions. Pope Francis and the Unity of the Church

October 8th, 2014

Nothing is substantially new, but everything is affirmed and lived out in a really new way. This is how Cardinal Walter Kasper, former head of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, summarizes Pope Francis’ approach to ecumenism. In a foreword to a book that analyses the major papal speeches and acts as far as the unity of the church is concerned (Riccardo Burigana, Un cuore solo. Papa Francesco e l’unità della chiesa, Milano: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2014), Kasper argues that from his first address after being elected to his daily words and gestures, ecumenism has been central to what Francis has been doing thus far.

As is often the case in the Roman Catholic Church, there is no substantial change in the overall doctrinal framework. The Catholic approach to ecumenism is still the same without additions or subtractions. The final goal of ecumenism is to bring the whole church cum Petro (with Peter, i.e. in fellowship with the Pope) and sub Petro (under Peter, i.e. in submission to the Pope). Having said that, emphases and attitudes do change and this Pope certainly has a distinct way of interpreting his mission as a chief promoter of the ecumenical cause.

Ecumenism of Friendship

The book reflects the on-going commitment of Pope Francis to foster his view of Christian unity. After reading it, here are some observations that can be made. His ecumenical initiatives are based more on personal contacts with leaders of different churches and organizations than on institutional channels. In performing his role the Pope does not totally depend on Vatican bureaucracy but instead retains his own sphere of initiative. This relational aspect is often underlined as the primary way to foster mutual trust and deeper relationships. In Francis’ view, theological dialogues are less important than personal acquaintances. Nothing changes as far as the long term goal of the Pope presiding over the whole church is concerned, but this is not the issue that the Pope likes to focus on. The important thing for him is to say that we are friends, brothers, sisters, already “one” in some sense.

He wants different ecumenical partners and friends to be valued, listened to, cared for, and even admired. He wants to affirm them and wants them to feel appreciated. Theological and ecclesiastical alignments are secondary. Anyone interested in what is happening with this Pope should note that the paradigm he is operating under is that of an ecumenism of friendship rather than one of convictions. The two are not opposed, but the emphasis for him lies on the former, not the latter.

In his 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Francis made clear that time is more important than space. What he meant is that those who set their lives in long-term trajectories are better suited to achieve something than those who concentrate on the here and now. The overwhelming appreciation of the ecumenical partners and the on-going investment in personal relationships are two tracks of the ecumenical path that is consistent with this view.

Closer to All?

Another impressive mark of Pope Francis’ ecumenism is that he manages to get closer to all his ecumenical partners without making distinctions between them. He has similar words, attitudes, and approaches to Eastern Orthodox of various stripes, Liberal protestants, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and other kinds of Christians. Theologically speaking this is rather awkward because the closer you get to the sacramentalism and the devotions of the East, the farther away you go from the liberal agenda of most Western protestant churches, and vice versa. Furthermore as you draw nearer to the “free” church tradition of Pentecostalism you at the same time distance yourselves from the highly hierarchical and sacramental ecclesiology of both the Roman and the Eastern traditions. Not so for Pope Francis. As already pointed out, this is not his approach. He invests in relationships with all people while leaving aside theological traditions and ecclesiastical settlements. He wants to get closer to all.

A further illustration of this point is that as he draws nearer to all Christians, Pope Francis is also determined to draw nearer to all people, be they religious or secular. The same brotherly and appreciative afflatus is what marks the Pope’s attitude towards Jews, Muslims, and agnostic intellectuals. Divisive issues are left aside whereas the “brotherly” dimension is always in the foreground. The Pope is clearly pushing with the same intensity the relational side of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue as if they were two intertwined paths to achieve the overall catholic goal: cum Petro and sub Petro.

The point is that one’s objective is to draw nearer to everyone, this means that the driving concern is not biblical truth and love that is a principled and discerning criterion but the catholicity of friendship that is much more flexible and fluid. While appreciating the friendly tone, the keeping of Christian unity cannot be a matter of friendship alone. Unity in truth is what Jesus prayed for in John 17, and unity in truth and love is what Paul wrote about in Ephesians 4.

 

Posted on

90. Church Planting in Rome?

September 29th, 2014

Catholic missiology speaks of “plantatio ecclesiae” to describe the process of church planting where currently there is no church. The rationale of this “plantatio” is that once the (Roman Catholic) church is planted there is no need to plant another church. This is even truer in the city of Rome! In the city where the Holy See has its center and where the heart of the Roman Catholic Church lies, how does one dare to plant a church? The Church (capital C) is already there by definition! So, church planting in the shadow of the Vatican requires extra-homework in order to identify a biblical warrant before embarking on such a task.

Spiritual Barriers
Church planting in Rome encounters lots of cultural and religious barriers: non-catholics are often perceived as sects, awkward people, foreigners, or new religious movements. Sometimes,  unfortunately, the evangelical performance (e.g. narrow-mindedness, tribal mentality, over-sensitivity to differences, estrangement from the real world) confirms these stereotypes. The intent, however, should be to show that evangelical churches are biblical, classical, orthodox, protestant churches that cherish church history, the heritage of the Church Fathers, and have a long legacy in the history of Christianity while reflecting a spiritual vitality that is lacking in so many spheres of the religious world.

Then there are the spiritual and theological roadblocks. Here the whole issue of mediation comes to the fore. How do we draw near to God? The standard Catholic view is that one approaches God through the sacramental system of “mother” Church. Many words that are used are the same (e.g. grace, cross, gospel, salvation), but they mean very different things and their meanings have to be addressed. Church planters must avoid the danger of assuming that terms such as grace, faith, Jesus, church, cross, and gospel, are understood as they are biblically defined. Dismantling old patterns and constructing new ones is an on-going task. Gently but firmly people need to distance themselves from catholic institutional/sacramental baggage and be exposed to the Gospel afresh.

Finally, there is the personal dimension. The ordinary Roman is struck by the personal element of the Gospel. Usually they have no concept of it. Their religion is mainly a set of practices and traditions, but not something that involves their whole life. Therefore community life, church life, and family life are all important ways to convey the practical difference that a saving faith in Jesus Christ brings to everyday life.

Ecclesiological Challenges and Gospel opportunities

The majority of Roman Catholic countries are as poorly evangelized as most secular countries in Europe. Rome is no exception. The vast majority are nominal Christians who have a loose sociological belonging to the community and no saving faith in Jesus Christ. For the most part Roman Catholic practice is based more on Folk Catholicism (e.g. devotions and processions) than Biblical Christianity. The reading of the Bible was prohibited for centuries and this censorship has produced a high level of biblical ignorance. People think they are “Christian” because they were baptized as infants and are part of a “Christian” culture, but there is little if no sense of personal engagement as far as the Gospel is concerned. Beyond the outward religious surface, there is a blend of religious and secular idolatries along with a mixture of pre and post-modern idolatries. While the presence of the institutional church is pervasive, the impact of the Gospel is minimal and significantly obscured by social convenience and practical indifference.

Rome therefore is a mission field and church planting is key to evangelism and Gospel transformation. Rome is certainly not accustomed to being a city where religious pluralism and the plurality of churches are welcomed. Over the centuries the Church has always been presented in the singular and anyone outside of the (Roman Catholic) Church was considered a heretic and/or a schismatic. The claim of being a “church” outside of the Roman Catholic Church is countercultural but something that most people find intriguing. This is especially true in celebrating the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist being the center-piece of the entire Roman Catholic system where its sacramental, hierarchical, and dogmatic dimensions intersect). Here church planters are sending the message that the Christian church is certainly “one” and therefore “catholic” but not exclusively “Roman”. Church planting deconstructs the Roman Church’s claim to be the only church and emphasizes the “unity” of the church in terms of Gospel faithfulness instead of institutional adherence to the papal system.

In Rome there is much cynicism about the church and religion in general, as is the case in the rest of Europe. The cultural climate is skeptical and so opportunities exist to introduce the Gospel based on the virtuous circle of evangelical truth, evangelical community, and evangelical culture. Church planting is key to this goal because it joins believing and belonging, proclamation and service, the personal and the communal, creative contextualization and obedience to the Word of God. “Plantatio ecclesiae” used to be an action that went from Rome to the rest of the world. Now as ever it needs to be a commitment that reaches Rome as any other part of the world.

Posted on

89. Is Unity Like a Sphere or a Polyhedron?

September 18th, 2014

Pope Francis does not like spheres: he likes polyhedrons. In various recent speeches and in different contexts he used the image of the polyhedron to illustrate what he has in mind when he thinks of unity, i.e. Christian unity and the unity of mankind. In elementary geometry, a polyhedron is a solid of three dimensions with flat faces, straight edges and sharp corners or vertices. Without going into too many technical details, the basic idea is that a polyhedron lacks the harmony and proportions of a sphere but retains the unity of a solid. Not only that, it has variable distances from its center and not a single way of being related to it. It may be an awkward type of unity, but it still holds the solid together.

Unity in the Global World

Francis first began talking about the polyhedron in the context of globalization.  In a message to a festival on the Social Doctrine of the Church, which addressed the issue, he said: “I would like to translate the theme into an image: the sphere and the polyhedron. Take the sphere to represent homologation, as a kind of globalization: it is smooth, without facets, and equal to itself in all its parts. The polyhedron has a form similar to the sphere, but it is multifaceted. I like to imagine humanity as a polyhedron, in which the multiple forms, in expressing themselves, constitute the elements that compose the one human family in a plurality. And this is true globalization. The other globalization — that of the sphere — is an homologation” (Dec 6th, 2013).

According to this vision, globalization as a sphere can lead to cultural uniformity and social homologation whereby one model of development and one way of life become the center of what it means to be human and the whole world must conform to it. Globalization as a polyhedron, on the other hand, allows for multiple solutions that are all different from one another while still maintaining vital relationships between its components. In the latter, homogeneity is not imposed and multiplicity is encouraged. In his 2013 Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Francis elaborated on the dangers of reducing the world to a single economic pattern and a monolithic cultural paradigm. This globalization brings “an economy of exclusion”, “the new idolatry of money”, “a financial system which rules rather than serves”, and “inequality which spawns violence”. Globalization, by desiring to mould the world into a single pattern, kills it. Conversely, if it celebrates the world’s diversity it causes it to flourish. The center of this polyhedron is the common humanity that all human beings share while the different faces represent the cultural particulars that cannot be squeezed nor overlooked by globalization.

Christian Unity

What is interesting in Francis’ use of these geometric images is how he applies them to the realm of ecumenism. Christian unity has its own biblical metaphors, such as that of a single body with a head and many organs and parts (1 Corinthians 12). In his visit to the Italian Pentecostal church (August 28th, 2014), Francis developed his idea of ecumenism as a polyhedron: “We are in the age of globalization, and we wonder what globalization is and what the unity of the Church would be: perhaps a sphere, where all points are equidistant from the center, all are equal? No! This is uniformity. And the Holy Spirit does not create uniformity! What figure can we find? We think of the polyhedron: the polyhedron is a unity, but with all different parts; each one has its peculiarity, its charism. This is unity in diversity”.

Reading between the lines, it seems clear that unity as a sphere is pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic ecumenism whereby other Christians were drastically invited to “come back” into the Catholic fold and to conform to its doctrines and practices under the rule of the Pope. With Vatican II, Roman Catholicism updated its ecumenical project and embraced a concentric circle type of unity in which the one and only Church “subsists in” the Roman Catholic church and other churches and communities gravitate around this center according to their degree of nearness or distance from it. According to Vatican II and subsequent magisterial teachings, Christian unity is threefold: 1. professing the same faith, 2. celebrating the same Eucharist (i.e. the Roman Catholic way), and 3. being united under the same sacramental ministry in apostolic succession (i.e. under the Pope).

How does a polyhedron kind of unity as advocated by Pope Francis fit this view of unity? For example: as far as the second mark of unity is concerned, is the Pope saying that the sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist and the theology of transubstantiation belong at the center of Christian unity or are they particulars that can accommodate differences? Or is the Pope saying that apostolic succession, which is the basis of the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, is still part of the center or is it a variable that is secondary to Christian unity?

Polyhedrons are fascinating solids and Francis’ use of the image of a polyhedron is thought-provoking. However, the problem for Christian unity does not primarily lie in the metaphors used, but in the theological vision that nurtures it. If the Catholic Eucharist and the Catholic sacramental system are part of the center of Christian unity, one can make reference to spheres or polyhedrons all he likes, but the substance of the problem is that unity still gravitates around the Roman Catholic Church and its distinct outlook, and not around the biblical Gospel that calls all Christians to conform to the mind of Christ.

Posted on

88. Is Scripture True Only in a “Limited” Way? The Truth of the Bible According to the Pontifical Biblical Commission

August 28th, 2014

The “Biblical Renewal” is one of the most significant movements that has both preceded and followed the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). After centuries of prohibiting the circulation of the Bible in the vernacular languages and forbidding access to it, the Roman Catholic Church has been working hard to reconnect with the Scriptures. Leo XIII’s encyclical Provvidentissum Deus (1893) defended a high view of the inspiration of the Bible while Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) welcomed historical-critical methods into Catholic exegesis. These two magisterial statements are the tracks within which the present-day Roman Catholic approach to the Bible can be found. A traditional appreciation of the Bible as an inspired book, on the one hand, and a critical reading of it which questions the clarity and finality of Scripture, on the other, are the two poles that open the door for the intervention of the Magisterium for the interpretation of Scripture.

Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (1965) is the highest authoritative statement on the Bible which combines the two emphases within the framework of a triangular dialectics between Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium. A summary of Dei Verbum was offered by Pope Benedict XVI in his letter Verbum Domini (2010) in which he writes that the Word of God “precedes and exceeds sacred Scripture, nonetheless Scripture, as inspired by God, contains the divine word” (17). Here we find the classic reference to inspiration, but also the preceding existence of Tradition that envelops the Bible and speaks through the church’s Magisterium. According to Catholic teaching the Bible only “contains” the Word and this difference between Scripture and the Word allows for both critical readings of the Bible and the need for a human authority to discern what it contains and what it doesn’t.

The most recent pronouncement on this doctrine is an extended document released by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (February 22, 2014), which is the Vatican’s official study group on biblical issues. The title well captures the discussed topic: “The Inspiration and the Truth of Sacred Scripture”. This 250-page text is basically an elaboration of what Dei Verbum had argued as far as the scope of biblical inerrancy is concerned, i.e. that the Bible “teaches, without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (11). What, though, is the significance of relating inerrancy to “the sake of our salvation?” Is it then a kind of inerrancy that is limited only to the message of salvation? What about the rest of the Bible? Is it without error? And how can that which is related to salvation be distinguished from the rest? And who can discern what is without error and what is instead disputable? Roman Catholic theology has been discussing these issues since Vatican II and the Pontifical Biblical Commission has now entered this very important debate.

The document attempts to reaffirm and expand on what Dei Verbum highlights. The truth of the Bible is affirmed but is related to the “project of salvation” (3), the “salvific plan” (4), and “our salvation” (63). The detailed biblical overview on the truth of Scripture is understood as limiting the inerrancy of the text to its soteriological purpose. As for the rest, “in the Bible we encounter contradictions, historical inaccuracies, unlikely accounts, and in the Old Testament there are precepts and commands that are in conflict with the teaching of Jesus” (104). More specifically, the Abrahamic narratives are considered more as interpretations than historical facts (107), the crossing the Red Sea is more interested in actualizing the Exodus than reporting its original events (108), most of the book of Joshua has little historical value (127), and Jonah’s story is an imaginary account (110). In the New Testament, the reference to the earthquake in the passion’s narratives is a “literary motif” rather than a historical report (120). More generally, the Gospels have a normative value in affirming Jesus’ identity but their historical references have a “subordinate function” (123): in other words, the theology of the Gospels is valid, but their historical reliability is less important. How the two aspects can be neatly distinguished is not explained. In the end the truth of the Bible is “restricted” to what it says about salvation (105).

Another section of the document deals with the “ethical and social issues” raised by the alleged truth of the Bible, e.g. the theme of violence and the place of women. The hard and “offensive” texts of Scripture (e.g. the conquest narratives and the imprecatory Psalms) are not read in Catholic services due to “pastoral sensitivity” (125). According to the document, how can they be the Word of God is difficult to say. Again, the standard criterion to discern the inerrancy of the text is to “look at what it says about God and men’s salvation” (136) leaving the rest to the historical-critical readings and cultural sensibilities of the time. In a telling final statement, the document says that “the goal of the truth of Scripture is the salvation of believers” (144). The implication is that the Bible says beyond salvation (however defined) is not to be taken as necessarily true in the same sense.

What about the role of the Church in this matter? Since the truth of the Bible is not plenary but needs to be discerned according to its salvific purpose, it is the Church that mediates the acceptance and the proclamation of the truth of Sacred Scripture (149). It is the Church (the Roman Catholic Church) that selects and limits what is the truth of Scripture. According to the document then the Bible is true as far as its message of salvation is concerned and as far as higher criticism dictates. Ultimately, it is the Church that defines the truth of Scripture and rules over it.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document “The Inspiration and the truth of Sacred Scripture” argues for a “limited inerrancy” of Scripture (limited to the message of salvation) and reiterates historical-critical views about the un-reliability of the historical accounts of both the Old and the New Testament. It is a Roman Catholic blend of traditional and critical views of the Bible which finally exalts the role of the Church. While rejoicing for some fruits of the “biblical renewal” that is taking place in Roman Catholicism, especially as far as the encouragement to all to read the Scriptures is concerned, the battle for the truth of Scripture still rages. In no way has Rome come closer to Sola Scriptura, i.e. the obedience to the self-attesting Word of God written that truly witnesses to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholicism has nuanced its position and has relaxed the sharp edges of its opposition, but it still maintains the prominence of the Church over the Bible.