{"id":1999,"date":"2023-12-01T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-12-01T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/?p=1999"},"modified":"2023-12-01T07:53:07","modified_gmt":"2023-12-01T06:53:07","slug":"vf222","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/fr\/2023\/12\/vf222\/","title":{"rendered":"222. From “Metaphysical” to “Popular”: A Window on the Roman Catholic Theology of the Future?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the beginning was Roman Catholic metaphysics: Aristotelian in outline, revisited and improved by Thomas Aquinas, capable of integrating some biblical and Augustinian insights, elastic to the point of metabolizing mystical and rationalistic streams, open to updating with respect to modernity, while maintaining its solid structures. Metaphysics was taught in Roman Catholic seminaries (two years of metaphysics preceded the study of theology in the training of priests). It was at the heart of catechesis, the watermark of the church\u2019s documents, and the imprint of its public morality and theology. In short, it was the recognizable mark of the Roman Catholic church. Metaphysics started from \u201cfirst principles\u201d and, in the light of reason as helped by revelation (coming from Tradition and the Bible), by deductive means and procedures, arrived at every nook and detail of human life. With this metaphysics, Rome fought against the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, and modernism.
 
Then came Vatican II (1962-1965), and that solid framework was stress-tested. It went through a season of development and updating, introducing a new set of emphases. The \u201cpastoral\u201d tone was preferred to the \u201cdoctrinal\u201d one.  The top-down structure made room for more bottom-up processes. The season of \u201cgenitive\u201d theologies (of demythologization, enculturation, hope, liberation, post-colonialism, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, etc.) battered classical metaphysics. In the name of \u201crenewal,\u201d there was a certain theological restlessness and an eagerness to change the paradigm.
 
Then there was Pope Francis (2013- ). Of eclectic and unfinished theological training, Argentine and non-academic, the pope immediately showed his frustration with the schematism of metaphysics, denouncing its abstract and \u201cclerical\u201d character, in his view far away from people\u2019s problems and offering answers to questions of the past that nobody is asking. In their own way, the \u201coutgoing\u201d trajectory of which he became an interpreter and the “synodality”<\/a> he championed are formulas that apply to theology as well. In concrete terms, in 2018, with the Constitution Veritatis Gaudium, the pope sent signals to the ecclesiastical universities, preparing them for a new season. After the death of Benedict XVI, Francis changed the leadership of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, giving it to a “non-metaphysical” theologian like V\u00edctor Manuel Fern\u00e1ndez<\/a>. Now, with the document Ad theologiam promuovendam<\/em><\/a> (\u201cPromoting Theology\u201d, 1st<\/sup> November 2023; Italian text<\/a>; English unofficial translation<\/a>), he changed the statute of the Pontifical Academy of Theology<\/a>, which is a Vatican institution at the service of the pope\u2019s theological ministry. In this text, Pope Francis envisages his way of doing theology.
 
In imagining the Academy of the future, Francis hopes that theology will experience an \u201cepistemological and methodological rethinking,\u201d a \u201cturning point,\u201d a \u201cparadigm shift,\u201d a \u201ccourageous cultural revolution.\u201d In the background is dissatisfaction with traditional metaphysics and its theological methods. According to Francis, theology must be \u201cfundamentally contextual\u201d and no longer start from \u201cfirst principles.\u201d It must translate into a \u201cculture of dialogue\u201d with all and no longer think of itself as only lecturing to the world, religions, and others. It must be \u201ctransdisciplinary\u201d and no longer prioritize philosophy over the other disciplines. It must be \u201cspiritual\u201d and not abstract and ideological; \u201cpopular\u201d and not detached from people\u2019s common sense; \u201cinductive\u201d and not deductive.
 
In so doing, the pope distances himself from the legacy of metaphysical theology that has been the paradigm of Roman Catholicism throughout the ages. Is his way of looking at theology something that Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, Leo XIII, John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI, etc., would recognize as being in line with the tradition of Rome? Not really. Perhaps Karl Rahner, some Liberation theologians, and their disciples would.
 
\u201cPromoting theology\u201d seems to be a manifesto of an account of Roman Catholic theology that, without naming traditional metaphysics, distances itself from it in significant ways. It does not appear to abolish metaphysics by decree but subjects it to accelerated \u201cupdating\u201d and \u201cdevelopment\u201d such that its connotations are changed. In a nutshell, the Roman Catholic theology of the future will be done differently.
 
As noted at the outset, traditional metaphysics has absorbed all the orientations that have emerged, even those that initially seemed contrary to its arrangement. It has demonstrated great adaptability at the service of Roman catholicity, i.e. the ability to integrate new ideas and methods without changing the fundamental commitments of the Roman Catholic church. The question is: is the direction Francis wants theology to take compatible with its well-established patterns? Is it a radical change with unpredictable consequences? For sure, in the wake of Vatican II as interpreted by Francis, Roman Catholic theology will be increasingly different not only in emphasis but also in language, style, themes, and content. Those who think of Rome as the home of stability have yet another indication that Rome does develop and change. Tradition is an evolving process.
 
It is feasible to say that the Roman Catholic theology of the future will be et-et<\/em>, both-and: both the one established over the centuries and the one Pope Francis desires. Both approaches to theology are not committed to Scripture as the supreme authority. The former reflects a philosophical system rather than the Bible; the latter mirrors the context more than the Word of God. In both cases, theology is hardly evangelical but rather two ways of voicing Roman Catholic theology: one more \u201cRoman\u201d (metaphysical), the other more \u201ccatholic\u201d (contextual).<\/p>\n

\"Share<\/a>