10. Jesus of Nazareth according to Benedict XVI

March 21st, 2011

It is too early to say whether it will become a theological classic, but Jesus of Nazareth (second part) by Benedict XVI is already a commercial asset. The first printing of 1,200,000 copies in twenty-one languages (and some e-book editions as well) makes it a good business for both author and publishing houses. Launched in time to be an ideal gift for the Easter season, it will probably sell more than the first volume that was published in 2007 and that sold 2 million copies. The first volume covered the life of Jesus from his birth to the great miracles and sermons, whereas this second one recounts the apex of Jesus’ ministry, i.e. his passion, death and resurrection. Though the two books present different elements of the Gospels, there is close continuity and coherence in Ratzinger’s approach to Jesus’ life.

The hermeneutics of Vatican II

One important feature of the Pope’s portrait of Jesus has to do with biblical hermeneutics. How do we read the Gospels? Ratzinger knows that the historical-critical school has nurtured skepticism, if not agnosticism, towards the Gospels as reliable accounts of the life of Jesus. The outcome has been the alleged chasm between the Jesus of history (unknowable in the main) and the Christ of faith (based on ‘mythological’ theologizing by the authors). While not renouncing the historical-critical methods and extensively conversing with liberal exegetes (mainly Germans), Ratzinger wants to recover the faith-element inherent in the Gospels, both as an essential ingredient of their formation and as a fundamental principle of their interpretation.

He calls for a hermeneutical “both-and” approach to the Gospels, i.e. open to critical-historical readings but within the context of a hermeneutics of faith. In the preface he argues that his sketch of Jesus’ life is an exercise of what Vatican II intended for Biblical interpretation. In fact  Dei Verbum (the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) n. 12 says that the reading of the Bible should search out the manifold characteristics of the text within the whole of Scripture and under the “judgment of the Church” whose living tradition is the on-going stream of Revelation.

One note of comparison is worth mentioning. The Evangelical scholar I.H. Marshall identifies three ways in which contemporary biblical scholarship is concentrating on areas more congenial to Evangelicals: the recognition that all biblical books are theological documents with a theological message; that they are all literary texts to be studied in their final form rather than in terms of sources; and that they should be studied canonically as part of the Bible as a whole (Beyond the Bible. Moving from Scripture to Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker 2004, pp. 19-20). Dei Verbum’s approach (and therefore Ratzinger’s) comes close to this, especially in its emphasis on the unity of Scripture and the legitimate place of faith in the reading process.

Yet it is different in equally important issues. First, it wants to retain historical-critical methods by modifying them rather than denouncing their anti-supernatural presuppositions and their arrogance to supersede Scripture. Second, while pushing aside the final judge of a self-claimed universal “reason”, it installs another final judge in the magisterium of the (RC) Church. Tota Scriptura (the whole of Scripture) is recognized but is not allowed to be Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) in that Scripture is viewed always as a part of a wider reservoir of Revelation which is authentically guarded and taught by the Church.

Strong points and question marks

Let’s first consider the strong points. He tends to practice what John Calvin called the “harmony of the Gospels”, i.e. the attempt to read the Synoptics and John’s Gospel together as much as possible, thus complementing each other rather than giving conflicting accounts. Outward discrepancies between the Gospels are generally treated as differences in emphasis, in perspective, and in intention. If taken together, the Gospels give a fuller picture rather than a fragmented one. Admirable also is the constant reference to the Old Testament as the over-arching framework for the words and deeds of Jesus. He also affirms the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and strongly advocates for its pivotal significance for the Christian faith. These are all welcome features of Ratzinger’s book.

            A few points of contention are also worth noting. For instance, one overt concession to historical-critical methods pushes Ratzinger to say that the Lord’s eschatological discourse has been constructed through different redaction stages and are not the actual words of Jesus as they were spoken. There is also a persistent sacramental reading of the episodes of Jesus’ life as if they were naturally connected to the RC understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of Jesus and the Church. This is true, for example, as far as the narratives regarding the entry to Jerusalem and the announcing of the destruction of the temple are concerned. Then, commenting on the priestly prayer in John 17 Ratzinger finds clear hints to the apostolic succession in the RC way. Finally, touching on the sensitive issue of the responsibility of the Jews in the death of Jesus, he denies any and goes on to say that Christians do not need to worry about the evangelization of the Jews because “all Israel” will be saved, thus leaving the reader with the idea that purposeful evangelism is not for the Jews.

Expiation and universalism

Perhaps the most serious problem with Ratzinger’s account has to do with expiation. Since the cross occupies a central place In the Gospel narrative, the book ponders on it quite extensively, expounding the doctrine beyond the Gospels themselves. His treatment resounds with what he had already presented in his 2005 encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) and tries to balance God’s justice and God’s love, looking at the cross as the mystery in which the two are combined. Yet  even in his profound comments there are two missing points: propitiation and penal substitution. While God’s justice is often referred to, no place is given to God’s wrath (e.g. Luke 3:7; John 3:36) and the role of the cross in appeasing it. The harsh words of Jesus about God’s judgment are somewhat sentimentalized. Moreover, while expiation is exegeted in its ‘covering’ aspect, no attention is given to the legal exchange that took place at the cross. While Isaiah 53 is used as a background narrative for the meaning of the cross, it is not understood in penal substitutionary terms. The meaning of the sacrifice of Jesus being for “many” or for “all” further complicates the point. The issue here is different from the Calvinist-Arminian debate about the extension of the atonement. Ratzinger’s preoccupation with carefully defining the words is more in line with the “catholic” (i.e. universal), inclusivist view of all mankind being linked to the cross of Jesus, taking therefore a universalist slant.

Pope Benedict XVI has admirably written a Gospel portrait of Jesus of Nazareth that wishes to present the “real” Jesus. More than the “real” one, however, the picture that comes out of the book is that of a “saint” Jesus, i.e. a figure that is astonishingly adherent to RC expectations.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

9. The New Evangelization at the 2012 Synod of Bishops

March 11th, 2011

A missional turn in the Roman Catholic Church?

The “New Evangelization” looks set to become a key catchphrase in RC circles in the future. The phrase was introduced and used extensively by John Paul II during his long pontificate as it was one of his ways of facing the effects of secularization in the Western World. Pope Benedict XVI has been consistently referring to the New Evangelization in his teaching, but in 2010 a new Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization was established as a way to formalize the emphasis he placed on it with the desire to spread it out long-term and world-wide.  John Paul II had the vision and provided the language (coining a new Hollywood-style Marian title: Mary the “Star of the New Evangelization”!) but Benedict XVI is spelling out what that means .

Further, Pope Benedict XVI has recently announced that the next Synod of Bishops will take place in October 2012 on the topic of the New Evangelization. That means that all RC bishops throughout the world will convene in Rome to discuss it. The following steps will be taken:

1. a preparatory document is set out (Lineamenta) calling for response and feedback;

2. Based on the bishops’ written answers a working tool will be prepared (Instrumentum Laboris) that will serve as official text for the Synod,

3. After the Synod (perhaps one or two years later) the Pope will issue a Post-Synodal Exhortation which will be part of his magisterium. So both Lineamenta and Instrumentum Laboris are preliminary and provisional documents, whereby the final Exhortation has magisterial value.

We are now in the Lineamenta phase. The 60-page text (in eight official languages) has been sent to Bishops and presented to the press. Its full official title is The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith. By November 2011 feedback will be gathered in order to draft the Instrumentum Laboris in time for the October 2012 Synod. What is the significance of the Lineamenta?  There is one in particular. .

What does “New” mean?

The phrase New Evangelization has been circulating for at least three decades in Popes’ speeches and documents. But in the Lineamenta, perhaps for the first time, the meaning of “new” is expounded, at least in part. The document argues that “Evangelization” has three main meanings:

1. The ordinary, on-going mission of the church;

2. The “first” evangelization to non-Christian people;

3. The “new” evangelization to the baptized, yet non-evangelized.

It is clear that, whilst always connected to the first two applications, the “new” evangelization is specifically addressed to the people who are registered in the RC Church’s books in that there were baptized and are counted as Roman Catholics in official statistics, yet they are practically un-churched, spiritually pagan, in need to be regained to the Church, though they are sacramentally part of it. They are RCs in the cultural sense, yet you would not find them at the Sunday mass and they would have naïve beliefs and embarrassing lifestyles if measured by the RC Catechism.

The New Evangelization is addressed to “nominal” Roman Catholics, though the word “nominal” is not used in the document. Recent global statistics say that the total number of Roman Catholics around the world is on the increase: in 2009 there were 1,181 billion people who have been baptized (1,3% more than 2008). Yet, these figures tell only half of the truth. The real concern for the RC Church is the increase of secularized Roman Catholics, especially in the Western World but also in parts of the Majority World. These people “belong” without “believing” (quite the opposite than in the Evangelical world where people may believe without belonging). The New Evangelization is the means by which they may belong and believe, being both quantitatively and qualitatively part of the RC Church. The other concern, especially in Latin America, is the loss of people who were baptized in the RC Church but are now affiliated to “sects” – a derogatory term that is also used to stigmatize Evangelicals. According to Lineamenta, the tools of the New Evangelization are two very traditional but well established patterns of spiritual formation: a renewed emphasis on catechism (i.e. transmitting the RC faith) and renewed efforts towards catechumenate (i.e. fostering discipleship).

The underlining ecclesiological crux

The New Evangelization is not primarily about mission to the unbelieving world. It is mainly addressed to reverse the tide within RC Christianity i.e. it is more of an internal affair, rather than a missional goal. Its task is to recapture to the Church those who have been baptized, perhaps christened, attend funerals and weddings, yet live lives which are alien to the standards of the RC Catechism.

The Lineamenta document sets the scene for the global discussion on the New Evangelization and raises many questions to which Bishops will respond. One big issue is missing though. While there is a frank realization of the problem, the awareness of the causes seems defective. Certainly, secularization explains much of present-day Western detachment from traditional Church’s rites and patterns. But one has to ask a deeper question which has to do with the ecclesiology emerged from Vatican II (1962-1965). The big question that Vatican II addressed was an ecclesiological one: what kind of church do we want? A church of the faithful, a confessing church, a church that matches faith and practice? Or a “catholic” church, the people’s church, whatever this means in terms of lack of faithfulness and integrity? A church that majors on conversion and discipleship or a church that wants to be all-embracing and all-inclusive? Ecclesiologically, the question was: do we want a church of the baptized ones (leaving aside what happens after infant baptism) or a church of disciples? Vatican II unequivocally answered: the former, while preserving the apparatus of the latter! That answer has serious consequences that are evident to all, RC hierarchy included.  Secularization is one explanation of the lack of spiritual depth in Western RC, but the other explanation lies in the Vatican II ecclesiology.  The Lineamenta document speaks much of secularization and skips over the tenets of RC present-day ecclesiology as if they were not part of the issue at stake. Here are some questions that should be addressed instead:

–       is it baptism (whatever the theology behind it) or conversion the turning point for Christian life?

–       Do the pagan-Christians need just to be aware of who they are already or do they need conversion from idols to God?

–       Is church discipline a qualifying mark of the church or is it an optional add-on?

We will see how the Synod responds. Will the New Evangelization be merely a pastoral initiative to bring people back, leaving everything else untouched, or will it be an opportunity to ask more fundamental questions about the church of Jesus Christ?

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

8. Overcoming the “sacred empire”?

March 4th, 2011

Cardinal Kurt Koch and some prospects of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

Kurt Koch is a name that perhaps does not mean much to most people. A few months ago, though, Benedict XVI appointed him as cardinal and gave him the responsibility to preside over the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is the Vatican institution devoted to ecumenical dialogue. Former bishop of Basel (Switzerland), and himself a Swiss (b. 1950), Koch took over the post at the Pontifical Council from another “prince” of the RC church, cardinal Walter Kasper, who resigned after reaching his 75th birthday, as Canon law prescribes.

Koch has been involved in RC ecumenism since his ordination to priesthood. His doctoral thesis obtained in Luzern was on the theology of history in Wolfhart Pannenberg. Knowledge of Protestant German theology has been his daily bread, theologically speaking. He seems conversant with D. Bonhoeffer, J. Moltmann and E. Jüngel (and also H. Küng). Much less prominent on his horizon is Evangelical theology. Moreover, his Episcopal experience in central Europe has meant that the relationship with non-RC Christians has always been central in his views and practice.

Opportunities and Challenges for European Christians

It is too early to say how cardinal Koch will develop the multifaceted action and strategy of the Pontifical Council. There is a way, however, to gain at least a flavor of what his main concerns will be, especially concerning the situation of Christianity in Europe. His previous writings provide a taste of what his thinking and ethos are regarding ecumenical matters and more general issues that are at stake for Christian witness. He is not a theologian of the caliber of Walter Kasper, but he is a thinker that deserves attention.

One particular book of Koch’s is worth mentioning, for a number of reasons. First, it was published in German (Kirche ohne Zukunft?, 1993), in French (Chrétiens en Europe, 2004) and in Italian (Quale futuro per i cristiani?, 2010), thus projecting Koch in international conversations on European Christianity. Second, the book contains a series of lectures that Koch delivered in Poland after the fall of the Berlin Wall on the prospects of the Christian faith in a pluralist society. The fall of communist regimes has been a watershed event that continues to have implications for Christian witness and Koch explores some of the scenarios for us. Third, ecumenism is right at the core of what Koch has to say in arguing that Christianity indeed has a future in Europe. He thinks that the challenges before Christians demand a way forward in terms of unity.

Backward to the “sacred empire” or forward to an “open house”?

Cardinal Koch agrees with many observers that secularization as a sociological process and secularism as an ideological framework represent the European cultural climate. Any type of Christian spirituality, therefore, needs to come to terms with it. In secular society religious concerns are widespread, yet they are not lived out in traditional patterns and within ecclesiastical institutions. How should Christians respond? Churches, Koch argues, have the tendency to reclaim their traditional status and power when they are challenged by secular trends. For him it is a wrong move. Instead of defending the privileges inherited from the past, churches need to be self-critical and willing to lose the unnecessary benefits that are unjust and unfair in democratic and pluralistic societies. In doing so Christians have to resist the direction of marginalization in which secular society wants to push them. Secularism has a place for churches only if they are institutions for “free-time” (i.e. not for the whole of life), and if they deal with the destitute, which always makes an affluent society nervous. In a telling comment, Koch argues that the church must learn to accept pluralism without reservations, even if pluralism diminishes her status (p. 29, Italian edition). Rather than aspiring to re-building the “sacred empire”, the church should wish to become an “open house” (p. 35), which acknowledges her provisional nature.

The “New Evangelization”

Churches will make a gross mistake if they get entangled in preserving past settlements of church-society relationships. Their role should be to engage Europe in the “new evangelization”. In a rather narrow historical perspective, Koch says that the word “evangelization” began to circulate at Vatican II (1962-1965). Perhaps this is true as far as RC circles are concerned, but it is also true that the word had been part of the Evangelical language for centuries. For Koch evangelization does not mean to rally a new crusade to claim back the past dominion, but instead to live out the Gospel in spiritual terms. Real Christian life is the “fifth gospel” for modern man (p. 62), and that speaks more powerfully to him. In other words, the mood of evangelization should not be dogmatic but mystagogical, i.e. more concerned with mystical realities than theological definition. In this respect the church needs to be semper evangelizanda (always in the process of self-evangelizing). In evangelizing others, she should evangelize herself. In doing so evangelization will not be “confessionalist” (i.e. reproducing past schemes and divisions) but “ecumenical” (i.e. promoting unity).

Where do we go from here?

The combination of the acceptance of pluralism and an emphasis on mysticism (others would instead speak of “spirituality”) seems to be Cardinal Koch’s direction in Europe. In a sense, his views are not very different from those of Protestant ecumenicals. Rather different tones and perspectives are found in John Paul II’s 2003 Exhortation Ecclesia in Europa (The Church in Europe), and in Joseph Ratzinger’s writings on Europe (e.g. A Turning Point for Europe? The Church in the Modern World, 1994). In these writings there is no hint of the willingness by the RC Church to renounce her privileges, especially when they imply political and economic benefits. There is no evidence of the practical viability of Koch’s arguments. The main theological justification of a RC “sacred empire”, i.e. a Church having a state (the Vatican), is left totally unquestioned even by progressive voices. The Gordian knot of the settlement is carefully protected and possibly extended, rather than cut or even untied. Cardinal Koch must work out what he means by overcoming the “sacred empire” towards an “open house”, not just in the safety of a lecture room, but inside the Vatican establishment itself.

The meaning of “evangelization” then needs to be spelled out more clearly, both theologically and practically. Appealing to postmodern mysticism can resonate with some European maîtres-à-penser, but what does it mean in terms of gospel faithfulness and a call to conversion to Jesus Christ? Again, giving a lecture is one thing, doing evangelism and seeing it happen can be quite another. From Basel to Rome, from bishopric in Central Europe to the Vatican curia, from the lectern to a more complex reality, Kurt Koch will surely have opportunities to test the weight of his views on Europe.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

7. The Pauline Year. A More Pauline Church?

February 21st, 2011

The Roman Catholic Church is master at celebrating special years: the year of Jubilee, the Holy year, the Marian year, the Year for priests, etc. In a sense, every year is a “special” occasion for something. So it was with the Pauline Year (PY). Designed to celebrate the bimillennium of the birth of St Paul, which historians place between the years 7 and 10 AD, the PY included a series of liturgical, cultural and ecumenical events, as well as various pastoral and social initiatives, all inspired by Pauline spirituality. It took place between June 28th 2008 and June 29th 2009 and had as its center the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls (Rome). This massive Basilica was built by Emperor Constantine (IV century AD) over the burial place of the apostle Paul and is one of the four great Roman basilicas. The occasion to assess the outcomes of the PY was given by a 500-page book entitled L’anno paolino (The Pauline Year) that was officially presented in a press conference at the Vatican on February 9th. The book is a reference tool with all kinds of information on what took place during the PY.

Ecumenical (little) achievements

One of the chief aims that stirred Benedict XVI to proclaim the PY was to have a catalyst event that would foster the ecumenical cause on behalf of Christian unity. Since Paul is a central figure for both Eastern and Western sides of the church, the idea to celebrate a Pauline year took shape. Particular attention was given to ecumenical gatherings that would re-invigorate Christian unity on the basis of a common and renewed appreciation of Paul. For Eastern Orthodox churches, the PY was meant to highlight Paul’s missions to the East and the great legacy of his teachings about the “mystery” of the faith. Solemn events and liturgies were performed during the year, even though the success has been mainly symbolic. No real breakthrough was achieved in the name of Paul as far as the Eastern front of RC ecumenism. For Protestant churches, the PY was crafted to underline the importance of justification by faith and other Pauline themes dear to Protestant hearts. The hope was to give another chance to the 1999 Joint Declaration between Roman Catholics and Lutherans on justification which promises much (i.e. agreement on the basics of the Gospel) yet is delivering very little in terms of a deepened Christian unity. During the PY, divisions over gay unions and how to respond to the challenges of secular culture further divided the relationship between historic Protestants and the RC Church. On the whole, the PY was wishful thinking as far as ecumenism is concerned. In theory it was a great idea (though quite unsubstantiated historically), but in reality it was quite the flop.

Paul’s relics

Apart from ecumenical analyses, another feature of this special year is worth mentioning. The ambitious program desired to honor the great themes of Paul’s letters: creation, sin, salvation, grace, faith, and mission. Pauline scholarship afforded the chance to produce books and convene conferences. Opportunities were created to read Paul afresh or, for most people, to read him for the first time. All this is welcome, yet it is interesting to note how Benedict XVI closed the PY. In a solemn liturgy the Pope announced a recent discovery. In the marble sarcophagus in which according to tradition Paul’s body was buried, bones of a skeleton dating to the first century AD had been found and analyzed. It is possible that these skeletal remains belong to the Apostle Paul, though no certainty can be established. The point of the Pope’s announcement was to state that these relics were going to be displayed for public veneration. While underlining great Pauline and Biblical themes such as salvation and grace, and faith and mission, the PY encouraged at the same time practices that are far from Pauline and Biblical spirituality. Paul himself wrote that the “living letter” of his service are living men and women who follow his teaching (2 Corinthians 3:2-3), rather than his dry bones calling people to bow down before them.

A Pauline church?

These comments generate a fundamental question: How is it possible to combine Paul and the veneration of relics? How is it feasible to square the spirituality of justification by faith and the cult of the dead? How is it legitimate to nurture a Christ-centered life and folk-religion practices? How is it possible to produce fine Pauline scholarship while fostering anti-Pauline habits? In fact for the RC Church not only is it possible, but it’s also mandatory. The RC worldview demands complexio oppositorum (the combination of the opposites) as its paradigm without having Scripture alone as its decisive criterion. The issue at stake is not questioning the Pauline nature of the RC Church. In a sense, the RC Church is a Pauline church. The issue is that, besides the Pauline element, the RC Church is also Petrine, Marian, Papal, Imperial, Roman, Tridentine, folk-oriented, etc. Pauline teaching is only one aspect of the whole and the whole goes far beyond the other canonical strands of the Bible. It is a “catholic” whole in the sense that it wishes to embrace all. The standing question is whether or not the PY was an opportunity to return to the Gospel or a chance to expand Roman catholicity. The latter is closer to the truth.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

6. The blessed John Paul II. A Christ-centered legacy?

February 7th, 2011

Karol Wojtyla (1920-2005), since1978 better known as Pope John Paul II, has been one of the most influential men of the XX century. A quick look at the titles of biographies about him shows the magnitude of the man: “The man of the end of the millennium” (L. Accattoli), “Witness to hope” (G. Weigel), “The man of the century” (J. Kwitny), “Pilgrim of the absolute” (G. Reale), “The defeater of communism” (A. Santini). As is always the case with human analyses of human biographies, celebrative voices abound as well as critical readings. Other titles point to the controversial aspects of his life: “Victory and decline” (C. Cardia), “The Pope in Winter: The Dark Face of John Paul II’s Papacy” (J. Cornwell), “The Wojtyla enigma” (J. Arias), “The last Pope king” (L. Sandri).

His life was at the centre of the major affairs of the XX century: the tragedy of Nazism and the trauma of the Second World War, the apex and fall of Communism, the Second Vatican Council and its debated implementation, the apparent triumph of Western democracy and the oppressive costs of globalization for the Majority world, the fracture of ideologies and the rise of secular hedonism. Wojtyla played a significant role in all these major events. Supporters have acclaimed his achievements in terms of navigating, surviving and overcoming the dangerous streams of our post-something world. Critics have pointed out the double-faced, contradictory trajectory of his life and his very backward looking Catholic outlook.

2011 will mark the beatification of John Paul II and the official ceremony will take place on May 1st in St. Peter’s square. Two million people are expected to take part in this massive event that will capture the attention of the whole world. So it is proper to examine the significance of the proposed beatification and how John Paul II’s legacy can be properly assessed.

First, we should inquire about the meaning of beatification in RC eyes. Beatification (from Latin beatus, blessed) is a recognition accorded by the RC Church of a dead person’s virtues and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in his or her name. The “blessed” (so she/he is named thereafter) becomes the recipient of petitions and intercession of those who offer them. Beatification is the third of four steps in the canonization process, with the highest recognition being the sainthood of an individual. Since 1983, in order to be recognized as “blessed”, the RC Church demands that one miracle be proven to have taken place through the intercession of the person. The process towards beatification can only begin five years after the person’s death. However, in John Paul II’s case, it began much earlier. Many still remember what happens at his funerals when the crowd began to shout: “santo subito!” (“Make him a saint now!”), thus putting pressure on the hierarchy to treat him as an extraordinary case – something that even a scrupulous Pope like Benedict XVI dared not to address.

The theological significance of beatification lies in several key RC doctrines. According to Vatican II, the saints “do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth” through Christ’s mediation (Lumen Gentium, n. 49, quoted also in the Catechism, n. 956). The saints, in whose category the blessed belong, have an intercessory role on the basis of their merits which are considered within the framework of the mediation of Jesus Christ. On this basis the Christian people are encouraged to pray to the blessed for healing, protection, favor, and to nurture a profound devotion to him/her made of pilgrimages, prayer groups and chains, folk spirituality, etc. Notwithstanding all the best intentions and motivations, Evangelical eyes find it difficult not to consider the theological fabric of beatification as a means that moves people away from Christ. In this respect, it is interesting to note that John Paul II himself, in his 27 years of papal reign, proclaimed as blessed 1338 people and as saints 482 people, more than all his predecessors taken together since the XVI century! In fact, it was in 1588 that modern procedures were established for the beatification process and prior to John Paul II the RC Church proclaimed 1319 as blessed and 296 as saints.

Second, how do we assess John Paul II’s legacy? Because of the stature of the man, the question is overwhelming in every respect. Amongst the vast amount of books available, one guide in particular worth noting is Tim Perry’s edited book The Legacy of John Paul II: An Evangelical Assessment (Downers Grove, IL: IVP 2007, pp. 327). The chief reason of interest is that it is one of the few attempts to provide an evaluation from an Evangelical point of view. The book bears witness to the fact that it was under John Paul II that Evangelical attitudes toward RC began to change and become friendly, if not even cooperative. This Pope was the one who called his Church to be engaged in mission, encouraged the pro-life front, welcomed some of the Evangelical concerns in relation to Bible literacy and liturgical variety, and seemed to be closer to the Majority world than his predecessors. It also witnesses to the fact that some Evangelicals today speak of the Pope as “Holy Father” (Timothy George, pp. 309-312) – something that is not biblically natural. Moreover, in evaluating the over-all theology of his 14 encyclicals, some Evangelicals can say that it is “Bible-based, humanity-focused, Christ-centered and mission-attuned” (Jim Packer, p. 8) – something that sounds like a full endorsement.

Certainly there has been a significant shift of attitude and John Paul II has made quite an impression on many Evangelicals. The book edited by Perry contains positive comments on each encyclical signed by Wojtyla and the tone is close to admiration, with some minor criticism. Of course much of it is a fair summary of what the Pope wrote, yet selective in many ways. For instance there is no mention that each encyclical ends with an invocation to Mary, which does not represent a Christocentric and biblical pattern. Moreover, there is little recognition to the fact that, besides the Bible, papal encyclicals quote even more extensively sources of the tradition of the Church. The Bible is only one source amongst many, and apparently not the decisive one. On specific contents, Faith and Ratio (Faith and Reason, 1998) combines Aristotelian reason and Thomistic faith, a choice that leaves out many Biblical strands. Ecclesia de Eucharistia (The Church from the Eucharist, 2003) reinforces the traditional RC doctrine of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, its re-enactment of Jesus’ death and the practice of adoration of the host. Ut Unum Sint (That They Be One, 1995) claims that the Pope is willing to change the forms of his universal ministry but not the substance of his petrine office that supplements the headship of Christ on the church. Redemptoris Mater (The Mother of the Redeemer, 1987) is a Marian-centered re-telling of salvation history, something that the Bible does not encourage. The list could go on and on, yet one point must be further elaborated.

Marian devotion was a characterizing feature of John Paul II’s life. He believed the so-called secrets of Fatima, in which Mary played a decisive role, deviating the bullet when the Pope was shot in 1981 by the terrorist Ali Agca. Apparently, the Pope believed in Marian providence, considering Mary a major player in world affairs, both earthly and cosmic, both material and spiritual. For this reason he was able to dedicate planet earth to her at the beginning of the new millennium, along with the human family and new century, pleading for protection and guidance all the while. Moreover, his personal motto was totus tuus, totally yours, with “yours” referring to Mary. In honor of his highly Marian spirituality, the beatification ceremony will take place on May 1st, at the beginning of the Marian month according to the RC liturgical calendar.

The question remains: Is the legacy of John Paul II Bible-based and Christ-centered? The answer is not as simple and straightforward as Tim Perry’s book seems to indicate. His strong Marianism, for instance, is a defining feature of his life that always qualifies the rest. The months ahead will be another opportunity to come to terms with his pontificate, his achievements and contradictions, and indeed his inherently Roman Catholic legacy.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

 

5. A mystical view of Purgatory? On a recent catechesis by Benedict XVI

January 28th, 2011

One of the prerogatives of the teaching office of the Pope is to hold the cathedra Petri (Peter’s chair). St. Peter’s basilica hosts the relics of a chair that tradition traces back to the apostle Peter (though, like most relics, they were produced in the Middle Age). The cathedra Petri is part of the altar, so as to indicate the unique combination of the teaching and sacramental role of the Pope. The First Vatican Council (1870) introduced the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex-cathedra (from the chair). This is not a physical reference to the chair, though the Pope often speaks literally from the chair when presiding over rites and functions in St. Peter’s. Ex-cathedra refers to particular conditions which confer the mark of infallibility to his teaching. Besides this unique expression of papal authority, the chair also refers to his ordinary teaching office which takes place in different forms, such as encyclicals, exhortations, speeches, books, media (both written and audio), and occasions like papal visits and the presence of regular audiences.

As part of his ordinary, weekly teaching office, the Pope delivers a catechetical speech on Wednesdays in the context of a general audience which is attended by a couple thousand pilgrims, visitors, etc. The presentation is in Italian, though written summaries of the speech in other languages are distributed to the public. All texts are readily available on the Vatican website (www.vatican.va). Generally the Pope follows series on the liturgical calendar, doctrinal topics, the lives of saints, Church traditions, etc. On January 12th, the topic of the catechesis was particularly interesting in that it touched on purgatory.

Belief in purgatory is part of the RC doctrine concerning the afterlife. It was elaborated in the Middle Ages and then stated doctrinally by the Councils of Florence (1438) and Trent (1563). It is also taught in the 1992 Catechism (nn. 1030-1032). This is to say that it is well entrenched in the tradition of the RC Church and her present-day doctrinal horizon. Purgatory basically refers to the ‚Äúfinal purification‚Äù of the saved ones in order to achieve the holiness necessary to enter heaven. The premise of purgatory is that salvation is not by grace and faith alone, but is by grace and what is achieved by means of merit and works. Purgatory is the last “work” required to get to heaven, i.e. a time of purification that lasts in proportion to what still needs to be purified. While it contains reminiscences of the language of 1 Corinthians 3:15 and 1 Peter 1:7, the driving force of its development has been the practice of prayer for the dead, as the RC Catechism honestly acknowledges. In fact, RC doctrine believes that prayers, indulgences and works of penance can be offered on behalf of the dead so that their purification through purgatory is accelerated.

In one of the first catechesis of the new year, Benedict XVI returns to the doctrine of purgatory in the context of a devotional talk on Saint Catherine of Genoa. She was a XV century mystic who is best known for her vision of purgatory. According to the Pope, Catherine does not add new revelation on purgatory, yet her visions underline the fact that it is an “interior fire” that prepares the soul for full communion with God. Rather than a physical place of fire, as portrayed by Dante’s imagination in the Divine Comedy, purgatory is depicted by Catherine of Genoa as an inner fire which elevates man’s path towards God.

The Pope makes it clear that this mystical intelligence does not alter the traditional doctrine, but expands it towards its mysterious borders. The physical, spatial dimensions of purgatory are enriched further by the mystical development. It is a matter of adding other elements to the already consolidated doctrine and not questioning its well established profile.

Purgatory has already been at the center of Benedict XVI’s magisterium in a more ample treatment. His second encyclical, Spe Salvi (Saved in hope, 2007), contains telling comments on judgment in the afterlife. In the papal encyclical, God’s judgment is a combination of justice and grace. Few people (if any) receive only his justice (i.e. punishment), and few people receive His full grace (i.e. immediate salvation). Instead most people receive both justice and grace, then purgatory is this intermediate state of the soul that discloses both (nn. 45-48). In the afterlife the soul goes through a time of purification, deserving neither justice or grace. In Spe Salvi as well, the Pope stresses the importance of prayers and acts of suffrage on behalf of the dead in order to speed their time of purification. This is based on a belief on “communion” between the living and the dead that allows the suffrage of the former for the latter.

The doctrine of purgatory is part of the RC doctrinal web that impinges on grace, sin, salvation and eternal life. It is not a disposable, secondary appendix, but an essential part of the RC view of the ordo saluti. Thus far, Benedict XVI has been re-stating and expanding its doctrinal core, adding some mystical suggestions rather than changing it towards a more biblical picture of the afterlife.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

4. Word of the Lord and/or Word of the Church? The Bible in a recent papal pronouncement

January 11th, 2011

The Bible is central in the long-standing controversy between the Protestant Reformation and Roman Catholicism. So any pronouncement coming from the Pope on the topic is to be read carefully by all those who live a Bible-centered faith. The pronouncement we are talking about comes after a specific Synod that took place in 2008 when Roman Catholic bishops discussed the following issue: “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church”. After synods discuss, it is customary for the Pope to issue a written document which summarizes the gist of the proceedings and states them authoritatively. This is also the case of the 2010 Post-Synodical Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini (VD, the Word of the Lord) by Benedict XVI.

The document recalls the RC teaching on the Bible as it has been articulated and taught in¬† the XX century. In particular, VD acknowledges the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (God’s Word) as the paramount doctrinal reference for the Roman Catholic theology of the Word of God and sees itself in total continuity with the Council. What is most interesting is the relationship between the Word and the Bible that is envisaged by VD.

To start with, VD claims that the Word of God “precedes and exceeds sacred Scripture, nonetheless Scripture, as inspired by God, contains the divine word” (17). VD claims that the Bible is the Word of God in the sense that it contains the Word. There is the Bible and there is also a further word beyond the Bible that makes the Bible not sufficient on its own. What is at stake here is not the divine inspiration of the Bible (which VD firmly affirms), but the sufficiency of the Bible and its finality. For Pope Ratzinger, the Bible is the Word of God in some sense, but the Word of God is bigger than the Bible. The latter contains the former.

For Protestant readers especially, a comment is here in place. Liberal theology has developed its own theology of the Word whereby the relationship between the Word and the Bible is thought of in dialectical and existential ways. In other words, for some versions of liberal theology, the Bible is a (fallible) testimony to the Word and it becomes the Word of God, if it ever becomes so, when the Spirit speaks through it. Now, the RC version of the Word-Bible relationship is articulated in a different way. The premise is the same (i.e. the Bible contains the Word), but the outworking of the Word comes through the tradition of the RC Church. The gap between the Word and the Bible is not existential but ecclesial. The Church is the cradle of the Word, both in its past and written form (the Bible) and in its on-going utterances (Tradition). In this respect, Benedict XVI writes: “The Church lives in the certainty that her Lord, who spoke in the past, continues today to communicate his word in her living Tradition and in sacred Scripture. Indeed, the word of God given to us in sacred Scripture as an inspired testimony to revelation, together with the Church’s living Tradition, it constitutes the supreme rule of faith” (18). The Bible is upheld, but the Bible is always accompanied and surmounted by the wider, deeper, living tradition of the Church which is the present-day form of the Word. Amongst other things, this means that the Bible is not sufficient in itself to give access to the Word and is not the final norm for faith and practice. The Bible needs to be supplemented by the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is “a significant expression of the living Tradition of the Church and a sure norm for teaching the faith” (74).

Thus VD maintains a dynamic view of the Word whereby the Bible is a divinely appointed container of the Word. Yet the final reference point of the Word is the Church from which the Bible comes from and through which the present-day Word of God resounds.

Lots of questions arise from the painted picture by VD which is totally coherent with Vatican II and indeed the Council of Trent. Since VD is not a systematic treatise, but rather a written exhortation, only few points are dealt with in terms of explaining how the Church relates to the Word.

Firstly, the role of “private revelations” (e.g. Marian visions and on-going revelations accredited by the RC Church). Beside the Bible, they “introduce new emphases, give rise to new forms of piety, or deepen older ones” (14). Private revelations are the basis for the Marian cults of Lourdes, Fatima, and Medjugorie, for example. For Evangelicals, these cults cannot be squared with basic Biblical teaching, yet the normative point for “private revelations” is the Church’s tradition, not the Bible alone. For RC, basing the faith on the Bible is important, yet inconclusive. There are further standards for spiritual discernment that go beyond Scripture.

Secondly, the “ecclesial” reading of the Bible. According to VD, Scripture must never be read on one’s own. Reading must be always an “ecclesial experience”, i.e. something done in communion with the Church. The issue at stake is not only methodological, as if private readings were to be replaced by study groups at a parish level presided over by a priest, but also hermeneutical. “An authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmony with the faith of the Catholic Church” (30). Reading the Bible needs to be an exercise done in accordance with the institutional church, both in its forms and outcomes. Apparently, there is much wisdom in these statements, especially considering the real risks of fancy, individualistic, awkward interpretations by isolated readers of the Bible. Yet, there is something missing here. For a Church that has forbidden for centuries the reading of the Bible in vernacular languages, it is at least unfortunate that not a single word of repentance is offered. For a Church that has prevented the people from having access to the Bible until fifty years ago, it is at least puzzling that not a single word is spent to underline the Church‚Äôs need for self-correction and vigilance. Moreover, if reading the Bible must always be done under the rule of the institution, what happens if the institution itself is caught in error, heresy or apostasy? How does the Spirit correct a sinful church if not by the biblical Word? In the history of the Church, the teaching of the Bible had to sometimes be played against the institutional church and against its consensus. Only a self-proclaimed indefectible Church can ask total submission to “the watchful eye of the sacred magisterium” (45) without having a final, ultimate bar. Here at stake is the question: Who has the final word? The Bible or the RC Church? Since the Church is “the home of the word” (52), VD responds: the latter!

Thirdly, the practice of Biblical interpretation. A properly defined RC reading of the Bible requires the acceptance of the unity of the whole of Scripture (“canonical exegesis”), as well as obedience to the living Tradition of the whole Church and the combination between the historical-critical and the theological level of interpretation (34). The RC Church fears two extremes: On the one hand it fears the critical arrogance which severs the Bible’s unity and rejects its divine origins; on the other, the fundamentalist approach which offers “subjective”, “arbitrary”, and “anti-ecclesial interpretations” (44). Two brief comments are possible. 1. In the public opinion, Benedict XVI is often depicted as a champion of the “spiritual” reading of the Bible (e.g. his acclaimed book Jesus of Nazareth, 2007). Yet VD readily acknowledges the benefits of historical-critical methods (32) while rejecting their extreme claims when they are contrary to “theological” considerations. Though not himself a liberal, Ratzinger does not belong to the same typology of Biblical conservative scholarship that can be found in Evangelical circles. Any simplistic overlap muddies the waters. 2. Fundamentalism is not defined in any way, yet is the recipient of strong criticism. No reference to fundamentalist literature is offered but instead negative statements are made as far as the dictation-theory is concerned, or the lack of appreciation of Biblical language as being conditioned by times and cultures. Who on earth believes that the Bible was mechanically dictated or that its language is an angelic reality? The impression is that VD plays against a straw man here.

Fourthly and finally, the liturgical context of a proper approach to Scripture. Reading the Bible as an ecclesial experience means that it needs to occur in a liturgical context set forth by the RC Church. “The privileged place for the prayerful reading of sacred Scripture is the liturgy, and particularly the Eucharist, in which, as we celebrate the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacrament, the word itself is present and at work in our midst” (86). The hearing of God’s Word is fruitful when certain conditions are present: the administration of the Eucharist (54) and other sacraments (61), the Liturgy of the Hours (62), the practice of gaining indulgences (87), and recital of the Holy Rosary (88). According to VD, the Bible can never be alone, but must always be surrounded by ecclesiastical paraphernalia which inform, direct and govern Biblical reading and interpretation. In so doing, the Bible is never free to guide the Church, but always conditioned by some extra-biblical practices of the Church.

The papal pronouncement encourages the reading of the Bible and this is good news. The fundamental question remains: Whose word is the Verbum Domini? The Bible’s and/or the Church’s?

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

3. Papa dixit. The recent interview with Benedict XVI

Rome, 6th December 2010

If you were given the opportunity to meet the Pope in person, what would you ask him? In a video on Youtube John Piper tells us that if he were to have a two minute conversation with the Pope, he would ask him: What’s your view on justification? That question would speak volumes for him and perhaps for many Evangelicals. Not so for Peter Seewald, the German journalist who just released his new interview with Benedict XVI. Seewald spoke six hours with the Pope but the topic of justification never came up. This suggests that people’s agendas in dealing with the highest RC authority may be very different. Yet the interview is an interesting piece of conversation that deserves our attention.

The book is entitled Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times and is published in English by Ignatius Press. Seewald is not new to the task of interviewing Ratzinger, having done so twice when the latter was Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Salt of the Earth (1996; English edition 1997) and God and the World (2000; English edition 2002). Many commentators have underlined the parts of the interview in which Benedict XVI addresses controversial issues on human sexuality and the recent sexual scandals within the RC Church. In spite of rumors and fancy titles, there is nothing new in the Vatican’s approach to these issues and many others. In the Vatican’s perspective an interview is a tool towards consolidating something that is already part of the ethos of the Church, perhaps using conversation and a warm, personal tone. So Light of the World does not break any new ground in doctrinal or moral matters. Benedict XVI confirms his confident, sapiential and assertive posture in defending the dynamic stability of Rome’s magisterium, as well as his worried analysis of Western cultural trends away from past settlements between church and society. The present-day turmoil of the world, though perplexing and troublesome, is seen within the hopeful context of the long-term mission of the Church that will eventually succeed.

The pope addresses many important matters, but perhaps three are more worthy of mention for Evangelicals.

The first has to do with Benedict’s personal prayer life. In shedding light on his daily spiritual disciplines, the Pope says that he prays to God and also invokes a selected group of saints. His special list mirrors his theological program: Augustine, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas. To them he cries for help as well as to the Mother of God. In another section, Seewald echoes widespread comments even in Evangelical circles that Ratzinger is more Christocentric than Marian. Yet Benedict XVI tells the interviewer that he is very close to Our Lady of Fatima (believing her alleged revelations) and deeply involved in Mary’s hyper-veneration. This is his way of living out the communio sanctorum. So, having Christ at the center means having an inclusive, wider center that hosts Mary and the saints. Do we really understand what the centrality of Jesus Christ means for RC doctrine and spirituality, even in its apparently more Christocentric forms?

The second comment touches on the Pope’s perception of Evangelicalism as a player in the realm of Christianity. Of course the book is not an academic treatise on ecumenical theology and one does not have to read too closely between the lines. Yet a distinct picture does in fact emerge. In this respect Benedict XVI distinguishes in Protestantism the “classic confessions” and the “new Protestantism”. The latter is growing and represents a “sign of the times”. This expression is a catchword for present-day Roman Catholicism. John XXIII used it to launch the Second Vatican Council and since then it has been employed to refer to providential, kairos-types of events. Evangelicals are modifying the religious landscape of the Third World. The Pope goes on to say that this movement is not the church, nor can it be on the account that it lacks some defining features of the Church (i.e. the rightly transmitted sacrament of Order, the Episcopal hierarchy under the papacy, the properly administered Eucharist). According to Ratzinger, the Evangelical understanding of the church is a “new concept” whereby the church is no longer an institution but a community summoned by the Word. The Pope appears to think that in Evangelicalism there is life but it is defective and insufficient since it is outside of the full fellowship with Rome. Later, recalling his visit to Brazil, he comes back to the topic of Evangelicalism and makes some very telling comments. He associates the word “Evangelical” with “sects” thus going back to derogatory language and also failing to make an important distinction between mainstream Evangelicalism and fringe groups that are awkward for Evangelicals as well. The other comment refers to the inner “instability” of the Evangelical movement and the fact that it does not produce a “long-standing sense of belonging”. The Pope looks at Evangelicals with a mixture of spiritual curiosity and Roman perplexity. Compared with the stability of the RC institution, Evangelicalism seems to be a frail vessel floating aimlessly. Compared with the deep sense of belonging that RC is able to nurture in most of its adherents, Evangelicalism seems to produce individual outbursts of spiritual life, yet is detached from historical, cultural and community awareness. The picture that Evangelicalism presents of itself to the observing world should cause all of us to ponder. Benedict XVI seems to think Evangelicalism can be an inspiring spirituality for our age (a “sign of the times”), yet in itself it lacks ecclesial structure and identity markers to be the Church and to survive for long.

A final comment is in place regarding global scenarios. Seewald wants to know what the Pope thinks of his petrine ministry that causes troubles for non-Catholic Christians. Well, the agreement about the papal ministry with Orthodox churches is not so far, says Ratzinger. Yet there is another facet to it. More and more, he says, religious leaders are realizing that in the global world a global voice is needed to address the importance of “religious values” and the disruptive claims of secularism. Being the ‚Äúsingle voice on great themes‚Äù is what the Pope envisages for his ministry: for Catholics and non-Catholics alike, as well as for Muslims, Hindus, etc. The Pope offers his ministry to serve as the spokesperson for all religious-minded peoples of the world. This is the vast frontier development of the papacy that embraces both ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. Of course this is not the full scope of the RC understanding of the papal office, but it will pave the way to achieving it.

In summary, Light of the World contains nothing new but instead underlines the standing claims of the present Pope with some intriguing nuances. Filled with awe for the great tradition of the Church, Benedict XVI is fully persuaded that the RC Church will manage to fulfill her mission, i.e. being a sign and instrument for the unity of mankind.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

2. The Future Roman Catholic Church. Global Tales from the 21st Century

Rome, 18th November 2010

What will the Roman Catholic (RC) Church be like at the end of the 21st century? How will this institution be able to handle the multiple challenges that she is confronted with? More radically, will this church still be still around in a hundred years? And if yes, how different will she be compared with her present-day outlook?

These intriguing questions get some ever more intriguing answers by the CNN Vatican correspondent John L. Allen in his recent book The Future Church. How Ten Trends are Revolutionizing the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 2009). Allen writes as a journalist and sociologist of religion who looks at what is happening in the RC universe within the context of a fast moving globalization. His immediate readership is North-American but what he writes is gathered from years of international journalism and aimed at painting global scenarios.

Asking readers to stretch their “imagination” (1), Allen argues that there are at least ten trends that are impacting the RC Church and that will increasingly be on the agenda. Here is his list:

  1. A World Church
  2. Evangelical Catholicism
  3. Islam
  4. The New Demography
  5. Expanding Lay Roles
  6. The Biotech Revolution
  7. Globalization
  8. Ecology
  9. Multipolarism
  10. Pentecostalism

Suffice it to briefly comment on each trend while pausing a little bit more on those which resonate more closely with Evangelicalism (i.e. Evangelical Catholicism and Pentecostalism).

  1. The center of gravity is shifting from North to South. In 2050 the largest majority RC nations will be Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, USA, Congo, and Uganda. The global story of Catholicism today is growth, not decline (19). Its most pressing need is managing expansion, not contraction. Generally speaking, Southern Catholicism is youthful, morally conservative and politically liberal, open to the supernatural, more interested in ad extra missional challenges than in ad intra traditional issues (like doctrinal disputes and canon law debates), and bringing a new set of issues (e.g. polygamy, witchcraft, women empowerment). If RC “will become steadily more non-Western, nonwhite, and nonaffluent” (432), then the time for a Southern pope has come.
  2. The “identity issue” is what is at stake with Evangelical Catholicism. For Alles, the meaning of the word Evangelical here has little to do with the Biblical-Protestant understanding of the same word. It is rather “an underlying religious psychology” (57) that embodies a “hunger for identity” in a rootless secular culture. Evangelical Catholicism strives for liturgical conservativism, catholic education, priestly-laity distinction of order, and theological clarity both in Christology and ecclesiology. Champion of this type of Evangelical Catholicism is the 2000 document Dominus Iesus which stressed the traditional understanding of the RC Church as being the only rightly ordered agency which enjoys divine grace in its fullest measure. In the same vein, for Allen, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI are Evangelical Catholics, as well as ecclesiastical figures like Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris (57), writers like Geoge Weigel who urges Christians to have “the courage to be Catholic” (453), ecclesial movements like Communion and Liberation (entrepreneurial, yet strongly papist and marian), and events like the World Youth Day. Allen exegetes the word Evangelical as meaning a re-affirmation of RC identity in its basic, uncompromising markers, not as implying an openness to renewal according to the Gospel. For him Evangelical is a sociological category expressing a search for identity rather than a theological one based on Gospel transformation.
  3. Islam is another global player of the 21st century and RC will attempt to develop cordial relationships while trying to avoid the clash of civilization mentality, refraining from outspoken missionary endeavors, and building a moral alliance based on natural law and basic religious sentiment.
  4. Global demographic trends encourage the RC Church to support pro-life and fertility policies and also global migration movements. From the ecumenical point of view, the Eastern Orthodox churches will be less appealing than Pentecostals due to the declining demography of most Eastern Orthodox majority countries.
  5. The last hundred years have seen the emergence of more than 120 lay movements (e.g. L’Arche, Focolare, etc.). They are a powerful force which has stirred a “democratization of catholic conversation” (209). Both lay and female ministries will expand their borders, yet not at the expense of overcoming the traditional understanding and practice of the (male) priestly ministry.
  6. The biotech revolution has seen the RC Church on the defensive side. Confronted with the new challenges, there has been a revival of natural law which will allow the RC Church to build bridges with world religions which will regard her to be the global spokesperson for nature-based conservative bioethics. Here Allen seems to underestimate the potential of this trend for future inter-religious developments and future RC claims about the RC Church representing the whole of humanity.
  7. Globalization has pushed the RC Church to expand her social teachings about solidarity, common good, subsidiarity, and integral humanism. She will become the only diplomatic global player which can embrace both the rich and poor, North and South, support for capital and labour, and concerns for social justice and economic development.
  8. Global warming and climate change, along with water scarcity and deforestation will encourage the trend toward natural theology giving the RC Church the opportunity to shape her distinct “both-and” eco-theology.
  9. The 21st century will see “the interaction of multiple points of influence” (340) with the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) raising their profile. In this new global setting, the RC Church is the only religious institution which is already multipolar and has the diplomatic structure and culture to deal with it.
  10. Harvie Cox has dubbed Pentecostalism “Catholicism without priests” meaning an expression of folk spirituality without the Roman juridical system or complicated scholastic theology (382). After Vatican II the RC Church has found room for Pentecostal spirituality within the borders of her theological structure. In some regions (e.g. Latin America) the Pentecostal explosion has given rise to an anti-Pentecostal attitude by RC officials. Yet Pentecostalism is winning the day, both inside and outside the RC Church. “Pentecostalism, not Orthodoxy, will be the primary Christian “other” for much of the Catholic Church of the twenty-first century” (361). New forms of “horizontal ecumenism” and bottom-up initiatives will develop (401). They will be less concerned with theological precision and more interested in exchanging spiritual experiences. Allen goes as far as arguing that the internal fault line of the 21st century will be between Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal Catholicism.

The wide picture emerging from Allen‚Äôs book is complex and multifaceted. The ecclesiological notes of the Church (“one, holy, catholic and apostolic”) will translate into four sociological notes: “global, uncompromising, Pentecostal and extroverted” (432).

Many sociological trends he highlights could be easily applied to global Evangelicalism and they would fit quite naturally. Yet there is a catholic difference that gives RC an extra input in confronting new phases and challenges: “he historical spirit of Catholicism is its passion for synthesis, for “both/and’ solutions” (449). The future will bring tension and conflict, yet the institution that is most suited to balance and accommodate different claims, interests, and concerns is the one that was able to survive the modernity project without selling its soul to it and will be able to navigate the waters of a thicker globalization. This is the RC theological genius that has been displayed for centuries. This is an essential part of the RC system and will be the primary tool to face the future. The RC Church will continue to claim and to act as if she were the sacrament of unity of the human family. This is her mission and it will continue to be so.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

1. Vatican efforts towards New Evangelization?

Rome, 18th October 2010

Setting up a new Pontifical Council is not something that happens often in the Vatican, given the conservative nature of the institution. Yet Pope Benedict XVI has just released the motu proprio document (entitled Ubicumque et semper, “everywhere and always”) that establishes the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization. One of the reasons why this recent move deserves careful consideration is that it is going to be a long term initiative. The central concern that gives name to the Council is also of great significance, especially for Evangelicals who like to think that they “own” everything that is related to evangelism-evangelization. Here is a Vatican office devoted to foster the new evangelization of the West. Another feature that would ring some Evangelical bells is a long quote from Evangelii nuntiandi, a 1975 Vatican document on mission that many observers have seen as the Roman Catholic counterpart of the 1974 Lausanne Covenant. So mission to the Western world is right at the heart of the Vatican agenda.

Facing the challenge of the secular West is a typical concern of Pope Ratzinger. In many ways, his first years of being Pope can be read as an attempt to deal with this issue. The newly established Council is the “institutional” way to confront it. The letter contains reference to some themes which are dear to Benedict XVI: he points to the progressive loss of Christian practice in the First World as well as the on-going abandonment of Christian values in Western society leading to indifference if not harshly anti-Christian attitudes. In one word, the Pope thinks that “secularism” is the big spiritual enemy of the Church. He calls the Church to a phase of re-vitalization of its inner life to respond to secular trends.
The Ubicumque et semper papal letter does not contain a full-orbed theology on the new evangelization. Yet there are hints that perhaps deserve a comment and that puts this Vatican move in perspective.

1. The rhetoric of the progressive de-christianization of Europe has been a persistent feature of papal pronouncements since the French Revolution. “There is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity”. These words seem Ratzinger’s but were written by Pius X in 1903 in his encyclical E supremi apostolatus (n. 5). In a sense, there is nothing new under the sun. Churches have been engaging forms of secularism for at least the last three centuries. What is perhaps new is the danger that the institutional churches may lose their privileged status in a pluralist society. It seems that present-day secularism cannot cope with pre-Revolution settlements between church and state. Is this what Ratzinger fears most?

2. In assessing the danger of secularism, Benedict XVI charges it with all kinds of evil. In many ways, his evaluation is accurate. Yet, something of importance is missing. There is not a single word on the responsibility of the Church for the poor state of Western Christianity. Has the Church really worked hard to proclaim the Gospel with integrity to the observing modern world? Has the Church been faithful to the Word of God? Is the Church somewhat responsible for causing, at least in part, the disturbing secular trends? Does the Church need to look at her own sins before pointing the finger at the world? The document does not address this. It does not even ask the question!

3. The encouragement given to the Church is to promote the new evangelization and to re-ignite her mission to shape society. The document does not hope for conversion to the Gospel, as the Lausanne Covenant would say. It rather points to the recovery of a Christian society where Christian values are honored and practiced and where the Church is recognized for being a shaper and upholder of society. What does evangelization hope for? Does it foster a nostalgia for the “Christian society” of the European past? But were these societies Christian in the Gospel sense? Should we not accept the challenge of evangelizing the West without wanting it to simply go backwards?

4. A final comment on the tools that Pope Benedict XVI sees as crucial for the task. Prominent is “the use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as the essential and complete formulation of the content of the faith”. It is perfectly legitimate for the Head of the Roman Catholic Church to support the use of the Catechism. Yet, Gospel people would have expected the Pope to encourage people the read, study and share the Bible. Evidently, for him the Catechism contains the Bible, not vice versa.

Leonardo De Chirico
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org