Posted on

109. Jubilee of Mercy (and Indulgences)

June 1st, 2015

Pope Francis surprised the Catholic community and the public in unexpectedly announcing the indiction of an extraordinary Jubilee year beginning at the end of 2015 and running throughout most of 2016. The tradition of celebrating jubilee years dates back 1300 AD when pope Boniface VIII issued the first holy year calling pilgrims to visit Rome in order to receive a plenary indulgence. The name “jubilee” reminds of the biblical institution of the jubilee whereby, according to the Mosaic law, every fifty years slaves were supposed to be freed and debts had to be cancelled (e.g. Leviticus 25). However, in spite of the name, the Roman ecclesiastical jubilee has little to do with this biblical precedent and mostly to do with the medieval practice of a powerful church granting remission of the penalty of sin by shortening the time in Purgatory. The Vatican jubilee is therefore part and parcel of a theological vision whereby Purgatory is a pillar of the afterlife, the church claims to administer God’s grace on His behalf, and pilgrims have to do some penitential acts like rosaries, pilgrimages, fasting, i.e. religious works, in order to receive the remission. It is not a coincidence that Martin Luther, after visiting Rome in 1511, became troubled with the practice of indulgences and eventually nailed the 95 theses in the (vain) hope that a biblical and public discussion could be initiated.

It is interesting to note that an unconventional Pope like Francis, who is known for his down-to-earth language and easy-going manners, would instead indict a Jubilee year which is part of a long and well-established tradition deeply rooted in the Middle Ages. Even the apparently “fresh” approach by Francis is always to be related to the “old” institution he is head of.

Focus on Mercy

Francis wants his Jubilee year to be focused on mercy. The overall theme of the year and of its wide-ranging activities will be mercy. This is not a new emphasis. His 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium already centered on mercy as an encompassing rubric of the mission of the church. After being elected, Francis went public in saying that he was reading a book by Cardinal Walter Kasper, Mercy. The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2014) and that he was profoundly impressed by it. So, the Jubilee of mercy will be a vantage point from which Francis’s understanding of mercy will be displayed in full force.

So far, some indications about how he understands mercy are a mixed bag. In these first two years of his reign, mercy has often been swollen with regard to its biblical meaning as to refer to a sort of divine and universal benevolence towards all. Eye-catching sentences like “Who am I to judge?”, “God forgives who follows his conscience”, “God always forgives”, contribute to widen God’s mercy to the point of being exchanged for an all-embracing, all-inclusive love. Yet unclear is the way in which the Pope relates God’s mercy to His justice and how this relationship fits in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. According to Scripture, Christ is the “merciful and faithful high priest” who made “propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17). Any biblical understanding of mercy needs to be interwoven with God’s justice and Christ’s atonement which calls for repentance and faith. Otherwise, mercy can be (ab)used as a general manifestation of kindness which does not depict God’s mercy at all, but is rather a form of humanistic goodwill.

What about Indulgences?

The Bull of indiction of Jubilee of Mercy was issued on April 11th and is entitled Misericordiae Vultus (The Face of Mercy). There was some curiosity about how this outward-looking Pope come “from the ends of the world” would treat a very “Roman” and ecclesiastical topic like indulgences. He deals with it at paragraphs 21-22 where he uses a language much more personal and relational than juridical and traditional, yet the substance of the theology and practice of the indulgences is granted.

In closing, one almost overlapping event will be the V centenary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017. It is interesting to observe that while on the one hand the Roman Catholic Church is officially preparing an “ecumenical” commemoration of the Reformation, on the other she represents and promotes again the theology and the practice that caused the Reformation, i.e. the granting of indulgences. How is it possible to commemorate something that was opposed to the indulgences and, at the same time, focus on the same theological framework that was the cause of the dispute? Is it because the Roman Church is, despite all change, semper eadem, always the same?

Posted on

107. Preaching According to a Vatican Handbook

May 1st, 2015

Historically speaking, the sermon (in Catholic language: the homily) has hardly been on the top priority list of the Roman Catholic Church. The standard Catholic liturgy is centered around the Eucharist, “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Lumen Gentium n. 11), not around the preached Word. More attention has been given to sacramental celebration than Gospel proclamation. Moreover, Catholic spirituality has been shaped more by various devotions than the public exposition of the Word of God. With exceptions, of course, preaching has largely been peripheral, tending towards moralism and catechizing rather than paying adequate attention to the biblical text. Vatican II (1962-1965) stirred the Catholic Church to re-focus on Scripture, not altering the centrality of the Eucharist and the overall sacramental framework, but adding to both a more biblical flavor. To which extent this goal has been achieved is an on-going disputed matter.

In Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel) – his 2013 Exhortation – Pope Francis devoted several paragraphs (nn. 135-175) to encourage Catholic priests to be serious about preparing and delivering the homily, perhaps out of a dissatisfaction about the way they normally deal with it. Now the Vatican department responsible for overseeing worship and the sacraments has released a “Homiletic Directory”, i.e. a 150-page manual for preachers which contains guidelines on how to preach appropriately.

The Sacramental Canopy

Ars preadicandi (the art of preaching) is the technical expression which is used in the handbook to indicate the homiletic skills that are required of the preacher. Before highlighting the more practical suggestions, the handbook sets the theological framework for the homily. Since it is the Eucharist that makes the Church (quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1396), preaching is put under this sacramental canopy. This means that Christ is really present in the Eucharist but only analogically so (i.e. in a weaker, more remote way) in the preached Word. The Word proclaims Christ but it is the Eucharist that actualizes the paschal mystery of Christ (n. 10). The Word announces the Gospel but it is the Eucharist that transforms people (n. 14). Preaching then accompanies the Eucharist, but its ultimate significance rests on the “real presence” of the Eucharist.

According to the Protestant Reformation, the Church is constituted by the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. Put differently, the Word comes logically and theologically first whereas the Catholic manual is faithful to the Roman Catholic reversal of the order and actually conflates the preaching of the Word into the Sacrament (sacrament in the singular, given the absolute prominence of the Eucharist above all other sacraments). The fact that the homily has “an intrinsically liturgical nature” (n. 5) confirms that this new Vatican emphasis on preaching derives the proclamation of the Word from the sacramental priority of the Eucharist.

A Handbook for Good Catholic Preaching

Coming to more practical matters, the handbook delineates the sermon as having the following features: short, not a lecture, not too abstract, not an exegetical exercise, not a personal testimony only (n. 6), in line with the concerns of the people and out of a maternal attitude towards it (n. 8). These last two aspects are very close to the “theology of the people” of Pope Francis, i.e. a special attention reserved to the people’s piety, devotions, and expectations. On the whole, the homily is presented as having more negative dangers to avoid than positive models to look at.

The manual then highlights the specific tasks of preaching in the liturgical year marked by Easter, Lent, Advent, Christmas and Epiphany and within a three-year cycle. A strong emphasis is put to the responsibility to preach the faith of the Church (as enshrined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) within the context of the “living Tradition of the whole Church” (n. 17). Scripture is seen as part of Tradition of which the Church is the living voice. On the one hand, the homily comes theologically second with regard to the Eucharist; on the other it is embedded in the tradition of the Church that controls it. Doesn’t this model run the danger of being a defensive mechanism that ends up in muzzling God’s word? If this is the case, how can the preached Word stand above the church?

As Paul wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16). Will this handbook help Roman Catholics to be more exposed to the preaching of the Word of God, or will it reinforce what the Roman Catholic Church already is and will continue to be?

 

Posted on

106. Should Evangelicals Love Pope Francis?

April 13th, 2015

(This Vatican File was written together with Reid Karr, a dear friend and a colleague in Gospel ministry in Rome)

On the day before Easter Peter Wehner, a columnist for the New York Times, wrote an interesting and thought provoking article titled “Why Evangelicals Should Love the Pope.”[1] Three main concerns about it can be raised and briefly presented.

The Straw Man

Pitting Franklin Graham against Pope Francis on how to address the moral crisis of our time is very easy but totally arbitrary. With his seemingly harsh language and judgmental arguments against homosexuality, Franklin Graham represents a still significant portion of US Evangelicals, yet a minority of Evangelicals globally considered. In speaking to the US context, Graham may have right-wing political overtones that do not fit  the whole Evangelical family. North American socio-political categories are not useful to account for its complexity. Lots of Evangelicals, both inside and outside of the US, deal with the same issues with a different attitude and language. On the other hand, Pope Francis speaks on the same issues in more pastoral terms and in doing so he is able to overlook specific situations. When he does address concrete cases, he does so using strong language. For instance, in his recent visit to the Philippines (Jan 16, 2015), he spoke about the prospect of introducing same-sex marriage as an “ideological colonization” of family life to resist and fight against. Not exactly the tender tone that Wehner wants us to believe. Francis may seem softer and milder only because he speaks about these issues “in general” and in a more pastoral tone. Before contrasting Graham and Pope Francis, Wehner should wait until the Pope visits the US this coming September when he will speak at the World Meeting of Families. Is he so sure that Francis will speak merciful words only? Until then, he should have instead compared Franklin Graham and Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the staunch Archbishop of New York. Perhaps the difference between the two is not so sharp as it appears to be between Graham and the Pope. In the article Graham is depicted as the Shakespearean fool and Francis as the wise man of the story: a much too simplistic picture of reality to be true.

The Tip of the Iceberg

In calling Evangelicals to love the Pope, the NYT article has a sentimentalized view of the Pope. It focuses on some aspects of the papal language, but fails to give readers the fuller picture. In the same period in which Francis met with prisoners and social outcasts, he also presided over pompous Easter celebrations in St Peter’s basilica with all the richness and power of the Roman Catholic church on full display. Where was Francis’ humility in all these splendorous liturgies and costly events? Moreover, about the same time in which Francis spoke about the church being a “field hospital”, he confirmed and reinforced the existence and necessity of the Vatican bank which is a world-wide power structure that deals with all sorts of financial activity. Wehner highlighted the “loving” words of the Pope and overlooked the rest. This is a common practice in the religious analysis of the papacy: a carefully selected picture of the Pope becomes his full representation, thus failing to provide an accurate account of the whole. The humble and frugal aspects of the Pope as a person have little to do with the political and imperial aspects of his role. Below the surface and the tip of the iceberg is the iceberg itself, which in this case is the last absolutist monarchy that can be found on earth. Serious reflection should be devoted to the reality of the iceberg rather than focusing on the tip only.

What About the Gospel?

“Welcoming all”, “showing compassion”, “all inclusive” seem to be the mainstream and politically correct expressions of the “gospel of the day.” Pope Francis is a champion of this kind of gospel presentation. Many secular people, as well as many Evangelicals, are fascinated by the seemingly generous scope of his message. In his article Wehner quotes Pope Francis as saying, “Without mercy, we have little chance nowadays of becoming part of a world of ‘wounded’ persons in need of understanding, forgiveness and love.” Truer words could not be spoken. But this statement represents the tip of the iceberg. We should be responsible and look below the surface and identify what is giving form to and supporting the Pope’s words and actions.

Where does sin fit into the Pope’s view? What about repentance and faith in Christ alone? What about turning back from idolatry and following Christ wholeheartedly? What about putting the Word of God first? After visiting the prisoners in Naples and speaking words of mercy and forgiveness, the Pope went to the city cathedral to kiss the liquefied blood of St. Gennaro, a medieval practice related to the beseeching of a blessing of the patron saint upon the city. Where is the biblical gospel in this?

What should concern every Christian above all else is the salvation of those who don’t know Christ as Savior. We can talk about mercy and forgiveness and love and taking Christ to the farthest and darkest places of the earth all we want, but what really matters is the message we proclaim and embody to the lost and hurting we encounter. What then is the message of salvation? If asked how one is forgiven and saved from his or her sins, how would Pope Francis respond? The article does not delve into these controversial waters. He and other Evangelicals who share his sentiments would do well to examine what’s below the tip of the iceberg.

Posted on

105. Conservative? Liberal? Radical? Who is Francis?

March 31st, 2015

Two years ago Cardinal Bergoglio was elected as Pope Francis. With the precision of German technology, Cardinal Walter Kasper published the book Pope Francis’ Revolution of Tenderness and Love (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2015) right in time to celebrate the second anniversary of his reign. In this volume, which has been produced in several languages, Kasper has collected some lectures on the Pope that he has given around the world in the past two years. Though each chapter stands on its own, Kasper sketches a coherent theological and pastoral portrait of Pope Francis, highlighting “tenderness” and “love” as two defining marks of the pontificate. Many of his evaluations of the Pope are shared by a large sector of progressive public opinion, both inside and outside of the Roman Catholic Church. What is really interesting is the way in which Kasper tackles one of the charges that often creeps in when commenting on the present Pope: is he liberal?

Radical?

Kasper summarizes the directions of Francis’s pontificate using some evocative words: surprise, mercy, renewal, ecumenism, dialogue, the poor. Each word describes a segment; taken together they form the axes of Francis’ worldview and action. The German Cardinal is aware that the Pope is often perceived as being attuned to the “liberal” spirit of the age: strong on social issues, relaxed in doctrine, wishing to include anyone at all cost.

Kasper disagrees with this assessment and suggests that Francis is not a liberal but a radical. Radical in the etymological sense of the Latin word “radix”: root or originating principle. According to Kasper the Pope is challenging the Church to be radical in the sense of re-discovering the roots of the Gospel which are joy, mission, frugality, solidarity with the poor, freedom from legalism, and collegiality. Kasper argues that the Pope’s tendency is not to run after the political correctness of Western liberalism, but to call all Christians to recover the living source of their faith, i.e. the roots of the Christian life. Francis is a radical Pope who has impressed a different style, language, and emphases to the Papacy out of his desire to embrace and to live out the fundamental principle of the Gospel.

A Selected Radicalism

Kasper’s reading of Francis is clever and insightful. It encourages us to move beyond the usual polarizations between “liberals” and “conservatives” within the Church by introducing a third category, that of “radicals”. Two brief comments can be suggested. First, Francis appears to be radical on certain issues and much less so on others. He is radical on poverty, but is silent on the massive financial power of his Church. He seems to be radical on mercy, but never mentions original sin and divine judgment over all sinners outside of Christ. He is radical in advocating for simplicity, but keeps the expansive apparatus of an empire like the very system of which he is the head. He is radical in denouncing the tragedies of unethical capitalism, but seems to be much less outspoken towards the immoral deviations of personal sexual life. In other words, his radicalism is somewhat selective. Radical here, much less so there. In a certain sense, “liberals” are radical on social issues, while “conservatives” are radical on doctrinal issues. Everyone is radical in some sense. There are different shades of radicalism. Francis’ radicalism is much closer to the liberal version than the conservative one. Therefore, playing a bit with words, the question is whether or not his radicalism is radically different from a more liberal tendency. Historically speaking, the root of theological liberalism lies in the preference given to religious feelings over doctrinal expressions. And this is exactly what the Pope seems also fond of doing. If mercy and tenderness describe the overall message of Francis, they sound more like liberal catchwords than traditional ones.

In a certain sense, the Protestant Reformation was a radical movement motivated by an aspiration to go ad fontes (back to the Bible), back to the Word of God, and aimed at recovering the radical Gospel of solus Christus (Christ alone) and sola gratia (grace alone). There is very little of this form of Christian radicalism in Francis’ pontificate. Some accents seem to point to the need of being exposed to the written Word of God and yet many more are still placed on practices and traditions which can hardly be found in Scripture. Some of the language of the Pope seems to resemble Gospel emphases, yet the substance of it is still heavily sacramental and hierarchical. Borrowing the title of Kasper’s book, Francis’ insistence on mercy and tenderness lies within the context of a less institutional, but still unreformed, traditional Roman Catholicism.

Posted on

104. Two Years with Pope Francis. An Interview

March 20th, 2015

This interview was posted on http://evangelicalfocus.com/europe/438/2_years_of_Francis

You can listen to the interview at http://evangelicalfocus.com/multimedia/449/Leonardo_de_Chirico_2_years_of_Pope_Francis

“FRANCIS IS OPEN TO ALL, EVANGELICALS ARE ONLY ONE PIECE IN HIS VISION”
Italian Vatican expert Leonardo de Chirico looks back to the first 2 years of Pope Francis: “His popularity is more of a social media phenomenon than a real one”.

 

1. The pope seems to have gained praise from almost everyone, including left-wing thinkers, LGBT movements, and media have been massively interested in every move he has done since then. What are some keys of this massive instantaneous success? How much in Francis’ popularity is a charismatic character and a good Communications strategy and how much is a real change in Catholicism?

Many indicators speak of a successful Pope in terms of audience and popularity, especially outside of the Catholic Church where normally Popes hardly gained the status of a celebrity. Francis broke some language and symbolic codes that made previous popes remote and unapproachable figures. Francis is perceived as a transparent, down-to-earth, one-of-us type of person. His breaking of codes makes many Catholics uncomfortable. This is perhaps one of the reasons why recent polls show that in spite of such popularity Catholic practice in the West hasn’t really improved in terms of attendance and obedience to the Catholic church.

2. Some Evangelicals in Europe say: “I like this pope, he is humble, he has his feet on the ground, talks about Jesus a lot…” It’s not difficult for anyone to like Francis. So, should we position ourselves as in favor of the pope or do you think there is a need to make a distinction between the sympathy for  person (Jorge Maria Bergoglio) and the institution he actually represents (the papacy)?

Bergoglio knows the language that Evangelicals use (e.g. “conversion”, “mission”, “personal relationship with Jesus”). He appears to be near but one has to understand what he means by using these words. I don’t think we mean the same things. Moreover, I wonder how he can be near to evangelicals given his published opinion (and never retracted) about Luther and Calvin having destroyed man, poisoned society, and ruined the church! I found it difficult to have sympathy for that! Then, for sure he also represents an institution that grew outside of biblical standards and he has not been reforming it according to the Gospel yet.

Thinking of Europe, do you think the Catholic Church is still in time to stop the loss of believers and even see young people go to mass?

The progressive erosion of the number of practicing Catholics is still going on even under Francis. His popularity is more of a social media phenomenon than a real one. Some sectors within the Catholic Church think that some “liberal” measures like admitting to the Eucharist those who have divorced or those who live in gay relationships will cause them to go back to the fold. The example of dying Protestant liberal churches which already provided for it should tell them that this is not the way to refill the churches of people. It’s the quickest way to empty them.

The Pope has been very clear and outspoken on internal in the Catholic Church, like  sexual child abuse. Why do you think there was so much silence with other popes before him?

The basic idea was that the institutional church needed to be protected from outsiders’ scrutiny. All nasty things were therefore covered up. This defensive attitude goes back to the fierce battle that the Catholic Church fought against the Enlightenment and the Revolutionary thought of XIX century. The late Benedict XVI began to introduce measures of transparency as far as the sexual abuses are concerned and Francis followed the same direction.

Have there been important doctrinal/theological changes since Francis is in charge? What are the main theological ideas of Francis?

Francis is not a professional theologian. I think he is influenced by two main sources, i.e. the present-day Jesuit theology and his Latin American context. When he argues that everyone is ok if one follows his conscience, he is building on and popularizing Karl Rahner’s views about “anonymous Christianity”. According to Rahner (1904-1984) we are Christians because we are humans. Similarly, Francis locates grace in our humanity. Or think of Jesuit Jacques Dupuis (1923-2004) who looked for a way to combine salvation in Christ and universal salvation in inter-religious dialogue. When Francis speaks of universal brotherhood or universal mercy, he is popularizing this kind of theology.

Then, his Latin American theological background is evident in his deeply felt Mariology – which has many folk spirituality attachments – and his “theology of the people” which is keen in making the people’s concerns and aspirations central, without asking whether or not they are biblically warranted.

What does Pope Francis think about Evangelical Christians? For instance, are Evangelicals saved if we believe in Jesus Christ? Are we still “cults”…?

Besides his criticism of Luther and Calvin, Francis seems to have a high view of evangelicals. He has many evangelical friends especially in Argentina. He recently mentioned the ability of evangelical preachers to relate to the biblical text in a helpful way. He seems to like the less-liturgical forms of charismatic spirituality. He seems to use a language that emphasizes the “personal” element of the Christian faith. In his recent interview to a Mexican journalist he clearly distinguished between evangelicals who are serious Christians and prosperity gospel groups which he named as “sects”.

You talked in one of your articles published at Evangelical Focus about the big devotion Francis has to Mary, calling her “Holy Mother of the Church” (https://vaticanfiles.org/2015/02/101-holy-mother-of-god-three-times/). How is this exaltation of Mary a problem in a biblical view of Christianity?

With all due respect for the Church Fathers, the great teachers and pastors of the early church, Marianism is a negative legacy of Patristic Christianity. It started to attributing to Mary what the Bible ascribes to Jesus. By applying syllogistic thinking, what could be said of Jesus could also be said of Mary. In this way nearly all the Christological titles have also become Mariological ones. Then Mariology became a doctrine which developed significantly in its own terms, outside of biblical standards. The recent Mariological dogmas, i.e. her immaculate conception (1854) and bodily assumption (1950), are children of this kind of development. Francis is totally at home with this Mariological framework and is a strong Marian devotee, especially of Our Lady of Aparecida in Brazil. His first act as Pope was to pay tribute to the icon of Mary Salus Populi Romani, Mary salvation of the Roman people.

Finally, the pope looks open to dialogue with other confessions, also with Evangelicals. How should we as Evangelicals react to it? Should be take steps to get closer to the Vatican, as some suggest? Are there social issues in which Catholics and Evangelicals could be “cobelligerent”? (pressing for more protection for the persecuted church, human trafficking, environmental care..)

Francis is open to all, be they Christians or non-Christians, religious or secular people. Evangelicals are just one piece in his vision. What he has in mind is a unity like a polyhedron: for him there are different ways to relate to the Catholic Church, but Rome maintains central stage. I think dialogue is important in the awareness though that the Catholic Church is not just like any other Christian denomination. It has at its center a political state, the Vatican; it still has an “imperial” structure with global claims and financial power; it has dogmas which are not based on the Bible alone; it legitimizes practices embedded in idolatry. This applies to the Church as an institution and not to all individual Catholics, of course. As for being co-belligerent, yes, on single issues and topics we should be open to work with anyone who is interested in supporting them.

 

Posted on

101. Holy Mother of God! Three Times!

February 12th, 2015

In the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar the first day of the year marks the solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God. On this occasion the Pope delivers a Marian homily that highlights the unique status of Mary and her unparalleled role in Catholic doctrine and spirituality. Given the strong Marian devotion of Pope Francis it is no surprise that he celebrated this solemnity with great enthusiasm that also included an unexpected finale. A recent book (Francesco e Maria. L’amore di Papa Bergoglio per la Madonna, edited by V. Sansonetti, Milano: Rizzoli 2014) highlights the love of Pope Francis for the Madonna by collecting a number of Marian prayers and devotions which are extremely dear to him.

Inseparable Mother

In his first speech of the year Francis offered a meditation on the inseparability of Christ and his mother[1]. He then elaborated on that inseparability by underscoring the relationship between Mary and the church and ultimately between Mary and the whole of mankind. “Jesus cannot be understood without his Mother” said the Pope. This is true of course, but with certain limits and biblical distinctions. With the Incarnation the Son of God became a man by being born of Mary. He is the sinless God-man that brings forth the Father’s grace through the Spirit while his mother is a sinful creature that receives God’s grace. That inseparability needs biblical qualifications otherwise it can lead to the exaltation of Mary beyond what Scripture allows.

Having established the inseparability between Mother and Son, the Pope went on to apply it to another relationship: that of Mary and the Church. Here is what he said: “Likewise inseparable are Christ and the Church – because the Church and Mary are always together and this is precisely the mystery of womanhood in the ecclesial community – and the salvation accomplished by Jesus cannot be understood without appreciating the motherhood of the Church”. The train of thought is that Mary is inseparable from Christ and from the Church; therefore Christ is inseparable from the Church through Mary. Mary is the connecting point between Christ and the Church. As she is inseparable from the former, she is also inseparable from the latter and mediates the relationship between the two. Thus Mary is theologically central in the overall Roman Catholic scheme.

There is yet another step. As Mary is the mother of Jesus and the mother of the Church, she is also deemed to be the mother of all mankind. The Roman Catholic transitive property of the inseparable link is at work here. In lyrical style Francis concludes: “Mary, the first and most perfect disciple of Jesus, the first and most perfect believer, the model of the pilgrim Church, is the one who opens the way to the Church’s motherhood and constantly sustains her maternal mission to all mankind. She, the Mother of God, is also the Mother of the Church, and through the Church, the mother of all men and women, and of every people”. The human inseparability between Mary and Jesus is worked out in the inseparability between Mary and the Church and then between Mary and the whole of humankind.

A Crescendo With A Marian Grand Finale

Francis’ speech is a clear example of how Roman Catholic Mariology has been at work throughout the ages. An initial step with some biblical support (i.e. the Son-Mother link in the context of the Incarnation) was developed in subsequent syllogisms that lacked biblical criteria (e.g. Mary mother of the Church, Mary mother of mankind). The outcome is a brand new theological framework that has little resemblance to how it began.

As an experienced bishop with pastoral warmth, Francis ended his homily with an unusual request that is hardly common in Vatican celebrations. “Let us look to Mary, let us contemplate the Holy Mother of God. I suggest that you all greet her together, just like those courageous people of Ephesus, who cried out before their pastors when they entered Church: “Holy Mother of God!” What a beautiful greeting for our Mother. There is a story – I do not know if it is true – that some among those people had clubs in their hands, perhaps to make the Bishops understand what would happen if they did not have the courage to proclaim Mary “Mother of God”! I invite all of you, without clubs, to stand up and to greet her three times with this greeting of the early Church: “Holy Mother of God!”.

Reports say that the puzzled crowd that was sitting and standing in the Vatican basilica shouted “Holy Mother of God” three times as the Pope had instructed. Thus the first day of the year was an occasion to introduce a highly sophisticated Mariological doctrine and a strongly felt Mariological devotion which were blended together by a committed Marian Pope. For those who desire to live according to the Word of God, it was not a very promising start to the year.

Posted on

99. The Fifteen Sicknesses of the Roman Curia Except One

January 14th, 2015

During the peak of the crisis that preceded the resignation of Benedict XVI in 2013 the Roman Curia was depicted as a “nest of crows”. This central governing body of the Catholic Church, made up of several departments and lead by high ranking officials (the majority being cardinals), had become a place of fierce personal conflicts and internal struggles. Benedict XVI gave up his pontificate also because he felt unable to find a solution to the chaos that was shedding a sinister light on the Vatican. Pope Francis was chosen “from the end of the world” in the hope that he would deal with the crisis of the Roman Curia as an outsider. Since being elected he has been sending clear signals about his uneasiness towards the Vatican establishment. The latest example of his criticism was his message to the Roman Curia just before Christmas (December 22, 2014) where he diagnosed a spiritually gangrenous reality.

An Impressive List of Plagues

The papal analysis of the spiritual condition of the Roman Curia is breathtaking in its denunciation. Here is the devastating list of sicknesses that he identified as he examined its members[1]:

1. The sickness of feeling oneself “immortal,” “immune” or in fact “indispensable”.

2. The sickness of “Martha-ism” (which stems from Martha), of excessive busyness.

3. The sickness of mental and spiritual “petrification”: namely a heart of stone and a “stiff-neck”.

4. The sickness of excessive planning and functionalism.

5. The sickness of bad coordination.

6. The sickness of spiritual Alzheimer’s disease.

7. The sickness of rivalry and vainglory.

8. The sickness of existential schizophrenia.

9. The sickness of gossip, of grumbling and of tittle-tattle.

10. The sickness of divinizing directors.

11. The sickness of indifference to others.

12. The sickness of the mournful face.

13. The sickness of accumulating.

14. The sickness of closed circles.

15. And the last one: the sickness of worldly profit, of exhibitionism.

What else can be added to this list? Whoever has ears, let them hear. More than a nest of crows the picture is more like a bunch of highly dysfunctional and egocentric clerics. This is the spiritual condition of the Roman Curia not according to a staunch anti-clerical observer but according to the head himself: the Pope!

The Missing Sickness

The honesty and courage of Pope Francis in this case is to be commended. The bitter irony of delivering the message on the occasion of the presentation of Christmas greetings when most would only say “nice” things is also noteworthy. One of the immediate follow-ups of the speech was that among the list of the fifteen new cardinals chosen by Francis only one of them belongs to the Curia whereas most of the others come “from the end of the world” like himself. Another interesting feature of these new cardinals is that some of them are outspokenly in favor of a more “pastoral” and open approach towards admitting to the Eucharist those in “irregular” relationships, as the Pope seems to be. This is another hot topic that the Pope is handling with increasing difficulty and that will be a test-case of the stability of his pontificate this year.

Back to the list of sicknesses. One consideration is worth mentioning. Historically the Roman Curia is a child of the Renaissance courts that surrounded the princes in their various tasks as absolute monarchs. The Pope as a Renaissance prince also had his dignitaries assigned to him and Popes even today continue to have them in the Vatican state. Throughout the centuries the Curia was given a theological status as if it were a small model of the Church itself; indeed the Church at its best on a small scale. The Curia is a product of a monarchial vision of the church and the role of the Pope as absolute monarch of a state is also part of the same breed. Pope Francis criticized the awful spirituality of the Curia, but did not go so far as to question its political and monarchial nature. While denouncing its wrong behaviors, he did not tackle the wrong theology behind it. One reason of his reticence is that the Roman Curia as a form of government goes hand in hand with the Papacy as a form of leadership. The two are inseparable. Questioning one means questioning the other and Francis is not prepared to do either.

This means that reforming the Curia entails much more than denouncing the poor spiritual conditions of its members or changing personnel in key positions. It involves a radical re-envisioning of the structures of the church according to the supreme apostolic teaching, i.e. the Bible, where the church has no court of dignitaries nor prince at its head, but Jesus Christ alone, who was crucified, rose again and is now exalted. At the beginning of his speech to the Curia, Francis quoted 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul speaks of the Church as one body with many members. This is the biblical blueprint of the Church whereby its most serious plagues can be healed and the dignity of the people of God can be restored.

Posted on

97. Turkey, Gateway To Inter-religious Dialogue and Ecumenism

December 12th, 2014

Pope Francis’ visit to Turkey (28-30 November 2014) was significant for a number of reasons. The two most outstanding reasons concern the ability of the Roman Catholic Church to engage in “dialogue”: that is dialogue with Islam and dialogue with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The former takes the form of inter-religious dialogue, the latter is primarily an expression of ecumenism. Turkey is a threshold into the Muslim world. The country borders Syria and Iraq, places where Islamic fundamentalism threatens the sheer survival of the local Christian communities. Turkey is also the historical see of the “second Rome”, i.e. Constantinople, an influential center of Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus of the visit was therefore twofold: to foster mutual understanding with the “moderate” Islam and to advance the ecumenical agenda with Constantinople.

Your Prayers for Me

Pope Francis had several meetings with various Muslim leaders. In each of them he stressed the commonalities between Christians and Muslims in terms of them worshipping the All-Merciful God, having Abraham as father, practicing prayer, almsgiving and fasting, and sharing a religious sense of life that is foundational for human dignity and fraternity. In addressing Muslims, the Pope used the language of brotherhood and focused on what they have in common. This same approach was used in Turkey.

One interesting albeit striking element emerged as he spoke on 28 November to the Department for Religious Affairs in Ankara[1]. After referring to the common themes that we already mentioned, he said: “I am grateful also to each one of you, for your presence and for your prayers which, in your kindness, you offer for me and my ministry”. Pope Francis is used to asking for prayers for himself and to thanking people who pray for him. But in this case he was speaking to Muslims and he nonetheless thanked them for their prayers for him. It seems that in this case he went further than simply underlining commonalities in basic theology and spirituality. He went as far as recognizing Islamic prayers as legitimate, and even useful acts of intercession. Should a Christian be thankful to Muslims for their prayers? Are these prayers accepted by God? Didn’t the Pope unwarrantedly stretch the inter-faith theology that assumes that all prayers are pleasing to God and answered by Him? Didn’t he further blur the distinction between the Christian faith and the Muslim religion by implying that Christians and Muslims can pray for each other as if God accepts their respective prayers as they are?

Back to the First Millennium

The other focus of the visit was to strengthen the ecumenical relationships with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. According to the Roman Catholic principles of ecumenism, the Eastern Orthodox churches are close to “full communion” with Rome because they profess the same apostolic faith, they celebrate the same Eucharist and they have maintained the apostolic succession in their priesthood. From a theological point of view, the role of the papacy is the only imperfection that inhibits them from full communion. The papal office as it developed after the schism of 1054 AD makes Eastern Orthodox churches unwilling to accept the primacy of the Roman Pope as it stands. In their view, certain monarchial aspects of the Petrine ministry that were introduced in the Second Millennium (e.g. the infallibility of the Pope as he speaks ex cathedra) go against the collegiality principle of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Being aware of these complexities and yet wanting to promote an ecumenical breakthrough, Pope Francis said that he is willing to envisage a way forward: the Roman Church is open to concede that in order to enter into full communion with Rome, Eastern Orthodox churches need to accept the Papal office as it was understood and practiced in the First Millennium when the Church was still “undivided”. This is not a new idea – even Joseph Ratzinger was in favor of it – but it is important that Francis made it his own[2]. It seems that the way forward is to first go backwards. The Roman Church is willing to exercise its catholicity, i.e. being flexible enough to accommodate a different point of view, all while maintaining its distinctive outlook without renouncing any of it. This suggestion needs to be worked out historically and theologically. What exactly were the forms of the papacy in the First Millennium? How can they be implemented after so many centuries? How can an institution such as the Papacy that the Roman Church couched with dogma (i.e. the infallibility) be diluted for non-Catholic Christians? How can one be cum Petro (with Peter) without being sub Petro (under Peter)?

While ecumenical theologians have some homework yet to do in this field, a final comment is warranted. In the end, even the Protestant Reformation was a cry to go back to the written Word of God, i.e. Sola Scriptura! In calling for a new season under the rule of the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the Reformation beckoned the church to re-discover the Scriptures and re-submit to them. Back to the Word was a way of saying: back to Jesus Christ, back to the Gospel! The Catholic Church of the XVI century was however unwilling to receive this challenge and wanted a way forward without giving thought to the need of going backward. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) imagined a renewal without a reformation, a way forward without having to go backward. Now, Rome is ready to go back to the First Millennium and fully embrace the Eastern Orthodox churches. Why not go a bit further than the First Millennium? A return to Sola Scriptura should be the real starting point for a much needed breakthrough.

Posted on

96. The “Catholic” Month of Pope Francis

November 30th, 2014

“Marriage is between a man and a woman”. “Unborn life is as precious and unique as any life”. “Euthanasia is an unwarranted abuse of human freedom”. “Adoptive children have the right to have a father and a mother”. These are standard Roman Catholic positions on various hotly debated moral issues of our generation. So what’s the fuss about it? They were spoken and argued for by Pope Francis in two different speeches over the last few weeks.[1] After months of confusing messages sent by him about homosexuality (“Who am I to judge?”), the good in every “loving relationship” be it married or not, the need for the Church to stay away from the heat of present-day ethical debates, his uneasiness towards anything “non-negotiable”, Pope Francis has finally said things “Catholic”. While he has always aligned himself to traditional Roman Catholic moral theology (he is the Pope, after all!), he has never gone public on these issues in such a clear-cut way and in such a short period of time.

The Aftermath of the Synod

This “Catholic” month by the Pope comes after the Synod on the family where the Catholic Church experienced a turbulent time of controversy among high-rank cardinals and bishops. Some progressive voices pushed for an update of the Church’s moral stance on human sexuality and human relationships. Strongly supported by secular public opinion, all applauding this “revolutionary” Pope, sectors of the Church thought that the gap between the Church and the Western masses could be bridged by the Church adopting a more relaxed, less confrontational approach to these issues. The 2014 Synod witnessed a clash between these voices and more traditional ones, resulting in a temporary stand-still waiting for next year’s Synod, which will be re-convened on the same topic.

Where does Pope Francis stand in all this? In the months preceding the Synod, he repeatedly advocated for a “outward looking” Church, i.e. a Church less concerned with dogmas and moral principles and more interested in getting closer to people, irrespective of their individual choices and deliberately abstaining from passing moral judgments on their moral lives. This consistent stream of messages seemed to create a sort of momentum and to form the background for significant changes in the Church that the Synod was meant to introduce. Things went differently, however. In the meantime, significant criticism by important circles of the Catholic Church became outspoken and hit the Pope himself for his wavering and blurred words. This “Catholic” month by Francis can be thought of as a reassurance that he stands for the traditional moral teaching of the Church and has in no way changed his mind. After months of pushing a seemingly progressive agenda, the Catholic pendulum is swinging the opposite way in order to regain stability until the next move.

Where Does He Stand?

A standing question remains though. Where does the Pope really stand on these issues? How do we account for this apparent U-turn? Who is able to grapple with what he has in mind? And, more generally, do we really know where he stands on a number of key doctrinal and pastoral points? So far, he has been keen to build bridges with all kinds of people, movements, and networks. A growing number of people around the globe call the Pope “a friend”. Many evangelical leaders are in their midst. They have the impression that the Pope is very approachable and a transparent person, easy to become familiar with and quick to tune in. He seems to speak their language and to understand their hearts. He appears to be close to everyone. The evidence, however, is more complex. He is certainly capable of getting close to all, calling anyone “brother” and “sister”, but how many people know what lies in his heart? He is certainly able to combine evangelical language, Marian devotions, and “politically correct” concerns, while retaining a fully orbed Roman Catholic outlook. Do we really know Pope Francis? How much of this complexity is the result of him being a Jesuit? How much do we know about the depth of his theology and the all-embracing nature of his agenda?

The Bible wants our communication not to be trapped in a “yes” and “no” type of language at the same time (2 Corinthians 1:18-20) but to speak plainly about what we have in our hearts. Pope Francis’ language tends to say “Yes, yes” and “No, no” with the same breadth. The Word of God also urges us “to speak truthfully” (Ephesians 4:25) and to avoid “twisted words” (Proverbs 4:24). No one can throw a stone here because in this matter we are all sinners. Yet what the Pope has been saying so far did send contradictory messages. This “Catholic” month has shown an important side of Pope Francis, but the full picture is still a work in progress. The impression is that so far we have been collecting only superficial sketches of the Pope and that the real work is still to be done.

Posted on

93. Who Are We to Judge? The Synod on the New Forms of the Family

October 31st, 2014

“Whom am I to judge?” answered Pope Francis to a question on homosexuals. Who are we to judge? … seems to be the sequel of his answer by the Synod that met in mid October to discuss various critical issues about the family and the Church’s responsibility in addressing them. We are perhaps dealing with a significant development in the Roman Catholic Church, something along the line of the “aggiornamento” (i.e. update of attitudes and approaches) that took place at Vatican II and after. The pre-Synod debate chiefly concentrated on the possibility to re-admit to the Eucharist those who went through a divorce. Given the fact that, according to Roman Catholic teaching, marriage is a once and for all sacrament administered by the Church, should those who have broken marriages be given the sacrament of the Eucharist or not? The debate was polarized between progressive voices (like Cardinal Walter Kasper, for example) who favored a relaxation of the prohibition and conservative ones (like the North-American Cardinals) who opposed it. No final decision has been made yet. Next year’s second session of the Synod will make it and ultimately the Pope will promulgate it. There are tensions within the Catholic Church but the majority seems to have taken a line marked by openness towards change, not only as far as the re-admission to the Eucharist is concerned, but also towards re-positioning the Catholic Church in the much bigger discussion about the different forms of human relationships.

The Law of Graduality

The report drafted after the initial discussion (Relatio post disceptationem) contains some revolutionary statements and some significant silences. It highlights the positive value of each relationship, considered as always a good thing in itself. The Church wants to speak a word of hope to each relationship but the document refrains from passing over moral judgments on the kind of relationship that is envisaged. The report appeals to the “law of graduality”, i.e. each form of relationship is an imperfect form of good that needs to be encouraged to flourish. No distinction is made between heterosexual marriage and homosexual relationship, co-habitation and unions of various kinds. The good of a relationship is always in a “gradual” form and no relationship is totally deprived of it. Therefore, while recognizing standing and unresolved moral issues, positive words are used to describe homosexual relationships and non-married unions. This is the first time that something similar happens in a semi-official Vatican document.

The “law of graduality” allows to recognize the positive elements that exist in every situation, even in those that the Church has traditionally defined as sinful. Stress is put on “imperfect forms of good” that are present everywhere. Traditional Roman Catholic teaching has often underlined the “objective” nature of sinful acts (e.g. the adulterous and the homosexual intercourses), but the document leaves aside any reference to a black-and-white moral picture when it comes to assessing the present-day forms of relationship. Each relationship has different shades of good and this is the point the Church wants now to focus on. It is true that the final report (Relatio Synodi) moderates some of these statements and puts them more clearly in the context of the traditional teaching of the Church. The point is that the principle of the Roman catholicity (i.e. the development and widening of catholic synthesis) has been working here. A more extreme position is after mitigated and then one year is taken for the debate to go on until the final decision will come. Having said that, Pope Francis’ question “Who am I to judge?” has become the question of the majority of the Synod. It is now clear that the Pope’s “merciful” attitude has gained attention and has become wide-spread amongst the Catholic hierarchy.

The Vatican II Paradigm

Where does this feasible but not-yet official change come from? Some observers might argue that it is a capitulation to the spirit of the age that blurs any moral distinctiveness and elevates individual choices as the paramount criterion of what is good. Though there may be some truth in it this analysis is nonetheless incomplete. It was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) that provided the tools that the Synod is now applying to the issue of sexuality and the family. Let’s see what happened then and how it impacts today’s discussion.

Before Vatican II, all non-Catholics were thought of as being heretics, schismatics or pagans. You were either in the Church or outside and against it. The Council introduced a new way of looking at non-Catholic people. While the Catholic Church retained its conviction to have access to the full sacramental salvation, other believers were considered as revolving around it depending on the distance or nearness to the center. The other religions reflected different degrees of truth and blessing and were seen in a fundamental positive way. The point is that each religion contained elements of truth that needed to be appreciated and that formed the basis for a re-discovered universal brotherhood. Vatican II abandoned the clear-cut in/out approach to embrace the principle of graduality: instead of denouncing the others’ errors, each religion became to be seen as having some good in it.

The same model is now applied to the different relationships. There is some good in a homosexual relationship although it remains distant from the ideal relationship. There is some good in a co-habitation outside of marriage although it is still irregular. There is some good in any loving relationship. It may be weak, defective, and even contradictory, but the Church wants to speak a word of understanding and hope for all. Although Pope Francis has not yet made this position official, everything that he has been saying and doing so far points to this direction. After his “Who am I to judge?”, the majority in the Synod is saying “Who are we to judge?”