Vatican Files

Vatican II is once again back in the global RC agenda. The most important event in the history of the XX century RC Church (1962-1965) is still a matter of dispute in RC circles. Was it progressive or traditionalist? Did it intend to reform the Church or to reinforce it? Was it doctrinally focused or more pastorally oriented? What is more important, its documents or its “spirit”? Was it primarily an “event” or did it initiate a “movement”? These are only a few of the questions that are still being debated, and the way one answers them is not just a matter of academic taste, but has heavy consequences on the whole RC project in the global world.

 

Vatican II according to “left” and “right”

Generally speaking, there are two main schools of thought. For convenience we’ll call them “left” and “right.” On the one hand there is the interpretative school that sees Vatican II as breaking with the old traditional RC outlook and inserting a progressive trend within the Church. This has been the direction of theologians like Hans Küng and historians like Giuseppe Alberigo. According to this progressive interpretation, while Vatican II introduced significant “change”, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been silencing its potential in areas like ecclesiology, liturgy, and morality and imposing a rigid reading that squares with the traditional self-understanding of the RC Church. Curiously, this view was shared by traditionalists like Msgr. Lefebvre who charged Vatican II of betraying RC identity, having marred it with mortal doses of Protestant and secular poison. Therefore opposite reactions stemmed from the same interpretation of Vatican II being in discontinuity with the past.

The mainstream interpretative school, on the other hand, has insisted that Vatican II stands in substantial continuity with Vatican I (1870-1871), actually completing what was left unfinished, and doing so with the great tradition of the Church (e.g. Trent, the Marian dogmas, etc.). No “real” change has occurred but only a dynamic re-statement of the well established RC heritage. At Vatican II the RC Church approached the modern world in more “pastoral” terms, without modifying its basic framework. According to this linear reading, Vatican II at most brought an “aggiornamento” (i.e. updating) to the language and the concerns of the Church, while still maintaining and reinforcing her fundamental stance.

 

Ratzinger’s “hermeneutics of reform-in-continuity”

In recent years and months, the debate on Vatican II has been revived by different evaluations of what the present Pope thinks of Vatican II and how he is implementing it. Ratzinger was present at the Council and gave voice to the need for “renewal.” Yet in later years he has became a critic of reforming trends in areas such as liturgy, ecumenism and political involvement. As prefect of the Congregation for Sacred Doctrine, he fought against all tendencies that in his opinion were watering down the traditional beliefs and practices of the RC Church. Now that he is Pope Vatican II is at the center of his agenda.

Benedict XVI has been reflecting publicly on Vatican II since the beginning of his pontificate. In a 2005 speech he clearly set his course by saying that the Council needs to be read according to a “hermeneutics of reform-in-continuity”. He has been using and expounding the same expression ever since. According to the Pope, Vatican II breached the traditional RC understanding of the state and the temporal power of the RC church, thus acknowledging the value of religious freedom and a degree of separation between church and state, thus overcoming the subjugation of the state before the church. In this restricted sense it was a “reforming” Council. Benedict XVI, however, thinks that Vatican II simply reiterated the RC dogmatic system without altering it in any way. In this sense, the Council is in real continuity with Trent and Vatican I. Therefore Ratzinger is neither a “left” nor “right” wing interpreter. In reality these categories are totally inadequate in coming to terms not only with Ratzinger, but also with Vatican II. The RC understanding of historical development entails “reform-in-continuity”, “aggiornamento” without renouncing, addition without subtraction, expansion without purification. Unless one grasps this “both-and” approach he will fall prey to fragmented and insufficient accounts of RC. “Reform-in-continuity” is the genius of RC.

 

Overcoming the Evangelical puzzlement

Vatican II has been the crux of Evangelical theology as well. Understanding and appraising what happened at the Council is still a task worthy of attention. The best Evangelical treatment of Vatican II (Revolution in Rome, 1972, by David Wells) is a series of question marks that show just how puzzled Evangelical theology was in dealing with modern RC. Its chapters’ titles reveal the conundrum: “Authority: inward or outward?” “God: in the earthly or the heavenly city?” “Christianity: a broad or narrow definition?” “The Church: the people or the Pope?”. In approaching Vatican II some Evangelicals have taken the “right” wing interpretation saying that nothing has changed. The RC is semper eadem (always the same), they say. Others have followed the progressive view claiming that at Vatican II the Spirit of renewal blew in Rome, turning it upside down in gospel terms. Neither interpretation is correct. RC is more complex than the usual labels in that it is neither static nor reforming per se. It is always the same, yet in an expansive trajectory. It is a growing body, yet holding the same DNA. Unless we understand this point, we fail to grasp the basics of RC. It is time that Evangelicals learn to read Vatican II through appropriate lens. There is still homework to be done. With his hermeneutics of “reform-in-continuity”, Benedict XVI can certainly help in the task.

 

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

Rome, 24th May 2011

 

 

 

John Paul II is now “blessed”, according to the canon law of the RC Church. The ceremonies that took place in Rome between April 30^th and May 1^st were followed by a couple million people who were present in one or more of the events and celebrations, and by millions of people around the world who were watching on TV, or observed by means of other media outlets. It is true that the events in Rome were a bit overshadowed by the royal wedding in London, on the one hand, and the shooting of Bin Laden in Pakistan, on the other. The impression is that these two world events somewhat obscured the beatification of John Paul II, at least from a media point of view. The latter, however, was impressive and thought-provoking.

It so happens that I was not in Rome when the ceremonies took place. I was actually in the USA visiting churches and promoting Gospel work in Rome. For this reason I had the opportunity to observe the beatification from a distance, as most people would normally do. Instead of being an eye-witness and fully immersed in the events, I had the chance of being a distant observer with little internet access, some exposure to TV coverage, and only and quick perusal of one or two secular newspapers. In a sense, this is the way that most people would normally have access to Vatican events, and more generally to issues related to Roman Catholicism (grabbing some bullet points, listening to some catchwords, or watching some selected pictures, and that’s all). Little theological awareness, little help in grasping the big picture, and little analysis of what happened. Is this the way in which most Evangelicals form their evaluation of Roman Catholicism?

I was impressed by what I could not gather from a distance. Here are two main pieces of information that stood out to me as a “normal” busy person looking superficially at what took place in Rome.

A memorial service?

The first bit of information I picked up was that what took place in Rome had actually been a “memorial service” celebrating the political achievements, the charming personality, and the ecclesiastical success of John Paul II. The framework was the celebrity status applied to a global-scale religious figure. In a world in which few people deserve praise, John Paul II was commended as a “hero” of his time. A memorial service is something that is palatable to most people, Evangelicals included. There is nothing wrong in nurturing the memory of a person and treasuring the lessons of their life. This, however, is not the main thrust of the beatification. Beatification is a recognition by the RC Church that the person beatified can be presented to the faithful as an intercessor for their needs, worries, sickness, etc. The faithful are encouraged to pray the beatus in order to receive healing and protection. The faithful are encouraged to bow down before the beatus, to have sacred pictures of the beatus, and to develop a fully-orbed devotion for the beatus. In other words, beatification is a decision by the RC Church to add another mediator to the thousands that are already there. Beatification touches on the mediatorship of Jesus Christ. Christ alone is not sufficient in himself, but shares his mediator role with other figures that the RC Church recognizes as “blessed” (and then eventually “saints”). Notwithstanding RC uneasiness to acknowledge this, beatification is a subtraction from the sufficiency of Christ’s work and the full humanity of his person. The “blessed” is added to Christ. Therefore holding a “memorial service” is one thing, perhaps even compatible with basic Biblical teaching, though always in danger of paying too much tribute to the celebrity culture. Proclaiming beatus upon a person is very different in that it diverts the faithful away from Christ and towards the beatus himself. Unfortunately, the latter meaning was absent from what I could gather as a distant observer.

 

A Christ-centered message?

The other impression that was apparent from what I was exposed to was that the general tone of the celebrations was Christ-centered. Few quotations from Benedict XVI’s homily were mentioned and they seemed to refer to John Paul II’s relationship with Christ. The pope was praised as a “servant of Christ” and a “follower of Christ”. (By the way, these expressions are the same that Billy Graham uses in his forward of a picture book on John Paul II that was on display in the US airports’ bookshops). What the media failed to do, however, was to present the Marian framework which was the framework of the whole celebration. On Saturday night more than 300,000 people gathered for a Marian vigil of prayer, all singing totus tuus (“wholly yours”, the Pope’s motto expressing his devotion to Mary), and prayed to Mary all night. Moreover, the homily of Benedict XVI contained many references to the Marian spirituality of John Paul II, commending it to the faithful as the way to uphold Christian witness in today’s world. On Sunday the coffin of John Paul II and the relics of his blood were displayed in St. Peter’s square for veneration by the people. Had I not had a basic knowledge of RC and a bit of spiritual curiosity to go beyond the headlines, I would have had the impression that the beatification was indeed Christ-centered, which in actual fact was not.

The beatification of John Paul II was a reminder of several challenges that we all face. First, relying on the general media as a first point of reference to the reality and accuracy of events is often misleading. Second, relying on a superficial awareness of RC helps in developing a distorted picture of it, and as a result an inaccurate understanding emerges. Third, if most Evangelicals rely on the general media and on a superficial awareness of RC, it is not surprising that we are naive (to say the least) in our evaluation of it.

 

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 14^th May 2011