Why Doesn’t the Pope Answer His Critics?
September 26, 2017 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
September 26, 2017 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
This week’s big Catholic news is the release of a “filial
correction” of Pope Francis by a group of theologians and church laymen. Edward
Pentin reports on it here:
This is the sixth major initiative in which both clergy and
laity have expressed concerns about the Pope’s teaching, particularly emanating
from Amoris Laetitia. Despite the repeated pleas and warnings of
chaos and confusion, Francis has refused to respond or acknowledge the
initiatives which are as follows, in chronological order:
- In
September 2015, just ahead of the second Synod on the Family, a petition
of nearly 800,000 signatures from individuals and associations around the
world including 202 prelates was presented to Pope Francis, calling on him
to issue words of clarity on the Church’s teaching on marriage and family.
The signatories, from 178 countries, expressed concern about
“widespread confusion” arising from the possibility that “a breach” had
been opened within the Church at the previous synod.
- In
July 2016, a group of 45 Catholic scholars, prelates and clergy sent
an appeal to the College of Cardinals asking that they petition
Pope Francis to “repudiate” what they saw as “erroneous propositions”
contained in Amoris Laetitia. They said the
apostolic exhortation contains “a number of statements that can be
understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals.”
- On
Sept. 19, 2016, four cardinals — Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller,
Raymond Burke, and Joachim Meisner — presented the Pope with dubia, five
questions on disputed passages of Amoris Laetitia with
the aim of obtaining clarification and resolving confusion over diverse
interpretations of the controversial passages among various bishops and
episcopal conferences. The Pope did not acknowledge the dubia,
nor did he respond to the cardinals’ request for an audience in May.
- In
February this year, confraternities representing thousands of priests
worldwide issued a statement saying a clarification
of Amoris Laetitia was “clearly needed” in the wake of
“widespread” differing interpretations of the apostolic exhortation. They
also thanked the four cardinals for submitting the dubia.
- In
April this year, six lay scholars from different parts of the world held
a conference in Rome in which they drew attention to the same
controversial passages of Amoris Laetitia, showing the
extent of concern and unease among the laity over the papal document and
its interpretation.
The Pope’s response seems to ignore and marginalize his
critics. For many this is surprising since Pope Francis has always spoken
passionately about the need to listen to others and engage in dialogue. It is
also surprising since Austen Ivereigh–Pope Francis’ biographer–has claimed
repeatedly that Pope Francis “welcomes criticism.”
However, I think people need to understand some of the
underlying currents in this discussion. The elephant in the nave is the yawning
gap between the views of contemporary theologians and ordinary Catholics.
People in the pew probably do not know that many theologians
and clergy are critical of what they call “propositional faith.” Propositional
faith is a faith that is grounded in rational statements and definitions. It
is, if you like a religion based in an authoritative book, a creed, a
catechism, a dogmatic systematic theology and, by extension a defined religious
law. Those who favor a propositional faith like certainty and clarity.
Critics of propositional faith believe that, at best, the
propositions are simply a framework or structure of belief, and that the real
experience is far more complicated, but also far more exciting and real. They
criticize those who like a propositional faith as being rigid, legalistic or
Pharisaical. The critics of propositional faith like to emphasize the more
subjective “encounter with Christ.” They advocate getting away from all the
debates about doctrine or canon law, rolling up one’s sleeves and getting busy
doing God’s work in the world.
Critics of propositional faith also believe that it is
divisive. If “the encounter with Christ” is emphasized rather than
propositional formulas of doctrine and morals, we will connect better with non
Catholic Christians and people of faith and goodwill who are outside the
boundaries of Christian belief. In other words, “doctrine is divisive” but if
we focus on religious experience we are more likely to find common ground.
They also feel that a “propositional faith” is, by its
nature, bound to the historical and philosophical constructs of the time and
culture in which the propositions were asserted. So, the theology of Thomas
Aquinas (they would argue) was fine for Europe of the thirteenth century, but
it is rather clunky for the fast moving, fast changing global culture of the
twenty first century. A faith that is not so propositional is more adaptable
and fluid.
In reading the gospel it is difficult not to sympathize with
those who criticize “propositional faith.” After all, Jesus’ main opponents
were the religious people who were indeed legalistic, judgmental and bound to
their laws and man made traditions. Jesus, on the other hand, waded in and
“made a mess” to use Francis’ terminology. He defied the legalistic
technicalities, met people where they were and brought healing, compassion and
forgiveness.
Why does Pope Francis not answer his critics? I believe it
is because he is not in favor of “propositional faith”. He wants Catholics to
move beyond the technicalities, the details of doctrine and the constrictions
of canon law to live out a Catholic life more like Jesus’–allowing for the
complications and ambiguities of real life, meeting real people who face
difficult decisions and are trying to be close to God while tiptoeing through
the legalities and rules of being a Catholic Christian.
In other words, he does not answer his critics because he
does not wish to play their game. He does not wish to be drawn into their
legalistic arguments, but instead wants to continue to challenge them. That is
why he lets his ambiguous statements stand without further clarification. That
is why he does not answer the “corrections” he receives. I expect he believes
the teaching of the church is clear. He has not contradicted it, so there is no
further need for discussion and debate.
Instead he wants us to live with the ambiguities and get on
with the complicated business of bringing Jesus to people who are tied up in
the sometimes messy business of life.
As a pastor I understand this and am sympathetic to what I
believe Pope Francis is trying to do.
However, there is always the other side of the argument and
balance is a good thing and a good pastor knows that, because of their
personality type, certain of his flock are going to need certainty,
re-assurance and clarity of teaching. Instead of. marginalizing them, he will
provide clarity of teaching while still challenging them not to rely on
propositional statements alone or to take refuge in the seeming security of
doctrinal statements and “clear moral teaching.”
While it is important for the Pope to exhibit Jesus’ way of
ministering in the world, it is also part of the Pope’s job to define and
defend the faith, and for Catholics part of this experience of encountering
Christ is a clear and unambiguous definition of historic faith and morals.
Pope Francis is fond of criticizing the Catholics who are
rigid and bound by a legalistic approach, but in my experience these sorts of
Catholics are few and far between. The vast majority of Catholics I work with
are ordinary folks who are not stupid even if they are not theologically
educated. They understand the need for clear teaching in doctrine and morals,
but they also understand that life is complicated and the work of the church is
to minister Christ’s love in complex situations.
In fact, rather than the problem being an excess of
legalistic, propositionally bound Catholics, in the USA the Catholic Church is
besieged with the opposite problem. The majority of Catholics are poorly
catechized and far from being bound by doctrine and moral teachings they are
mostly ignorant of these things and what doctrine and moral teachings they have
absorbed are largely ignored.
My own take on this, therefore, is that I understand the
need for the “encounter with Christ” as opposed to a faith that is merely
propositional, but I also believe that without a clear affirmation of the
propositions of our faith, the “encounter with Christ” becomes no more than a
subjective religious experience.
Both are needed, and an analogy I have often used is that of
the vine and the trellis. The vine is what matters. It is a living, growing, fruitful
gift. A vine needs a trellis to grow and reach the sun and bear good
fruit.
The vine is the faith–the encounter with Christ–the real
experience and adventure of living the Christian life. The trellis is the
doctrinal and moral propositions that support the vine, but the trellis, being
a dead thing needs constant maintenance and repair if it is to support the
vine and a good pastor knows that, because of their personality
type, certain of his flock are going to need certainty, re-assurance and
clarity of teaching. Instead of. marginalizing them, he will provide clarity of
teaching while still challenging them not to rely on propositional statements
alone or to take refuge in the seeming security of doctrinal statements and
“clear moral teaching.” While it is important for the Pope to exhibit Jesus’ way of
ministering in the world, it is also part of the Pope’s job to define and
defend the faith, and for Catholics part of this experience of encountering
Christ is a clear and unambiguous definition of historic faith and morals.
Pope Francis is fond of criticizing the Catholics who are
rigid and bound by a legalistic approach, but in my experience these sorts of
Catholics are few and far between. The vast majority of Catholics I work with
are ordinary folks who are not stupid even if they are not theologically
educated. They understand the need for clear teaching in doctrine and morals,
but they also understand that life is complicated and the work of the church is
to minister Christ’s love in complex situations.
In fact, rather than the problem being an excess of
legalistic, propositionally bound Catholics, in the USA the Catholic Church is
besieged with the opposite problem. The majority of Catholics are poorly
catechized and far from being bound by doctrine and moral teachings they are
mostly ignorant of these things and what doctrine and moral teachings they have
absorbed are largely ignored.
My own take on this, therefore, is that I understand the need for the “encounter with Christ” as opposed to a faith that is merely propositional, but I also believe that without a clear affirmation of the propositions of our faith, the “encounter with Christ” becomes no more than a subjective religious experience.
Both are needed, and an analogy I have often used is that of
the vine and the trellis.
The vine is what matters. It is a living, growing, fruitful
gift. A vine needs a trellis to grow and reach the sun and bear good
fruit.
The vine is the faith–the encounter with Christ–the real
experience and adventure of living the Christian life. The trellis is the
doctrinal and moral propositions that support the vine, but the trellis, being
a dead thing needs constant maintenance and repair if it is to support the
vine.
