The Letter and the Spirit: On the Forgotten Documents of Vatican II (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium) 9789042936492, 9789042936980, 9042936495

Citation preview

THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT ON THE FORGOTTEN DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II ANNEMARIE C. MAYER

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM CCXCVII

THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT ON THE FORGOTTEN DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

EDITED BY

ANNEMARIE C. MAYER

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2018

THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT ON THE FORGOTTEN DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

EDITED BY THE BOARD OF EPHEMERIDES THEOLOGICAE LOVANIENSES

L.-L. Christians, J. Famerée, É. Gaziaux, J. Geldhof, A. Join-Lambert, L. Kenis, M. Lamberigts, D. Luciani, A.C. Mayer, O. Riaudel, J. Verheyden

EXECUTIVE EDITORS

J. Famerée, L. Kenis, D. Luciani, O. Riaudel, J. Verheyden

EDITORIAL STAFF

R. Corstjens – C. Timmermans

UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE

KU LEUVEN LEUVEN

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM CCXCVII

THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT ON THE FORGOTTEN DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

EDITED BY

ANNEMARIE C. MAYER

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2018

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-3649-2 eISBN 978-90-429-3698-0 D/2018/0602/72 Allrightsreserved.Exceptinthosecasesexpresslydeterminedbylaw, nopartofthispublicationmaybemultiplied,savedinanautomateddatafile ormadepublicinanywaywhatsoever withouttheexpresspriorwrittenconsentofthepublishers. © 2018 – Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Annemarie C. MAYER (Leuven) The Letter and the Spirit: On the Forgotten Documents of Vatican II. Mapping the Landscape of Contributions . . . . . . . . . . .

1

PART I

IS DIVINE REVELATION COMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN FREEDOM? DEIVERBUM IN LIGHT OF DIGNITATISHUMANAE AND VICE VERSA Thomas HUGHSON, SJ (Milwaukee, WI) Intertextual Reception: Rethinking Revelation in Light of Divine Immanence and the Dignity of the Person and Cosmos.

15

Philip J. ROSSI, SJ (Milwaukee, WI) Vatican II on the Inculturation of Reason and Faith: “That the Philosophical and Theological Disciplines Be More Suitably Aligned…”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

PART II

IS DIALOGUE ABOUT THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH? CROSS-FERTILISING NOSTRAAETATE WITH ADGENTES Richard K. BAAWOBR, MAfr (Wa – UWR) Dialogue and the Proclamation of Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

Joshua FURNAL (Nijmegen) The Forgotten Legacy of NostraAetate: Rabbi Abraham J. Heschel at Vatican II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

PART III

IS EDUCATION FOR HERE OR HEREAFTER? INTERWEAVING GRAVISSIMUMEDUCATIONIS AND PERFECTAECARITATIS Lieven BOEVE (Leuven) School of Dialogue in Love: Interweaving Gravissimum Educationis with PerfectaeCaritatis anno 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ha-Fong Maria KO, FMA (Roma) Irradiation of Divine Spendor: An Aesthetic Approach to the Reading of GravissimumEducationis and PerfectaeCaritatis . 117 Kevin LENEHAN (East Melbourne, VIC) The Dialogue of Salvation in Changing Contexts: The Challenges of GravissimumEducationis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 PART IV

DID THE COUNCIL REALLY EMPOWER THE PEOPLE OF GOD? COMPARING APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEM WITH PRESBYTERORUMORDINIS Peter DE MEY (Leuven) Sharing in the Threefold Office of Christ, a Different Matter for Laity and Priests? The TriaMunera in LumenGentium, PresbyterorumOrdinis, ApostolicamActuositatem and AdGentes . 155 Agbonkhianmeghe E. OROBATOR, SJ (Nairobi) Did the Council Really Empower the People of God? The Wall of Separation between Apostolicam Actuositatem and PresbyterorumOrdinis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Simone HORSTMANN (Dortmund) The Doctrine of the TriaMunera within the PropositioChilensis: Ecclesiological Impulses on the Structural Relation of Lay and Ordained Ministries in the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Thomas RUSTER (Dortmund) The Doctrine of the Threefold Office Serving as the Basis for a New Order of the Ministries in the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Julie TRINIDAD (Mawson Lakes) The Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People ApostolicamActuositatem and “Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord” in Dialogue with the Communio Theology of Walter Kasper . . . . . . . 221 Jos MOONS, SJ (Tilburg) “The Holy Spirit Leads the Church through Charismas” (LG 12): The Conciliar Doctrine on Charisma and Its Significance for the Laity’s Active Involvement in the Church . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Christiane ALPERS (Eichstätt) – Stephan VAN ERP (Leuven) Kenosis, Unity, and Kingdom: Christology and Ecclesial Renewal at Vatican II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IX

CONCLUDING COMMENTARY

James G. LEACHMAN, OSB (London) Processwork and the Rebuilding of Communion: Recovering Forgotten Community Aspects ofSacrosanctumConcilium . . . 267 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 INDEX OF CHURCH DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 INDEX OF NAMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT: ON THE FORGOTTEN DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II MAPPING THE LANDSCAPE OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Memory tends to be selective. While scientists still debate whether we as individuals remember or forget things by nature, by accident or upon intent, it seems ascertained that collective memory can be guided to remember events and ideas by reception or to forget them by non-reception. It goes without saying that this also applies to theologically so important events as the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). If it is true that it takes the Church about 100 years to fully receive a council1, as Pope Francis stated in an interview before closing the Year of Mercy in 2016, then we are only half way through. Yet in a few years’ time, Vatican II itself and its dynamics as a historical event will no longer be a part of living memory. This could, on the one hand, imply the risk that with losing the eyewitnesses also the ‘spark’ of their testimonies gets lost. The reception of the Council will then have to rely exclusively on texts (and perhaps a few photo, radio and film documentations) but there will no longer be any ‘oral’ tradition. On the other hand, this is the fate of every council. It might even have the positive effect that the interpretation of conciliar documents can no longer be ‘hijacked’ by claiming that one knows exactly from the eyewitnesses’ reports how certain conciliar formulations and statements were meant2. On November 21, 1964, at the solemn promulgation of the ConstitutionontheChurch,LumenGentium, together with the DecreeonEcumenism,UnitatisRedintegratio, Pope Paul VI expressed his view on the Council’s achievements so far, stating: “In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was mediated upon us, discussed and sometimes argued over, is

1. In November 2016 Pope Francis reminded in an interview in the newspaper Avvenire: “gli storici però dicono che un Concilio, per essere assorbito bene dal corpo della Chiesa, ha bisogno di un secolo… Siamo a metà” (https://www.avvenire.it/papa/pagine/ giubileo-ecumenismo-concilio-intervista-esclusiva-del-papa-ad-avvenire). 2. Like the debate around the authentic interpretation of the subsistitin showed some years ago. Cf. e.g. A. VON TEUFFENBACH, DieBedeutungdes‘subsistitin’ (LG8):Zum SelbstverständnisderkatholischenKirche, München, Herbert Utz Verlag 2002, p. 393 who argues that subsistitin means est.

2

A.C. MAYER

now put in one clear formulation”3. Yet was everything really that clear? In the Catholic Church, after more than 50 years of receiving and living what Vatican II clarified, made explicit and put into allegedly clear formulations, the question of the interpretation of this Council is by no means settled. Periodically, fervent debates on the interpretation of Vatican II get reinvigorated4. This shows that so far Vatican II remains the most determinative event in the life of the Catholic Church in the 20th and 21st century. This Council continues to be a permanent point of reference. Generations of Catholics, laypeople and ordained alike, have seen and continue to see the constitutions and decrees of this Council, and the spirit which animated them, as the benchmark by which to judge developments in their Church at the levels of pastoral praxis, doctrinal discernment and ecclesial decision-making. This makes it even more important to ask about the Council’s reception in our time. It is imperative to do so not only by looking to the past, but also – especially if we are only half way through – by inquiring into how the Council can best be implemented in the future. This also means reflecting on both theletterandthespirit of the Council. How are these two to be related today? A certain tension between them persists, and it is by no means clear that prevailing interpretations of the letter of the conciliar documents do justice to the spirit of the Council. To what degree have we realised, or failed to realise, the programme which the Council initiated? How might we go about realising it in the future? Given these current questions, it seemed appropriate to inquire into the legacy of this most recent Council of the Catholic Church by organising, towards the end of the commemorations marking its 50th anniversary, the tenth Leuven Encounters in Systematic Theology around this topic. The contributions collected in this volume are without exception papers given at this conference and resemble voices from almost all around the globe. The conference was dedicated to asking four major questions which are related to two main documents each. Regarding each question, these documents are rarely treated in current debates on the Council; yet, nevertheless, they are of pivotal importance and touch upon crucial points as will become obvious throughout this volume. By applying this method, 3. PAUL VI, SolemnPromulgation ofLumenGentium,UnitatisRedintegratioandOrientaliumEcclesiarum, in ActaApostolicaeSedis56 (1964) 1007-1018, pp. 1009-1010. 4. For instance, by the address which Pope Benedict XVI gave to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005 or by the Correctiofilialis signed on 21 September 2017 by 62 signatories, among them as only bishop Bernard Fellay, that on the basis of a flawed understanding of the process of receiving the Council and of the post-conciliar era finds fault with Pope Francis’ AmorisLaetitia.

MAPPING THE LANDSCAPE OF CONTRIBUTIONS

3

the collection of contributions at hand presents a creative and fascinating ‘re-contextualisation’ of Vatican II by an interwoven reading of the selected documents. Part I centres round the question: Isdivinerevelationcompatiblewith humanfreedom? It presents a reading of DeiVerbum in the light of DignitatisHumanae and vice versa. While the conciliar texts made clear that God’s revelation does not simply override human freedom, today also the contexts in which human freedom is lived need to be theologically investigated and questioned. Under the heading IntertextualReception Thomas HUGHSON, SJ, from Marquette University, Milwaukee, rethinks revelation in the light of divine immanence and the dignity of the person and the cosmos. Although, as Hughson points out, love fulfils freedom, none of the conciliar documents presents insight into love as the paramount expression of human freedom in general, nor with particular regard to revelation. Since DignitatisHumanae concentrates on freedom from coercion, especially by state power, it cannot, if isolated from DeiVerbum, advance to the apex of freedom in love where revelation and faith both have the inherent dynamic of love. Hughson further attests a re-awakened interest in natural theology, thus broadening the scope to the whole of creation as the context in which human freedom is lived: General revelation of divine immanence evokes new approaches to understanding created reality today, although Vatican II itself was not in a theological position to draw attention to divine immanence in creation. Philip J. ROSSI, SJ, also from Marquette University, advocates “That thephilosophicalandtheologicaldisciplinesbemoresuitablyaligned…” by reflecting on what is said by VaticanIIontheInculturationofReason andFaith.Catholic theology has long presupposed a mutually supportive relationship between faith and human reason. Yet modernity invites a reconsideration of that complementarity. Although Vatican II affirms such complementarity, only two conciliar decrees, Optatam Totius and AdGentes, suggest an important initial basis for a constructive engagement with an inculturated rethinking of the complementarity of faith and reason; they do so in consequence of attending to the critical and reflective dynamics of contextualization and inculturation in a world of plural cultures. Both contributors write from a North American perspective. While Hughson’s contribution focuses on rethinking divine immanence in relation to the dignity of the cosmos, the main question of Rossi is how, exactly, in a modern world of plural cultures faith and divine revelation could be understood and rethought in an inculturating way.

4

A.C. MAYER

Part II focuses on the question: Isdialogueabouttheproclamationof truth? It attempts a cross-fertilising of Nostra Aetate with Ad Gentes, addressing the post-Vatican II development which the combination of these two conciliar documents already heralded, namely that interreligious dialogue becomes a way of doing mission. The former Superior General of the Missionaries of Africa, now Bishop of Wa in Ghana, Richard K. BAAWOBR, MAfr, relates DialogueandtheProclamationof Truth. Before the Second Vatican Council, the ‘others’ were rather objects of conversion than dialogue partners. Their religious background was only of interest as a means of better refuting their faith. “Recognizing the other for who he or she is, rather than who he or she is not, in comparison to me, is the first step of any form of dialogue beyond religious traditions” (p. 72). The realisation that faith in God and religious values do exist outside of the Church progressively led to the insight that inter-religious dialogue cannot be considered as mere preparation for evangelisation. It is an integral part of the evangelising mission of the Church, if it is animated by love of the other who is different, because of his/her religion, not in spite of it. TheForgottenLegacyofNostra Aetate and the role ofRabbiAbraham J. Heschel at Vatican II are investigated by Joshua FURNAL who reexamines some crucial details in the back-story to the formulation of Nostra Aetate. The potential consequences of omitting these details mainly consist in suffering from amnesia about the role of Jewish people, especially that of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, in the development of Catholic learning – a form of amnesia that manifests in explicit proselytising tendencies. Thus, although NostraAetate is only comprised of five short paragraphs, this document represents a turning point not just for Catholic-Jewish relations, but also sketches the fundamental aims of embodying the Christian faith in a pluralistic age. While Baawobr, using examples from his missionary African background, traces the steps from polemical confrontation via apologetics to dialogue and then claims that this dialogue is about mutual evangelisation, Furnal gives a concrete example of such mutuality as a possibility of learning from the religious other. Thus, in this second part there is diversity in religion, but unity in mission. Part IIIasks the crucial question: Iseducationforhereorhereafter? It does so by bringing together two ‘forgotten’ documents, Gravissimum Educationis and PerfectaeCaritatis, and showing that the Catholic ideal of education comprises much more than just acquiring certain knowledge and skills. Lieven BOEVE, the Director-General of Catholic Education in

MAPPING THE LANDSCAPE OF CONTRIBUTIONS

5

Flanders, in his contribution SchoolofDialogueinLove:Interweaving Gravissimum EducationiswithPerfectae Caritatisanno2015, addresses whether openness to the world has led the Church to mere adaptation. Dialogue belongs to God’s essence. Therefore, not the dialogue with the world, but the way it is conducted should change. The relation between Church and world should no longer be framed in terms of continuity or discontinuity, but in terms of ‘interruption’ which holds continuity and discontinuity together in tension, while God does not neutralise difference, but actually makes the difference. Since God interrupts narratives, Christians are also challenged to interrupt self-enclosing narratives, both the ones they tell themselves and those of others. On this basis Boeve reconsiders the role of Catholic education today. In a post-Christian and post-secular society, the project of the Catholic school is contextually interrupted, but also interrupts the context. This double contextual interruption instigates a twofold theological interruption, concerning both the theological self-understanding of the Catholic school and its place in contemporary society. Ha-Fong Maria KO, FMA, a Salesian Sister of Don Bosco, attemptsin her contributionIrradiationofDivineSplendor: AnAestheticApproach totheReadingofGravissimum EducationisandPerfectae Caritatis. Interweaving the two documents entails interweaving two realities and leads to an awareness of reciprocity between Church and world, faith and history, human disposition and divine gift. To educate means to introduce into the mystery of Christ. Hence education can be understood as a mystagogy, as accompanying the person with love and wisdom to enter in the depth of his/her mystery. This implies attention to God’s grace, but it also means considering the personal dynamics and the circumstances of daily life. Consecrated men and women are, as is often stated, “experts of communion”5;educatingincommunion enables the educational community to educate forcommunion.In the religious vocation as well as in education, one cannot ignore the aspect of “becoming fire”, that is, of passion, creative love and spiritual stamina, otherwise it serves merely functional purposes. It is love that drives the passion and makes creative. In both, education and consecrated life, there is a tendency towards the superlative, a movement from the minimum required to more and to the maximumpossible in the search for what is true, beautiful and good. Kevin LENEHAN from the University of Divinity, Melbourne, approaches education from a different angle, the perspective of a renewed 5. SACRED CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS HumanPromotion, August 12, 1980, no. 24.

AND

SECULAR INSTITUTES, Religious and

6

A.C. MAYER

theology of revelation. His TheDialogueofSalvationinChangingContexts:TheChallengesofGravissimum Educationis investigates whether this declaration reflects Vatican II’s renewed approach to the revelatory Word of God in the principles it provides for the Church’s mission in education. It argues that Gravissimum Educationis poses urgent challenges to the content and method of the dialogue of salvation, arising from its attention to powerful processes of change in the contexts in which this dialogue is engaged. Four transitions indicated in GravissimumEducationis are highlighted: from European to global Catholicism, from Christian state to pluralistic society, from apologetics to hermeneutics of dialogue, and from traditional to multi-modal forms of knowledge. This third part combines the personal perspective of a Chinese religious who is an expert in pedagogy with the view of a Belgian lay professor of theology who is responsible for the Catholic Education in Flanders and the reflections of an Australian priest who works at university level in religious education. While the Chinese stresses that the fragrance of the perfume fills the whole house, without anyone being able to influence or prevent it, the Belgian highlights that in learning about and from the other one learns a lot about oneself and the Australian points out that Vatican II’s understanding of divine revelation itself is conceived along the analogy of the sharing of life and conversation among friends. Next to the metaphor of interrupting our theologies of love and being interrupted by love stand the metaphors of ‘becoming fire’ and of ‘the beautiful work’ – all action oriented, not passive metaphors, indicating that seeds of novelties grow into trees and insinuating that the four transitions which Lenehan explicates rather are the fruits of active engagement than the outcome of an automatic development. This third part triggers the crucial question: In what way is dialogue at the core of the Christian faith, since it intrinsically characterises the nature of revelation? Part IV strives to answer the question: DidtheCouncilreallyempower thePeopleofGod? It does so by comparing ApostolicamActuositatem with Presbyterorum Ordinis. The contributions collected in this part address a whole range of interconnected topics, following the motto that then Cardinal Ratzinger coined in a 1995 speech given at a symposium organised by the Congregation of the Clergy: “One cannot tie the Council down to one alternative only…”6. 6. J. RATZINGER, ZurLehredesZweitenVatikanischenKonzils:Formulierung–Vermittlung–Deutung(Joseph Ratzinger Gesammelte Schriften, 7/1), Freiburg-Basel-Wien, Herder, 2012, pp. 897-915, esp. 899.

MAPPING THE LANDSCAPE OF CONTRIBUTIONS

7

Peter DE MEY from KU Leuven in his contribution Sharing in the ThreefoldOfficeofChrist,aDifferentMatterforLaityandPriests?The Tria Munera in Lumen Gentium, Presbyterorum Ordinis, Apostolicam ActuositatemandAd Gentes looks into the history of the conciliar documents and the divergent positions of Yves Congar, Émile De Smedt, and Gérard Philips. Since passages influenced by Philips focus on the essential difference between the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood and those influenced by De Smedt insist that the laity have their own share in the threefold ministry of Christ, the post-conciliar magisterium had the freedom to rather rely on LumenGentium 10 than on LumenGentium 34-36 in an attempt to protect the specific identity of laity and priests. Also the way in which the 1965 decrees Presbyterorum Ordinis, ApostolicamActuositatem and AdGentes deal with the theologoumenon of the triamuneradoes not help to make things less ambiguous. Certainly a clear setback isEcclesiaedeMysterio (1997), since the focus is now on the collaboration of the ‘non-ordained faithful’ in the sacred ministry of the priest, whereas according to Vatican II ministry in the first instance consists of serving others by imitating the example of Christ. Agbonkhianmeghe E. OROBATOR, SJ, from Hekima College, Nairobi, in his reflection on the question Did the Council Really Empower the PeopleofGod?stresses the TheWallofSeparationbetweenApostolicam ActuositatemandPresbyterorum Ordinis. After a textual exposition of the respective contents, messages, and meanings of the two decrees, Orobator proceeds in a comparative study to identify, highlight, and analyse points of convergence and divergence. He concludes that, in theory, Vatican II empowered the people of God. However, there still are structural and theological obstacles or ‘walls of separation’ that militate against the empowerment of the people of God as decreed by ApostolicamActuositatem relative to the understanding and application of PresbyterorumOrdinis. The first is clericalism, for what requires “justification is not the apostolate and ministry of laypersons but the appropriation of authority and the conflation of ecclesial identity, role, and meaning with the personality of the clerical class in a church that we know, from scriptural and historical evidence, was at its foundation fundamentally lay and lay-led” (p. 190). The second ‘wall’ is gender-discrimination: The contribution of women’s expertise to the mission and ministry of the Church in areas like catechetical and liturgical proclamation, pastoral and sacramental leadership, ministerial and synodal participation, etc. is ruled out by the understanding of clerical authority in PresbyterorumOrdinis and similar magisterial documents. The third obstacle is a fluid definition

8

A.C. MAYER

of the theological self-understanding of the Church which unwittingly creates a menu of choice that allows to promote either of the two models, the empowerment of laypersons as equal participants in the triple office of Christ or the priority of the clerical class. By this critical analysis he pleads for dismantling these remaining walls of separation. Simone HORSTMANN from the University of Dortmund, discusses in TheDoctrineoftheTria MunerawithinthePropositio Chilensis:EcclesiologicalImpulsesontheStructuralRelationofLayandOrdainedMinistries in the Church ecclesiological implications within the Chilean proposition to LumenGentium from 1963. The focus is on the doctrine of the triamunera which provides helpful categories in LumenGentium, especially concerning the ministries of ordained and lay faithful. While LumenGentium determines their relationship in an ambiguous way, the Chilean document finds an approach to apply the munus triplex to the people of God beyond the separation of lay and ordained faithful. Based on these general observations and a short theological classification of the development of the triamunera-doctrine, she points out possible impulses for future ecclesiological discourse. Thomas RUSTER, likewise from Dortmund University, in his contribution TheDoctrineoftheThreefoldOfficeServingastheBasisforaNew Order of the Ministries in the Church outlines the profile of the tria munera-doctrine. Chapters III and IV of LumenGentium, while describing the bishops’ and the laypeople’s participation in the threefold office, contain some equivocations. Two concepts for the foundation of ministry are juxtaposed. By solving the problems of the different concepts of ministry and authority the importance of the doctrine of the threefold office as basis for an order of ministries in a future church can be exposed. Finally, some concrete examples for instituting this order are given. Julie TRINIDAD, from the University of South Australia, in TheDecree on the Apostolate of Lay People Apostolicam Actuositatem and “Co-WorkersintheVineyardoftheLord”inDialoguewiththeCommunio Theology of Walter Kasper sets up a conversation between the conciliar decree and the 2005 text forGuidingtheDevelopmentofLay Ecclesial Ministry of the US Bishops’ Conference. After drawing attention to the ‘explosion’ of lay leadership in the Catholic Church since Vatican II, she engages with the DecreeontheApostolateofLayPeople as a resource that has helped the Church discover more about its identity and mission. The “Co-Workers” document links developments in lay leadership since the Council with an expanding understanding of vocation and the universal call to holiness. These two documents are then brought

MAPPING THE LANDSCAPE OF CONTRIBUTIONS

9

into dialogue with the pneumatological communio ecclesiology central to the work of German theologian Walter Kasper. This ecclesiology serves to affirm and encourage new expressions and models of ministry. Jos MOONS, SJ, from Tilburg University, in his contribution “TheHoly Spirit Leads the Church through Charismas’ (LG 12): The Conciliar DoctrineonCharismaandItsSignificancefortheLaity’sActiveInvolvementintheChurch is convinced that the Second Vatican Council’s doctrine on charismas holds great promise for conceiving an active involvement of lay faithful in the Church. As charismas are given by the Spirit, the doctrine complements a Christological understanding of the Church; and as these gifts are given to all the faithful indiscriminately, the doctrine promotes an inclusive view of the Church. Yet the concrete impact of this doctrine on the Council’s theology is in fact limited. Not only is the conciliar attention to charismas sporadic and brief, the doctrine also lacks implementation and the link between charismas and the prophetic dimension of the munustriplexis unconvincing. Due to its focus on the hierarchy the Council finds it difficult to fully develop the Spirit’s leadership role. The doctrine on charisma challenges the classical hierarchy-based ecclesiology. Thus, the Council has made an important first step, but for the doctrine on charismas to have its full impact, ecclesiology needs a more fundamental ‘theological conversion’ (Lonergan). Christiane ALPERS and Stephan VAN ERP from KU Leuven in their joint contribution Kenosis, Unity, and Kingdom: Christology and Ecclesial RenewalatVaticanII claim that the Council makes a close connection between Christology and ecclesiology, by means of an incarnational model for the Church, and that Vatican II’s impetus for ecclesial renewal is undergirded by a traditional kenotic Christology. The Church joins Christ’s obedience to the will of the Father, continuing the kenotic move from Christ to the Church and from the Church to the world. The goal of salvation is to join all humankind in one family with God. For the Church, by stressing the fraternal bond of love, this family unity introduces the notion of an underlying equality into the otherwise hierarchically understood cosmic relations. The Church’s sisterly union in its gradual development foreshadows the sudden divine interruption by Christ’s second coming with all its social implications. Although in continuity with the Church’s work in the world, the eschatological emphasis is on the gap between those ecclesial efforts and the fullness of redemption in the Parousia. The first two contributions in this section address the question whether the Council did empower the people of God from the perspective of a

10

A.C. MAYER

Belgian lay theologian and an African Jesuit priest. While Peter De Mey describes the thorny way of developing a conciliar theology of the laity and a corresponding theology of the ordained ministry and simultaneously presents some alleys of Church-official reception which proved to be impasses, Agbonkhianmeghe Orobator answers the question with ‘in theory, yes, but…’ and points out that the Second Vatican Council theologically begins with the joint participation of all in the prophetic, priestly and royal ministry of Jesus Christ, yet practically the obstacles are still there. Tussling with a similar list of obstacles, Thomas Ruster reflects on the theological implications of the triamunera-doctrine for contemporary ecclesiology, while Simone Horstmann explicates the solution which the bishops of Chile suggested at the time of the Council to avoid the impasses of which De Mey quoted some examples. Even “Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord”, which De Mey reckons an adequate appropriation of conciliar teaching, still falls short of doing away with all the problems, as Julie Trinidad shows. Therefore, two more wide-ranging suggestions of how to systematise conciliar ecclesiology are presented, a pneumatological approach, which challenges the traditional hierarchy model by a Spirit-based understanding of leadership and ministry, and a Christological approach, which sees the “new vision of the unchanging Christ”7 manifest in a less triumphant Church dedicated to the liberation of humankind through service. By way of an epilogue, the last word in this volume is given to a critical voice, raised by James G. LEACHMAN, OSB, from Ealing Abbey, London in his concluding commentary ProcessworkandtheRebuilding ofCommunion:RecoveringForgottenCommunityAspectsofSacrosanctum Concilium. In the fifty years since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, aspects of community and generativity in the Catholic Church’s concern for the liturgy have been marginalised and forgotten at the official level. Leachman first presents some reasons why church authorities would gain from using new disciplines in the human sciences and the example of Processwork is presented briefly. Then he examines four periods in the history of the Catholic Church’s liturgical revision since the Second Vatican Council and identifies critical junctures in Church culture and administrative structure. In the final reflection some practical examples from the discipline of Processwork are offered to 7. C. BUTLER, ActaSynodaliaSacrosanctiConciliiOecumeniciVaticani II, I/4 (1971), cited by A.C. MAYER, EditorialArticle:TheSecondVaticanCouncil’s50thAnniversary: VisionsandRe-visions, in InternationalJournalfortheStudyoftheChristianChurch 14 (2014) 339-340.

MAPPING THE LANDSCAPE OF CONTRIBUTIONS

11

encourage leaders to address critical issues and traumas existing in the tissue of the ecclesial communion. In the face of these traumas in the life of the ecclesial communion we ask, “What can be done to resolve conflicts, to re-establish peaceful communion between the parties, victims, perpetrators and bystanders and to prevent further traumas?”. It seems that this is a pertinent question in the Catholic Church today, also regarding the damage done by translating liturgical texts in a quirky literal fashion. Although there remain still a lot of open questions, the fruitfulness of a truly international approach in this specific combination of questions and topics, contexts and contributors has hopefully become evident in this short introduction, and the motivation to continue reading the contributions themselves will probably have reached a level that should prevent me from keeping the readers of this book any longer. And indeed, at the end of this book project there only remains to express my heartfelt thanks to all the contributors, to the editors of the EphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses who accepted this volume in the BETL series, to Ikenna Paschal Okpaleke, who gave me a hand with adapting the references to the BETL style and with compiling the index of ecclesial documents and names, and to Rita Corstjens for her immensely valuable editorial work. KU Leuven Annemarie C. MAYER Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies Sint-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

PART I IS DIVINE REVELATION COMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN FREEDOM? DEIVERBUM IN LIGHT OF DIGNITATISHUMANAE AND VICE VERSA

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION RETHINKING REVELATION IN LIGHT OF DIVINE IMMANENCE AND THE DIGNITY OF THE PERSON AND COSMOS

I. THE HORIZON OF THE COMPATIBILITY QUESTION OMITS SOMETHING The question about compatibility between revelation and freedom provokes inquiry that bears on both Dei Verbum and Dignitatis Humanae has undergone change. The provenance of the question is the troubled, contested heritage of the seventeenth and eighteenth century Enlightenments. The original horizon was centered in an outlook from the French, German, English, Scottish, South and North American Enlightenments. Though not possessed of a uniform outlook and agenda there are family resemblances on reason and freedom, granting the contextuality of both. Immanuel Kant argued an incomparable articulation of the outlook in ReligionwithintheBoundariesofMereReason1. The fate of the Enlightenments’ idea of reason and freedom has been troubled and contested. The so-called “second Enlightenment” showed the contingent interests, motives, and goals operative in what had been thought to be universality in reason. Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud, the masters of suspicion, pointed to reason’s feet of economic, powerseeking, and sexual clay. Further, the German Enlightenment generated historical consciousness that unveiled the historicity of all subjectivity and thought, the very historicity animating some critics of modernity who seem to overlook their debt to the German Enlightenment. Then too, postcolonial critiques of Western imperialism coupled with passage from a classical to an empirical understanding of culture has de-centered Western self-understanding as the epitome and norm for highly developed humanity. Feminists have helped people to see that reason and its attendant ideal of rational freedom were prerogatives limited to white, male property-owners. The enlightened Thomas Jefferson was a slave-holder with mixed-race progeny. In the eighteenth-century founding of the U.S. partially under the influence of the enlightened ideal of reason and liberty, 1. I. KANT, ReligionwithintheBoundariesofMereReason,andOtherWritings, ed. A. WOOD – G. DI GIOVANNI, introd. R.M. ADAMS, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.

16

T. HUGHSON

slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person, while native Americans and women could not vote. The philosophy of Martin Heidegger seems to me to have countered a principally constructivist account of knowledge and truth by extolling the act of the object in knowledge otherwise seen only as the act of a subject. Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutical philosophy shows that aesthetic and everyday judgments of what is reasonable, valid, beautiful, and prudent, do not depend for their soundness exclusively on adherence to a method. Finally, postmodern critics have made the Enlightenment parent, reason, and the child, freedom, modernity’s whipping boys. The question about compatibility between revelation and freedom arises within or at least has an affinity with the receding horizon of the culturally and nationally variable heritages of the Enlightenments. Putting revelation into question on its compatibility with the assured fact and value of human freedom focuses on freedom but implies compatibility also with reason. Freedom and emancipation in the heritage of the Enlightenments were indissociable from reason but generally opposed revelation. Now, in a post-Enlightenments perspective that accepts both created freedom and revelation I understand by the term “reason” not so much a distinct faculty or capacity as that compound of interior activities that Bernard Lonergan calls intentional consciousness. The activities are 1) attentive external and internal experience, 2) seeking to understand the meaning and intelligibility of the experienced, 3) careful reflection on the validity of ideas, theories and interpretations that express meaning and intelligibility, 4) deliberation on values proceeding from judgments of fact and value. Insofar as “reason” is a by-word for knowledge in the Enlightenments it focuses especially but not only on, 3) careful reflection on the validity of ideas, meanings, and values including we can add, those borne by tradition. That careful testing and weighing of the pros and cons of various common sense and theoretical ideas is what I understand as critical reason. Grounded in experience, the exercise of inquiry, critical reason, and deliberation prepares for and makes possible enacting responsible freedom in self-directing choices by individuals and groups2. For Kant and 2. On Kant’s idea of autonomy as self-governance in society see P.J. ROSSI, TheSocial Authority of Reason: Kant’s Critique, Radical Evil, and the Destiny of Humankind, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 2005, Chapters 2 and 3. Self-governance was a phrase and practice dear to the eighteenth-century founders of the new Republic in North America. Without citizens exercising moral self-governance they felt that political self-governance in a majority-rule democracy had little chance of long-term success.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

17

G.W.F. Hegel reason had finality toward freedom, choice, and action in history. Findings from inquiry grounded individual and social responsibility for decisions on courses of action. In exercise of freedom knowledge took on the role of guiding morally upright action on behalf of our common humanity. In that respect whatever may be said or argued about the concept of reason, the modern impulse for emancipation has moral depth3. Do revelation and its acceptance in faith respect the moral depth in the demands for freedom? Revelation offers content – truth, meaning, and value – beyond what inquiry and deliberation can attain. Mediated by Scripture and tradition, does revelation as act and content still pass the test of promoting human freedom? Or do revelation and faith by-pass the very substance of responsible individual and social agency? Is divine revelation compatible with human freedom? Karl Jaspers for example, did not think so. He summed up his position stating that, “I myself cannot but hold with Kant that if revelation were a reality it would be calamitous for man’s created freedom”. And yet Jaspers relativizes his principle in view of cultural, philosophical, and political pluralism. His post-Enlightenments horizon is more like our own acceptance of pluralism insofar as he goes on to say that, “I want no thinking that would ultimately bar revelation”4. I will discuss Vatican II’s Dei Verbum and Dignitatis Humanae as church thinking that at once affirms divine revelation and declares official principled support for freedom. In theological perspective revelation is something other than an authoritarian edict that could threaten or supplant reason and freedom. The question of compatibility between revelation and freedom was not an explicit challenge addressed by either document. However, and first, DeiVerbum and not only DignitatisHumanae can be understood to have committed the church indirectly to defending freedom in relating to revelation. In adopting the personalist model of revelation as divine self-manifestation Dei Verbum displaced the propositional, command-and-obey model in the First Vatican Council’s

3. In one respect it lacks moral depth because it ignores the Pauline and Augustinian problem of emancipation from moral impotence that knows what is reasonable and right yet cannot or consistently does not decide and act in accord with what it knows. Bernard LONERGAN explained the inseparability of both aspects of emancipation in TheProblem of Liberation, in ID., Insight: A Study in Human Understanding. Collected Works of BernardLonergan.Vol. 3, ed. R.M. DORAN – F.E. CROWE, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1992-2008, 643-656. 4. K. JASPERS, Philosophical FaithandRevelation, trans. E.B. Ashton, London, Collins, 1967, p. 10.

18

T. HUGHSON

DeiFilius5. The significance of the personalist model within the overall pastoral, dialogical horizon of Vatican II lies in its distance from the authoritarian model which Vatican I’s Dei Filius may be thought to approximate. In the conciliar concept of revelation as divine selfmanifestation faith primarily is entering free human friendship with God pre-eminently in Christ rather than primarily obeying a divine command from a transcendent and apparently distant Creator. Vatican I’s DeiFilius had presented revelation as the divine, external, and supreme demand for obedient acceptance of a true and salvific message. Chapter III teaches faith as creaturely obedience to revelation as an act of divine authority. Creaturely dependence and absolute subjection of created reason to uncreated truth oblige human beings, “to yield by faith the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals”6. Assisted by grace belief accepts as true what God has revealed “because of the authority of God himself who reveals…”7. Saving faith for Vatican I is an act of obedience to divine authority. Of course revelation is for the universal human good of salvation not for the benefit of the divine source. And divine authority is real. So DeiFilius might be read as instantiating the maximum degree of external authority exerting unbearable pressure on human freedom with benevolent intent. The Vatican I picture of revelation and faith approached an authoritarian idea of revelation as commanded verbal message. This could seem to approximate the political situation of a head of state with an established religion. On behalf of the established church the head of state, in 17th century England and France for example, imposed its will in religious matters. Such external coercion overrode a monarchy’s subjects’ own experience, inquiry, reflection, and value judgments, thereby thwarting individuals taking steps according to their free self-direction. Revelation of that sort could seem to annul, in theological principle if not in pastoral practice, human reason and consequent freedom. For theological purposes and leaving aside philosophical arguments on the impossibility or possibility of divine revelation, I suggest that the problem of revelation and freedom stems significantly from the side of churches and believers. Authoritarian mediations make divine revelation look like an external diktat disrespecting freedom in human self-definition and agency. 5. THE FIRST VATICAN GENERAL COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius, on the Catholic Faith, in J. NEUNER – J. DUPUIS (eds.), The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church. Seventh Revised and Enlarged edition, New York, Alba House, 2001, 43-54. 6. Ibid., 118, p. 54. 7. Ibid.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

19

In his 1993 Warfield Lectures British Reformed theologian Colin E. Gunton hit that nail on the head with his left hand. With his right he hammered out a theoretical position against an Enlightenment ideal of science that prized the absence of external authority8. Gunton defended external authority as important to knowledge and reason. He pointed to the authority of nature itself, and of facts. After all, science cannot proceed except under respect for the normative authority of discoverable or hypothesized facts about physical nature. Nature is a given and refusal to heed its reality makes investigation impossible. Consequently autonomy and its freedom cannot be opposed to all authority since the nature of truth itself is a given and all knowledge of nature accepts the authority of nature as a given. Authority cannot be the issue. Instead authoritarian preaching and exercise of pastoral office have been the issue. The problem arises from authoritarian mediation of revelation, whether, as he says by “some papal claims” or “certain forms of biblical authority”9. I would extend Gunton’s observation to authoritarian mediations of revelation at congregational, local, regional, and national levels of Catholic and Protestant churches. Benevolent intentions behind DeiFilius from Vatican I did not necessarily turn out to be beneficent pastoral communication in the church. Vatican II in DeiVerbum by contrast was Christocentric and conceived revelation and faith in the framework of human/ divine friendship. In which way does Dei Verbum move beyond Dei Filius if the credal articles of faith are the same. More, Dei Verbum re-affirms chapter III of Dei Filius on revelation and faith. How does identity in content allow for a shift out of an authoritarian to a personalist model of revelation? The image of revelation advances to Christ teaching the Sermon on the Mount from the image of JHWH in fiery thunder on Mount Sinai handing down to Moses the covenanting tablets. I assume that the personalist model does not foment concerns about loss of freedom similar to those attending an authoritarian model. The verbal message or propositional model of revelation in DeiFilius implies divine communication of clear, distinct, complete statements of otherwise unattainable divine truths and the human judgment of their veracity because of divine authority. Vatican I rightly emphasized the “otherwise unattainable” aspect of revelation and the graced dimension of faith. But its idea of the content or message approximated a concept 8. C.E. GUNTON, ABriefTheologyofRevelation:The1993WarfieldLectures, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1995. 9. Ibid., p. 39. I would not blink at objection to authoritarian mediations of judgments of fact, interpretation, and value by the state, economic actors, mass media, peremptory individuals, and in the academy by particular schools of thought.

20

T. HUGHSON

of truth and knowledge not far from that associated with the Enlightenments. Preoccupation with propositions conveying what seem like elements from a divine theory of everything involves a somewhat narrow idea of reason, freedom, and communication. True enough, DeiFilius chapter IV continued the Catholic tradition on the compatibility of revelation and reason as two sources of truth. But after 1870 both Catholic theological understanding of faith and extra-theological sources broadened the concept of faith to include the whole person not just the intellect granting assent to proposition after proposition. Independent of theology modern artists, novelists, and poets also blazed paths away from the kind of reason associated with the Enlightenments. A current such as post-World-War-I Dadaism in painting and sculpture, post-war poetry such as T.S. Eliot’s TheWasteland, and James Joyce’s stream of consciousness style in the novel Ulysses all negated the constraint of reason as pre-eminently control of logic, method, and the known, not to mention reason deployed in capitalist accumulation and in warfare. Before Vatican II Jacques Maritain’s study of poesis in Creative IntuitioninArtandPoetry, and Étienne Gilson’s PaintingandReality, and Bernard Lonergan’s Insight:AStudyinHumanUnderstanding all, despite disagreements, kept alive a broad Catholic humanism that saw reason encompassing imagination, love, and movement into freedom. Ratio, reason, was operative in the many ways people in diverse cultures and eras have sought and expressed meaning10. In classical categories, Catholic tradition recognizes reason not only in theoria and phronesis but also in poesis and praxis of many sorts in diverse cultures over millennia. For its part, DignitatisHumanae too provides material for an answer to the question about revelation being compatible with human freedom. If revelation allows for the exercise of critical reason preparatory to exercise of freedom in response to revelation then revelation is compatible with freedom. But, if postconciliar intertextual reception of DeiVerbum complements and is complemented by Dignitatis Humanae then both documents and not only the latter espouse the approval of critical reason 10. In the postconciliar encyclical, Fides et Ratio, for example, John Paul II pulled together a background in Thomism and adult experience in writing poetry and drama. The encyclical’s expansive idea of reason was not limited to the realm of theory with a unilateral dominance over practice. Not only methodologically-governed philosophical, historical, and scientific, investigations but also pre-historic gestures like burial of the dead, no less than historic traditions of literature and the arts have been exercises of human reason. See JOHN PAUL II, OntheRelationshipbetweenFaithandReason, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC, 1998, 2005 [originally, Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998], nos. 24-34.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

21

in DignitatisHumanae. Intertextually, revelation in DeiVerbum belongs together with freedom in DignitatisHumanae. In combination they present revelation inviting and defending human freedom. DignitatisHumanae contains a direct, important principle linking reason to human freedom in receiving divine revelation. The opening few sentences address the moral depth of modern commitment to emancipation from coercion and in that way integrate some of the best of modernity11. The very first sentence bows to the historical fact that, A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men [sic] should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty (DH 1,1).

This sentence begins what amounts to an abbreviated epistemology of religious liberty with at least five components. The first and most basic is an innate human orientation toward and desire for the truth as a guide to everyday life. Second, there are commonly known historical experiences from a remembered past of coercion exerted upon people’s religious convictions. The third is inquiry into religious questions, a seeking to come to truth about God and human destiny. The fourth is personal judgment concluding an inquiry into religion. The fifth consists in decision-making and free choice in matters of religion. DignitatisHumanae incorporates and approves all five. The third can be interpreted as critical reason, the fourth as careful judgment based on critical reason’s inquiry, the fifth as free choice and action in religious matters. None of the five foreclose the possibility of God and revelation. In that respect they evince a Catholic tradition of philosophical and theological reason not defined by methodological scientific and historiographical exclusion of explanations invoking divine existence and/or influence. In approving the third, fourth, and fifth components Dignitatis Humanae embraces critical reasoning as the path to judgments of truth and value in religious matters. DignitatisHumanae 3,1 affirms the universality of the critical activity of reason in the specific area of religion. The Declaration observes that, every man [sic] has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means.

11. Religious liberty, of course, does not begin to touch upon Christian freedom that involves love for God and neighbor as well as liberation from moral incapacity.

22

T. HUGHSON

The conciliar document thereby commits itself to a broad, Catholic idea of critical reason capable of attaining a judgment of validity about religious content and adherence. The judgment is coming to a conclusion of validity or invalidity, of more and less probability, of doubt. Exercise of that broadly understood critical capacity in any area of interest but above all in regard to religion requires absence of external coercion, pressure, and manipulation. Otherwise, as is the case with inquiry of any sort, coercion already has abridged the freedom internal to seeking the truth because truth has ceased to be the objective. Then momentum toward understanding, judgment, and deliberation halts. Coercion intervenes into and interferes with critical reasoning. External expressions coerced by external dictates do not express valid judgments. They occur as violations of human dignity and the right to religious liberty. The DeclarationonReligiousFreedom puts the church on the side of critical reason seeking judgments in matters of religion without interference from powers that be. DignitatisHumanae2,2 connects epistemology to an anthropology that does not despair of attaining valid judgments, that is, to reaching some truth. It contains what I referred to as the first and second components of the document’s epistemology. Paragraph 3 states that all people, should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.

That is to say, there is a profound and constitutive orientation in humanity toward true knowledge. Human beings cannot flourish apart from truth held in valid personal and communal judgments. The perspective throughout the conciliar document respects the seeker. Imposition of any truth but most of all religious truth by coercive measures turns it into something opposed to reason and freedom. Affirmation of the human and civil right to religious liberty demands respect for the human processes of coming to judgments of fact and value. Pre-Vatican II policy on church/state relations and Vatican I on revelation had respected judgments of truth in Catholicism. But neither in Vatican I’s DeiFilius nor in the Vatican policy of supporting established churches was there affirmation of critical reason and its search for truth. Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae represented what might be called a renewed Catholic epistemology that honored the human duty toward valid judgments about religion by teaching the right to liberty in searching for those judgments. DignitatisHumanae taught that the way toward

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

23

and not only the point of arrival deserves protection under the heading of the human and civil right to religious liberty. Dignitatis Humanae committed the church to uphold the searching for truth in matters of religion and not only the transmitting of its outcome in Catholic faith. The new position linked the duty toward truth to freedom of communication as well. DignitatisHumanae 3,2 averred that, Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his [sic] social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men [sic] explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth. Moreover, as the truth is discovered, it is by a personal assent that men [sic] are to adhere to it.

Communication belongs to seeking, finding, and living in accord with judgments of validity. Typically that communication has a public aspect. Critical reason in any matter but pre-eminently in religion has an inherently social and public dimension. History shows that the public aspect of communication on any matter, especially religion, renders it more vulnerable to external interference and coercion than the interior activities of individual minds. Exercise of power by the state, economy, culture, or family that prevents or controls exchanges of knowledge infringes on freedom in inquiry and afortiori on freedom in value-judgments in choosing, for example, to believe or not in God, Christ, and the gospel. Dangers to freedom mount in regard to the social, public aspect of seeking truth and value. Pressures and coercion have come from external sources, be they society, culture, state, economically puissant individuals or organizations, or churches backed by state authority. Children exercise a limited freedom under the supervising authority of parents. In any society the state and government possess a monopoly on coercive authority. Not surprisingly critical reason and emancipation from coercion – not without memories of persecution – make their demand for religious liberty most directly upon the state. That was what DignitatisHumanae did. Dignitatis Humanae recognized that demanding relief from coercion in religious matters created a space for exercise of responsible freedom. And the knowledge guiding the emancipatory impulse was not a theory alone but an underlying cultural current, a substratum of growing selfrespect in modernity that the opening paragraph approved. DeiVerbum implicitly answered the compatibility question while DignitatisHumanae points to but does not take a path leading out of the horizon of the compatibility question. The horizon of the question still omits something else.

24

T. HUGHSON

LoveFulfillsFreedom Full emergence from that horizon has to do with a more fundamental problem, one not addressed in either DeiVerbum or DignitatisHumanae. The conciliar documents do not present insight into love as the paramount expression of human freedom generally and particularly in regard to revelation. The way forward consists in an understanding of freedom to which love is integral and essential. Bernard Lonergan’s philosophy of freedom offers an excellent account of love as the fulfillment of freedom. Freedom comes to its highest fulfillment not just in value judgments bringing about moral self-transcendence and autonomous selfgovernance. Liberal democracies for all their faults and limits spring from and rely on moral self-transcendence in citizens and officials. But love exceeds moral self-transcendence. Love underlies and completes other human goods such as a political order that respects human rights. Dignitatis Humanae is about immunity from coercion, especially by state power, in matters of religion. So it cannot venture toward the apex of freedom in love. Immunity from coercion is a negative freedom with a heritage of emancipation, but positive freedom is love for the good12. The good, notes Lonergan, always is concrete, as definite as people with proper names and as functional as the good of order whose interlaced structures of cooperation enable people in a society to meet their needs by obtaining their particular goods13. Lonergan extols freedom as self-definition no less than did the Enlightenments14. “Ethical value”, he explains, “is the conscious emergence of the subject as autonomous, responsible, and free”15. And with a nod to existentialism he identifies ethical value as the emergence of the existential subject. The existential subject is a great good, but a good not complete without further description and discussion. The later Lonergan in and after Method conceived the emerging existential subject not as an autonomous monad but as a participant in communities. Moral self-transcendence enacts essential freedom by elevating 12. B. LONERGAN, Method in Theology, New York, Seabury Press, 1979 [originally Herder and Herder, 1972]. He develops the centrality of love especially but not only in chapter 4 on the human good. 13. Ibid., p. 27. 14. I am grateful to R. MOLONEY’s article, TheFreedomofChristintheLaterLonergan, in TheologicalStudies 70 (2009) 801-821, for directing me to several sources on freedom in Lonergan’s later work. 15. B. LONERGAN, TheHumanGoodasObject:ItsInvariantStructure, in ID., Topics inEducation:TheCincinnatiLecturesof1959onthePhilosophyofEducation.TheCollected Works of Bernard Lonergan. Vol. 10, ed. R.M. DORAN – F.E. CROWE, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1993, 2000, 2005, chapter 2, p. 37.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

25

the criterion of authentic value over the criterion of satisfaction and that has social content. Human solidarity in personal and social orientation to the common good, for example, is an authentic, worthwhile value that at times may involve changes that are not pleasing temporarily. Moral conversion has a social aspect inasmuch as other people are values, and so are other concrete goods. Love evoked by many, many sorts of goods is an eye-opener to their reality and value. This holds for God more than anything else16. Faith as the knowledge born of love has the hermeneutic capacity of enabling a new way of seeing, that is interpreting, the world. Comments Lonergan, “without faith, without the eye of love, the world is too evil for God to be good, for a good God to exist”. He goes on to explain that, “[b]ut faith recognizes that God grants men [sic] their freedom, that he [sic] wills them to be persons and not just his [sic] automata…”17. Lonergan may not have had a particular text of Aquinas in mind but in regard to love as response to value his analysis coincides with that of Aquinas. In the spare prose of the Summa Aquinas said in analyzing the theological virtue of charity that “the proper object of love is the good”18. For Aquinas, sums up W.S. Sherwin, “…before love is a principle of action love is a response to value…”19. Love’s first act is “an affective enjoyment and affirmation of some good thing made known to us by reason”20. Moreover, for Aquinas love is the fundamental motive in human activities. For Lonergan, though, appreciation for a significant value, when definite and pervasive, is called falling in love and the consequent condition is being-in-love as an ontological modification of the subject. Being-in-love is living in the pervading light of major appreciations and judgments of value.

16. LONERGAN, Method (n. 12), p. 117. See Thomas AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae. Volume 31:Faith(2a2ae.1-7).Latin text and English translation, Introductions, Notes, Appendices and Glossaries T.C. O’BRIEN, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1974, q. 2, a. 1 on faith as assent moved by the will (love), and T. PENELHUM, TheAnalysisof FaithinSt.ThomasAquinas, in ReligiousStudies 13 (1977) 133-154. 17. LONERGAN, Method(n. 12), p. 117. 18. See Thomas AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae. Volume 34: Charity (2a2ae. 23-33). Latin text, English translatin, Notes, Appendices & Glossary R.J BATTEN. Introduction T. GILBY, London, Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd, 1975, q. 23, a. 4, Reply, 19. 19. M.S. SHERWIN, ByKnowledgeandbyLove:CharityandKnowledgeintheMoral TheologyofSt.ThomasAquinas, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2005, p. 93. On love as a passion incited by appreciation of and attraction to a good as “a desirable object”, see Thomas AQUINAS, SummaTheologiae.Volume 19:TheEmotions (1a2ae.22-30). Latin text and English translation, Introductions, Notes, Appendices and Glossaries E. D’ARCY, London, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1967, q. 26, a. 2, Reply, 67. 20. Ibid., p. 95, q. 26, a. 4.

26

T. HUGHSON

In Lonergan’s philosophy of freedom the culminating act and disposition is love. He describes being-in-love as a dynamic state. The motive and act of love set in place an habitual vision of things from the perspective of appreciated goods. For Lonergan, being-in-love becomes an ontological condition of the subject. The love might be for the truth, spouse and family, tribe, society, nation, nature, science, art, friends, neighbors, co-workers, a hockey team, etc. It can be love for the good, for God, gospel, eternal life, and for neighbors. Then it is what Aquinas called charity, a type of friendship between human beings and God opening up a new kind of human fellowship21. R. Moloney remarks that Lonergan’s view of freedom poses an alternative to “a narrow notion of freedom as simply emancipation rather than as loving the good”22. Still, one of the great goods is the good of order, the interlacing societal structures of cooperation, institutions that enable members of a society to meet their recurrent particular needs. Concern for the good of order is freedom enacted as being-in-love with the structural means and the end result that all members of a society be able to meet their vital, social, and political needs. De facto and de iure respect for religious liberty belongs to the good of order. Being-in-love brings freedom to full yet asymptotic expression. And that bears on revelation. Faith for Lonergan is a response to the universal human condition of being loved by the creating God. Faith is knowledge, that is, an interpreting vision of reality expressed as a religion, born of love. That underlying universal divine love and human response to it are with grace what enable a person who does not believe the gospel to cross over to belief23. Belief is influenced by that love in the mode of a judgment of value to assent to an expression of divine revelation. So love in a judgment of value moves a person to cross over from unbelief to belief in the gospel24. Love animates the act of belief from within. Consequently the act of belief takes place not as a leap of faith but in a leap of love for God and eternal life. Belief in revelation springs from love. What elicits

21. AQUINAS, SummaTheologiae 1a2ae (n. 19), q. 26, a. 4, Reply, 73. 22. MOLONEY, TheFreedomofChristintheLaterLonergan (n. 14), p. 809. 23. SHERWIN points out that Aquinas by the time of the Summa, after acquaintance with the Second Council of Orange’s condemnation of semi-Pelagianism (people prepare for and initiate faith, God completes it) and his discovery of Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics (intellect and will are moved to act by God) taught movement of the will by grace (By Knowledge and by Love [n. 19], p. 141). The role of grace is unmistakably clear in the SummaTheologiae2a2ae (n. 16), q. 6, a. 1-2. 24. AQUINAS, SummaTheologiae1a2ae (n. 19), q. 1-7.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

27

love of God and eternal life is revelation and its mediation by, for example, Scripture, tradition, exemplary persons, preaching, the whole of Christianity, or a personal inspiration. Aquinas, Lonergan, and DeiVerbum consider belief as graced response to a loving God rather than, as had been the case at Vatican I, as the graced compliance of creaturely justice with the revealed demand from the external, divine authority of the Creator. Belief then essentially involves the response of human love to divine love, the finding of ultimate truth about all reality within enlightenment due to divine and human love. Freedom as love was omitted from the horizon of the question about whether or not divine revelation is compatible with human freedom. Submitting revelation to a hermeneutic of suspicion lacks a complete account of freedom fulfilled in love and of belief as response to what God has revealed above all in Christ. If the question about compatibility were revised in that frame of reference the question would be, is divine revelation compatible with human love? And the answer would be that revelation and belief both have the inherent dynamic of love, the peak of freedom, in exercise of critical reason seeking truth in matters of religion. That personalist perspective on revelation in DeiVerbumdid not end up explicitly in DignitatisHumanae. Still, the dynamic of love surfaces in DH 2,11. There the Declaration describes Christ refusing to impose his truth by force since his rule, “extends its dominion by the love whereby Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws all men [sic] to Himself”. The conclusion is that DignitatisHumanae, if isolated from DeiVerbum, remains within the scope of negative freedom as immunity from coercion and does not advance into positive freedom that is love for the good. But received intertextually with Dei Verbum, Dignitatis Humanae commits the church to respect for critical reason moved by love for the truth, above all in matters of religion. II. AN INTERTEXTUAL PROBLEM Intertextual reception of Dei Verbum and Dignitatis Humanae has a prospective, speculative rather than a retrospective, historical-theological orientation. That is, I take for granted and begin from historical-theological contributions such as the five-volume HistoryofVaticanII, edited by G. Alberigo and J. Komonchak, and J.W. O’Malley’s WhatHappened

28

T. HUGHSON

atVaticanII?25. In the final essay in volume 5 of the HistoryofVatican II and in the Conclusion to O’Malley’s book, Alberigo and O’Malley respectively cast their gaze toward the future and continued reception of the momentous council26. The reflection to follow enquires into one area into which the conjunction of DeiVerbum and DignitatisHumanae, in one respect problematic, may lead faith and theology27. The direction lies toward a concept of revelation from below no less than from above, to an ascending emphasis to balance the predominantly descending concept, content, and medium of revelation28. However, a problem might block that approach. Does Dignitatis Humanae contain and promote the very anthropocentrism culpable for the ecological crisis? The DeclarationonReligiousFreedom expresses the dialogical, conciliatory style of Vatican II toward what is positive in modernity. Seeing something positive represents a reform of the decidedly negative preconciliar church/world relationship. The very first sentence in the document begins with the statement of fact that, “A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man…”. The cornerstone of the Declaration, then, is approval for human dignity whose deepening comprehension underlies the modern demand for religious liberty. DH 15,1 acknowledges, The fact is that men [sic] of the present day want to be able freely to profess their religion in private and in public. Indeed, religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions.

Vatican II contributed solemn, theologically grounded approval of the fact and emancipatory impulse of religious liberty, but was not its direct source. 25. G. ALBERIGO – J. KOMONCHAK (eds.), TheHistoryofVaticanII,5 vols., Maryknoll, NY, Orbis; Leuven, Peeters, 1995-2006. See C. THEOBALD, TheChurchundertheWord ofGod, ibid., vol. 5, 2006, 275-372 and J.W. O’MALLEY, WhatHappenedatVaticanII?, Cambridge, MA, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008. For pneumatological analysis see T. HUGHSON, InterpretingVaticanII:‘ANewPentecost’, in Theological Studies 69 (2008) 3-37. 26. G. ALBERIGO, TransitiontoaNewAge, in ID. – KOMONCHAK (eds.), TheHistory ofVaticanII(n. 25), vol. 5, 2006, 574-644. 27. O’MALLEY, What Happened at Vatican II? (n. 25), p. 310, advised intertextual reception and theological reflection on latent, comprehensive unity among the documents. 28. G. O’COLLINS, Rethinking Fundamental Theology: Toward a New Fundamental Theology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011 sets forth a theology of (Special) revelation mediated by human experience. His proposal is tantamount to an ascending theology of Special revelation that simultaneously respects the descending ‘from above’ aspect of grace in persons and in divine initiatives in history. His theology does not, however, deal with divine immanence in nature and the cosmos.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

29

The problematic aspect of the factual situation lies in the propinquity of “the consciousness of contemporary man [sic]” to an objectionable anthropocentrism. Theoretical response to the ecological crisis long since has identified modern Western anthropocentrism as the collective selfunderstanding that formed and abetted distorted human presence in, and active relation to, non-human nature. Dignitatis Humanae implies that humanity had inherent dignity because it is created as imagoDei. But the document does not connect humanity to the cosmos or the cosmos to the Creator. Does the conciliar document, despite benevolent intentions, have the unintended effect of perpetuating the cause of the ecological crisis? Because of its association with the other conciliar documents and its place in Catholic social teaching attentive to human solidarity and the human/nature relationship I do not think so. First, the Declaration in no way endorses or imputes the typically modern individualist meaning of the dignity of the person. Human dignity realized in the right to religious liberty in Dignitatis Humanae bears a socio-political dimension. The right pertains to parents, churches, and religious organizations not only to individuals. The conciliar understanding of human dignity has a ground in creation imagined as Adam and Eve in the imagoDei of Genesis 1 and 2. In human creation not only does the idea of dominion need a well-known and widely applied corrective but also the social aspect needs attention. That is, the imago Dei was not materially Adam or Eve singly or as a twosome but with them human solidarity among all their descendants. It is I suggest too easy to conceptually isolate the dignity of human persons from the dignity and solidarity of the human race, and from the reality and intrinsic value of nature and the cosmos. Second, conciliar approval of the modern demand for religious liberty occurred in accord with the overall “pastoral” orientation of the council. Christoph Theobald explains that “pastoral” means that, “there can be no proclamation of the gospel without taking account of its recipients”29. By and large recipients are affected by the uncomplicated priority of science and technology in understanding and acting in relating to nature and the cosmos. That poses a challenge because response to the ecological crisis also involves technological restraint in, to take one example, consumption of fossil fuels. A companion document to Dignitatis Humanae, the PastoralConstitutionontheChurchintheModernWorld, 29. C. THEOBALD, TheTheologicalOptionsofVaticanII:Seekingan‘Internal’PrincipleofInterpretation, in A. MELLONI – C. THEOBALD (eds.), VaticanII:TheForgotten Future (Concilium 2005/4), London, SCM, 2005, 87-107, p. 94.

30

T. HUGHSON

distinguished integral human development from an idea of development limited to material and technological progress. The PastoralConstitution thereby engages critically those attitudes on progress which rely on an underlying premise that nature and the cosmos are to be “conquered”. Consequently, association of DignitatisHumanae with the theme of the divine creation of humanity as imago Dei and with the Pastoral Constitution’s critical distance from a modern ideal of progress limited to technology leads to the following conclusion. It does not seem just to read the DeclarationonReligiousFreedom as enshrining the exploitative kind of anthropocentrism rightly rejected by Catholic social teaching, most recently in Pope Francis’s LaudatoSi’. There is theological space within Dei Verbum and Dignitatis Humanae for thinking about divine revelation in light of nature and the cosmos no less than in light of that human dignity woven into the fabric of the conciliar event and documents. III. RETHINKING REVELATION IN LIGHT OF DIVINE IMMANENCE, HUMAN DIGNITY, AND THE DIGNITY OF THE COSMOS 1. JohnCourtneyMurray A single statement by John Courtney Murray suggested the possibility of placing Dei Verbum on revelation and Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty in the light of divine immanence. Murray was an influential peritus on the commission charged with preparing the text on religious liberty. His best-known book, WeHoldTheseTruths,argued on behalf of religious liberty primarily as the practical outcome from constitutionally structured and carefully limited exercise of state power30. The key for Murray lay not directly in Scripture, theological doctrine, or the rights of conscience. Rather trials and errors from the time of Constantine to the twentieth century eventually clarified the church/state boundary. From the side of the state and government the boundary separated the state’s essentially secular purpose from making judgments on 30. J.C. MURRAY, WeHoldTheseTruths:CatholicReflectionsontheAmericanProposition, New York, Sheed and Ward, 1960. Chapters 3, 4, and 12 were new, the others he had previously published. The most recent edition is We Hold These Truths: Catholic ReflectionsontheAmericanProposition. Foreword by Walter BURGHARDT, Critical Introduction by Peter LAWLER, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. For the current bibliography of Murray’s published and unpublished writings, and current secondary bibliography on Murray, see http://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/Murray, ed. J.L. HOOPER.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

31

religious belief, worship, doctrine, practice, and manner of organization. Those judgments were the prerogative of individual citizens and their religions. From the side of the Catholic Church the costly workshop of history had taught lessons clarifying the perils of not heeding the spiritual nature of its authority in the temporal order. Placing the hand of spiritual authority in the glove of the state’s coercive power was a theological error in principle and repeatedly proved disastrous in practical fact. Murray thought the English had preserved the heritage of medieval political principle of the consent of the governed better than had the Latin countries of Europe. Allying the church with divine right absolutism almost predictably brought about bitter resistance to church and clergy. At the same time a theological conviction that divine providence guides the church and history infused Murray’s historical consciousness of contingency in church/state relations. In an essay on Christianity and human values entitled, IsItBasket-weaving? he commented on incarnational humanism and history. He remarked that, …this incarnational humanism stresses the fact that He who entered history as its Redeemer is the Logos, Eternal Reason. Through his Spirit He is still immanent in history, there to do a work of reason – that work of reason which is justice, and that work of pacification which is in turn justice31.

Murray drew his idea of reason from patristic tradition and Aquinas, not from the Enlightenment, and not from Hegel. Providence in Murray’s perspective was not divine steering of human affairs from somewhere in transcendent heights but was influence from within human history and in consciences actively seeking justice and peace32. Murray, like most theologians today, argued for divine providence immanent in history. That is undoubtedly valid. But Murray’s dialectical disciple wishes to take not solely an historically conscious but also an ecologically conscious approach to divine immanence also in nature and the cosmos.

31. J.C. MURRAY, Is It Basket-weaving? The Question of Christianity and Human Values, in ID., We Hold These Truths (n. 30), 175-196, at p. 191. The essay appeared earlier as ChristianHumanisminAmerica, in SocialOrder 3 (May-June 1953) 233-244. 32. T. HUGHSON, ConnectingJesustoSocialJustice:ClassicalChristologyandPublic Theology, Landover, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, 2013 gives an account of how the divine, creating Logos before, during, and after the Incarnation has been a constitutive influence upon human consciences. The Incarnation and the particularity of Jesus do not interrupt the universality of the creating influence of the Logos. For a systematic theology of history that applies and develops the thought of Lonergan see R.M. DORAN, Theology andtheDialecticsofHistory, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1990.

32

T. HUGHSON

To rethink and re-imagine revelation in DeiVerbum in light of divine immanence in nature and the cosmos is to take up what theological tradition designates General as distinguished from Special revelation. Why focus on General instead of Special revelation? Why not follow in the steps of Murray, Lonergan, and Gerald O’Collins with their focus on Special revelation in history33? 2. GeneralRevelation Two postconciliar factors support further attention to General as distinguished from Special revelation. One is re-awakened interest in natural theology34. Catholic tradition has accepted harmony between the General revelation of God that is creation and Special revelation in the economy of redemption from Abraham, Moses, the prophets, wisdom literature, to and centrally, Jesus. With Israel’s wisdom literature in the background Rom 1,19-20 pointed out that Gentiles without benefit of Israel’s covenanted history of monotheism knew that the one God is the source of the world. Likewise Gentiles without tutelage under the Mosaic Law knew the difference between right and wrong. Paul indicted rather than praised such Gentile knowledge because it was fruitless for salvation. But neither in Romans 1 nor in Luke’s account of Paul at the Athenian Areopagus in Acts 17 did Paul deny the validity of the Gentile knowledge. It did not issue in reverence for God but that did not make the knowledge invalid as far as it went. Nor does Paul say this knowledge is invalid by reason of its being surpassed by that available to Jews within the covenant and by faith in Christ. To the contrary, in Christianity what Gentiles knew without soteriological benefit, natural theology has made its goal without denying the soteriological benefits35. 33. G. O’COLLINS covers the literature on and develops the concept of revelation in RethinkingFundamental Theology (n. 28). He pauses at General revelation but quickly points to Israel’s subsuming of natural into historical religion, p. 59. For an account of the prototypical cosmic covenant between God and humanity, see R. MURRAY, The Cosmic Covenant:BiblicalThemesofJustice,Peace,andtheIntegrityofCreation, London, Sheed & Ward, 1992. Murray argues for a cosmic-covenantal structure built into Israel’s earliest understandings of divine creating that passed into subsequent covenants. See also A. DULLES, FaithandRevelation, in F.S. FIORENZA – J.P. GALVIN (eds.), SystematicTheology:Roman Catholic Perspectives, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 22011, 79-108. On natural, General, revelation Dulles remarks, “[n]atural revelation is only preliminary” for Jews, Christians and Muslims all of whom look to God’s self-disclosure in historical events (p. 82). 34. See the survey of literature and constructive argument in N. ORMEROD, APublic God:NaturalTheologyReconsidered, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2015. 35. See B. LONERGAN, Natural Knowledge of God, in W.F.J. RYAN – B.J. TYRELL (eds.), ASecondCollection [originally a presentation at the 1968 convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America], Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1974, 117-133.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

33

Vatican I had upheld that knowing that God is, “the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the things that were created, through the natural light of human reason”36. Karl Barth reproached as wrong and harmful to faith what the First Vatican Council had taught. Lonergan to the contrary developed a natural theology based on the intelligibility of the universe37. Lonergan distinguished the potential for this knowledge from its historical actuality but did not deny it was possible even for fallen humanity. He remarked in qualified consent to actualizing the potential, “I do not think that in this life people arrive at natural knowledge of God without grace, but what I do not doubt is that the knowledge they so attain is natural”38. Philosopher Denys Turner estimated that on the natural knowledge of God most postVatican II Catholic theologians have tended to be more Barthian than in agreement with Vatican I. In response Turner offered a telling comment. We do not see falsely when we recognize that there is someone at a distance and say that someone is there. Then as the person nears we see and say who it is39. If I may draw out Turner’s analogy, natural theology concluding to the existing God is like seeing someone at a distance and saying, someone is there. The closer, more complete, definitive recognition of who that someone is once the distance has closed does not contradict but does surpass the earlier, barebones observation and has a person to person quality. Somewhat similarly, free, divine revelation that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit surpasses knowledge concluding to God’s existence from the observable world but without contradicting it. Special revelation does not nullify General revelation or render it nugatory. Dei Verbum re-affirmed Vatican I on natural knowledge of God’s existence. 3. GeneralRevelationofDivineImmanence The second postconciliar factor supporting attention to divine immanence in nature and the cosmos is the ecological awakening. Rethinking both General and Special revelation in light of divine immanence shifts toward the idea that revelation of both sorts emerges from below, as long as that means that God is immanent and in that sense “below”. The idea 36. THE FIRST VATICAN GENERAL COUNCIL, DogmaticConstitution,Dei Filius,onthe CatholicFaith (n. 5), no. 113. 37. LONERGAN, Insight (n. 3), pp. 680-699. 38. LONERGAN, NaturalKnowledgeofGod (n. 35), p. 133. 39. D. TURNER, Faith,ReasonandtheExistenceofGod, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

34

T. HUGHSON

of revelation from below finds an initial index of plausibility in section 236 of Pope Francis’s encyclical, LaudatoSi’. Speaking about the Eucharistic presence of Christ, Francis reflects that, The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. He comes not from above, but from within, he comes that we might find him in this world of ours40.

The Lord comes from within, or to sharpen the difference from the usual image of revelation from above, revelation and salvation as a whole come from below, that is, from the already present, laboring Trinity accessible to human thought and language only by Special revelation. But the point is that divine invisibility and inaccessibility to reasoning do not mean that God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – is absent from this universe. Now, our customary awareness of God, whether like that of the Gentiles referred to by Paul and in classical Western theism or in renewed theology of the Trinity, contains a pre-understanding that blocks comprehension of revelation from within or from below. And this despite what O’Collins describes as Israel’s combining attribution to God of “majestic transcendence and a loving nearness”41. Nonetheless, Western Christianity seems to have preserved transcendent divine sovereignty without an equal and simultaneous insistence on divine immanence in nature and the cosmos. Consequently both classical Western and Trinitarian theologies carry a potentially misleading idea of divine transcendence. John W. Cooper sums up Western theism. It “asserts that God in himself is maximal Being – absolutely self-sufficient, eternal, immutable, omniscient, completely act and most excellent in every way”42. Somehow, though this is not clear, the utterly transcendent Creator empowers all creatures to be and to act, and in that sense the Creator is immanent. I think that ontological causality can lead to appreciation of divine immanence. But customary emphasis on transcendence obscures whatever that immanence may be. Divine transcendence over and otherness to creation is signified as if it were an infinite or indefinite, superior realm.

40. Pope FRANCIS, Encyclical Letter,LaudatoSi’:OnCareforOurCommonHome, at http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_ 20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html. 41. O’COLLINS,RethinkingFundamental Theology (n. 28), p. 94. 42. J.W. COOPER, Panentheism:TheOtherGodofthePhilosophers.FromPlatotothe Present, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic, 2006, p. 14.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

35

In classical Western theism and even in Trinitarian theology God is thought of as otherworldly and to that extent absent from this world. True, the high sacramentality of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the Anglican Communion immerses members in signs of divine action, and the Eucharist communicates Christ’s physical presence. Nevertheless, with exceptions in ecotheology, for the most part I do not observe or overhear lived awareness of the Trinity immanent in the cosmos outside church walls. Concentration on transcendence, sometimes in opposition to secularity, conveys the impression that the revealing God comes into the world from an immeasurable ontological distance tantamount to practical absence. That easily leads readers and homilists to interpret John 1,1-14 as if describing a movement from heaven to earth. Creation comes into being through the divine Word who then became flesh. The Incarnation often is remarked on as divine descent by the creating Word. But the words in the passage do not say anything about descending or overcoming a distance. Verse 11 on the Word coming to his own despite people already being “his own” similarly can be heard as if describing a descent by the previously absent Word. But the text does not say that. Similarly, Phil 2,5-11 on Jesus’ kenosis not clinging to equality with God in accepting human life, mortality, and even death on the cross, may be received as if the verbs denote an ontological descent from a remote, divine preexistence with God. Again, the language in the text does not speak about kenosis overcoming prior absence. I conclude that contrary to customary receptions in light of one-sided attention to divine transcendence these passages nonetheless remain open to an understanding and image of loving Trinitarian irruption into visibility from a real but invisible prior presence and immanence in creation. In light of divine immanence General revelation evokes new approaches to understanding created reality. Special revelation can be understood to be the already omnipresent, causal, enveloping divine presence becoming a visible presence and influence in history. The customary image of movement from heaven above to earth below, it is true, asserts and protects the essential, invaluable truth of divine transcendence. But the image and analogy limp, severely. Celestial otherness becomes remoteness and casts God in the role of the Creator absent from the world of human dwelling and suffering, a world of many people with ears open but who hear only, as they feel, the silence of God. The impression of divine absence becomes a pervasive pre–understanding of God’s transcendence. That situation commends attention to the divine immanence of the creating Trinity.

36

T. HUGHSON

The interest in ecology leads to rethinking both General and Special revelation. Almost all Christian churches now teach that nature and the cosmos are inherently real and good in their own right independent of their utility for humanity. Ecological ethics finds a place in the moral theology of most churches. Since Vatican II ecotheology has been coming to grips with the question of causal divine presence in the evolving cosmos. Evolutionary, temporal movement internal to creaturely dependence on the Creator challenges churches and theologians to rebalance one-sided focus on divine transcendence with new attention to the immanence of the creating Trinity. Vatican II was not in a theological position to draw attention to divine immanence in creation. Its primary focus was not on General but on Special revelation of God active in the history of Israel and in the New Testament period centered in Jesus. In DeiVerbum only two sentences connect the cosmos with God. DV 3 begins with the affirmation that “God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men [sic] an enduring witness to Himself [sic] in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20)”. DV 6,2 appropriates Vatican I on natural theology: As a sacred synod has affirmed, God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason (see Rom. 1:20)…

The two sentences do not add up to more than reiteration of traditional doctrine. The document’s originality lay in elevating the normative role of Scripture in the life, teaching, ministry, and theology of the church43. Committed to the written Scriptures the commission at the same time moved away from Vatican I’s propositional model in the Preparatory Theological Commission’s text, DeFontibusRevelationis44. DeiVerbum 43. Retrieval of revelation as verbal message does not necessarily mean re-assertion of Vatican I. Interest in a propositional model of revelation that upholds Scripture but avoids fundamentalism has a place in Protestant theology of revelation. See, besides C. GUNTON’s ABriefTheologyofRevelation (n. 8) and ReasonandRevelation:ProlegomenatoSystematic Theology, London, T&T Clark, 2008, Finnish Pentecostal theologian Veli-Matti KÄRKKÄINEN, TrinityandRevelation, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2014, chapter 1. For a propositional model in philosophical theology, see R. SWINBURNE, Revelation, in K.J. CLARK (ed.), Our KnowledgeofGod:EssaysonNaturalandPhilosophicalTheology, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic, 1992, 115-130 and S. DAVIS, RevelationandInspiration, in TheOxfordHandbookof PhilosophicalTheology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, 30-53. 44. See detailed study of DeFontibusRevelationis by K. SCHELKENS, CatholicTheologyofRevelationontheEveofVaticanII:ARedactionHistoryoftheSchemaDe Fontibus Revelationis(1962-1965), Leiden, Brill, 2010.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

37

adopted a personalist concept of revelation as divine self-manifestation45. Revelation as divine self-manifestation means that creation too is divine self-manifestation. Cosmic and natural self-manifestation of the Creator is open to development in the direction of divine immanence, but only with great care and precision so as not to end up in pantheism or the wrong kind of panentheism. Neither Dignitatis Humanae nor Dei Verbum adds to theological understanding of General Revelation, much less of divine immanence. Yet Dignitatis Humanae contains a slight but real arrow pointing to divine immanence. According to Romans 1, Catholic tradition, and DignitatisHumanae human conscience, the inmost guide to choices, participates in natural and divine law. There the document stops. Further consideration could note that participation in natural and divine law can be understood in reference to divine immanence. Conscience is not only the created effect interior to humanity from a remotely causing Creator but also is the obscure presence of the creating cause. The divine, creating Word cannot be separated or remote from created humanity and conscience. The presence of the creating Word is short of formal causality yet more than creaturely kinds of efficient causality. Yoking Dignitatis Humanae on conscience with DeiVerbum on creation through the divine Word in John 1 at the least gives the blueprint for a bridge to divine immanence. 4. AquinasonDivineImmanence More in detail, what are transcendence and immanence? I continue to think that Thomas Aquinas has much to say to moderns and postmoderns. The question above was central to a conference at the University of Utrecht in 2005. One of the contributors, philosopher Gregory Rocca, expounded Aquinas on divine transcendence and immanence46. Rocca argues that in Aquinas belief in and doctrine on creatioexnihilo underlie attributing both transcendence and immanence to God. The language and thought of transcendence and immanence are creaturely apprehensions of 45. Contrast between Scriptures replete with propositions and a non-propositional, personalist model of revelation eases if propositions are existential assertions and not only formally doctrinal formulae. Also, the self-manifestation, personalist concept of revelation includes words not only deeds. 46. G. ROCCA, ‘CreatioexNihilo’andtheBeingofCreatures:God’sCreativeActand the Transcendence/Immanence Distinction in Aquinas, in H. GORIS – H. RIKHOF – H. SCHOOT (eds.), DivineTranscendenceandImmanenceintheWorkofThomasAquinas, Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 1-17.

38

T. HUGHSON

one divine reality under two aspects. Both transcendence and immanence conceive God in relation to what is other than God. There is no transcendence in God except in the relation of creation to God. In the Trinity the Father does not transcend the Son, or the Father and Son together transcend the Spirit. The inner-Trinitarian relations of origin do not involve transcending because one and the same divine nature is that of each distinct divine person. A certain kind of divine immanence of the persons in each other is admitted but cannot be understood or conceived as at all like the immanence of God in creatures. This means that the immanence of God in creatures is the existing of creatures in continuous dependence on God. No such dependence is present in the Trinity. The divine persons do not create each other and so are not immanent in each other in anything remotely like divine immanence in creatures. Rocca rightly notes that, “God’s nature becomes transcendent and immanent, if you will, once creatures are in existence but that [divine] nature has been the foundation for such transcendence and immanence from all eternity”47. Both transcendence and immanence are relations of creatures to Creator. Rocca quotes Aquinas, “But a thing’s existence is more interior and deep than anything else … and hence it is necessary for God to exist in all things, and intimately so”48. Aquinas’s Summacontra Gentiles says that God exists in all things, per modum causae agentis (ScG III, c. 68, no. 9), that is, “in the fashion of an agent cause…”, presumably by analogy with an efficient cause. Earlier chapters in the Summa contraGentiles III showed divine causality had to be simultaneous with its effects49. Aquinas explains that God’s transcendence in the act of creatioexnihilo grounds divine immanence in whatever comes into being. God is immanent because transcendent. The logic, of course, is impeccable. 47. Ibid., p. 7. 48. Ibid., p. 14, quoting AQUINAS, SummaTheologiae Ia, q. 8, a. 1. See Thomas AQUINAS, SummaTheologiae.Volume 2:ExistenceandNatureofGod(1a.2-11). Latin text and English translation, Introductions, Notes, Appendices and Glossaries T. MCDERMOTT, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1964, q. 8, a. 1-4: God’s existence in things. The McDermott translation runs, “Now existence is more intimately and profoundly interior to things than anything else”, and continues “for everything as we said is potential is potential when compared to existence [cumsitformalerespectuomniumquaeinresunt]. So God must exist and exist intimately in everything”. 49. ROCCA, ‘CreatioExNihilo’ (n. 46),p. 13, quoting AQUINAS, SummacontraGentiles III, c. 68, n. 9. The reference should be to c. 68, n. 11 not n. 9. See Thomas AQUINAS, SummacontraGentiles. Book Three:Providence,PartI. Translation, Introduction, and Notes V.J. BOURKE, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1975 [originally OntheTruthoftheCatholicFaith, Hanover House, 1956], p. 226.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

39

There can be no divine immanence in creation except in logical and conceptual consequence from the existence of what God has created. In that respect God’s transcendence grounds immanence not the other way around. God is immanent because transcendent. Yet I am not convinced that the logical, conceptual priority of transcendence is also ontological. God did not first create what is not God then become immanent in it. In the order of being immanence is equi-primordial and co-extensive with transcendence. That is why the immanence of God in creation is a transcendent immanence, as Aquinas and Rocca hold. There is no transcendence and no immanence prior to creatio ex nihilo. Divine causality is simultaneous with the totality of created effects. But they hold that immanence in what has been created depends on and derives from transcendence in creatioexnihilo. The possibility of a creating immanence does not seem to arise in Rocca’s and Aquinas’s perspective. Yet Aquinas states that while “[t]he perfection of his nature places God above everything … yet as causing their existence he also exists in everything”50. Thus Aquinas notes that God’s immanence belongs to the divine act of causing of creatures. Furthermore, I think that divine, creating immanence has languished in theological, doctrinal, pastoral, and spiritual shadows. That neglect makes it appropriate, then, to think of God’s immanence in creation as equally first with transcendence of creation. Simultaneity eludes discourse so in a series of statements why may not immanence instead of transcendence be the first divine attribute stated? Do we not also begin from divine immanence as the condition for the possibility of things actually existing, a condition known by inference from creatioexnihilo? It seems theologically appropriate, then, to balance our understanding of God and revelation by reflecting on God’s presence in creation and on that basis rethink and re-imagine revelation. I do not deny that some affirmations of immanence have wandered into pantheism and panentheism51. They effectively have ignored or denied divine transcendence and otherness. To be sure the ecotheological idea of the cosmos as God’s body has been in circulation for some time. The provocative, pedagogically effective but deficient body/soul metaphor fails to conceive divine immanence as transcendent. God cannot be conceived as like the soul of the cosmos without thereby removing transcendence from God. 50. AQUINAS, SummaTheologiae1a.2-11(n. 48), q. 8, a. 1, adprimum, 113. 51. See COOPER, Panentheism (n. 42), with which he does not agree, and which he sees operative in more authors than expected, including some who did not see their work as panentheistic.

40

T. HUGHSON

5. ATrinitarianAspectofDivineImmanence Moreover, divine creational immanence is Trinitarian. The immanence of the divine Son/Word in Special revelation makes a difference in General revelation. I leave for another occasion discussion of the immanence of the Holy Spirit. A number of New Testament passages (1 Cor 8,6; 2 Cor 5,17; Eph 2,15; Col 1,15-20; Heb 1,1-4; Rev 3,14), most famously John 1,1-14, attribute a creational role to Jesus. None of them allows the image of a Creator in distant separation from creation. In John 1,1-4 the creating Logos did not cease creating at the origin of the universe like a Deist watchmaker, or at the Incarnation but continued and continues after the Incarnation. Paul proclaimed that, “There is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things come and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8,6). Heb 1,3 professed that Christ is “sustaining the universe by his powerful command”. Creaturely dependence of Jesus the Christ has not ended. It has been subsumed into the bond of faith, so that means Christ our Savior also is our source of being. As such the divine nature of Jesus, the creating Word, is universally immanent in human existence and conscience no less than Jesus in his and Christianity’s particularity is active through the sacraments. Being in creaturely dependence on the creating Logos who is the Word made flesh pertains to the whole cosmos, every aspect and act of every existent, and to all spheres and kinds of human love, knowledge, and agency in history. Nothing in John 1,1-14 or Heb 1,3 compels imagining the creating Logos as a remote divine agent far distant from and above creation, earth, people, and history. In fact, when John 1,9 avers that the Word is, “the true light that enlightens everyone”, this cannot point to a Logos removed far from creation and humanity because the enlightenment occurs in the world. Aquinas’s commentary on John 1,4-5 provides further assistance on the immanence of Logos/Word enlightening conscience. What, he asks, is this “light of people [homines, not vir]”52? Aquinas does not think it is that of divine glory, nor is it the light of faith in Christ. Rather it has to do with what I will call the intellectual, interpretative nature of humanity as a species that enables the capacity to make free, self- directed movement in our lives open to the truth and to the vision of God. God,

52. Thomas AQUINAS, CommentaryontheGospelofJohn:Chapters1–5. Translation F. LARCHER – J.E. WEISHEIPL. Introduction and Notes D. KEATING – M. LEVERING, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2010, nos. 95-107.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

41

Aquinas points out, “teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and enlightens us more than the birds of the air”53 (Job 35,11). That can mean only that the divine Logos acts in and so is present in the world. Since the act is precisely that of creating, the presence of the enlightening Logos constitutes the universe, so to speak, from within it. The Logos is in the world and the world is in the Logos. That this is so seems to me clear and definite from Special revelation in the New Testament and from classical Christology. General and Special revelation as divine self-manifestation came to an unsurpassed completion in Jesus. The incarnate Word in his free human activities, his words and deeds, manifests the Father and depends for his impact on the seldom-visible Holy Spirit. John 1,1-14 above all indicates that Jesus who fulfills revelation is the presence of the creating Logos whose presence theretofore had been invisible, all but unknown, but never anything but near. When John 1,14 declares “And the Word became flesh”, the assuming of Jesus’ human nature was a matter of unexpected, unforeseen historical visibility and human agency for the already universally immanent Logos. The Incarnation was not a matter of the Logos overcoming a previous absence and distance. Instead the Logos/Word already was and remains omnipresent and immanent in creation, including and especially in humanity. Shifting the focus from the transcendence of the Logos “above” the world to the immanence of the Logos “within” the world alters the image and idea of the Incarnation as revelation. No longer is the Incarnation the “descent” of a remote divine agent but the divinely planned yet interruptive manifestation of the pre-existent, omnipresent, immanent, and invisible Logos. The already present and enlightening but invisible Logos irrupts into visible human history as Jesus. The divine Logos did not “arrive” on earth for the first time in Mary’s womb but had been immanent yet invisible in the cosmos and history all along. In an immanent perspective the Incarnation is the “sending” of the Logos from full and enveloping divine light with the Father, inaccessible to mortal eyes, minds, and tongues, into an incomparable and incomprehensible new presence in the real, historically visible, active, free, loving, and judging humanity of Jesus. The Father sends the Word not from far to near but from near to a new kind of nearest.

53. Ibid., no. 101.

42

T. HUGHSON

6. TheNaturalSacredasAccesstoDivineImmanence Rethinking and re-imagining revelation in light of divine immanence pertains to General revelation of the Creator in the cosmos not only in humanity and history. Natural theology is not the sole path to awareness of God from nature. Experience of the sacred in nature outlined by Mircea Eliade in his classic book, TheSacredandtheProfane, beckons thought along the path of sensibility to the sacred in nature54. In human experience of the sacred mountaintops had been sacred before the Special revelation on Mount Sinai. Whether experience of the sacred was more or less influential in the origin of religions than the need for social cohesion I do not know. But experience of the sacred as both powerful and life giving cannot be dissociated from that dimension of a way of life that can be abstracted as early “religion”. The beauty, order, and unpredictable power of nature has inspired Homosapienssapiens for what seem to be tens of thousands of years to gauge by cave paintings usually interpreted as having a sacred dimension. We do not know about a sensibility of the sacred in earlier species of the genus Homo, but I am prepared to entertain that possibility55. Did a sense of the sacred attend discovery of how to make and tend a fire 56? Of chipping stone 1.8 million years ago to the shape of the Acheulian hand-axe? Or in beginning to “speak” a primordial, probably mimetic language57? How members of modern humanity, Homosapienssapiens in Europe since perhaps 45 thousand years ago, have heard the voice of the sacred in nature seems to have run the gamut from animism to polytheism. Israel struggled against polytheist and henotheist idolatries that most likely arose from perceptions of something sacred in nature. And yet in the 54. M. ELIADE, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion, New York, Harper & Brothers, 1961. 55. For readable discussion of literature on the origins of humanity and pre-human predispositions for religion see R. BELLAH, ReligioninHumanEvolution:FromthePaleolithic to the Axial Age, Cambridge, MA, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011. 56. On human control of fire see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_ early_humans. The dating of evidence for widespread control of fire dates to only 125,000 years ago, but scientific opinion is swinging toward a date of perhaps 400,000 years ago by Homoerectus. 57. It would be very intriguing to put in dialogue theological ideas about the sacred with J. HABERMAS, chapters 2 and 3, “The Authority of the Sacred and the Normative Background of Communicative Action” and “The Rational Structure of the Linguistification of the Sacred”, respectively in The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2: LifeworldandSystem:ACritiqueofFunctionalistReason, trans. T. McCarthy, Boston, MA, Beacon Press, 1987.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

43

dialogical spirit of Vatican II, the church’s wisdom in Nostra Aetate shines forth in moving beyond simple condemnation of non-Christian religions tied to the cosmos. NostraAetate 2 teaches that From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense58.

The Latin original says, instead of “of that hidden power that hovers over the course of things”, illiusarcanaevirtutis,quaecursuirerumet eventibusvitaehumanaepraesensest. A better English translation would be “of that hidden power which is present to the course of things and to the events of human life”. The Latin, that is, lets divine immanence in the cosmos come to view and more easily lets the connotations of the “course of things and the events of human life” carry reference to the cosmos, changes in seasons, birth, marriage and death. The unfortunate English translation of hidden power “hovering” over the course of things pictures divine transcendence looming over historical events, if not too far above them, rather than present in cosmic and natural changes. French, German, and Italian translations use a variation on the Latin word, praesens. Nostra Aetate coupled with Dei Verbum provides a basis for saying that the creating of the non-human cosmos through the divine Word has been General revelation of the one God. Until the realization that there is only one God, until different kinds of monotheistic impulses took hold and after it too, perceptions of the sacred in nature played a large role. The sacred in nature may be understood as a faint echo of divine immanence. Misprisals of this obscure revelation were prevalent and harmful in for example, idolatrous conquests and human sacrifice. According to Jaspers’ thesis of an axial age between about 700 BCE and 100 CE Greek philosophers and prophets in Israel, not to overlook John the Baptist and Jesus, took major strides toward monotheism and self-governance by conscience. In other words, human religions to that point had responded to the sacred in the natural world while gradually being moved from within toward divine transcendence. Prolonging, 58. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Declaratio de Ecclesiae Habitudine ad Religiones Non-Christianae:NostraAetate, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_ council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_lt.html.

44

T. HUGHSON

protecting, re-organizing life and society according to the grasp of divine transcendence became the work of Israel, Jesus and the church. In the present that grasp has been continued and contested in classical Western theism and in Trinitarian renewal. Consequently, and without negating that transcendence I suggest that conditions are right for theological re-appraisal of the experiences of the sacred in pre-monotheistic worlds. There is room and need for further reflection on how Christian comparative theologies, such as Francis Cleary’s empathic studies of Hindu religion for example, are expanding the significance of General revelation. I wonder if a deeper appreciation of natural sacrality as response to divine immanence cannot be helpful in Catholic appreciation for African indigenous religions, and in Asia. Of course, non-theological re-appraisals by the social sciences and religious studies have a long history and have proved invaluable in missiology. But these advances do not necessarily proceed from affirmation of divine immanence as the root of, for example, indigenous religions among tribal peoples. John Neihardt compiled and narrated interviews with the Lakota Sioux shaman, Black Elk, in the book BlackElkSpeaks59. For all the marvelous accounts Neihardt presented he omitted the apparently inconvenient fact that Black Elk converted to Catholicism in 1904 and until his death in 1950 was a diligent catechist not only among the Lakota but also among some Arapahoe and Apaches as well60. He was a Lakota Sioux and a Catholic but not a European or a white American kind of Catholic. He set aside what was thought to be sorcery, he re-interpreted the Sun Dance but did not leave most Indian customs61. In effect and in the categories of a theology of revelation before his conversion Black Elk had found General revelation realized, admittedly imperfectly yet also really, in Native American experience of the natural world as a sacred environment with access to the Great Spirit62. He came to find redemption and fulfillment of the Lakota heritage in a Catholic life whose truths and values derived from Special revelation. However, he did not completely reject as incompatible with his new faith a way of life grounded in General revelation and respect for divine immanence and 59. J.G. NEIHARDT, BlackElkSpeaks:TheCompleteEdition, Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press, 1932-2014. 60. For a critique of Neihardt and on Black Elk as Catholic catechist see R. ENOCHS, TheJesuitMissiontotheLakotaSioux:AStudyofPastoralMinistry,1886-1945, Kansas City, MO, Sheed and Ward, 1996, pp. 75-88. 61. Ibid., pp. 85-86. 62. See J. PORTER, NativeAmericanEnvironmentalism:Land,Spirit,andtheIdeaof Wilderness, Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press, 2012, chapter 3: “Spiritual Approaches to Life in America”.

INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION

45

transcendence. Neither Neihardt nor the missionaries thought that God within nature, divine immanence, was at stake. Black Elk seems to have led Native American appreciation for immanence and transcendence into Christian faith that gave more space to transcendence. I wonder if appreciation for divine immanence to nature and the cosmos would have assisted the missionaries beyond pastoral accommodations and into a Western and Native American search for God under the aspect of immanence. Since the 1970’s quite a few formerly Catholic and Protestant Native Americans have deliberately re-appropriated pre-Christian experiences of the sacred in nature and the spiritual world of ancestors and spirits connected to nature. Their grasp of colonialism and of a history of exploitation by white America has much to do with this. But like Black Elk many of them also practice Catholicism with respect for their heritage, though often in urban environments with less direct connection to nature and tribal kinship. But what about Western Christians? Is General revelation of divine immanence in nature altogether foregone by their being modern/postmodern, Western, and Christian? I do not think so. What stands in need of further theological reflection is how Christians, especially in the contemporary West, after immersion in Special revelation by incorporation into Christ and the church may rediscover in General revelation the sacrality of nature intimating divine immanence63. Appreciation of divine immanence may occur in many ways from epiphany to hard-headed appropriation of Aquinas on immanence/transcendence. IV. CONCLUSION The foregoing discussion hopefully contributes not only to rethinking General and Special revelation in light of divine immanence but also to theological and not only social-scientific reasons for learning about the religio-cultural ways of indigenous peoples. Sacral access to General revelation of the divine immanent in the cosmos remains a possibility for those already Christian no less than does natural theology. An ascending General revelation of cosmic and natural sacrality need not be conceived as contrary to a descending Special revelation any more than commitment to natural theology in official Catholic doctrine contradicts Special revelation. Sacral experience of nature and the cosmos that 63. See T. HUGHSON, Creation as an Ecumenical Problem: Renewed Belief through GreenExperience, in TheologicalStudies 75 (2014) 816-846.

46

T. HUGHSON

is not specifically Christian, and in pre-Vatican II terminology “pagan”, is not by that fact alone anti-Christian. As is well known in the experiences of indigenous people converting to Christianity and in modern missiology sublating pre-Christian religion into the Christian horizon does not necessarily mean negating everything pre-Christian in their lives. Some judgments of fact and value undoubtedly undergo change in conversion. But, equally well-known on the other hand is that conversion and sublation of a former way of life do not mean that previous inculturations of Christianity are completely normative for new Christians. Nor, finally, does renewal of response to General revelation from within Special revelation instantiate the “return of the sacred” that seeks to restore pre-modern Christendom. Attention to the numinous quality of the cosmos and nature does not negate the secularized emancipation of society’s main institutions from religious authority. It does keep the church open to respect for cultures and religions in Africa, Asia, and the Americas that have not lost touch with divine immanence. Marquette University P.O. Box 1881 Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881 USA [email protected]

Thomas HUGHSON, SJ

VATICAN II ON THE INCULTURATION OF REASON AND FAITH “THAT THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL DISCIPLINES BE MORE SUITABLY ALIGNED…”1

I. FAITH, REASON, AND THE EMERGENCE OF CONTEXTUAL THEOLOGIES The enterprise of Catholic theology has long presupposed that it stands in a mutually supportive conceptual and pedagogical relationship with philosophical inquiry, a relationship based on a mutual recognition of complementary roles for faith and human reason in attaining and articulating truth. In contrast to this presupposition of a fundamental consonance between faith and reason, a major element in the formative matrix of the intellectual cultures of modernity has consisted in accounts of reason, particularly as construed in instrumental, formal, and procedural terms, that undermine possibilities of a substantive complementarity between reason and faith2. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries such accounts were periodically subject both to critical theological scrutiny and to church condemnation, and were thus also counterposed by vigorous re-affirmations of such complementarity, most notably in efforts to make a renewed and reinvigorated Thomism the primary philosophical locus from which Catholic theology would engage and exemplify how reason and faith function in consonance with one another3. It is thus not surprising to find an unhesitating affirmation of such complementarity in 1. OptatamTotius14. 2. One influential version of an account that pits faith and reason against each other in a zero-sum combat that provides a fundamental marker of modernity is what Charles TAYLOR refers to (and criticizes) as a “subtraction story”. According to this account, the rise of scientific reason and methods and the “disenchantment” that ensues in its wake inevitably bring about the decline, diminishment, and eventual demise of religion and faith; see A Secular Age, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2007, pp. 26-27, 264-273, 572-577. Terry EAGLETON has recently provided a critique of such accounts, CultureandtheDeathofGod, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2014, that offers an insightful and provocative complement to the one Taylor makes. 3. See G.A. MCCOOL, CatholicTheologyintheNineteenthCentury:TheQuestfora UnitaryMethod, New York, Seabury, 1977 and FromUnitytoPluralism:TheInternal EvolutionofThomism, New York, Fordham University Press, 1989, for an overall account of the emergence of neo-Thomism as a response to various “modern” construals of reason. McCool observes: “The debate over faith and reason was far from being a theoretical one

48

P.J. ROSSI

the occasional passages in which various documents of Vatican II make explicit mention of the relationships between faith and reason and between philosophy and theology. DeiVerbum 6 thus reaffirms the statement of Vatican I in DeiFilius 1 that “God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason” and Gaudium et Spes 59 reaffirms the complementary statements from DeiFilius 4 “that there are ‘two orders of knowledge’ which are distinct, namely faith and reason”, and that “the Church does not forbid that ‘the human arts and disciplines use their own principles and their proper method, each in its own domain’”. While these Vatican II affirmations of the consonance between faith and reason stand in continuity with those of Vatican I, there also is a significant difference in both the intra- and extra-ecclesial intellectual and cultural contexts from which they each were made and in which Vatican II’s affirmations have subsequently functioned. In largest terms, this difference is the one that lies between Vatican I’s oppositional engagement with the intellectual and cultural dynamics of modernity in its late nineteenth century forms and Vatican II’s more constructive engagement with the configurations of those dynamics as they had become emergent by the mid-twentieth century4. In the decades since the closing of Vatican II, there has been much exploration and analysis – as well as much contention – about the impact that the Council’s constructive engagement with modernity and its aftermath has upon all aspects of the Church’s life; these discussions have occasionally, but not extensively, included attention to the manner in which theological and philosophical inquiry are pursued as fundamental and complementary elements of the Catholic intellectual and scholarly tradition5. One significant locus in which such exploration has taken place concerns the extent to which the Council’s own exemplification of an attentiveness and engagement with the realities of human culture in its

and, since it touched upon the most sensitive and fundamental points of Catholic theology, it is not surprising that it became emotional and bitter” (CatholicTheology, p. 19). 4. For an overview of the context from which this difference emerged, see J.W. O’MALLEY, What Happened at Vatican II?, Cambridge, MA, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008, pp. 53-92: “The Long Nineteenth Century”. 5. See, for instance, Ex Corde Ecclesiae 16-20, which treat of the disciplinary and curricular roles of philosophy and theology in fostering the integration of knowledge in the context of university research and instruction. In a way similar to Vatican II’s documents, the points made in this Apostolic Constitution about the integrative functions of philosophy and theology in the pursuit of knowledge and truth presuppose the complementarity of these disciplines without, however, closely analyzing the character and modality of such complementarity.

VATICAN II ON THE INCULTURATION OF REASON AND FAITH

49

historical situatedness – an engagement signaled in tropes such as “reading the signs of the times in the light of faith” and aggiornamento – has provided the soil and nurture that has enabled the articulation and development of a large range of what have come to be known as contextual theologies6. These modes of theological analysis, constructed in reference to the concrete life situations of communities of faith and the sociocultural contexts that provide the loci for their responses to the proclamation of the good news, have (though also not without controversy) increasingly become points of reference for the enrichment of reflective theological discourse and pastoral practice for the entire church. Hand in hand with the articulation of such contextual theologies, moreover, has been the development of explicit attention to the dynamics of inculturation, processes that require careful and continuing discernment for shaping the manner in which the gospel is proclaimed in specific sociocultural contexts so that it might more fruitfully align with the movements of God’s grace and spirit that can be perceived as already at work in those contexts7. This robust emergence of contextual theologies with its concomitant awareness of the dynamics of inculturation does not, however, seem to have a clear counterpart or parallel in terms of post-conciliar efforts to engage and articulate the scope and the character of the complementary of faith and reason. With respect to the conciliar documents themselves, this is not surprising. Many of the documents – particularly ones that have been consistent foci of attention since the Council (e.g., GaudiumetSpes,NostraeAetate,DeiVerbum, DignitatisHumanae) – exhibit extensive constructive engagement with central elements of modernity; that engagement, however, in keeping with the Council’s deeply pastoral focus, bears primarily upon envisioning how to renew the manner of the Church’s lived witness in a world shaped by those elements. 6. Robert J. SCHREITER’s ConstructingLocalTheologies(Maryknoll, NY, Orbis, 1985) continues to stand as a seminal account both of the emergence of contextual theologies and of the major elements that enter into their articulation and development. 7. Pope FRANCIS, EvangeliiGaudium 71, offers an intriguing and challenging description, referenced to urban culture, of the process of inculturation: “The new Jerusalem, the holy city (cf. Rev 21,2-4), is the goal towards which all of humanity is moving. It is curious that God’s revelation tells us that the fullness of humanity and of history is realized in a city. We need to look at our cities with a contemplative gaze, a gaze of faith which sees God dwelling in their homes, in their streets and squares. God’s presence accompanies the sincere efforts of individuals and groups to find encouragement and meaning in their lives. He dwells among them, fostering solidarity, fraternity, and the desire for goodness, truth and justice. This presence must not be contrived but found, uncovered. God does not hide himself from those who seek him with a sincere heart, even though they do so tentatively, in a vague and haphazard manner”.

50

P.J. ROSSI

The tenor of Vatican II’s treatment of atheism provides a notable instance of this emphasis on lived witness that has particular import for articulating in and for contemporary contexts, first, the scope and the character of the complementary of faith and reason, second, how the articulation of such contextually shaped character then functions for the practice of the disciplines of theological and philosophical inquiry. As the previously noted reaffirmations of the teaching of Vatican I on faith and reason indicate, Vatican II shares that earlier council’s concern to respond to and to stand against forms of atheism emergent in modernity. What seems different from the predecessor council, however, is that Vatican II is less concerned with the task of providing a theoretical refutation of such atheism; the account of atheism provided in Gaudiumet Spes 19-21 thus presents such refutation not primarily in terms of an argumentative polemic, but rather as a multi-faceted enterprise requiring a range of carefully discerned theoretical and practical responses, especially those that bear upon the living witness to be given through lives of faith: The remedy which must be applied to atheism, however, is to be sought in a proper presentation of the Church’s teaching as well as in the integral life of the Church and her members. For it is the function of the Church, led by the Holy Spirit Who renews and purifies her ceaselessly, to make God the Father and His Incarnate Son present and in a sense visible (GS 21).

Within this practically and pastorally construed context of the Church’s engagement with modernity, the documents understandably do not then manifest any notably urgent need to give sustained attention to some of the more abstract and theoretical concerns that in many cases had previously been the focus of apologetic and polemical responses to the modern forms of theoretical atheism. The documents thus do not explicitly discuss how the historical and cultural dynamics from which both modernity’s construals of reason and the subsequent theological responses to them that emerged played a role in giving contemporary forms of atheism their particular intellectual and socio-cultural shape8. In consequence, the 8. One later document that does offer an account of such dynamics is BENEDICT XVI’s 2007 encyclical, SpeSalvi,in the section “The transformation of Christian faith-hope in the modern age”,nos. 16-23; in no. 22 the Pope makes one especially apposite observation about how both modern atheism and the mode of much theological response to it have been shaped within the same social-cultural matrix of modernity: “Flowing into this self-critique of the modern age there also has to be a self-critique of modern Christianity, which must constantly renew its self-understanding setting out from its roots”. With regard to the larger historical and theological picture of the emergence of modern and contemporary atheism, the work of M.J. BUCKLEY, At the Origins of Modern Atheism (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1987) and Denying and Disclosing God: The

VATICAN II ON THE INCULTURATION OF REASON AND FAITH

51

documents do not articulate an explicit theoretical basis from which to invite reconsideration of, first, how to understand and articulate the complementarity of faith and reason as it functions in contemporary contexts shaped by the various historical and cultural dynamics of modernity, and, second, what consequences such reconsidered complementarity might then entail for the practices of philosophical and theological inquiry and teaching. As a result, it might be said that even as the Council and the conciliar documents have provided an important impetus for the late twentieth and early twenty-first century growth of contextual theologies, these same documents have yet to be engaged in ways that could provide a similar impetus for exploring and developing possibilities for “contextualized philosophies” now to enter into conversation with appropriate modes of theology. Yet, as I will point out in the next section, there are at least two documents that offer a basis from which to set such an impetus into motion. These documents begin to identify and articulate a need for engaging in a counterpart contextualization for forms of philosophical discourse in order for them to serve as effective and important interlocutors for the enterprise of theology for a world and a church that has become both increasingly aware of and challenged by the extraordinary gift of the rich and abundant plurality of human cultures. II. ARTICULATING CONTEXTUAL AND INCULTURATED PHILOSOPHIES: GESTURES AND HINTS FROM THE COUNCIL DOCUMENTS The Council thus did not, in fact, pass over possibilities for the articulation of contextualized philosophies in complete silence. There are passages from at least two conciliar decrees, OptatamTotius (On Priestly Training) and Ad Gentes (On the Missionary Activity of the Church), that, in my judgment, provide initial bases from which to begin a constructive exploration and engagement of concrete possibilities for contextualizing philosophy along with a concomitant attention to the inculturation of philosophy; such possibilities, moreover, specifically bear upon efforts to construe relationships between faith and reason as they function (or also fail to function) in interaction with each other within concrete culturalcontexts and between concretemodalitiesofphilosophicaland theological inquiry. This is a particularly important point to stress, AmbiguousProgressofModernAtheism (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2004) is seminal.

52

P.J. ROSSI

inasmuch as a key initial step for contextualizing philosophical inquiry and theological inquiry with respect to each other consists in noting the possibility that there may not yet be such a thing as “the” relation between philosophy and theology; it is a relation that continues to be “under construction”, rather than one that has already been definitively given and articulated. Contextualization begins with the recognition that there may not yet be a single, definitive, abstractly generalizable and fully articulated relation that holds a priori across the whole range of forms such inquiries have historically taken within the varied and multiple contexts of human culture: To start from such an apriori is precisely to decontextualize the historical forms of both philosophical and theological inquiry. On the contrary, the relations that need to be construed and examined in projects to articulate dimensions of contextualized engagements between philosophy and theology are precisely those that can be articulated to hold betweenspecificformsofeachinquiry as they function in relation to one another in their concrete historical and socio-cultural contexts. In addition to the methodological caveat just enunciated, an examination of passages from the Council documents pertinent to possibilities for contextualizing philosophy will also find it useful to keep in mind that John Paul II’s 1998 Encyclical, Fides and ratio, offers an important post-conciliar articulation of some of the modalities by which faith and reason engage one another. Within that articulation, an element of key importance for efforts to contextualize philosophy lies in the fact that the encyclical both envisions and validates possibilities for Catholic theology to engage modes of philosophical discourse and conceptuality beyond the varieties of Thomism that constituted the philosophical horizon for Catholic theology for much of the last century. Even though Fides etRatio unsurprisingly functions under a presupposition that it is possible to give a unified, single account of how faith and reason (and thus philosophy and theology as well) stand in relation to one another, the encyclical nonetheless also makes clear provision for the acknowledgment of a certain kind of philosophical contextuality. It makes such a provision in that it encourages Catholic theology to engage a range of philosophical discourses that stand outside the ambit of Thomist and scholastic conceptuality9. In addition, the encyclical also takes note of some dimensions of 9. FidesetRatio54 observes “We see the same fruitful relationship between philosophy and the word of God in the courageous research pursued by more recent thinkers, among whom I gladly mention, in a Western context, figures such as John Henry Newman, Antonio Rosmini, Jacques Maritain, Étienne Gilson and Edith Stein and, in an Eastern context, eminent scholars such as Vladimir S. Soloviev, Pavel A. Florensky, Petr

VATICAN II ON THE INCULTURATION OF REASON AND FAITH

53

inculturation that affect the teaching of philosophy, even though it does not explore the extent to which such inculturation might also affect the content or method of philosophy in its practice as a form of inquiry. Inculturation and contextualization are thus recognized as significant for determining enlarged or new ways for the effective teaching of philosophy in varied cultural contexts, but the encyclical does not explicitly treat of the significance that such different contexts may also have either for the content or for the methods of philosophical inquiry itself. This limitation upon the scope of the significance that contextualization and inculturation may have upon the philosophical teaching and inquiry has at least two further consequences. The first is that the encyclical does not extensively articulate or engage larger questions about the possibilities and modalities for appropriately contextualizing philosophy and for attending to its inculturated forms, particularly as these might stand only at or beyond the horizon of Western conceptual traditions. The second is that it does not explore in detail the significance that engaging in dialogue with those other traditions might then have with regard to possibilities for framing new or enlarged modalities for construing faith and reason in relation to one another, first, as itself a component for the discourse of such intercultural dialogue and, second, as a potential contribution to the modalities of the philosophical and the theological discourses that have long been internal to the Western traditions of Christian reflection and inquiry. Fides et Ratio 72 holds particular significance for this discussion of the possibilities that contextualizing and inculturating philosophy present for both enriching and enlarging ways to construe how faith and reason stand in relation to one another within concrete cultural contexts. This section begins with an affirmation that indicates the opportunity and need for an inculturated engagement with philosophy on a global scale: In preaching the Gospel, Christianity first encountered Greek philosophy; but this does not mean at all that other approaches are precluded. Today, as the Gospel gradually comes into contact with cultural worlds which once lay beyond Christian influence, there are new tasks of inculturation, which mean that our generation faces problems not unlike those faced by the Church in the first centuries.

In its subsequent treatment of possibilities for constructive theological engagement with the philosophical traditions of India and China, Chaadaev and Vladimir N. Lossky”. On the other hand, it is not without consequence that the encyclical still pays little attention to significant modalities of contemporary philosophical inquiry such as so-called “analytic” philosophy and pragmatism.

54

P.J. ROSSI

however, the encyclical articulates such engagement primarily in terms of an enrichment that apparently functions uni-directionally – “it is the duty of Christians now to draw from this rich heritage the elements compatible with their faith, in order to enrich Christian thought” – and then further cautions that … in engaging great cultures for the first time, the Church cannot abandon what she has gained from her inculturation in the world of Greco-Latin thought. To reject this heritage would be to deny the providential plan of God who guides his Church down the paths of time and history.

In consequence, as the encyclical construes such enrichment, it does not seem to carry with it possibilities for a re-examination, let alone a re-construal, of the modality and the operation of the consonance between faith and reason as this has so far been articulated within Western Christianity by traditions of Latin Catholicism. Against the background of the cautious and limited endorsement that Fides et Ratio subsequently gives to at least some contextualizing of philosophy, let me now turn to a direct exploration of the relevant passages in OptatamTotius and AdGentesthat provide bases for pursuing such constructive engagement with questions of “philosophical contextuality” and the inculturation of philosophy. OptatamTotius 14-15 offers what I think may be considered an initial gesture (but perhaps no more) toward one basis from which there could be a rethinking the “suitable alignment” of the philosophical and theological disciplines in the context of seminary formation. This involves teaching philosophy so that it takes account of the particular inculturated circumstances within which “the philosophical investigations of later ages” – which I take as primarily a reference to Western philosophy of the modern era – have had “influence on their [i.e., the seminarians] own nations”. The philosophical disciplines are to be taught in such a way that the students are first of all led to acquire a solid and coherent knowledge of man, the world, and of God, relying on a philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid and taking into account the philosophical investigations of later ages. This is especially true of those investigations which exercise a greater influence in their own nations. Account should also be taken of the more recent progress of the sciences. The net result should be that the students, correctly understanding the characteristics of the contemporary mind, will be duly prepared for dialogue with men of their time (OT 15).

The document indicates that this need for attention to the way in which later Western philosophy has had an “influence” on a particular culture arises in function of enabling students to reflectively identify elements of theirownculturalcontextas the receptive matrix for the inculturation

VATICAN II ON THE INCULTURATION OF REASON AND FAITH

55

of a philosophy (presumably) emergent from the context of Western modernity. To that extent, the document draws attention to the need for critical reflection upon what I would term a “secondary” inculturation of (in this case modern Western) philosophy into a new context, but it does not engage the more fundamental question of the original contextuality of that – or indeed – of any philosophy even as such philosophy might move toward inculturation into a new context. The relevant passages in AdGentes 16 and 22 – which also bear upon priestly training – offer what I take to be a more robust and challenging basis for such rethinking the complementarity of faith and reason in view of a critical and reflective engagement with the processes of inculturation than what seems tentatively suggested in OptatamTotius. AdGentes 16 proposes that candidates for priesthood engage the reflective traditions of their own culture from a horizon of mutual enrichment that is larger than one that can be viewed out of a critical attention to cultural receptivity as proposed in OptatamTotius. A key standpoint enjoined for this horizon is the seminarians’ development of an appreciation of their own culture; this appreciation is then to open up a larger vista for interreligious and intercultural encounters situated in Christian faith: These common requirements of priestly training, including the pastoral and practical ones prescribed by the council should be combined with an attempt to make contact with their own particular national way of thinking and acting. Therefore, let the minds of the students be kept open and attuned to an acquaintance and an appreciation of their own nation’s culture. In their philosophical and theological studies, let them consider the points of contact which mediate between the traditions and religion of their homeland on the one hand and the Christian religion on the other.

Of potentially greater importance, AdGentes 22 then expands the field of this encounter considerably beyond that of seminary training to encompass as well the life of the local church: In harmony with the economy of the Incarnation, the young churches, rooted in Christ and built up on the foundation of the Apostles, take to themselves in a wonderful exchange all the riches of the nations which were given to Christ as an inheritance (cf. Ps 2,8). They borrow from the customs and traditions of their people, from their wisdom and their learning, from their arts and disciplines, all those things which can contribute to the glory of their Creator, or enhance the grace of their Savior, or dispose Christian life the way it should be.

It then goes on to specify the theological component of this task in a way that, in my estimation, places inculturated reflective articulation of the complementarity of faith and reason as a key point of reference:

56

P.J. ROSSI

…it is necessary that in each major socio-cultural area, such theological speculation should be encouraged, in the light of the universal Church’s tradition, as may submit to a new scrutiny the words and deeds which God has revealed, and which have been set down in Sacred Scripture and explained by the Fathers and by the magisterium. Thus it will be more clearly seen in what ways faith may seek for understanding, with due regard for the philosophy and wisdom of these peoples; it will be seen in what ways their customs, views on life, and social order, can be reconciled with the manner of living taught by divine revelation.

I am thus proposing that we read these texts as urging upon philosophers and theologians alike the task of developing appropriately contextualized and inculturated articulations of the complementarity of faith and reason. Taking up this task would provide important elements for developing and promoting what Gaudium et Spes 44 affirms as the “living exchange between the Church and the diverse cultures of people”. As that same section notes, faith’s engagement with philosophy has long been a fundamental part of such a living exchange: For, from the beginning of [the Church’s] history she has learned to express the message of Christ with the help of the ideas and terminology of various philosophers, and has tried to clarify it with their wisdom, too.

Yet there is a degree to which this task is one that for the philosophical side of the exchange may very well be more challenging, unfamiliar, and difficult than it is on the theological side. This is so in that attention to contextualization and inculturation as important outcomes arising from awareness that human historicity that goes “all the way down” has been an unaddressed challenge for many modes of philosophical discourse, including (and, in some cases, especially) those with a long history of engagement with theology. Philosophy (pace Hegel) has only started to acknowledge how fully it is immersed in human history and culture and to articulate the implications of that historicity. III. CONCLUSION: THE CHALLENGE OF INCULTURATING REASON The discourse of theology has now had decades of practice to grapple with a historicity that goes “all the way down” in its receptivity to the revelation of God’s word and to become familiar with (though perhaps not yet fully comfortable with) various inculturated inflections and contextualized theological grammars. It has been harder, on the other hand, for philosophical discourse to situate itself within a historicity that “goes

VATICAN II ON THE INCULTURATION OF REASON AND FAITH

57

all the way down” through the complex modalities of the human enterprise of “making sense”, and for which “reason” has long served as an honorable and appropriate trope. In consequence it may very well be that the most urgent philosophical task that needs to be undertaken in order to develop appropriately contextualized and inculturated articulations of the complementarity of faith and reason will be the enterprise of philosophically articulating the scope and the function of “reason” in the full (and fully) historical array of its contextualized and inculturated expressions and workings. Department of Theology Marquette University PO Box 1881 Milwaukee WI 53201-1881 USA [email protected]

Philip J. ROSSI, SJ

PART II IS DIALOGUE ABOUT THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH? CROSS-FERTILISING NOSTRAAETATE WITH ADGENTES

DIALOGUE AND THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH

I thank the organizers of this Conference for inviting me to share some thoughts with you. As a member of a Missionary Society founded in North Africa by Cardinal Charles Lavigerie in 1868 for Africa, dialogue with other religions, and especially with Muslims, has always been important for us1. The event of the Second Vatican Council (11 October 1962 – 8 December 1965) whose Golden Jubilee we are celebrating in this Conference, still remains a watershed in the history of the Church and her relations with the world and with other religions. It is this second aspect, relations with other religions and especially with Islam, that I want to explore with you in this paper. I. PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH AND DIALOGUE: AN INCOMPATIBLE PAIR? There has been an evolution in the concept “mission” and “evangelization” over the years2. From an initial conception of planting the Church and saving souls there has been a gradual opening to other religions and entering into dialogue3. This is reflected in Vatican II documents and in particular in AdGentes (AG)and NostraAetate (NA). 1. PlanttheChurchandSaveSouls In the popular conception of many people, mission was something some people did in some distant lands where people lived in darkness. They had to be saved from the fires of hell because that was the place where all who were not baptized were destined to end up. Fired by the 1. The first article of our Constitutions and Laws (2006), states our mission in the following terms: “Its aim is to proclaim the Gospel to the peoples of the African world. Because of its origins the Society has always had a particular interest in Muslims”. R.K. B AAWOBR , The Journey of the Young Churches: An African Perspective, in P. GROGAN – K. KIM (eds.), TheNewEvangelization:Faith,People,ContextandPractice, London, Bloomsbury, 2015, 165-178, pp. 168-169. 2. Cf. J. DUPUIS, Jésus-Christàlarencontredesreligions(Jésus et Jésus-Christ, 39), Paris, Desclée, 1989, p. 270. 3. A. MAYER, TheNewEvangelizationandOtherReligions:ProclamationandDialogue, in GROGAN – KIM (eds.), TheNewEvangelization (n. 1), 197-207, pp. 199-203.

62

R.K. BAAWOBR

love of God and of neighbor, many young men and women left the comfort of their countries in order to share the Good News of being saved by Jesus with other peoples they did not know. They often lived in very difficult situations, in such new places where they had to learn the language and culture of the people in order to be able to share the message with them. Many died premature deaths because of sickness. The mandate of Christ to go and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28,18-20) is often used as the driving missionary text. The missionary agenda was clearly one of conversion of those who did not know Christ (Primary Evangelization) in order to save souls for Christ and to plant the Church so that a local church might be born in places where they have not yet heard of Christ (AG 6). This was often even a transplantation of the Church that they had known in their countries of origin. People were to be catechized, baptized and educated in the faith as disciples of Jesus. Even at the World Council of Churches, there was a dream to see a Christian world in the twentieth century! Missionaries were always involved in evangelization, development, education and the promotion of life conditions that would contribute to the salvation of the whole person and not just of the soul. The Church was often a pioneer in some of the social services (schools, hospitals, etc.). Missionaries were very generous with their time and resources in learning languages in the new cultures that welcomed them. They realized that this was indispensable in order to share the message of the Gospel with the people so that Christ might be known, accepted and loved and thus people might be saved from hell. Anybody who was not Catholic had to be saved, otherwise he would perish and missionaries felt they were responsible. This horizontal aspect of Mission was most visible and was easier to report in statistics, such as the number of baptisms, schools, hospitals, etc. However behind this horizontal aspect was the vertical aspect that was more difficult to measure. Some actions would indicate that one is a disciple of Jesus, but to what extent does it come from the heart? That is still difficult to measure even today! We cannot, for instance, tell how much faith a person has because he or she has been treated in a Catholic Hospital. However, I believe, this is also a way of preaching the Gospel. St Francis said to his brothers: “Preach always and if necessary use words”. This is dialogue and, as I will describe later, it takes many forms according to the contexts and people involved. As we once lived in a world in which communication was not so easy and where often what people knew, especially in the West, was presented as the supreme good to which others had to aspire, many did not think it

DIALOGUE AND THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH

63

worthwhile to look at other religions in a positive manner. The others were more objects of conversion than dialogue partners. Their religious background was of little interest other than being a means of attacking them better. The Catholic Church has evolved in her concept and practice of evangelization and consequently of interreligious and ecumenical dialogue. A quick glance at our past can help us humbly acknowledge that as a community/church we have not always been as open and charitable to other faiths as Vatican II would later invite us to be. 2. MissingtheStepsintheDialoguewithMuslims The relations between Christians and other religions, and Islam in particular, passed from one of polemical confrontation to apologetic before being one of dialogue4. There seems to have been a fundamental misunderstanding from the outset between Islam as it took its place on the scene of world monotheistic religions and Christianity as it tried to hold on to its place in the face of the new religion5. The fact that, from the beginning, Islam claimed to correct the deviations of both Jews and Christians and bring them back to the purer original form of monotheism of Abraham, opened the way for conflict. At the time of the preaching of Mohammed in Mecca (610-622), he opposed the polytheism of the Arabs of the Peninsula and seemed close to the teaching of Judaism and Christianity, even if the type of Christians he would have met at the time were Nestorians (condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431), Monophysites and Jacobites (condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451). There were also Melkites, faithful to the orthodox faith as proclaimed by Ephesus and Chalcedon, supporting and supported by the Byzantine Emperor. However, quite early on there was opposition between Christians and Muslims. The hijrain 622 gave rise to the formation of the Islamic community which in fact became a new political entity. After the death of Muhammad in 632, this new entity expanded and this expansion 4. Cf. The indicative title of the book of J. DUPUIS, Larencontreduchristianismeet desreligions:Del’affrontementaudialogue, Paris, Cerf, 2002 and that of L. MAGESA, AfricanReligionintheDialogueDebate:FromIntolerancetoCoexistence (Interreligious Studies, 3), Wien, LIT Verlag, 2010; J.-M. GAUDEUL, EncountersandClashes:AHistory of Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Roma, Pontificio istituto di studi arabi e d’islamistica, 2000. 5. For a historical presentation cf. M. BORRMANS, Chrétiensetmusulmans:Proches etlointains, Paris, Mediaspaul, 2015, pp. 37-61.

64

R.K. BAAWOBR

continued, often by means of warfare, under the first four caliphs (632661), and later under the Umayyad caliphs based in Damascus (661-750). During this time Islam spread in the Near East, across North Africa and into Spain, and also into Persia and India. Under the Abbasid caliphs in Baghdad (750-1258) Islamic civilization reached its peak. Later the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinople in 1453, continued the expansion of Islam into the Balkans. It must be pointed out that in other parts of the world Islam spread through trade. Yet there were often conflicts with Christians who found themselves discriminated against even when they were considered as the “protected” minority (dhimma) in the Empire. In later times, when many parts of the Islamic world were colonized by Western powers, the Muslims felt that they were prevented from developing according to their own aspirations. In the writings of Christians in the 7th century, there was a lot of suspicion about Islam as it grew stronger. Saint John Damascene (675-753)6 presented Islam as a heresy similar to Arianism, “the heresy of the Ishmaelites, the sons of Hagar”, also known as the Saracens. Similar works of this type followed in which Christianity was considered as the true religion and Islam as false. The Crusades (1099-1281) did not improve things; on the contrary, they brought Christians of the West into contact with Muslims of the East, but this only resulted in nourishing still more the polemics in the writings of Muslims contesting the Bible. Both worlds – Christian (Latin) and Muslim (Arabic) – tried to affirm their identities at the expense of the other through deepening their theological studies but in view of better refuting the other. In the 13th century, for example, when the first Latin translation of the Koran was made (on the initiative of the Abbot of Cluny, Peter the Venerable), the aim was apologetic and polemical in view of refuting Islam. Christians were accused by Muslims of falsifying the Scriptures and faith in the Triune God was assimilated to polytheism7. The only area where there was fruitful encounter and exchange was in trade! It would take the meeting of Saint Francis (1216) and the Sultan whom he had set out to convert to Christianity, to bring about the realization that faith in God and religious values do exist outside of the Church and that all in the East was not as barbarian as had been presented and used as a justification for the Crusades! At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, because of European Orientalism, many Christians came to a better understanding of Islam from within regarding its history, philosophy, theology and mysticism, through 6. In the second part of his work Dehaeresibus,chapters 100-101. 7. M. LELONG, Dusouveniràl’espérance, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2015, p. 67.

DIALOGUE AND THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH

65

studies coming out of the Universities of France, England and Germany. A different type of debate began to take place about missionary methods. This led progressively to abandoning the polemical and apologetic methods in view of something else: dialogue and collaboration. The experiences of people like Charles Lavigerie in Algeria, Charles de Foucauld at Nazareth, at Beni Abbès and at Tamanrasset, of Fr. Henri Marchal of the Missionaries of Africa in North Africa, and of Louis Massignon, the renowned French scholar of Islam, helped open the way. Often a personal encounter with a Muslim who was living his faith wholeheartedly was the turning point for some of them. In the case of Lavigerie, his meeting with the Emir Abdelkader at Damascus turned out to be important. The Emir had defended the Christian population of the Middle East. When the Cardinal thanked and praised him for his sense of justice, he said that he had just done his duty and did not deserve praise for that8. It is understandable that in the pre-Vatican II period, and in the theology of that time, there was no room for interreligious dialogue because of the belief that extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside of the Church there is no salvation”). This position that had its meaning in its time, was hardened and became exclusive from the 5th century onwards till the 15th century when, with the “discovery” of new territories and new peoples in the Americas, some theologians started asking themselves if God could really be so restrictive in his offer of salvation to just a handful of Catholics and leave out the rest of humanity, even other Christians, because they do not belong to the Catholic Church! The development of communication and easy travel has shrunk the space between peoples and it is still doing so more and more, making us really one human family called to live in and take care of our common home. For us all, as Christians and as Muslims, to move in the right direction it is necessary to recognize this past and to heal the memories of the past, through mutual reconciliation, and to purify our language which can at times be pretentious. Saint John Paul II affirmed this in front of his Muslim audience at Casablanca on August 19, 1985 when he said: Chrétiens et Musulmans, nous nous sommes généralement mal compris, et quelques fois, dans le passé, nous nous sommes opposés et même épuisés en polémiques et en guerres9. 8. Ibid., p. 75. 9. Cf. M. BORRMANS, “Pour un meilleur dialogue islamo-chrétien”, address delivered at AtelierPréparatoiredusommetsurledialogueislamochrétien, Dakar 6/8 avril 2005, p. 2. English translation of this speech in F. GIOIA, InterreligiousDialogue:TheOfficial Teaching of the Catholic Church from Vatican II to John Paul II (1963-2005), Boston, MA, Pauline Books & Media, 2006.

66

R.K. BAAWOBR

This is the time for dialogue and we cannot and must not run away from it! II. OPENING

THE

CHURCH TO DIALOGUE

The permanent dilemma of Christianity is that it has to announce the message of Jesus Christ to all peoples while at the same time respecting the spiritual and cultural values of the people to whom the Gospel is announced. This problem was there already at the beginning of the Church. The early Christians were confronted with the question of how to live their faith in the face of some Jewish values and laws. The Council of Jerusalem brought light to the debate. Over the years, different generations have had to ask themselves the question: What is it of our faith that cannot change as we enter into contact with other faiths and cultures? It would take time and different schisms and wars before the message finally sank home that we have to respect and welcome the cultural values of the people to whom we are sent. Our Founder, Cardinal Lavigerie, made similar recommendations to his missionaries and often insisted that they should spend the first 6 months in a place learning the language of the people. In his first instructions to the Missionaries sent to Equatorial Africa, in March 1876, Lavigerie wrote the following: La connaissance de la langue indigène est indispensable pour la prédication; il est nécessaire que les Missionnaires s’y forment le mieux et le plus promptement possible. Dès qu’ils seront désignés pour la Mission, ils devront consacrer à cette étude tous les moments de loisir. Je recommande instamment aux Supérieurs des Missions de veiller à ce que cette recommandation capitale soit mise en pratique partout. Je désire que, dès que la chose sera possible et au plus tard six mois après l’arrivée dans la mission, tous les missionnaires ne parlent plus entre eux que la langue des tribus au milieu desquelles ils résident10.

In the same instructions, he exhorted them, where it was not yet done, to compose dictionaries of the local language, to compose the Catechism, and translate the Gospels.

10. S.E. Cardinal LAVIGERIE, Instructions aux Missionnaires, Namur, Grands Lacs, 1950, p. 70.

DIALOGUE AND THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH

67

Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) in his encyclical EvangeliiPraecones(EP, 22.6.1951) exhorted missionaries to do the same. In a letter to the Prefect of the Congregation of the Evangelisation of Peoples, Pope Pius XII wrote the following: The Church’s aim is not the domination of peoples or the gaining of temporal dominions; she is eager only to bring the supernatural light of faith to all peoples, and to promote the interests of civilization and culture, and fraternal concord among nations (EP 23).

Pope Pius XII affirmed: The Church, from the beginning down to our own time, has always followed this wise practice: let not the Gospel on being introduced into any new land destroy or extinguish whatever its people possess that is naturally good, just or beautiful. For the Church, when she calls people to a higher culture and a better way of life, under the inspiration of the Christian religion, does not act like one who recklessly cuts down and uproots a thriving forest. No, she grafts a good scion upon the wild stock that it may bear a crop of more delicious fruit (EP 56).

The expression whateveritspeoplepossessthatisnaturallygood,just orbeautifulwill be reflected in NostraAetate2. Pope Pius XII warned Missionaries about how they acted in foreign cultures. Speaking to directors of the Pontifical Missionary Society in 1944, he said: The herald of the Gospel and messenger of Christ is an apostle. His office does not demand that he transplant European civilization and culture, and no other, to foreign soil, there to take root and propagate itself. His task in dealing with these peoples, who sometimes boast of a very old and highly developed culture of their own, is to teach and form them so that they are ready to accept willingly and in a practical manner the principles of Christian life and morality; principles, I might add, that fit into any culture, provided it be good and sound, and which give that culture greater force in safeguarding human dignity and in gaining human happiness. Catholic inhabitants of missionary countries, although they are first of all citizens of the Kingdom of God and members of His great family, do not for all that cease to be citizens of their earthly fatherland (EP 60).

It is helpful to recall that, at the time this and other documents (like Ad GentesandGaudiumetSpes) which are important for interreligious dialogue were being elaborated at the Council. Pope Paul VI published, on August 6, 1964, the encyclical EcclesiamSuam. Faithful to the Council’s desire to be open to the world, it gave the orientation, and for the first time in an official document of the Church, it spoke of dialogue(ES 73), though the Latin text constantly uses colloquiumand not dialogus.

68

R.K. BAAWOBR

The Church is invited to enter into dialogue with the world (AAS56 [1964], pp. 613.639). This dialogue is in view of accomplishing the apostolic mission; it is a spiritual communion (p. 644). Proclamation of Christ is important in this dialogue and it has to be with every person of good will. The Pope identified four concentric circles11: – the outer most circle is the whole of humanity and the universe – the second: the faithful of other religions (Jews, Muslims and African and Asian Religions) – the third: other Christians – the fourth: within the Catholic Church itself. Vatican II took this opening further as we can see in documents like Gaudium et Spes and Nostra Aetate. At the end of Gaudium et Spes (GS 92) the four concentric circles of EcclesiamSuamappear again, but this time in the reverse order: – … the first place that we foster within the Church herself mutual esteem, reverence and harmony, through the full recognition of lawful diversity. – Our hearts embrace also those brothers and communities not yet living with us in full communion; to them we are linked nonetheless by our profession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and by the bond of charity … let us take pains to pattern ourselves after the Gospel more exactly every day, and thus work as brothers in rendering service to the human family. – … all who acknowledge God, and who preserve in their traditions precious elements of religion and humanity. We want frank conversation to compel us all to receive the impulses of the Spirit faithfully and to act on them energetically. – We include those who cultivate outstanding qualities of the human spirit, but do not yet acknowledge the Source of these qualities. We include those who oppress the Church and harass her in manifold ways. This is considered by some as the magnacartaof interreligious dialogue according to Vatican II12.

11. Cf. DUPUIS, Jésus-Christ (n. 2), p. 272. 12. Ibid., p. 274.

DIALOGUE AND THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH

III. THE DECLARATION NOSTRAAETATE

AND

69

MISSION

The Conciliar document, the Declaration on the Relation with Non-Christians,NostraAetate (1965)13, though very small in size compared to others, was important in indicating a new spirit in the relations between Christians and other world religions14. The Vatican Council’s discussion on the Declaration on religious freedom (DignitatisHumanae15) that had gone on did help as it recognized that each person is bound to search for the truth and especially that truth that concerns God. This search is undertaken in a sincere way in different religions and not only in the Catholic Church. Nostra Aetate’s history in the Council is very interesting with ups and downs, but finally it acquired the status of the Charter for intercultural and interreligious dialogue in the Catholic Church16. It set a positive tone and laid the foundation by recognizing that all people share a common origin and have a common destiny, namely God (NA1) and that: The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions (NA 2).

This statement concerns Hinduism and Buddhism but the Declaration goes on to speak positively of Islam in the following terms: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, (5) who has spoken to men .… Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom (NA 3).

According to the Council Fathers, there are “rays of this Truth (illius Veritatis) that enlighten all people” (AG 2). We can perceive an awareness among the Council Fathers that the Spirit of God is working beyond the visible boundaries of the Church.God’s saving grace acts wider than the boundaries of the Church in ways known to him and his Spirit (NA 2; 13. Approved on October 15, 1965 with 2 221 placet, 88 non placet, 2 placet juxta modumand 1 null vote of the 2 312 votes cast! 14. Cf. BORRMANS, Chrétiensetmusulmans (n. 5), pp. 85-120. 15. Promulgated at the end of the Council on December 7, 1965 with 2386 placetand 70 nonplacet and 8 null of the 2386 votes expressed! 16. Cf. BORRMANS, Chrétiensetmusulmans (n. 5), p. 116. A full account of the genesis of NostraAetate is being prepared by Fr Thomas Stransky, of the Paulist Fathers, who was one of the original drafters of the document.

70

R.K. BAAWOBR

Lumen Gentium 16; Gaudium et Spes 11,22)! The Council Fathers affirmed that: The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the sociocultural values found among these men (NA 2).

This positive outlook has to be repeated again and again to those who tend to forget and who continue to use a different language. The implication, according to me, is that inter-religious dialogue cannot be considered as preparation for evangelization, but has to be considered as part of the evangelizing mission of the Church in its own right. A positive look on other religions necessarily leads to a positive approach to mission and interreligious dialogue whereas a minimizing/negative consideration of other religions also leads to a negative approach to mission and interreligious dialogue: “We do pretend to respect the other religion” as opposed to “we take it seriously as a locus in which the Holy Spirit has been active”17. IV. THE DECREE ADGENTES

AND

MISSION

The DecreeontheMissionaryActivityoftheChurch AdGentes18,was one of the fruits of the last session of the Vatican Council. It underlined the fact that the Church is missionary by nature because it is born from a missionary God. Since creation, God has been reaching out to humanity and to the entire creation in a dance of love (AG 2)19. The pilgrim Church is missionary by her very nature, since it is from the mission of the Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit that she draws her origin, in accordance with the decree of God the Father… it pleased God to call men to share His life, not just singly, apart from any mutual bond, but rather to mold them into a people in which His sons, once scattered abroad, might be gathered together (cf. John 11,52).

It further affirms that although some members and some institutes carry out this vocation that belongs to all, this evangelization is the 17. For the aim of dialogue, cf. M. FITZGERALD, Dieurêved’unité:Lescatholiques et les religions. Les leçons du dialogue. Entretiens avec Annie Laurent, Paris, Bayard, 2005, pp. 20-36; and pp. 37-53 for the place of dialogue in Mission. 18. Promulgated on December 2, 1965 with 2 394 placet and 5 nonplacet. 19. Cf. also S.B. B EVANS – R.P. S CHROEDER , Prophetic Dialogue: Reflections on ChristianMissionToday, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis, 2011, pp. 9.13.

DIALOGUE AND THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH

71

duty of all members of the Church (AG23; cf. also LumenGentium20 17). We can feel in it a great openness, certainly a fruit of the previous sessions. AdGentes acknowledges that God’s Spirit is active in the world even before the glorification of Christ (AG 4). This is already reflected in other documents like GaudiumetSpes(GS) when it attributed to the Spirit of God the aspirations of all to a better life (GS38,1), to a better social order worthy of human beings (GS 26,4) and to a universal fraternity (GS 39,3). All people are, therefore, called to Christ not only through the explicit proclamation of the Gospel, but through the seeds of the Word21 that are sown in their hearts (AG 15). Some are more aware of their salvation in Christ than others, but the Savior remains the same for all (Jesus Christ). We are on a common journey as a human family (GS 45,2) led by hope and gifted with the Spirit (GS 93,1). As the Church reaches out, it discovers this Spirit that has preceded the Church, making her aware of her own weaknesses, limitations, resistance and need for conversion22. Among the Vatican II documents that have had great influence in missionary institutes like our own and on the practice of mission, we have to give the place of honour to the Decree AdGentes,OntheMissionary ActivityoftheChurch. It was the most quoted conciliar document (205×) in our aggiornamentoGeneral Chapter in 196723. How Catholics looked at other Christians and other religions began to change slowly before the Vatican Council. There was a greater openness towards other Christian denominations and towards other religions. On the “mission fields” many missionaries had good encounters with people of different religions and that made them begin to question if these people were really without God. Perhaps many people in Africa did not know Jesus, the Son of God but they knew God and called him other names! As Agbonkhianmeghe E. Orobator, rightly points out in his book, Philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, and theologians who have studied various aspects of cultural and religious life in Africa never tire of reminding us that religion runs deep in the veins of Africans. They say that Africans are notoriously and incurably religious … As Africans we cannot live without God24. 20. Adopted on November 21, 1964 with 2151 placet and 5 nonplacet. 21. Expression borrowed from Eusebius of Caesarea. 22. M. PIVOT, Aupaysdel’autre:L’étonnantevitalitédelaMission, Paris, Éditions de l’Atelier, 2009, p. 73. 23. BAAWOBR, TheJourneyoftheYoungChurches (n. 1), p. 168. 24. A.E. OROBATOR, TheologyBrewedinanAfricanPot:AnIntroductiontoChristian DoctrinefromanAfricanPerspective, Nairobi, Paulines Publications Africa, 2008, p. 24.

72

R.K. BAAWOBR

Almost everything in life in many African communities has something to do with the sacred25. It would be an error to imagine that in evangelization one is before a people who have no notion or experience of God and who have to be taught everything. In the West, one of the influential theologians, Karl Rahner, in an article in 1961 admitted that there are “elements of truth and grace” in other religions26. He arrived at this position from an inductive rather than a deductive theologicalprocedure. This position, many would recognize today, was taken up in Vatican II as we can see from the following quotes: But whatever truth and grace are to be found among the nations, as a sort of secret presence of God, He frees from all taint of evil and restores to Christ its maker, who overthrows the devil’s domain and wards off the manifold malice of vice. And so, whatever good is found to be sown in the hearts and minds of men, or in the rites and cultures peculiar to various peoples, not only is not lost, but is healed, uplifted, and perfected for the glory of God, the shame of the demon, and the bliss of men (AG 9). In order that they may be able to bear more fruitful witness to Christ, let them be joined to those men by esteem and love; let them acknowledge themselves to be members of the group of men among whom they live; let them share in cultural and social life by the various undertakings and enterprises of human living; let them be familiar with their national and religious traditions; let them gladly and reverently lay bare the seeds of the Word which lie hidden among their fellows (AG 11).

With the change in theology, there is a gradual purification of theological language that has happened and is still happening. We no longer refer to others as “non-Christians”, or “pagans” or “infidels” but rather we refer to them by their name “Muslims”, “Buddhists”, “Hindus”, etc. We no longer encourage that converts destroy their traditional objects. Some are really part of a cultural heritage and are collected in cultural centers in order to hand on the values of the culture. Recognizing the other for who he or she is, rather than who he or she is not, in comparison to me, is the first step of any form of dialogue beyond religious traditions. We are all equally loved by God as his children. He wants all of us to be saved and he uses our religious traditions to do this.

25. Cf. the very suggestive title and work of L. MAGESA, WhatIsNotSacred:African Spirituality,Maryknoll, NY, Orbis, 2013. 26. DUPUIS, Larencontreduchristianismeetdesreligions (n. 4), p. 23.

DIALOGUE AND THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH

73

V. HOW IS THE CROSS-FERTILIZATION TAKING PLACE? 1. Cross-fertilizationthroughInterreligiousDialogue I will argue that the cross-fertilization between AdGentesandNostra Aetate is happening in and through encounter and dialogue with people of different religions. From the Asian perspective dialogue happens from a threefold perspective27: – Dialogue with people and especially with the poor – Dialogue with the cultures – Dialogue with religions. This gives, according to Jonathan Yun-Ka Tan, what we could call missiointergentes and carries fewer overtones of proselytism than missio adgentescarries in the Asian context28. The Asian Bishops, and those of Africa to some extent, have been more sensitive to the need for a positive approach to other religions than western systematic / dogmatic theologians and even the magisterium before Vatican II and in the years that followed it. Already in 1974, in the conference of the Asian Bishops in T’ai-pei (Taiwan) they said: Comment pourrions-nous ne pas reconnaître dans les religions de nos peuples, la manière dont Dieu les a cherchés à travers leur histoire29?

As Missionaries of Africa, although the situation in Africa is different from that of Asia, we have to dialogue with people, their cultures and their religions. This takes different forms (Dialogue and Proclamation no. 42)30: – Dialogue of life: people sharing the same realities of life as human persons.

27. The Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference (FABC) from its First Plenary Assembly (1974) made this a pastoral option for the Church in Asia. This has been reiterated at different moments: V Plenary Assembly (1990); VII Plenary Assembly (2000) and X Plenary Assembly (2012). Cf. also J.H. K ROEGER , The Faith-Culture Dialogue in Asia: Ten FABC Insights on Inculturation, in Missionalia 59 (2010) 151-177 and J. KROEGER, FABC:AsiaUrgentlyNeedsRenewedEvangelizers, in SEDOSBulletin45 (2013) nos. 1/2, 22-32. 28. PIVOT, Aupaysdel’autre (n. 22), p. 79. 29. Cf. DUPUIS, Larencontreduchristianismeetdesreligions (n. 4), p. 26. 30. Cf. also S.B. BEVANS – R.P. SCHROEDER, ConstantsinContext:TheologyofMissionforToday, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis, 2004, pp. 383-384; M.L. FITZGERALD – J. BORELLI, Interfaith Dialogue: A Catholic View, London, SPCK, 2006, pp. 28-35; B EVANS – SCHROEDER, PropheticDialogue (n. 19), pp. 68-69.

74

R.K. BAAWOBR

– Dialogue of (social) action: people collaborate in order to improve social justice and create a better world for all31. – Dialogue of theological exchange: people share the richness of their spirituality and thus allow the others to appreciate their spiritual and human values. They also discover the similarities and differences between their religions and this, sometimes, leads to soul-searching questions. – Dialogue of spiritual/religious experience: people rooted in their faith reflect and pray together (not the same prayer though) for a particular intention, e.g. the Assisi experience of 1986, 2000 and 2011. In our ordinary everyday life, we encounter people of different religions. We often do not mind too much or we might not be aware that they are of different religions till we start exchanging. Our missionaries and Christians are often witnesses of the first and second form of dialogue and sometimes the third and fourth form. Some families in West Africa might even have members who are Muslims and others who are Christians of different denominations and they live peacefully together. In some cases this has been due to the schools they have attended during which time they converted to one or the other religion. In others it might be a personal choice. When it comes to improving the lot of the poor, to acting for justice, etc., all people, irrespective of their faiths, join hands. Some of our commitments in a suburb of Dar es Salaam, where the majority are Muslims, testify to this. Education and social services are offered to all irrespective of their religious allegiance. There is more that unites us than what separates us. Dialogue of life is also, as Pope Francis calls it, a “preventive dialogue”. Maintaining good relations with others is actually laying the foundations for building a more fraternal society. Interreligious dialogue reminds us that we are not opponents but partners on a common journey who seek to share what is best in our religious tradition for the common good of all. Thus, even if we never get around to an open proclamation of Christ in some places, under the guidance of the Spirit of God we are actually evangelizing each other and thus it is worth continuing32. The words of

31. The new Mission Affirmation of the CWME of the WCC Dialogue of Life and Action (no. 95). 32. DUPUIS, Larencontreduchristianismeetdesreligions (n. 4), p. 297; M. BORRMANS, DialogueraveclesMusulmans:Unecauseperdueouunecauseàgagner, Paris, Éditions Téqui, 2011, p. 213.

DIALOGUE AND THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH

75

GaudiumetSpes22,5 in my opinion, give us a lot of reassurance when it affirms that what is said of the salvation of Christians is valid, …not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we are bound to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.

Through dialogue all sides are called together and each one by the other, to a deeper conversion to God. This is a form of mutual evangelization. Pope John Paul II, in his meeting with the Bishops of North Africa during their adliminavisit on 23 November 1981, expressed his conviction that the encounter with Islam can promote the interiorization of the faith of Christians33. At Casablanca on 19 August 1985, John Paul II declared in the presence of King Hassan II: Le dialogue entre chrétiens et musulmans est plus nécessaire que jamais. Il découle de notre fidélité envers Dieu … Je crois que nous, chrétiens et musulmans, nous devons reconnaître avec joie les valeurs religieuses que nous avons en commun et en rendre grâce à Dieu34.

We have come a long way and still have a long way to go, but we are on the right track. 2. AttitudesforDialogue A document that has given an important orientation for those involved in interreligious dialogue is the encyclical letter of John Paul II, RedemptorisMissio(RM, 1991). He considers it as part of the Church’s evangelizing mission (RM55).However, The Church addresses people with full respect for their freedom. Her mission does not restrict freedom but rather promotes it. The Church proposes; she imposes nothing. She respects individuals and cultures, and she honors the sanctuary of conscience (RM 39).

The 1991 joint document of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples entitled Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and Orientations on Inter- religiousDialogueandtheProclamationoftheGospelofJesusChrist (DP) continued this orientation. It underlined the fact that dialogue is part of God’s own mission (DP 9; RM55). It is perceived as openness to God 33. LELONG, Dusouveniràl’espérance (n. 7), p. 87. 34. Ibid., p. 88.

76

R.K. BAAWOBR

which leads to a proclamation of one’s faith (RM 57; DP77-85). Just as the proclamation of one’s faith does not exclude dialogue, the practice of dialogue does not exclude the proclamation of one’s faith (RM 55). The witness that is given in word and in deed cannot be opposed. The deed confirms the word, but without the word, the deed can be misinterpreted (DP 59). Entering into dialogue demands a great sense of coherence with one’s own faith35 and at the same time humility and the readiness to acknowledge that the dialogue can be enriching for each partner (RM 56)36. Pope Francis, in EvangeliiGaudium, has the following to say: True openness involves remaining steadfast in one’s deepest convictions, clear and joyful in one’s own identity, while at the same time being “open to understanding those of the other party” and “knowing that dialogue can enrich each side” (EG 251).

He reminded the participants of the Colloquium to celebrate the 50 years of the presence of PISAI in Rome of this fact in his audience (January 2015). We do not, in the name of dialogue, neglect to present our faith for what it is. But we do so by knowing and respecting the other’s faith also. The new Mission Affirmation – TogetherTowardsLife– by the Commission for World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) of the World Council of Churches (2012) that was presented in Busan (South Korea) in November 2013, recognized that interfaith dialogue is unavoidable “in thepluralityoftoday’sworld(where)weencounterpeopleofmanydifferentfaiths,ideologies,andconvictions” (no. 93). In words similar to Vatican II, the document recognizes that since the Holy Spirit is present and active in all faith traditions, …we acknowledge that there is inherent value and wisdom in diverse life-giving spiritualities. Therefore, authentic mission makes the “other” a partner in, not an “object” of mission (no. 93)

A fundamental necessity, therefore, in entering into dialogue is one of an openness of heart and mind, and a healthy sense of curiosity to know about the others’ faith37. This is possible if it is animated by love of the 35. FITZGERALD, Dieurêved’unité (n. 17),p. 79. 36. LELONG (Dusouveniràl’espérance [n. 7], pp. 104-105), goes as far as affirming that Christianity is even closer to Islam than to Judaism because (1) like Islam it is not linked to a nation, (2) both consider Jesus as the Word of God, and (3) there is life after death. We may not agree with all three affirmations, but it shows another way in which both religions can enrich each other! 37. FITZGERALD, Dieurêved’unité(n. 17), p. 75.

DIALOGUE AND THE PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH

77

other who is different from us, because of his/her religion, not in spite of it. Dialogue helps us affirm our common life in Christ and helps us to promote this life to the full with all brothers and sisters and with all of creation, our common home. The Spirit of Jesus precedes us (Acts 17) and we witness to God by our presence. VI. CONCLUSION The Vatican II documents that I have considered have taught us that we, as a communion of believers (Church), are not owners of the truth. God is the truth and we approach God in different ways. What we perceive of this Truth in conscience, we must share with others and then journey with them if they are open to it. But we cannot and should not impose our experience of God on others. We propose this experience and let the Spirit of God do the work in the hearts of God’s people when and how God chooses. In spite of the difficulties, the dialogue between believers of different religions has progressed in the last 50 years. So instead of regretting and being nostalgic about the past, we should look at the present without prejudices and prepare for the future with hope. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have invited Jews, Christians and Muslims to act together and with others, whether they are believers or not, in order to promote justice, a necessary condition for peace in every country and between peoples38. This is another way of proclaiming the Good news of Jesus and it is to be taken seriously. Bishop’s Office P.O. Box 47 Wa – UWR Ghana [email protected]

Richard K. BAAWOBR, MAfr

38. LELONG, Dusouveniràl’espérance (n. 7),pp. 45.80.

THE FORGOTTEN LEGACY OF NOSTRAAETATE RABBI ABRAHAM J. HESCHEL AT VATICAN II

On the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, it is important not to forget about one of the Council’s shortest but most vital declarations about the Church’s relationship to other faiths. In the recent past, one could think that the shared spiritual patrimony of Christians and Jews highlighted in NostraAetate (1965) has been forgotten entirely. In 2008, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI reintroduced the Tridentine prayer for Good Friday which says “illumine [Jewish] hearts, so that they will recognize Jesus Christ, the Savior of all men”. In 2009, the US Bishops issued a statement saying that “the whole people of Israel” will be included into the Church. In the same year, Benedict XVI brought a Holocaust denying bishop back into fold, who was later excommunicated this year by Pope Francis. It would seem that the legacy and teaching of NostraAetate is threatened by forgetfulness. Although Nostra Aetate is only comprised of five short paragraphs, this document represents a turning point not just for Catholic-Jewish relations, but also sketches the fundamental aims of embodying the Christian faith in a pluralistic age. There is a complex but important story that needs to be revisited so that we do not forget the ways in which Catholic learning has developed, and how this development has often been prompted by non-Catholics. In this short paper, I will re-examine some crucial details in the back-story to the formulation of NostraAetate and offer some observations about the potential consequences of omitting these details. My argument is that some recent events and scholarship suffer from a form of amnesia about the role that Jewish people have played in the development of Catholic learning – a form of amnesia that manifests in explicit proselytizing tendencies. In particular, I want to highlight the role that Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel played during the Second Vatican Council as an instructive example for Jewish-Catholic dialogue today. Therefore, the inter-continental and inter-faith story behind the formation of its sentences is dramatic and, for Catholics especially, worth remembering. * A revised version of this contribution appears as J. FURNAL, AbrahamJoshuaHeschel andNostra Aetate:ShapingtheCatholicReconsiderationofJudaismduringVaticanII, in Religions 7 (2016), 70; doi: 10.3390/rel 7060070.

80

J. FURNAL

I. THE CONTESTED LEGACY

OF

NOSTRAAETATE

Initially set in motion by Pope John XXIII, NostraAetate was the first official document that recognized the search for meaning, holiness, and truth among the various religions of the world. From a Jewish perspective, NostraAetate was seen as revolutionary because it repudiated the centuries-long oppression of Jewish people by Church Councils1. In fact, this document was the first time that anti-Semitism was condemned by a Council, and the Jewish people were acknowledged uniquely as God’s chosen people2. Today, this may seem like an uncontroversial declaration. However, this would only indicate that today we operate with a short-sighted understanding of history that risks forgetting the horrors of the twentieth century, which are not far behind us. For instance, after establishing the “Kingdom of Christ” heralded in Quas Primas (1925) by signing the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini in 1929, no mention is made of the Jews or a disavowal of anti-Semitism in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical NonAbbiamoBisogno 62 (1931): In everything that We have said up to the present, We have not said that We wished to condemn the [Fascist] party as such. Our aim has been to point out and to condemn all those things in the programme and in the activities of the party which have been found to be contrary to Catholic doctrine and Catholic practice, and therefore irreconcilable with the Catholic name and profession. And in doing this We have fulfilled a precise duty of Our episcopal ministry towards Our dear sons who are members of the party, so that their conscience may be at peace.

Yet after signing the concordat with Hitler, Pius XI says in CumCura Ardente 8 (1937) that: Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

Nevertheless, prior to NostraAetate, a rejection of anti-Semitism had not been made official teaching of the Church by a Council. The extensive commentary on the formulation of Nostra Aetate was written by 1. Consider the condemnation of Jews in the Councils of Vannes, Epaone, Orleans, Lateran IV, and Florence. 2. For more see, J. CONNELLY, From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic TeachingontheJews(1933-1965), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2012.

THE FORGOTTEN LEGACY OF NOSTRAAETATE

81

Johannes Oesterreicher (who was himself a Jewish convert to Catholicism)3. The story that Oesterreicher tells can give the false impression that this document had always been motivated solely by Catholic concerns and the heroes in this story were all eventually members of sub-committees in the Roman Curia. To a certain extent, there are some Catholic heroes that deserve honorable mention despite the effects of the tumultuous history of Catholicism during the 1930s. For instance, it is heartening to learn that when he was the Vatican diplomat to Istanbul, Giuseppe Roncalli forged baptismal documents for Jews in Turkey to escape Nazi extermination camps4. After the War in 1959, as Pope John XXIII, he removed the anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday liturgy (perfidiaIudaica). One year later, John XXIII set up the possibility for an official document on Catholic-Jewish relations to be formulated, appointing Cardinal Augustin Bea to oversee the Secretariat for Christian Unity and charging him to draft the document. Bea was a renowned Hebrew Bible scholar, the rector of the Biblicum, and the confessor of Pope Pius XII. However, we need to attend to Bea’s efforts during this time period to break out of the Curia’s insular mindset because it often involved relying upon Jewish scholars, and especially Rabbi Heschel. By 1960, Jewish concerns had already been brought to the attention of the Pope regarding false statements about Israel, the collective guilt of the Jews, and the punishment of Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus5. For instance, the French historian Jules Isaac gave the Pope an extract of The Tridentine Catechism (1566) which emphasized the guilt of all sinners as the cause of the crucifixion of Jesus – indicating that this is the view that needs to be recovered in public discourse because the charge of deicide (God-killers) has been used as justification for the murder of the Jewish people. In response to Jewish efforts, there was a consensus emerging in Rome that “the Jews” were not responsible for the death of Jesus, yet there was still the assertion that Christians were the true heirs of Abraham (Gal 6,16), and there remained the eschatological hope of a Jewish conversion to Christianity (Rom 11,15.25)6. This proselytizing position gets

3. J. OESTERREICHER, DeclarationontheRelationshipoftheChurchtoNon-Christian Religions, in H. VORGRIMLER (ed.), Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, New York, Herder and Herder, 1969, vol. 3, 1-136. 4. M. FAGGIOLI, JohnXXIII: MedicineofMercy, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2014, ch. 4. 5. OESTERREICHER, DeclarationontheRelationship (n. 3), p. 2. 6. This is the position presented on 24 April 1960 in a petition signed by the Jesuit professors at the Biblicum to urge the Council to address “the problem of the people of

82

J. FURNAL

threaded through Oesterreicher’s commentary on how the Council itself treated such issues even though there were others that altered this position in slightly different ways7. The competing positions emerged through four drafts of the document and a comparison of them reveals how the Council Fathers went back-and-forth on this issue. The explicit proselytizing tendencies of the early draft of NostraAetate is often overlooked, especially since it contradicts the final draft of NostraAetate8. What can account for this shift away from proselytizing? In his recent book on Vatican II Gavin D’Costa neglects this shift altogether and claims that NostraAetate “implicitly taught that mission to the Jewish people was appropriate”9. Much of what D’Costa reads as the summation of “Council teaching” on the destiny of world religions is a privileged reading of Lumen Gentium 16 and Ad Gentes 7, and a subordination of the canonical status of NostraAetate as a second-class Council document. For instance, D’Costa defends his claim by drawing a distinction between ethnicity and religion: the Church repudiates anti-Semitism, but promotes non-coercive Jewish conversion to Christianity. But is this what Nostra Aetate explicitly teaches? No, Nostra Aetate does not even use the word “mission” in the text, instead it encourages “mutual understanding and respect”10. NostraAetateexplicitly teaches that Jewish people are not guilty of Christ’s death nor are they “rejected or accursed by God”, and re-emphasizes “the spiritual patrimony” that is shared across the covenants. Then why are Catholic Israel” when the Council addresses ecumenical matters. OESTERREICHER, Declarationon theRelationship (n. 3), pp. 8-9. 7. For instance in 1961, Gregory Baum presents a revision at a meeting in Ariccia Italy on 6-9 February. Baum inserts a rejection of anti-Semitism and the view that sees Jews as an accursed race. Cf. OESTERREICHER, DeclarationontheRelationship (n. 3), p. 18. 8. This tendency is discouraged in a statement issued in 2009 by the US Catholic Bishops: “Jewish covenantal life endures till the present day as a vital witness to God’s saving will for His people Israel and for all of humanity” and that Catholic-Jewish dialogue “has never been and never will be used by the Catholic Church as a means of proselytism”, nor is it “a disguised invitation to baptism”. http://www.usccb.org/beliefsand-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/jewish/upload/Statement-of-Catholic-Principles-for-Catholic-Jewish-Dialogue-2009.pdf. For more, see M. MOYAERT – D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Never Revoked: Nostra Aetate as Ongoing Challenge for Jewish-Christian Dialogue (Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs, 40), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans; Leuven, Peeters, 2010. 9. G. D’COSTA, VaticanII:CatholicDoctrinesonJewsandMuslims,Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 135. 10. D’Costa himself admits that the use of the “shoulder to shoulder” phrase from Zeph 3,9 “avoids any sense of proselytizing and it avoids making any decision on exegetically disputed aspects of Romans 11:25, especially the means of the Jewish [sic] coming in” (ibid. p. 137). For a response from a Jewish perspective, see Edward KESSLER’s reply to D’Costa in TheologicalStudies 73 (2012) 614-628.

83

THE FORGOTTEN LEGACY OF NOSTRAAETATE

theologians still encouraging the continuation of proselytizing efforts? Is this not a revocation of what NostraAetate teaches? The hope of “one accord” expressed in NA 4 leaves this task up to God, not the Church. By emphasizing the “ultimate inexpressible mystery” shared across covenants (NA 1), a different interpretation of Romans 9–11 is affirmed regarding the salvation of Israel without evoking the certainty of knowing how Israel will be saved11. It must continue to be repeated: after Nostra Aetate, Catholics learned that proselytism is no longer necessary or desirable for their Jewish older brothers. This is why St John Paul II said that proselytism is “an attempt to do away with one’s own brother”12. In what follows, I would like to examine briefly the back story of this shift away from proselytism in the formulation of NostraAetate and the role Rabbi Heschel had during this process. II. BRINGING RABBI HESCHEL BACK

IN TO THE

STORY

One major detail that often is neglected in recent accounts of the formulation of NostraAetate, is the important role played by the philosopher and theologian, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907-1972)13. It is necessary to appreciate the role of Rabbi Heschel, especially since some scholars, like D’Costa, have reduced the contribution that Heschel made during this time merely to providing Catholics with feedback about how Jewish people felt14. But in fact, without Rabbi Heschel, it is doubtful that Nostra Aetate would have taken the shape that it did15. After Heschel’s rightful protest, the final version of Nostra Aetate did not include the 11. For more, see Joseph FITZMYER’s Anchor Bible commentary on Romans (New York, Doubleday, 1993), p. 862. 12. Cited in CONNELLY, From Enemy to Brother (n. 2), p. 287. In 1977, Tommaso Federici prepared a paper that explicitly rejected proselytism for the Committee for Catholic-Jewish relations, but this document was not adopted as official policy. https://www. bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/Federici.htm. 13. I am indebted to several conversations with Susannah Heschel for this point. Abraham Heschel also played a huge role in the anti-war and Civil Rights movements, Martin Luther King Jr referred to Heschel as “my rabbi” and there are iconic photos of them marching “shoulder to shoulder” on Selma. 14. D’COSTA, VaticanII (n. 9), p. 89. 15. In this section, I will be following the detailed account in E. KAPLAN, Spiritual Radical, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2007, chs. 13-14. Kaplan’s account follows closely that of M. TANENBAUM, Jewish-ChristianRelations:HeschelandVatican Council II (21 February 1983). For more see the AJC archives http://www.ajcarchives. org/AJC_DATA/Files/Z582.CV01.pdf. See also, G. SPRUCH, Wide Horizons: Abraham JoshuaHeschel,AJC,andtheSpiritofNostraAetate, New York, American Jewish Committee, 2008.

84

J. FURNAL

earlier proselytizing remarks regarding the conversion of the Jewish people as the Christian hope. In August 1961, Cardinal Bea set up his first commission to identify the relevant dogmatic, moral, and liturgical principles to make concrete proposals toward the formulation of NostraAetate. By November, Bea was already in conversation with Rabbi Heschel because Heschel had supplied Bea with a draft of what should be involved regarding any Catholic declaration on Jewish people – namely, a condemnation of any accusation of Jews killing God (deicide), and to drop all references to Jewish people joining the Church. For Heschel, the problem was not that Judaism was incompatible with Christianity, but rather that the proselytizing claims of the Church were at odds with the integrity of the shared spiritual heritage of Judaism and Christianity. This fact in the timeline is often neglected. For instance, in his commentary on Nostra Aetate, Oesterreicher explicitly says that the American Jewish Committee and Abraham Joshua Heschel in particular, “deserve mention, even though [political initiatives] took place at a later stage, and had no influence to speak of on the discussion of the Council Declaration or the form of its text”16. Oesterreicher’s report is misleading because as a representative of the American Jewish Committee, Heschel was already in conversation with Bea since 196117. Indeed, Rabbi Heschel was a close friend of Cardinal Bea and Willebrands, and many scholars have documented Heschel’s significant influence in shaping the final form of Nostra Aetate. This took shape in May 1962, when Rabbi Heschel sent a memorandum to Cardinal Bea outlining the proposed agenda for a meeting with specific proposals for improving the cause for reconciliation between Jews and Catholics: 1) a full condemnation of anti-Semitism, and any teachings that hold Jews responsible for deicide as sinful. 2) a full recognition of holiness and faithfulness to the Torah be accorded to Judaism as a distinct feature of Jewish identity that should be preserved and celebrated today. 3) to maximize efforts to mutually enhance religious literacy among Christians and Jews, through public discussions, research projects, and publications. 16. OESTERREICHER, DeclarationontheRelationship (n. 3), p. 16. 17. Oesterreicher refers to the AJC memo on the image of the Jew in Catholic teaching (June 1961), the memo on anti-Jewish elements in Catholic liturgy (Nov 1961), and “the memorandum of the rabbi and seminary professor Abraham Joshua Heschel” (May 1962). Cf. OESTERREICHER, DeclarationontheRelationship (n. 3), p. 16, no. 20.

THE FORGOTTEN LEGACY OF NOSTRAAETATE

85

4) that a high-level commission be put together at the Vatican regarding Christian-Jewish relations. In his official commentary, Oesterreicher reproduces Heschel’s “demands” from the May 1962 memo in a footnote, but provides no comment on the contribution of this external, “secular”, and Jewish element in the formulation of Nostra Aetate18. Heschel’s influence is reflected implicitly in the way Oesterreicher reports that despite Cardinal Bea’s attempts to keep this wording in the council document, it was eventually dropped in the final draft19. On August 28-31, 1960 in Apeldoorn, Netherlands the group comprised of: Anton Ramselaar (KatholiekeRaadvoorIsrael), Karl Theime (Freiburger Rundbrief), Paul Demann (Cahiers Sioniens), Jean Roger (OeuvredeSt.Jacques), and Oesterreicher (TheBridge) met. For Oesterreicher, it was this group that “formed the prophetic element that over the years prepared a place in the Church, intellectually and spiritually, emotionally and theologically, for the Council Declaration of which they too as yet knew nothing”20. Later, Oesterreicher presents himself as offering an important position paper in Ariccia on April 6-21, 1961 that refocuses the discussion upon the exegetical insights of Romans 9–11. It is at this point in the story that Oesterreicher begins to insert himself into the plot as an implicit representative of the Church’s eschatological aims21. The buffered Vatican mindset during this time is repeated in Oesterreicher’s commentary, which creates a narrative that stresses the theological nature of Council deliberations so as to downplay any political maneuvers behind the scenes. The stated reason for this apolitical strategy was to deflect any negative interpretations by Arab governments of a perceived Vatican endorsement of the State of Israel and its political agenda22. A consequence of taking an apolitical strategy is to cover up the non-Catholic voices contributing to the renewal of Church teaching. However, Cardinal Bea was in conversation with non-Catholic voices during this time. For instance, Bea flew to New York to meet privately with Rabbi Heschel at the American Jewish Committee on March 31, 1963 to discuss with Heschel and some others “the basic issues of Jewish 18. Ibid., p. 17, no. 20. 19. See J.M. OESTERREICHER, The NewEncounter:BetweenChristiansandJews, New York, Philosophical Library, 1986, pp. 188-192. 20. OESTERREICHER, DeclarationontheRelationship (n. 3), p. 12. 21. Cf. ibid., pp. 20-21. 22. Ibid., pp. 18-19. D’Costa continues Oesterreicher’s narrative. Cf. D’COSTA, Vatican II (n. 9), pp. 88-89; ch. 3.

86

J. FURNAL

concern” regarding Vatican II. In advance of the meeting on March 7, Heschel had sent to Bea a revised version of his memo from the year before. One notable difference in this version was how Heschel drew to the Cardinal’s attention the need to condemn “sins against charity” – that is, “attributing the worst possible motive” to the intentions of any human being based upon “superficial evidence [and] generalizations”23. The examples Heschel provides for this are stereotypes that parallel the Jewish struggle with that of African Americans in the Civil Rights Movement. The timing of this private meeting between Bea and Heschel was crucial because the issues needed to be addressed before September 8, 1963 when the council reconvened. The meeting was meant to last 90 minutes. It was reported to have lasted 3 hours. Bea returned to Rome with a new draft of the Council document – significantly influenced by the issues that Heschel brought to his attention. But by 1964, Heschel’s memo had been heavily redacted and the penultimate draft had removed the condemnation of proselytism, which was leaked to the press. Because of the controversy surrounding this document, all things looked like this document would be thrown out of the Council process altogether. So Heschel went to the press. Heschel responded in an editorial which was published in the New York Times and TimeMagazine where he says that “As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities of the Vatican, I am ready to go to Auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death”. It has been said that after Heschel met with Pope Paul VI, the Pope crossed out the line of text with his own pen24. III. 50 YEARS

ON WITH

POPE FRANCIS

The problem that I began with was about forgetting the legacy and teaching of NostraAetate and the undesirable consequence of proselytism toward Judaism. I briefly reviewed the back-story of the document’s formulation to reveal how non-Catholics like Rabbi Heschel played a key role in the development of Catholic teaching. For St Paul it is to the Jewish people that “belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the worship, and the promises” (Rom 9,4). After Heschel’s contribution, Oesterreicher later revised his argument that the 23. Page 2 of the proposed agenda attached to Rabbi Heschel’s private correspondence dated March 25, 1963 to Rabbi Albert Minda. 24. http://americamagazine.org/issue/618/article/lovingly-observant.

THE FORGOTTEN LEGACY OF NOSTRAAETATE

87

eschatological hope described in Romans 9–11 for unity between Israel and the Church should not be interpreted as a covert endorsement of proselytism (a “mission to the Jews”), but rather “expresses simply and solely the belief that at the end of time, God will gather into union with Himself all who profess His name”25. It is interesting that D’Costa aligns himself with the earlier proselytizing views of Oesterreicher before NostraAetate, but does not acknowledge Oesterreicher’s later abandonment of a mission to Jewish people, as presented by John Connelly26. Still today we might ask ourselves whether or not this legacy has been forgotten altogether, or whether it is still under development. The reigning narrative surrounding the production of NostraAetate is often placed solely upon Catholics as the unilateral source. For instance, Massimo Faggioli claims that “The story of NostraAetate is a story of leadership in the Church. It was only indirectly a fruit of a collective process of reflection on the relations between Jews and Christians”27. Yet in this article, it is only in closing that Faggioli mentions anything about Abraham Heschel. The ambiguity between forgetting a tradition and a development of it resurfaced during Pope Francis’ recent visit to the USA. In September 2015, Pope Francis gave a speech that could be read as an attempt to develop the legacy and teaching of NostraAetate28. In his speech, Pope Francis reminded us that …the religious dimension is not a private sub-culture. It is part of the culture of any people and any nation. Our various religious traditions serve society primarily by the message they proclaim. They call individuals and communities to worship God, the source of all life, liberty, and happiness. They remind us of the transcendent dimension of human existence and our irreducible freedom in the face of every claim to any absolute power … Our rich religious traditions seek to offer meaning and direction, “they have an enduring power to open new horizons, to stimulate thought, to expand the mind and heart” (EvangeliiGaudium, 256). They call to conversion, reconciliation, concern for the future of society, self-sacrifice in the service of the common good, and compassion for those in need. At the heart of their spiritual mission is the proclamation of the truth and dignity of the human person and human rights. 25. OESTERREICHER, The NewEncounter (n. 19), p. 193. 26. For more, see J. CONNELLY, The Catholic Church and Mission to the Jews, in J. HEFT (ed.), AfterVaticanII:TrajectoriesandHermeneutics, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2013, 96-133, pp. 126-127. 27. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/10/30/4342407.htm. In this article, Faggioli asks some important ecclesiological questions in light of NA and indicates a few positive developments that grew out of it, but largely leaves Rabbi Heschel out of the picture. 28. Religious Freedom speech at Independence Hall on 26 Sept 2015 http://www.zenit. org/en/articles/pope-s-address-in-philadelphia-on-religious-freedom.

88

J. FURNAL

Speaking from Abraham Lincoln’s lectern when he gave the Gettysburg address, the Pope develops a central theme from Nostra Aetate when he highlighted the goal that all religions share in making it “clear that it is possible to build a society where ‘a healthy pluralism which respects differences and values them as such’” (EvangeliiGaudium 255). In this specific context, Pope Francis was referring to the need to welcome immigrants and their gifts as one important way to renew and enrich society. And yet, when he describes the “spiritual mission” and “the call to conversion”, he still employs terms that have a very specific connotation to certain audiences – despite his re-directing the meaning of these terms towards the betterment of society and proclaiming the truth, dignity, and fundamental rights of the human person. But if we hear Pope Francis in terms of developing NostraAetate, we might appreciate the way he draws upon the declaration’s assertion that “the Church rejects nothing that is good and holy in those religions” as evidence for the wider religious experience of non-Christians. Likewise, the recognition that non-Catholics can “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens us all” also points to a knowledge received out of religious kinship. This reinforces an observation made by St Augustine, “No one becomes known except through friendship” and highlights the need to understand the role of religious proclamation in society as that of “becoming known as friends”, not proselytism. In this way, we can enrich our own respective traditions through inter-religious dialogue and friendship. In October 2015, Pope Francis commemorated the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate by holding an inter-religious audience in Saint Peter’s Square, which coincided with an International Congress at the Pontifical Gregorian University where Cardinal Bea once taught. Cardinal Kurt Koch described this commemoration as “an important contribution to further reflection on that ‘culture of encounter’ between persons, peoples and religions that you have very much at heart”. Reflecting upon the achievements of NostraAetate 4, Cardinal Koch reiterated that, In the light of this communion that exists between Jews and Christians in the history of salvation, the Council makes evident the Jewish roots of the Christian faith and acknowledges the great “common spiritual patrimony” to Christians and to Jews. Moreover, the Council deplores all hatred and manifestations of violence against the Jewish people, also by Christians, and condemns all forms of anti-Semitism29.

29. http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/general-audience-on-50-years-since-nostra-aetate.

THE FORGOTTEN LEGACY OF NOSTRAAETATE

89

Those who know the back story of Rabbi Heschel’s involvement can appreciate how the Cardinal placed these two points in a prominent light. Cardinal Koch went on to illuminate another point – which had been raised by Heschel – but attributes it to the witness of Pope Francis: “In our days, at a time in which unfortunately new waves of anti-Semitism have arisen, you, Holy Father, remind us Christians incessantly that it is impossible to be a Christian and an anti-Semite at the same time”. In his own comments, Pope Francis highlighted the various points that Nostra Aetate had addressed and said that in our time Indifference and opposition have changed into collaboration and benevolence. From enemies and strangers we have become friends and brothers. The Council traced the way with the “Nostra Aetate” Declaration: “yes” to the rediscovery of the Jewish roots of Christianity; “no” to every form of anti-Semitism and condemnation of all insults, discrimination and persecutions that stem from it. Mutual knowledge, respect and esteem constitute the way that, if it is true in a particular way for the relation with the Jews, is also equally true for relations with the other religions.

Pope Francis went on to call for mutually “open and respectful” inter-religious dialogue that worked to enhance the respect of others’ right to life, of their physical integrity, of the fundamental liberties, namely liberty of conscience, of thought, of expression and of religion. Concluding, Pope Francis invited all the representatives of the various religions present to pray for one another in silence reminding them that together the religions can become an important impetus for achieving the common good in society: Dialogue based on trustful respect can bring seeds of good that in turn become shoots of friendship and collaboration in so many fields, especially in service to the poor, to the little ones, to the elderly, in the reception of migrants, in the care of those that are excluded. We can walk together taking care of one another and of Creation – all believers of all religions. Together we can praise the Creator for having given us the garden of the world to cultivate and protect as a common good, and we can undertake shared projects to fight poverty and ensure to every man and woman fitting conditions of life.

In December 2015, reflecting upon his trip to Africa, Pope Francis gave another general audience that built upon the message he presented during the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate. Speaking to a group of young people, Pope Francis reiterated the words of his namesake, St Francis of Assisi: the missionary spirit is not proselytizing but rather that “witness is the great heroic missionary spirit of the Church. Proclaim Jesus Christ with your life!”. Pope Francis described the missionary as

90

J. FURNAL

the one who brings “love, humanity, and faith to other countries. Not to proselytize, no. That is done by those who are seeking something else. Faith is preached first by witness and then through words. Slowly”30. IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS In light of recent developments pertaining to the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate and Pope Francis’ call for more dialogue between traditions in terms of friendship, it is remarkable that the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews issued a document in December 2015 entitled, The Gifts and Calling of God Are Irrevocable31. An in-depth analysis of this document about the status of Catholic-Jewish dialogue lies beyond the scope of this paper, but its existence is unthinkable without the legacy of Abraham Heschel. Although the Commission’s recent document does not carry magisterial status juridically, the theological reflection it contains upon NostraAetate does carry juridical weight as reflection upon a council document. On the other hand, it took about one month for Pope Francis to begin using phrases from this document on his visit to the synagogue in Rome32. The Commission’s document recognizes the special status of CatholicJewish dialogue on the basis of the Jewish roots of Christianity and the indivisibility of the Word of God and thus “the enduring role of the covenant people of Israel in God’s plan of salvation” (Gifts43) – despite differing theological interpretations in each tradition. Chapter six is significant especially because it affirms both the Church’s responsibility to bear witness to her faith in Christ, but also that the Church repudiates any proselytism, conversion, and mission toward the Jews. The document 30. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20151202_udienza-generale.html. 31. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html#6._The_Church’s_ mandate_to_evangelize_in_relation_to_Judaism. 32. http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-calls-on-catholics-and-jews-to-work-t. Pope Francis said that “the Declaration Nostra Aetate, has indicated the way: ‘yes’ to rediscovering Christianity’s Jewish roots; ‘no’ to every form of anti-Semitism and blame for every wrong, discrimination and persecution deriving from it”. NostraAetate explicitly defined theologically for the first time the Catholic Church’s relations with Judaism. Of course it did not solve all the theological issues that affect us, but it provided an important stimulus for further necessary reflections. In this regard, on December 10, 2015, the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews published a new document that addresses theological issues that have emerged in recent decades since the promulgation of Nostra Aetate.

THE FORGOTTEN LEGACY OF NOSTRAAETATE

91

explicitly says that “the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews” (Gifts40). The title of the Commission’s document is theologically significant because it refers to the integral role that both Judaism and Christianity have currently in the mystery of salvation history. The document defines the goal of dialogue in terms of bringing humanitarian aid together as a blessing to the world that grows out of fraternal dialogue, mutual respect and learning, whilst seeking reconciliation and promoting justice and peace on earth by opposing anti-Semitism (Gifts46-49). The document also calls for Catholic educational institutions and seminaries to integrate into their curricula not only NostraAetate, but also all subsequent documents regarding the implementation of this conciliar declaration (Gifts 45). Responding to the Commission’s document, Jewish theologian Edward Kessler said, As a result of a soul change, epitomised by Nostra Aetate, the Roman Catholic Church shifted from what was, for the most part, a need to condemn Judaism to one of a condemnation of anti-Judaism. This led not to a separation from all things Jewish but in fact, to a closer relationship with “the elder brother”. The new document, which I welcome and commend, reminds Christians of this sibling relationship as it sets out a theological agenda for future discussions33.

It is no coincidence that the document issued recently by the Commission maps on directly to the concerns raised by Rabbi Heschel’s 1962 memo to Cardinal Bea. In the first part of this paper, I emphasized – against the grain of recent scholarship – how important Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel was for the reconsideration of Judaism during the Second Vatican Council and the formulation of NostraAetate. It is in this particular moment in history that we see Rabbi Heschel explicitly endorsing and bringing about a reform within Catholic theology rooted in the shared prophetic tradition. In the second part of the paper, I highlighted some recent shifts in Roman Catholic discourse with the papacy of Pope Francis and contextualized these remarks in light of Rabbi Heschel’s legacy. As in the past, it would be tempting for Catholic scholars to place the responsibility of this more enlightened form of religious pluralism squarely upon the shoulders of the Pope. But I have suggested that at important junctures in history, it has been non-Catholics that have re-oriented their perspective when it comes to Judaism, and it is only very recently that this is 33. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/ crrj-2015dec10/1366-kessler-2015dec10.

92

J. FURNAL

being recognized at the highest levels in Rome. One could think that by endorsing religious pluralism, this might also elicit a further disengagement among the different religions with the world. But the legacy of Abraham Heschel stands as an important testimony to the contrary; because without Heschel’s prophetic voice, it would be very difficult to image the existence of NostraAetate and the positive subsequent developments that we are witnessing today. This is something that should not continue to be forgotten by contemporary Catholic scholars writing about the achievements of the Second Vatican Council. Radboud University Faculty of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies Erasmusplein 1 NL-6525 HT Nijmegen PO Box 9103 6500 HD Nijmegen The Netherlands [email protected]

Joshua FURNAL

PART III IS EDUCATION FOR HERE OR HEREAFTER? INTERWEAVING GRAVISSIMUMEDUCATIONIS AND PERFECTAECARITATIS

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE INTERWEAVING GRAVISSIMUMEDUCATIONIS WITH PERFECTAECARITATIS ANNO 2015

INTRODUCTION When interweaving GravissimumEducationis and PerfectaeCaritatis, one cannot but be surprised by the diverse set of paradoxes, tensions and commonalities one encounters, first with regard to these documents themselves (their coming into being, the final texts, their appreciation and reception), as well as with regard to the current state of affairs, at least from a West-European perspective, of the issues with which these documents deal, i.e. (Catholic) education, on the one hand, and the religious life, on the other. In this contribution, I will hint at some of these paradoxes, tensions and commonalities, in order to set the stage for a systematic-theological reflection on the main issue entrusted to me: when we interweave GravissimumEducationis and PerfectaeCaritatis in the context of a theological hermeneutics of Vatican II, is education – c.q. Catholic education – for here of hereafter? Indeed, in view of the general theme of the tenth LEST-conference on the “Letter and the Spirit”, it is most fruitful to reflect on these so-called forgotten documents within the whole of the event and the heritage of the Council. My initial intention is to question the often negative appreciation with which GravissimumEducationis has been met, even from the very beginning. I will argue that this declaration is a valuable document of the Second Vatican Council, bearing witness to its spirit, and thus not less valuable than the other less forgotten documents of the Council. As we will see, the interwovenness of Gravissimum Educationis with these other documents and the event of the Council as a whole provides ample opportunities to show this. Furthermore, in today’s context, this interwovenness constitutes the basis for a new interweaving of Gravissimum Educationis with PerfectaeCaritatis and some of these other documents. In this regard, secondly, I will argue that the hermeneutics of Vatican II and of its reception offer an important theological and methodological resource for undertaking such a reflection. Even, or maybe especially, in a context marked by secularization and pluralization, Catholic education is given the opportunity to perform what the religious orders were called

96

L. BOEVE

to do in the Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life, PerfectaeCaritatis. Framed as schools of dialogue in love, Catholic education engages in an “apostolate of love” by reading the signs of the times from the perspective of the Gospel, and in so doing, bearing witness to the Kingdom to come. In the firstpart of my contribution, therefore, I engage in a rereading of GravissimumEducationis and PerfectaeCaritatis, paying attention to the commonalities and paradoxes which result from such exercise. This rereading will set the stage for the secondpart in which, from a hermeneutics of the whole of the Council and by interweaving again its major documents, I will enter into a systematic-theological reflection on Catholic education as a work of love in and for our times.

AND

I. REREADING GRAVISSIMUMEDUCATIONIS PERFECTAECARITATIS: COMMONALITIES AND PARADOXES

In this part, I first discuss the diverging appreciations of Gravissimum Educationis and PerfectaeCaritatis, which began already at the time of the Council. Second, I mention some of the commonalities between both documents, thus setting the stage for a further reflection. In the third section, I open this reflection showing how a rereading of the documents points to the different dynamics which both documents display when considered from the way they relate the world and the Reign of God to each other. At the same time such a combined rereading reveals the intrinsic bond between love and holiness. 1. ADivergentAppreciation I first focus on the diverging appreciation of the history, texts and reception of Gravissimum Educationis and Perfectae Caritatis. Within the framework of this contribution I only highlight a few remarkable paradoxes and commonalities1.

1. Background reading for my observations, and further references, see: J. SCHMIEDL, TheologischerKommentarzumDekretüberdiezeitgemäßeErneuerungdesOrdensleben Perfectae Caritatis, in P. HÜNERMANN – B.J. HILBERATH (eds.), Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol. 3, Freiburg i.Br. – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2005, 491-550; and R. SIEBENROCK, Theologischer Kommentar zur Erklärung überdieChristlicheErziehung Gravissimum Educationis, ibid., 551-590; H. DERROITTE, DelaDéclaration Gravissimum Educationis ànosjours:Réflexionssurl’éducationchrétienne, in RevuethéologiquedeLouvain 45 (2014) 360-388.

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE

97

(a) A first set of paradoxes and commonalities concerns the context and history of the coming into being of Gravissimum Educationis and PerfectaeCaritatis. In the responses to the questionnaires in preparation of the Council, the Conciliaetvota, issues relating to religiouslife were omnipresent. Apart from juridical items, such as the relation to the diocesan bishops, the concrete regulation of religious life (liturgy, habit, etc.) was another issue raised for further discussion2. Before the Council, the Church had already dealt with these issues, especially during the papacy of Pius XII, who immediately after the Second World War started the reform of the religious life. Such reform was needed, because the religious life was said to have turned in on itself, suffocated by an overabundance of rules and regulations, far out of touch with the times and too outspokenly anti-modern3. Also in the immediate preparation of the Council, the preparatory commission took great effort in meeting many times and composing a lengthy preparatory document (132 pp.!). In the same way, during the Council as well a lot of time and energy were invested in drafting the final decree. The same, however, cannot be said of education. Although the theme itself was also suggested plenty of times in the preparatory questionnaires, the issue of education was never given substantial attention, neither in the years before the Council nor in the preparatory period. Up to the time of the Council, the most significant document on education was Pius XI’s encyclical, DiviniIlliusMagistri (1929). In this text, the Pope primordially defended the right of parents to educate their children according to their own volition, as well as the right of the Church to organize Catholic education (invoking the principle of subsidiarity vis-àvis the state). This encyclical therefore constituted the basis for the preparatory document for the Council4. At the Council itself, moreover, a discussion arose whether a separate document on education was really needed, and if a paragraph added to another document could not suffice5. Also in the plenary sessions, the text of Gravissimum Educationis was not given much time and attention. Already in 1963 the decision was taken to present only some main principles, and to refer their development and application to a post-conciliar commission. All of this made the young Council peritus Joseph Ratzinger remark, in his notes on the Council, that the council fathers did not treat the issue of education with

2. 3. 4. 5.

SCHMIEDL, PerfectaeCaritatis (n. 1), p. 501. Ibid., p. 499. SIEBENROCK, GravissimumEducationis (n. 1), p. 558. DERROITTE, DelaDéclaration Gravissimum Educationis ànosjours (n. 1), p. 366.

98

L. BOEVE

much affection and enthusiasm. The text itself he described as a “rather weak document”6. (b) When we look at the historyofthetexts of PerfectaeCaritatis and GravissimumEducationis, one major commonality can be observed: as was the case with a lot of the preparatory schemata, drawn by preparatory commissions before the Council, both Descholiscatholicis and Destatibusperfectionibusadquirendae were heavily discussed and critiqued in the Council commissions, and the resulting texts were drawn and redrawn. As a result, PerfectaeCaritatis developed into a document which, as was the case with many of the conciliar documents, could overcome the more juridical and synthetic approach of its preparation and constitute a valuable document of its own. Also the final text of GravissimumEducationis is very different from the preparatory text; the significant change in title, from “On Catholic Schools” to “On Christian Education” bears witness to this. Nevertheless, commentators hold that this text does not offer much more than a repetition of DiviniIlliusMagistri, except that its tone is less anxious and defensive. For some of these commentators, the 1977 document TheCatholicSchool from the Congregation for Catholic Education7, more so than Gravissimum Educationis, is deemed the real founding document regarding the role of the Church in education8. (c) Because of this, also the appreciation of both these documents is already, from the very beginning, quitedifferent. I mentioned already that GravissimumEducationis has been called a minor document, one that in no way could live up to the status and renown of the two other declarations promulgated by the Council, NostraAetate and DignitatisHumanae. Also, the official reception of Perfectae Caritatis immediately started after the Council, whereas we have to wait until 1977 for Gravissimum Educationis to be fully taken up again by the Church at large. In conclusion, it would seem that, unlike PerfectaeCaritatis, GravissimumEducationis indeed is one of the forgotten documents of Vatican II, worthy of being remembered on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

6. Cf. J. RATZINGER, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York, Paulist, 1966, p. 116 and p. 254. 7. Published on March 19, 1977: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19770319_catholic-school_en.html. 8. This point was brought to the fore by Gerald GRACE at a conference in Heythrop College, London, June 23-24, 2015, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Gravissimum Educationis: VaticanIIandNewThinkingaboutCatholicEducation. See also his: From Gravissimum Educationis(1965)toTheCatholicSchool(1977):TheLateFloweringof AggiornamentoinCatholicEducationThinking, in ThePastoralReview 9 (2013) no. 3, 22-27.

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE

99

2. SomeCommonalities,SettingtheStage Before moving to the substance of both documents, and as an introduction to my argument, I first list some commonalities between the two documents. (a) First of all, both PerfectaeCaritatis and GravissimumEducationis do not stand on their own, but are to be read incloseconnectiontothe other (great) documents of Vatican II. For Perfectae Caritatis, that is certainly theDogmaticConstitutionontheChurch, LumenGentium, providing the doctrinal context for the religious orders (LG 43-47). In view of the fact that education is considered in light of the work of the Church in and for the world of today, GravissimumEducationis is to be read in close connection with the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, and the Decree on the Apostolate of theLaity, ApostolicamActuositatem. In the remainder of this paper I will also show how interweaving Gravissimum Educationis with the Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation, Dei Verbum, and Vatican II’s other dialogical documents, such as the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, the DecreeontheMissionActivityoftheChurch, Ad Gentes, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non- ChristianReligions, NostraAetate, and the DecreeonEcumenism, UnitatisRedintegratio, may offer interesting points of contact for a contemporary reflection on (Catholic) education in today’s Europe. Anyway, for both PerfectaeCaritatis and GravissimumEducationis it holds true that the way in which the Church thinks of itself and of its relation to the world is of utmost importance for examining the realities these documents are treating. Therefore, whether preparing for this world, and/or for the world hereafter, a correct hermeneutics of GravissimumEducationis and PerfectaeCaritatis entails an interpretation of the whole of the event and the corpus of Vatican II. (b) As regards a second commonality, one observes that both Gravissimum Educationis and Perfectae Caritatis mention in their introductions that they onlyprovidemainlinesandprinciples on education and the religious life respectively, and that the more concrete work is to be done in the post-conciliar period, for the whole of the Church by postconciliar commissions and/or the respective curial congregations. As far as religious life is concerned, in view of the application in the diversity of regional contexts, this work is commissioned to local bishops and bishops’ conferences, and/or to the regional collaborate efforts of religious orders, congregations, and the like (superiors’ conferences – PC 23). Regarding the reception of GravissimumEducationis, diocesan,

100

L. BOEVE

inter-diocesan and international levels of (GE 12) application are called upon. (c) The third remark I want to make is linked to my previous point: in our two texts attention is given to the maxim that both the religious life as well as education should be appropriatetothetimeandplace in which they find themselves. GravissimumEducationis says so especially in view of the diversity of contexts: the world of education differs from country to country and evolves over time. Perfectae Caritatis, on the other hand, looks at this maxim from a more theological angle, applying more general views on the appropriate development of tradition to the renewal of religious life. In this regard, in line with Vatican II’s combination of ressourcement and aggiornamento, PerfectaeCaritatis requires that [t]he adaptation and renewal of the religious life includes both the constant return to the sources of all Christian life and to the original spirit of the institutes and their adaptation to the changed conditions of our time (PC 2).

When well understood, this comes very close to the definition of tradition development through recontextualization9. The sources referred to in PerfectaeCaritatis are the imitatioChristi as presented by the Gospel, the inspiration offered by the founders and the “sound” traditions of the various institutions. Religious orders are required to perform such renewal within the whole of the life of the Church, and receive the assignment to make all the current concerns of the Church their own. Furthermore, they should inform themselves about what is going on in the world, so that, “judging current events wisely in the light of faith and burning with apostolic zeal, they may be able to assist men [sic] more effectively” (PC 2). Such renewal, in the last instance, only can be effective when at its heart it is inspired by a true spiritual renewal. (d) Finally, let me mention twoveryexplicitcontactpoints between PerfectaeCaritatis and GravissimumEducationis. First of all, on the part of Gravissimum Educationis, being a teacher involved in education is considered a true apostolate on behalf of the Church. This apostolate is also recognized in Perfectae Caritatis as the specific task of certain orders, congregations and institutes. At the same time, PerfectaeCaritatis argues for a proper education of the religious, because “[a]daptation

9. For this concept, see my SystematicTheology,TruthandHistory:Recontextualisation, in M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN (eds.), Orthodoxy, Process and Product(Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 227), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 27-44.

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE

101

and renewal depend greatly on the education of religious”. More specifically: In order that the adaptation of religious life to the needs of our time may not be merely external and that those employed by rule in the active apostolate may be equal to their task, religious must be given suitable instruction, depending on their intellectual capacity and personal talent, in the currents and attitudes of sentiment and thought prevalent in social life today. This education must blend its elements together harmoniously so that an integrated life on the part of the religious concerned results (PC 18).

PerfectaeCaritatis also asks Christian educators to promote religious vocations (PC 24). Informed by these commonalities, we now continue our reflection. We have become very aware, first, of the necessity to receive both our documents in relation to the event and other documents of Vatican II; second, of the Council’s mandate to elaborate on their respective main principles after the Council; third, of the need for continuing adaptation and renewal (thus: recontextualization), because of both contextual and theological reasons; and finally, of the explicit link between PerfectaeCaritatis and GravissimumEducationis, precisely at the point where Church and world meet: in education considered as an apostolate. 3. F  rom the World to God’s Reign, and vice versa: On the Intrinsic BondbetweenLoveandHoliness Although education is seen as an apostolate both for religious and lay people, GravissimumEducationis starts its reflection on Christian education first of all with a consideration of the importance of educationin our world: education is an inalienable right of every human being. GravissimumEducationis pleads for a true education which deals with the whole of the human person, in all of its dimensions: bodily, morally and intellectually, in order for human beings to acquire true freedom in responsibility. At the same time, education should enable young people to take their roles in the community and society, so that properly instructed in the necessary and opportune skills they can become actively involved in various community organizations, open to discourse with others and willing to do their best to promote the common good (GE 1).

Gravissimum Educationis thus starts from this world, and it is inasmuch as the Church bears a responsibility for the life of people in this world, “even the secular part of it insofar as it has a bearing on his

102

L. BOEVE

heavenly calling”, that the Church “has a role in the progress and development of education” (GE, introduction). Education is a right for every child, and, together with public authorities and those in charge of education, also the “sons [sic] of the Church” are exhorted to generously contribute to the realization of that right for all children over the world. It is within this more general framework, then, that Christian education is mentioned. The latter not only strives to realize the more general ends of education but also the formation of young people into the faith and faith community. It is called to provide a Christian education which should enable Christians, aware of their calling, [to] learn not only how to bear witness to the hope that is in them (cf. Peter 3,15) but also how to help in the Christian formation of the world that takes place when natural powers viewed in the full consideration of man [sic] redeemed by Christ contribute to the good of the whole society (GE 2).

Also when Gravissimum Educationis defines the assignment of the Catholic school, the same message is given: No less than other schools does the Catholic school pursue cultural goals and the human formation of youth. But its proper function is to create for the school community a special atmosphere animated by the Gospel spirit of freedom and charity, to help youth grow according to the new creatures they were made through baptism as they develop their own personalities, and finally to order the whole of human culture to the news of salvation so that the knowledge the students gradually acquire of the world, life and man [sic] is illumined by faith (GE 8).

All in all, GravissimumEducationis looks at education from the perspective of this world, and from there, shows how educating young people can help to realize the reign of God, “so that by leading an exemplary apostolic life they become, as it were, a saving leaven in the human community” (GE 8). Education thus functions in the world, and for Christians it is a means and a way to bear witness to God’s reign in this world, and to assist in its realization. PerfectaeCaritatis, on the other hand, starts from the vocationofthe religious towards fulfilment, “the pursuit of perfect charity through the evangelical counsels”, and considers this a special sign of the reign of God (PC 1). Hereto, it refers to LG: The people of God have no lasting city here below, but look forward to one that is to come. Since this is so, the religious state, whose purpose is to free its members from earthly cares, more fully manifests to all believers the presence of heavenly goods already possessed here below. Furthermore, it not only witnesses to the fact of a new and eternal life acquired by the

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE

103

redemption of Christ, but it foretells the future resurrection and the glory of the heavenly kingdom (LG 44).

It is from the Kingdom to come, that PerfectaeCaritatis elaborates on the adaptation and renewal of religious life. In this regard, also the “works of the apostolate”, as works of love or charity, are intrinsically connected to the love of God. It is from the intimate union with Christ that both the love of God and of the neighbor are nourished. Both these elements are expressed as such in PerfectaeCaritatis 5: It is necessary therefore that the members of every community, seeking God solely and before everything else, should join contemplation, by which they fix their minds and hearts on Him, with apostolic love, by which they strive to be associated with the work of redemption and to spread the kingdom of God.

In order to understand this appropriately, it is necessary to point here to the shift in the understanding of holiness which the Council undertakes, and to the discussion on the precedence of the religious life over the non-religious life. As concerns the latter, this precedence of the religious life is expressed at several times by using a comparative, however, without explaining to what it has been compared. So, e.g., in Perfectae Caritatis 1: “following Christ with greater freedom and imitating Him more closely through the practice of the evangelical counsels”; Perfectae Caritatis 5: “a special consecration, which is deeply rooted in that of baptism and expresses it more fully”10. However, as we know from LG, all faithful are called to a life of holiness: “all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity” (LG 40). And all according to their place in the Church are called to give witness in their lives of this one holiness (LG 41). The precedence of the religious is thus of a symbolic order, rather than of an ethical or theological order. Moreover, Vatican II also redefines holiness in terms of a more biblically inspired righteousness and striving after the fullness of life11, refusing thus to identify holiness exclusively with a first and foremost ascetic ideal. In the same way, Lumen Gentium affirms that “by this holiness as such a more human manner of living is promoted in this earthly society” (LG 40). In short, it is to fundamentally the same holiness, enabling human beings to live more humanely in this world, that all Christians, religious and lay people

10. Cf. SCHMIEDL, PerfectaeCaritatis (n. 1), p. 538 (my italicization); Schmiedl also refers to PC 7, 12 and 14. 11. Cf. ibid., p. 539.

104

L. BOEVE

alike, are called. It may not come as a surprise, therefore, that the distinctive mark of holiness is love, “love, by which we love God above all things and our neighbour because of God” (LG 42). In conclusion: the dynamics of GravissimumEducationis and PerfectaeCaritatis are thus different, but fit the one call to holiness which is addressed to all Christians, and which, motivated by giving testimony to the reign of God, contributes to the humanization of the world in light of the Gospel through a praxis of love. It is to this that also the Decreeon theApostolateoftheLaity, ApostolicamActuositatem, reminds us when it confirms that all apostolate is founded in love and expresses this love, and further elaborates on this love in a reflection on the intrinsic bond between the love of God and the love of neighbor (AA 8). In the meantime, however, at least in Western-Europe, the world and the Church have dramatically changed. The realities treated by the documents under scrutiny – the religious orders, on the one hand, and education, and more specific, the Catholic school, on the other – were very successful in the first part of the 20th century. Although already at that time the first signals occurred that new religious vocations diminished, the Council itself did not foresee the massive crisis the religious life would end up in. Catholic education, on the other hand, seemed to have survived quite successfully the changes brought about by secularization12, although questions about its Catholic identity often resound13. In times of detraditionalization and pluralization, the question continually pops up whether Catholic schools still contribute “to the fulfilment of the mission of the People of God and to the fostering of the dialogue between the Church and mankind [sic], to the benefit of both” (GE 8).

12. Stemming from a rich Catholic pedagogical tradition in a predominantly Catholic environment, Catholic education has retained today its large majority position in despite of – it would seem – the fundamentally changed Flemish context. Let me offer you some figures. My office represents 2200 schools, from primary education to the Catholic University of Leuven, governed by almost 800 school boards: in globo 700.000 pupils and students. Catholic primary education represents 62% of all primary education in Flanders, and Catholic secondary education represents an even greater 75% of all secondary education. Furthermore, in adult and higher education, Catholic education holds a firm majority position. This poses immediately the problem: with such shares in the population, it is society itself, post-Christian and post-secular as it is, which sits in the class room, and which is present in the teaching staff and school boards. 13. See, e.g., Br. R. STOCKMAN, Christelijkeidentiteit:Eenutopie?, Kalmthout, Pelckmans, 2015. For a critical-constructive conversation with this book, see my Van‘nog’naar ‘nu’ katholieke school zijn: Overwegingen bij Christelijke identiteit: een utopie? van Broeder Stockman, in Collationes: Vlaams Tijdschrift voor Theologie en Pastoraal 45 (2015) 329-339.

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE

105

II. DIALOGUE, LOVE AND EDUCATION IN AND FOR OUR TIMES In this part, I engage in a systematic-theological reflection in which I first explain how through Vatican II dialogue has become a main feature to think God’s engagement with humanity, world and history. I also point out that this dialogical dynamics today best is considered in terms of interruption. In the second part, I develop how this dialogical-interruptive dynamics, then, leads us, first, to interrupt our theologies of love, and second, challenges us to be interrupted by love. In the third section I argue that this dialogical-interruptive dynamics of love assists us to reconsider the role and vocation of Catholic education, as an apostolate of love and holiness to which all the faithful are called, in order “to promote a more human manner of living in this earthly society”. 1. D  ialogue as the Hallmark of Vatican II: Lessons from Dei Verbum andGaudium et SpesforTheologyToday In retrospect, both the Council itself as well as the reception of the Council have been framed from the question in what way “dialogue” is at the core of Christian revelation and tradition, and what the resulting consequences are for the understanding of revelation, scripture, tradition and faith, the Church adintra and its relation to the world, the relation with the “separated brethren” and sisters, and with the other religions. Very often discussions about the letter and the spirit of the Council revolve around this question. And also the history of the reception of Vatican II bears witness to this. The changes in the world after the Council, and the accompanying crisis of Christian faith and the Church in Western-Europe have put pressure on the dialogical nature of the Christian faith and Church. According to some, both adintra and adextra, the dialogue brought about a threat to the integrity of the Christian faith. Because the world alienated itself from the Church, they concluded that the dialogue with the world (and within the Church) was to be suspended, and that Christian identity needed to be firmly profiled against the world’s relativism, consumerism, nihilism, and so on. From a theological viewpoint, however, a suspension of the dialogue is not a legitimate option, because dialogue intrinsically characterizes the nature of revelation. As I have argued elsewhere14, a contemporary 14. In this paragraph, I present some of the argument developed in my Revelation, Scripture and Tradition: Lessons from Vatican II’s Constitution Dei Verbum for

106

L. BOEVE

hermeneutics of DeiVerbum theologically confirms, elaborates and illustrates the dialogical dynamics at the heart of revelation. Because of Dei Verbum’s personal, historical-dynamic, Christological and soteriological concept of revelation, the latter does not primarily refer to contents (revelata) but is itself the salvific event of God’s self-revelation as Love in Jesus Christ and the Spirit. Revelation thus first of all concerns the encounter in person between God and humanity within concrete history; through this, history becomes salvation history, and culminates in the Incarnation of the Logos in Jesus Christ. On the basis of this fundamental insight, DeiVerbum affirms time and again the historicalanddialogical character of revelation, scripture, tradition, theology and the magisterium. In this regard, DeiVerbum itself, as a magisterial document, is the product of such a dialogical process in which both the life of the Church (e.g. the movements of renewal) and the contemporary insights from historical-critical exegesis and theology were taken into account. In short, DeiVerbum enacts itself what it proclaims. Moreover, once one accepts the historical and dialogical nature of all ecclesial teaching, it should be clear that the dialogue never ends: history goes on, and historical contexts keep on changing. In all of this, it is the principle of the dialogue itself which is the important new insight of Vatican II, when considering – also today – revelation, tradition, Church, and thus also education, love and holiness. In this regard, the impetus of recontextualization which we recognized in both Gravissimum Educationis and Perfectae Caritatis finds here its theological basis. In the last fifty years, however, the potentially renewing – or interruptive – impact of this principle of dialogue at the heart of revelation has been restrained because of the possible risk of a too far-reaching adaptation or renewal and a loss of continuity. In light of the tension which an open dialogue could bring about, the Church – and especially its magisterium – prematurely broke off the dialogue and in so doing again ran the risk of closing in on itself and its certainties. Of course, this development did not concern DeiVerbum only, but pertained to the reception of Vatican II as a whole. The opening of the Church to the contemporary context, through the combined efforts of aggiornamento and ressourcement, itself became questioned. Not only did the modern world no longer appear to serve as a dialogue partner, but the principle of dialogue itself seemed no longer appropriate. ContemporaryTheology, in InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology 13 (2011) 416433, which is republished, and elaborated upon in the first chapter of my book: Theology inDialogue, London, Bloomsbury, 2016.

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE

107

Especially also the reception of GaudiumetSpes, involving the question how to relate the Christian faith and Church to the world, has been a catalyst and illustration of this development15. Basing themselves on the dynamics of the PastoralConstitutionontheChurch intheModern World, modern theologies often stressed the fundamental continuity between faith and world in order to construct a plausible and relevant Christian faith. For the same reason, anti-modern theologies accentuated the discontinuity between the two. Discussions about whether the openness to the world has led to mere adaptation or not are most often stretched between these poles. The postmodern criticism of modernity has been welcomed by the anti-modern current to support its criticism of (the reception of) GaudiumetSpes. These anti- and postmodern theologies, however, not only claimed the illegitimacy of the modern-theological project, because of the loss of plausibility of the modern dialogue partner, but they also disputedthedialogicalprincipleassuch, as intrinsic to the understanding of Christian identity. For dialogue puts the integrity of this identity at risk. The Church, therefore, should not strive to dialogue with the world, but to convert it16. In relation to this discussion, I have argued that such position forgets too easily about the call of GaudiumetSpes to read – also today – the signs of the times, and “interpreting them in the light of the Gospel, so that it can offer in a manner appropriate to each generation replies to the continual human questionings on the meaning of this life and the life to come and how they are related” (GS 4). Precisely because of the intrinsic relationship of Christian faith to the world and history, theology today should go beyond the methodological dilemma of modern and antimodern theologies, which obfuscates the dialogical dynamics at the heart of Christian identity. Rather than doubting or rejecting the theological necessityofdialogue with the context (because Christian faith in essence would not be affected by it), we should reconsider the nature of such 15. I explicitly dealt with this in my BeyondtheModernandAnti-modernDilemma: TheologicalMethodinaPostmodernEuropeanContext, in J. VERSTRAETEN (ed.), ScrutinizingtheSignsoftheTimesandInterpretingTheminLightoftheGospel (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 208), Leuven, Peeters, 2007, 151-166. I draw from this article for this paragraph. I reflected on the theological-epistemological implications hereof in my GodInterruptsHistory:TheologyinaTimeofUpheaval, New York, Continuum, 2007, Introduction (pp. 1-9) and Chapter 2 (pp. 30-49). 16. Cf. J. RATZINGER (Benedict XVI), ValuesinaTimeofUpheaval, New York, Crossroad, 2006. See also, in addition: J. RATZINGER, Europe in the Crisis of Cultures, in Communio:InternationalCatholicReview 32 (2005) 345-356. For a comprehensive presentation of Joseph Ratzinger’s position with respect to dialogue with the contemporary world, see our EuropeinCrisis:AQuestionofBelieforUnbelief?Perspectivesfromthe Vatican, in ModernTheology 23 (2007) 205-227.

108

L. BOEVE

dialogue because of the altered situation. Not the dialogue, but the way in which this dialogue can proceed, should be changed, because the context itself (and its perception) has changed. In order to substantiate this claim, I have introduced the theological-epistemological category of “interruption”. Methodologically, the relation between Christian faith/ Church and history/world no longer should be framed in terms of continuity or discontinuity, but in terms of “interruption” in which both continuity and discontinuity are held together in tension. It is from a critical-constructive dialogue with so-called postmodern thinkers of difference, that this theological-methodological intuition arose. Lyotard’s critique of grand narratives, including Christianity’s grand narrative of love, challenges theology to reconsider its discourse from its dealings with difference and otherness. As a result, the dialogue with postmodern critical consciousness not only presses theology to critique the closing of its own narrative, but, at the same time, makes it conscious of the fact that it should strive for a discourse which acknowledges difference and otherness without domesticating it. Theology’s task, therefore, is not to leave its narrative behind, but to search for a kind of narrative which does not revert into a closed hegemonic master narrative. It should find a way of speaking where God does not simply confirm and secure the narrative, but realizes precisely the opposite: a narrative in which the God who can only be spoken of in the narrative, at the same time, and repeatedly, interrupts this same narrative. Thus, a narrative where God does not neutralize difference, but makes the difference. In contrast to the grand-narrative structure, I designated this as an “open narrative”: a narrative that is constantly aware of the fact that the other is threatened with being forgotten, a narrative that tries at least not to forget this forgetting17. The other’s lasting witness neither breaks the narrative nor stops it, but interrupts it. Such an open Christian narrative does not think God in the center, but from the margin; it sees God not as the guarantee of its own grand narrative, but as the continual critique of this. Such an open Christian narrative challenges Christians, in the name of the God who “makes a difference”, to “make a difference” when they are confronted with closed narratives, with narratives that have no regard for the other and make victims. This structure of interruption offers a fitting reading key for

17. Cf. L. BOEVE, NamingGodinOpenNarratives:TheologybetweenDeconstruction and Hermeneutics, in J. VERHEYDEN – T.L. HETTEMA – P. VANDECASTEELE (eds.), Paul Ricoeur:PoeticsandReligion(Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 240), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, 81-100.

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE

109

reading Jesus’ speech and actions, on the one hand, and Jesus’ life story, on the other, as interruptions on God’s behalf: narratives of sin, religious closedness and death upon the Cross are broken open in the name of an interrupting God18. The dialogical revelation of God in creation and history lives from this dangerous memory, agitating our discourses rather than founding, reconciling and reassuring them. 2. LoveandItsInterruption Before continuing our reflection leading to a new interweaving of apostolate, holiness and love in the context of education, let me first summarize, from a systematic-theological point of view, what I have done so far in this second part, and then elaborate on how Christianity’s master narrative of love can be overcome. For it is a retrieval of the interrupting power of love which will enable us to reconsider the place and role of Catholic education in our days. (a) First, God reveals Godself as a dialogical God, a God who enters into dialogue with human beings, a God who gives Godself in such a dialogue … and does so to the utmost in the revelation of the Word in Jesus Christ – something which is, as we learn from Scripture, also a risk for God, intrinsically marked by vulnerability, with the cross as the ultimate consequence. From the manner in which God has revealed Godself to humanity in history, we have learned that there is not first a God who then enters into dialogue, but that God isdialogue: in other words, dialogue belongs to God’s essence19. (b) Secondly, theology’s dialogue with the critical consciousness stemming from the philosophies of difference has made us reconsider the nature of dialogue and encounter in terms of interruption. God interrupts our narratives, and because God interrupts, we are challenged likewise to interrupt self-enclosing narratives, both the ones that we tell ourselves and the narratives of others.

18. Cf. the seventh chapter in L. BOEVE,InterruptingTradition:AnEssayonChristian FaithinaPostmodernContext (Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs, 30), Leuven, Peeters; Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2003, pp. 115-146. 19. Cf. Rahner’s maxim that the economic trinity is the immanent trinity, and vice versa: K. RAHNER, DerdreifaltigeGottalstranszendenterUrgrundderHeilsgeschichte, in J. FEINER – M. LÖHRER (eds.), MysteriumSalutis:GrundrissheilsgeschichtlicherDogmatik, Einsiedeln – Zürich – Köln, Benziger, 1967, vol. 2, 317-397, p. 328.

110

L. BOEVE

As already mentioned, Jean-François Lyotard analyzed and criticized Christianity for being amasternarrativeoflove20. According to him, it is even the master narrative parexcellence. In the Christian master narrative, the idea of love serves as the interpretive key for all there is from the perspective of the eschatological realization of the love, while streamlining whatever happens from the perspective of love. By loving from the outset what is other than the narrative, by loving difference already before it occurs, the Christian master narrative already encapsulates and determines whatever there is to happen and really can happen. In Lyotard’s words: The Christian narrative vanquished the other narratives in Rome because by introducing the love of occurrence into narratives and narrations of narratives, it designated what is at stake in the genre itself. To love what happens as if it were a gift, to love even the Isithappening? as the promise of good news, allows for linking onto whatever happens, including other narratives21.

The event of difference, therefore, never disturbs the course of the narrative, because it is already included from within the dynamics of the idea of love ruling the Christian narrative. From the outset the occurrence of difference is stripped of its interruptive otherness and registered in the Christian narrative as gracious gift of love. People who do not love, or events which do not contribute to the realization of the idea of Love, are sinful, and therefore to be avoided. Engaging this criticism, first of all, makes us aware of the potentially hegemonic features of a Christian narrative of love which alltooeasily encapsulates otherness and difference. It motivates us to interrupt our theologies of love. In a detraditionalized and religiously pluralized world the Christian narrative is neither the self-evident answer to human aspirations nor the logical outcome for all those who think rationally. Nor is it to be profiled as the grand master narrative of Christian love, the only one able to safeguard humankind against a fallen and alienated modern context which is univocally analyzed in terms of relativism, secularism, nihilism, etc. The consciousness of difference, the differend, interrupts our attempts to use an all too easy Christian love as a criterion, as if we 20. For the following paragraphs, see my TheOtherandtheInterruptionofLove, in J. MATTARAZO – U. SCHMIEDL (eds.), DynamicsofDifference:ChristianityandAlterity. FS W. Jeanrond, London, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015, 275-283. For the whole of this argument, see L. BOEVE, LyotardandTheology:BeyondtheChristianMasterNarrative ofLove, London, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. 21. J.-F. LYOTARD, TheDifferend:PhrasesinDispute, Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1988, §232.

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE

111

would know what it is, and as if we would be the ones to use it. When love, or God as love, functions as legitimation, as a criterion and thus as a part of the narrative, the Christian narrative rapidly closes in on itself. However, this criticism also stimulates us to enquire whether love indeed is self-legitimating and self-securing? Perhaps, the first interruption of our theologies of love may point us to a second interruption: the interruption of our theologies by love. The first interruption of love sets free the interruption by love of the Christian narrative: it is love itself whichinterruptsour attempts to close the narrative. In the name of love, God enters history to open up closed narratives. Both in words and in deeds, Jesus demonstrated this interruptive power of love: inverting the concept of neighbor in the parable of the Samaritan, showing its active dimension: the question is not “which other is my neighbor?”, but “to whom do I become neighbor?”; questioning our belonging to the Christian narrative of love by confronting us, in the parable of the prodigal son, with our position as the eldest son, unable or unwilling to understand the father’s abundant love for that other “son of yours”; dethroning the scribes and Pharisees from Moses’ chair when they wanted to stone the adulterous woman in the name of God’s law, while not condemning but liberating the woman himself, hereby revealing who God in God’s mercifulness really is; opening up the Christian narrative for others such as sinners, tax collectors. Time and again, our experiencing, understanding and practicing of love is interrupted and opened up. Whenever the Christian narrative tends to close, it is Godwhointerruptsitandopens the horizon of love. Thus, interruptive love becomes a way to try to understand how God relates to history – as well as a way to interrupt all such understanding. The contextual-theological opportunity of our days of detraditionalization and pluralization lies in the possibility to conceive of the dialogue of God with humanity and history in terms of this interruptive love. Experiences of otherness and difference, and our dealings with these, may disclose these interruptive dynamics. It is as interruptive love then that God reveals Godself, motivating a praxis of interrupting love, challenging the tendencies, both in our own and others’ narratives, which close in on themselves. 3. Education:CatholicSchoolsofDialogueinLove Let us now connect our reflection again to GravissimumEducationis (in its interwovenness to PerfectaeCaritatis, ApostolicamActuositatem and the other documents of Vatican II), and ask the question whether the

112

L. BOEVE

work of Christian teachers in Catholic schools – “intimately linked in charity to one another and to their students and endowed with an apostolic spirit” – can be considered “in the real sense of the word an apostolate most suited to and necessary for our times and at once a true service offered to society” (GE 8)? And in so much as the population in Catholic schools is marked by detraditionalization and pluralization, this question concerns in the same way, the Catholic school as such: how do Catholic schools live up to the call to holiness, instigating an apostolate of love, and so-doing contribute and bear witness to the Kingdom of God? To answer this question, let us recall some of our findings. (a) First of all, it is appropriate to remind us that, first, the call to holiness is addressed to all faithful, lay as well as religious; second, that this call to perfection is to be framed from the biblical notions of righteousness and striving after the fullness of life, “promoting a more human manner of living in this earthly society”; and, third, that the distinctive mark of holiness is love. (b) Secondly, because of the thorough historical-contextual embodiment of works of love in history and society, reconsidering the apostolate of education is a continual task, to be framed within the broader dynamics of recontextualization which characterizes all tradition development. (c) Thirdly, as we developed in the previous paragraphs, such theological recontextualization is assisted by wagering on the dialogical-interruptivedynamicsoflove as a theological mode of thinking which relates God to world and history, and the Christian faith to the current culture and society. It is from such dynamics of interruption that I now shortly develop how a Catholic school can be recontextualized as a school of dialogue in love. In this regard I first point to two contextual interruptions with regard to such school, after which I will hint at two theological interruptions. First of all, in the current context marked by detraditionalization and pluralization, resulting in a post-Christian and post-secular culture and society, the project of the Catholic school is contextually interrupted, but also interrupts the context. Secondly, this double contextual interruption instigates a twofold theological interruption, first as regards the theological self-understanding of the Catholic school, second with regard to its place and role in contemporary culture and society. I first go into the doublecontextualinterruption and its consequences for the Catholic school today.

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE

113

(a) The Catholic school, to which Vatican II seemed to refer to as a school administered and run by Catholics for an overall Catholic audience of pupils, students and parents no longer exists. In a context – as it used to be in Flanders until some decades ago – wherein Catholics no longer constitute the majority but where Catholic schools still attract a majoritarian share of the young, this puts pressureontheself-evidentCatholicidentity of the school. Reactions to this first contextual interruption of the self-understanding of Catholic schools vary from either outspoken or silent secularization, to attempts at reconfessionalization. These reactions illustrate very well the strategies of continuity and discontinuity, we hinted at when discussing the dialogue with modernity. Continuity then bets on constructing the school’s identity on a common ground between Christian faith and culture and society (sometimes summarised in a set of Christianhumanist values)22, whereas discontinuity wagers on the profiling of the school’s identity against the post-Christian context. Anyway, both the question how to deal with the detraditionalization and pluralization of the school’s population (pupils, parents, staff, board), and the reconsideration of the school’s identity in view of these changes, result from this first contextual interruption. (b) Whereas the first contextual interruption concerns an interruption of the self-understanding of the Catholic school, the second contextual interruption refers to the interruption of culture and society by the Catholic school. Today, being a Christian, and openly identifying or confessing to be one, already interrupts the common assumption that our society is just on its way to becoming completely secularized. To be sure, the de-institutionalization of religion, and the detraditionalization of identity have drastically changed the religious landscape, but the fact that religion is still around, and that other religions, convictions, lifestyles, etc. joined the religious landscape add to the post-secular character of our culture and society. This is among others testified to by the fact that in Flanders, the majority of parents, even explicitly non-Christian parents, continue to send their children to Catholic schools (“they still get something more over there”), instead of state education which holds a firm position of neutrality (often leading to secularism). Also the observation that many in our society suffer from meaninglessness, burn-out, with high rates of 22. I developed four models to deal – from the part of the Catholic university – with this contextual interruption in: The Identity of a Catholic University in Post-Christian EuropeanSocieties:FourModels, in LouvainStudies 31 (2006) 238-258.

114

L. BOEVE

suicide, use of antidepressants, etc. would seem to corroborate the points, first, that the quest for meaning is open again, and, second, that our society does not offer stable patterns to cope with it. The mere existence of Catholic schools remind our culture and society not only of a gone past, but may also point them to the fact that in a post-Christian and post-secular context, thequestformeaningand identityisnottobetakenverylightly. Both the extremes of relativism, nihilism and consumerism, on the one hand, and of ethnocentrism, religious radicalism and fundamentalism, on the other, can be analyzed in this regard as failing ways to deal with the question of identity in a situation of plurality. The two contextual interruptions thus put at the top of the pedagogical agenda, the question of how to construct one’s identity in a context in which identity is no longer pre-given and stable, but has become insecure. In our post-Christian and post-secular era, such a question not only concerns the formation of Christian identity, but all identity. The process of pluralization, moreover, adds to this, because identities can be diverse, and the confrontation with religious otherness impacts one’s own coming to identity. In learning about and from the other, one learns a lot about oneself. In that regard, the confrontation with difference and otherness offers a pedagogicalopportunity to engage all participants in the life of the school into a common, but at the same time, diverse quest for identity in a world of insecurity and plurality. At the same time they make the Catholic school aware of its own particular identity, and foster the idea that identityandpluralityarenot contradictory to each other, but dynamically related. The encounter with plurality does not necessarily lead to a diminishing of identity, but to its rediscovery in its particularity and precariousness in the current context of detraditionalization and individualization. As said, this double contextual interruption instigates a double theologicalinterruption, first with regard to the theological self-understanding of the Catholic school, secondly as regards its place and role in contemporary culture and society. (a) Seen from the perspective of the dialogical-interruptive dynamic of love, the confrontation with difference and otherness is not only a pedagogical but alsoa theologicalopportunity. The Catholic school in this regard can be the place where God’s revelation, in the concrete encounter with otherness can take place, interrupting a too straightforward Catholic identity from within, and opening up space for encounter and mutual learning. In the dialogue between

SCHOOL OF DIALOGUE IN LOVE

115

Christians and non-Christians, God may reveal Godself unexpectedly – just as God did in the encounter of Jesus with the SyroPhoenician woman, an encounter which interrupted and radicalized Jesus’ own views on the reach of God’s love. Non-Christians, therefore, should not only just be tolerated at Catholic schools but invited and welcomed to participate in the dialogue in which the interrupting power of love may impact the quest for the identities of all involved. The Catholic school, therefore, is not Catholic, because the Christian discourse is determining its ways of educating, but because it fosters and sustains the dialogue of all in search of meaningfulness and identity in a world of plurality. In two ways the Christian narrative of interruptive love comes into play in this dialogue, first of all as background to the very concept of dialogue. This concept is not neutral, but value-laden: it is not just conversation, but framed from the view that we find ourselves already in an answering relationship. Human beings stand in a relationship to a God who is first, and who calls them. Secondly, this Christian narrative of interruptive love is to be presented as one of the voices in the dialogue at school, being the privileged dialogue partner trying to bear witness to what is at stake in the dialogue, and the dialogical-interruptive dynamic of love at the source of it. (b) So doing, the Catholic school of dialogue in love offers a training ground for a society which has difficulty in dealing with identity and plurality, with difference and otherness. Its Christian narrative of interruptive love may both challenge and inspire all present at school to engage in a process of mutual learning and coming to a greater identity, be it Christian or not, at the same time making room for those who tend to be forgotten, remain silent or are silenced. Both in its daily life of dialogue in love, and its bearing witness to this dialogical-interruptive dynamic of love, such a school interrupts on behalf of God, on theological grounds, and thus on distorted views of humanity and society. So it is a living testimony warning against the easy answers of secularism, passive pluralism, relativism, consumerism, on the one hand, and ethnocentrism, religious radicalism and fundamentalism on the other. In its own way, and in and for the present context, it so doing engages in its apostolate of love, striving after holiness, to promote a “more human manner of living in this earthly society”, bearing witness to the Kingdom of God to come. “When did we meet you?” is the question asked at the last judgment in the gospel of Matthew (Matt 25), answered by the Son of Man: “I was hungry and you gave me food; thirsty and…”. Today, most

116

L. BOEVE

probably we can add hereto: “I was the other, threatened to be too rapidly in- or excluded, you made room to enter into dialogue and to engage in a mutual process of learning and living together”. In conclusion, it is to such a Catholic school of dialogue in love, that I would contend, also the 2013 document of the Congregation for Catholic Education, EducatingtoInterculturalDialogueinCatholicSchools: LivinginHarmonyforaCivilizationofLove23, refers, when it states, The tradition of Catholic schools is familiar with the intercultural aspect. Today, however, faced with the challenges both of globalization and of cultural and religious pluralism, it is essential to develop a greater awareness of its meaning. In this way, Catholic schools will communicate better – in their presence, witness and teaching – their own particular way of being, being Catholic. … Catholic schools avoid both fundamentalism and ideas of relativism where everything is the same. Instead, they are encouraged to progress in harmony with the identity they have received from their Gospel inspiration. They are also invited to follow the pathways that lead to encountering others. They educate themselves, and they educate to dialogue, which consists in speaking with everyone and relating to everyone with respect, esteem and listening in sincerity. They should express themselves with authenticity, without obfuscating or watering down their own vision so as to acquire greater consensus. They should bear witness by means of their own presence, as well as by the coherence between what they say and what they do24.

Director-General of Catholic Education Flanders Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies KU Leuven Sint-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Lieven BOEVE

23. See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_ con_ccatheduc_doc_20131028_dialogo-interculturale_en.html (conclusion). 24. It is also such a Catholic school of dialogue in love, which the Flemish Office for Catholic Education will promote during the next ten years (cf. www.katholiekonderwijs. vlaanderen).

IRRADIATION OF THE DIVINE SPLENDOR AN AESTHETIC APPROACH TO THE READING OF GRAVISSIMUMEDUCATIONIS AND PERFECTAECARITATIS

The Declaration on Christian Education, Gravissimum Educationis (GE) and the Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life PerfectaeCaritatis(PC) at first glance do not seem to present significant links that attract attention. Indeed, if not stimulated by the invitation of the organizers of the Leuven Encounters in Systematic Theology to read the two documents side by side, I would not have attempted, on my own initiative, to make a serious reflection interweaving these two documents which deal with two important, but apparently independent realities of ecclesial life. I also could not have imagined how much richness would arise from this. What initially seemed an arduous task has turned out to be an interesting and exciting endeavor – one which has strengthened my identity as a religious woman belonging to an Institute which has the Charism of educating young people in the spirit of its founder, St. John Bosco. I sincerely thank the organizers of the congress for this opportunity. A word on the title of my paper. Though the formulation “an aesthetic approach” may sound pretentious, what I want to express is quite modest. Today there is advancing in the communication of faith a language in which “truth goes hand in hand with beauty and goodness”1, a style that appeals to the experience of awe, an art of making theology affective and beautiful2. This trend is already perceptible in the Council. The 1. Pope FRANCIS, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, November 24, 2013, no. 142. 2. “Being struck and overcome by the beauty of Christ is a more real, more profound knowledge than mere rational deduction. Of course we must not underrate the importance of theological reflection, of exact and precise theological thought; it remains absolutely necessary. But to move from here to disdain or to reject the impact produced by the response of the heart in the encounter with beauty as a true form of knowledge would impoverish us and dry up our faith and our theology. We must rediscover this form of knowledge; it is a pressing need of our time”, so affirms Joseph RATZINGER (Benedict XVI) (TheFeelingofThings,theContemplationofBeauty: MessagetotheCommunion andLiberationMeetingatRimini, August 24, 2002), who has, time and again throughout his ministry, emphasized that the viapulchritudinis constitutes a privileged path of evangelization today. For more suggestions see the PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE, TheVia Pulchritudinis,PrivilegedPathwayforEvangelizationandDialogue, Roma, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2006; J. NAVONE, Toward a Theology of Beauty, Collegeville, MN,

118

H.-F.M. KO

participants of Vatican II have adopted a language different from that of the previous councils; they had no heresies to condemn, no dogmas to define, no principles to defend, nor legal problems to solve, instead, they intended to dialogue starting from its concrete reality and to lead the whole Church to a genuine renewal. Their language is more like that used in the sermons of the Fathers of the Church – friendly and exhortative, rich in biblical references, full of spiritual insights, animated by pastoral zeal and close to the reality of everyday life3. The effort was not focused on drawing the bottom line with anathemas or norms, but launched the Church towards higher ideals and standards. This style continued to grow in the past 50 years after the Council not only in the theological reflection, but also in the Church’s Magisterium at all levels: in the documents of the Roman Curia, in the synodal texts and especially in the teachings of the popes. Pope Francis is particularly eloquent in this regard. In addition a reason that leads me to be more ready to grasp the aesthetic instances in the two documents is my cultural sensitivity, my Chinese mentality. It is known that Asian people in general, and Chinese in particular, prefer evocation to demonstration, intuition to argumentation, and they are more keen to holistic contemplation than to analytic speculations. I will present my reflection in three steps: in the first place I try to put together the twodocuments; secondly, going beyond the text the attempt is to see how the tworealities – education and religious life – are intertwined; and thirdly I focus on education and religious life as twoaspects harmonizedintheidentityandinthevitaldynamismoftheperson, that means, I will speak of the consecrated person who educates. I. INTERWEAVING THE TWO DOCUMENTS: GRAVISSIMUMEDUCATIONIS AND PERFECTAECARITATIS 1. SeedsthatGrowintoTrees Both texts belong to the “less prominent documents” of Vatican II. Both are promulgated on the same day: October 28, 1965, as the result of a long and difficult process. GravissimumEducationis had eight draftings and PerfectaeCaritatis seven. Though neither can be said to be truly Liturgical Press, 1996; R. VILADESAU, TheologicalAesthetics:GodinImagination,Beauty andArt,Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013. 3. Cf. J.W. O’MALLEY, VaticanII:DidAnythingHappen?, in TheologicalStudies 67 (2006) 3-33; also in D.G. SCHULTENOVER (ed.), VaticanII:DidAnythingHappen?, London – New York – Sydney, Bloomsbury, 2007, 52-91.

IRRADIATION OF DIVINE SPENDOR

119

innovative in their time, the two documents do represent a sort of milestone in their respective fields. They have certainly laid a solid foundation and have scattered seeds of novelty for the future. Many of these seeds have grown and became big trees in the last 50 years after Vatican II. The reality of education, as well as that of religious life, were for the first time objects of explicit attention at the highest level of collegiality of the Church as that of the Council, and have found here an ecclesial identity never so widely drafted previously. The Church has always been involved in education. Since her origin, the Church had a clear awareness that passing on to future generations the reasons that make life whole and beautiful is essentially part of her mission. Already in the patristic era the first theories on the educational task of the Church were formulated4 and down the centuries there had been a growing commitment of the Church to education at all levels and in many forms. But it is only in these contemporary times that the Church has dealt, in an organic manner, on the matter concerning the theological foundation, the constituent elements, methods and areas of education. Vatican II has the privilege of being the first Council in which the educational mission of the Church had been the subject of reflection and discussion in an explicit and intense way5. GravissimumEducationis begins with this affirmation: The Sacred Ecumenical Council has considered with care how extremely important education is in the life of man and how its influence ever grows in the social progress of this age6.

4. Among the many Fathers of the Church who have contributed to the development of a classical Christian educational philosophy these are the most prominent: Basil the Great with his AddresstoYoungMenontheRightUseofGreekLiterature,John Chrysostom with his OnVaingloryandtheRightWayforParentstoBringUpTheirChildren, Augustine with his OnChristianTeaching, TheTeacher,InstructingBeginnersinFaith and Origen with his educational theory actualized in the Catechetical School of Alexandria and Caesarea. Each represented a different approach and fusion of Hellenic language, customs, and categories with that of the Christian thought. Together, they clarify and present a rich picture of the many-sided panorama of Christian paideia. 5. On the level of papal Magisterium, the only document to date on Christian Education was the encyclical DiviniIlliusMagistri issued by Pope Pius XI in 1929. Given its historical context, the encyclical sought to deal with two main issues: to defend the right and responsibility of the Catholic Church to be involved in education and schooling, to state clearly the aims of education: “forming the true and perfect Christian” and “preparing man for what he must be and for what he must do here in order to attain the sublime end for which he was created”. Echoes of this encyclical can be found in GE, but there are significant differences between the two documents. GE is written in open and optimistic terms, free from the defensiveness of the encyclical. 6. VATICAN COUNCIL II, Gravissimum Educationis, Declaration on Christian Education, October 28,1965, Introduction.

120

H.-F.M. KO

The consciousness of the importance of education is expressed strongly. After that, the text goes on to assert the right and duty of the Church to take care of the historical existence of man, especially its growth. To fulfill the mandate she has received from her divine founder of proclaiming the mystery of salvation to all men and of restoring all things in Christ, Holy Mother the Church must be concerned with the whole of man’s life, even the secular part of it insofar as it has a bearing on his heavenly calling. Therefore she has a role in the progress and development of education7.

Based on this theologically motivated conviction, the Declaration highlights the necessity of an integral formation of the person and it continues on presenting some principles on Christian education, especially in schools. Undoubtedly, GravissimumEducationisis not a complete or in depth treatise and does not contain any truly groundbreaking elements, but it has attracted the attention of the whole Church on education and has brought forth vital energy. Perhaps not even the council fathers could imagine that, over the years, these proposed principles would grow like seeds in fertile soil. In fact the contents of Gravissimum Educationis will become the subject of study and will have a fruitful development; its guidelines will be applied in different areas of the life of the Church and concretized in the various local churches. Likewise the consecrated life8, though having a long history, entered for the first time in a Council debate. Indeed, Vatican II was the first Council to have spoken in an eminently Christological and ecclesiological perspective, depicting the identity of the consecrated life with reference to its place within the mystery of the Church as the People of God. This kind of life did not arise as a mere contingent in an appropriate time to enrich the organization of the Church, but as a gift of the Spirit, a witness of evangelical radicalism and an expression of the vitality of the Church.

7. Ibid. 8. From the terminological point of view “religious life” is the expression used in the texts of the Council. In the post-conciliar period the broader term of “consecrated life” became increasingly widespread and the Code of Canon Law (1983) had established it permanently. In the Structure of the Roman Curia by the Constitution RegiminiEcclesiae Universae (August 15, 1967) of Paul VI, the Congregation for Religious was named the CongregationforReligiousandforSecularInstitutes. The Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus (June 28, 1988) of John Paul II changed the title to the CongregationforInstitutes ofConsecratedLifeandSocietiesofApostolicLife.

IRRADIATION OF DIVINE SPENDOR

121

Indeed from the very beginning of the Church men and women have set about following Christ with greater freedom and imitating Him more closely through the practice of the evangelical counsels, each in his own way leading a life dedicated to God9,

affirmed Perfectae Caritatis. Down through the centuries, with the changes in society and the very life of the Church, consecrated life has to renew itself without losing the rich heritage acquired through theological reflection, spiritual experience and the wisdom of the founders of various religious orders. “The adaptation and renewal of the religious life includes both the constant return to the sources of all Christian life and to the original spirit of the institutes and their adaptation to the changed conditions of our time”10. In outlining the process of appropriate renewal, the Council reiterates the evangelical nature of consecrated life, putting at the center the sequela Christi11. Until then, the guiding principle of religious life had been the paradigm of renunciation: it was a life based on generosity, and so belonged to the realm of the virtue of religion. The three vows were seen predominantly from the perspective to renounce: personal freedom, personal property, generative sexuality. These are now paths to holiness, ways to pursue the perfection of love (hence the title of the document PerfectaeCaritatis) following the example of Christ, as chaste, poor and obedient12. The document is a brief exposure of the nature of religious life with some practical guidelines for its renewal. If we want to be severe, in our evaluation, Perfectae Caritatis is not one of the masterpieces of the Council. Some weaknesses and insufficiencies have already been identified soon after its promulgation13, nevertheless, this does not detract its merit of being the origin and the basis of a fruitful development. Here we see that the spirit exceeds the letter. The wind of the Holy Spirit has continued to blow with force beyond and after the Council.

9. VATICAN COUNCIL II, Perfectae Caritatis, Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal ofReligiousLife, October 28, 1965 (= PC), 1. 10. PC 2. 11. PC puts this as the first principle to be followed for an authentic renewal of religious life: “Since the ultimate norm of the religious life is the following of Christ set forth in the Gospels, let this be held by all institutes as the highest rule” (PC 2). 12. Cf. PC 1. 13. For example J.M.R. TILLARD sees in the PC a fragility of the pneumatological principle as well as insufficient attention given to the prophetic dimension of religious life. Cf. Y. CONGAR – J.M.R. TILLARD, Ilrinnovamentodellavitareligiosa: StudieCommenti intornoaDecreto PerfectaeCaritatis, Firenze, Vallecchi, 1968, pp. 77-80.

122

H.-F.M. KO

2. WithintheFrameworkofthe“corpusConcilii” Both GravissimumEducationis and PerfectaeCaritatis are part of the documents published in the fourth and last period of the Council, and therefore, they have the advantage of benefitting from the richness of the reflections and the debates of the whole Council. The two texts should be considered within the Council’s overall teachings and read together with the other texts produced by the Council. GravissimunEducationis often refers to the DogmaticConstitutionon the Church, Lumen Gentium (promulgated on November 21, 1964), whereas the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Contemporary World, Gaudium et Spes (December 7, 1965), mentions Gravissimum Educationisexplicitly in Part II, Chapter II (dedicated to ThePromotion of Progress and Culture). Perfectae Caritatis has a direct link with LumenGentium,especially in its Chapter VI on “Religious”. In addition to these specific points of connection and explicit references, the effective links with the corpus of the conciliar texts are numerous. In fact, the two documents share the main thrust of the Council and illustrate its theology. Christian education should have no other foundation but the Christocentricanthropology highlighted in GaudiumetSpes, where the conviction arises that the key, the focal point and the goal of man, as well as of all human history can be found only in Jesus Christ14. The person of Christ, the Incarnate Word, is the paradigm of man fully realized and for that “anyone who follows Christ, the perfect man, becomes himself more human”15. Those who educate with love as well as those who “seek and love God above all else”16 through the consecrated life cannot have any other image of God different from the one presented by DeiVerbum: a God, who “out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends and lives among them, so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself”17. They will have the certainty to participate in the mission of the Church, presented by Lumen Gentium as people of God, body of Christ, visible and invisible reality, human and divine at the same time18; a holy community and always in need of reform, that draws its strength from the celebration of the Paschal 14. Cf. VATICAN COUNCIL II,GaudiumestSpes,PastoralConstitutionontheChurch inModernWorld, July 12, 1965 (= GS), 10, 22, 32, 38-41. 15. GS 41. 16. PC6. 17. VATICAN COUNCIL II, Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, November 18, 1965, 2. 18. LG 8.

IRRADIATION OF DIVINE SPENDOR

123

Mystery of Christ as highlighted by SacrosanctumConcilium19; a community that discerns wisely the signs of the time and testifies to the world the beauty of Christian faith, as described by GaudiumetSpes20. In the ApostolicConstitutionfortheConvocationoftheSecondVaticanCouncil, December 25, 1961, Pope John XXIII said that the purpose of the Council is to “bring the modern world into contact with the perennial life-giving energies of the Gospel”21. The declared intention of the Council assembly was to make room for the Spirit and to find ways to provide the precious gift of the Gospel to the contemporary world. In accordance with the pastoral character of the Council and with the style of positive exposition and friendly dialogue that characterizes all the 16 documents, GravissimumEducationis and PerfectaeCaritatis, while presenting with sobriety the biblical and theological foundations, are open to dialogue with the contemporary situation offering concrete lines for the pastoral application. The two documents also share the wide horizons and the realistic optimism that characterize the spirit of Vatican II. Both the educative mission and religious life should be lived in joy and hope recognizing that “the future of humanity lies in the hands of those who are strong enough to provide coming generations with reasons for living and hoping”22. II. INTERWEAVING TWO REALITIES: CHRISTIAN EDUCATION AND RELIGIOUS LIFE 1. FacingCommonTrialsandChallenges The documents of Vatican II display an awareness of reciprocity between the Church and the world, faith and history, human disposition and divine gift. The Church must not only offer her services to the world by supplying humanity with the saving resource from God, but must also accept the good that the human community builds on the historic path. InGaudiumetSpes, we read: To carry out such a task, the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the 19. VATICAN COUNCIL II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, April 12, 1963, 10. 20. GS 4, 11. 21. JOHN XXIII, Apostolic Constitution HumanaeSalutis, in AAS 54 (1962) 5-13, p. 5. 22. GS 31.

124

H.-F.M. KO

perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other. We must therefore recognize and understand the world in which we live, its explanations, its longings, and its often dramatic characteristics23.

In what context does the Church carry out its educational mission today? The overview is not bright with serene colors. “Educating, has never been an easy task and today seems to be becoming ever more difficult”, affirms Benedict XVI. He speaks of a “greateducationalemergency” in the contemporary society. There is a widespread atmosphere, a mindset and form of culture which induce one to have doubt about the value of the human person, about the very meaning of truth and good, and ultimately about the goodness of life. It then becomes difficult to pass on from one generation to the next something that is valid and certain, rules of conduct, credible objectives around which to build life itself24.

The “educative emergency” is just the tip of the iceberg, the clear manifestation of a complex process, defined with different names and described in a plurality of forms. Lack of depth and of a main reference point, weak foundations, the emptiness of meaning of human existence, individualism, indifference, moral relativism, the liquid society, etc.: these are the recurrent expressions to describe the phenomenon. At the root of all these is the gradual removal of man from God. “When God is forgotten, however, the creature itself grows unintelligible”25, as wisely warnsGaudiumetSpes. “In this situation, the task becomes more difficult than ever, even almost impossible, for civil society as well as for the Church. Yet the difficulties are not reasons enough to give up, indeed, they should stimulate us to a greater commitment, to a greater passion and hope”26. The words of Pope Benedict urge us to put our trust and hope in God, who loves and cares, and who is the sublime and ultimate Educator of humanity: “the soul of education, as of the whole of life, can only be a dependable hope”27. The difficulties in religious life are not minor. The same social and cultural context which makes education difficult has also a painful effect on religious life. Moreover, there are difficulties that are intrinsic to 23. GS 4. 24. BENEDICT XVI, Letter to the Faithful of the Diocese and City of Rome on the UrgentTaskofEducatingYoungPeople, January 21, 2008. 25. GS 36. 26. BENEDICT XVI, LetterontheUrgentTaskofEducatingYoungPeople. 27. Ibid.

IRRADIATION OF DIVINE SPENDOR

125

religious communities themselves. We speak of consecrated life as going through the winter season or the darkness of the night, crossing the desert, in exile, in crisis. We see these in the decrease in members in many Institutes and their aging communities, scarcity of new vocations, loss of confidence in the value and potentiality of consecrated life, weakening of identity, marginalization from society, mediocrity in the spiritual life, the complex management of work, temptations of efficiency and activism, weakening of spiritual motivations, loss of vision and passion, fading of attraction and witnessing power, the prevalence of personal projects over community endeavors, individualism that corrode the communion of brotherly and sisterly love, community structure and lifestyle in need of reform, etc. Indeed, the great treasure of the gift of God is held in fragile earthen vessels (cf. 2 Cor 4,7). Consecrated life is undergoing trials and purification in the hope of a rebirth. Pope Francis, in his letter To All Consecrated People on the occasion of the Year of Consecrated Life, after listing the problems encountered, urges us to hope: But it is precisely amid these uncertainties, which we share with so many of our contemporaries, that we are called to practice the virtue of hope … This hope is not based on statistics or accomplishments, but on the One in whom we have put our trust (cf. 2Tim 1:2), the One for whom “nothing is impossible” (Lk 1:37). This is the hope which does not disappoint; it is the hope which enables consecrated life to keep writing its great history well into the future. It is to that future that we must always look, conscious that the Holy Spirit spurs us on so that he can still do great things with us28.

2. CommonKeyCategories From a closer look we may find many common categories that permeate the two realities of education and consecrated life. Here, I would like to identify some, favoring those that are linked with an aesthetic perspective, and present them in an evocative way. a) MysteryandMystagogy In the Council’s vision, to educate means to introduce into the mystery of Christ, as the paradigm of human mystery. “Only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light”29. Christian 28. FRANCIS, ApostolicLettertoAllConsecratedPeopleontheOccasionoftheYear ofConsecratedLife, November 21, 2014, 3. 29. GS 22.

126

H.-F.M. KO

life, as intimate union with Christ and a progressive conformation of oneself with His mystery, is a mystical experience, and consequently, education can be understood as a mystagogy, that is, accompanying the person with love and wisdom to enter into the depth of his/her mystery, considered in the light of the salvific mystery of God in Christ. Thus says GravissimumEducationis, Christian education has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced to the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of Faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. John 4:23) especially in liturgical action, and be conformed in their personal lives according to the new man created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph. 4:2224); also that they develop into perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph. 4:13) and strive for the growth of the Mystical Body; moreover, that aware of their calling, they learn not only how to bear witness to the hope that is in them (cf. [1] Peter 3:15) but also how to help in the Christian formation of the world that takes place when natural powers viewed in the full consideration of man redeemed by Christ contribute to the good of the whole society30.

Here we have a concise and pertinent description of education as mystagogy. Intended as mystagogy, education implies attention to God’s grace, mysteriously at work in each person and in the events of history, but it also means considering the personal dynamics and the circumstances of daily life of the person. One can lead others to the mystery only when one is involved oneself in that mystery. The educator-mystagogue is a witness that invites and leads, one who awakens life with life and kindles hope with hope, in the certainty that in every person are resources to awaken, and hidden energy to move towards the fullness of human life and Christian maturity. His attitude must be humble and discrete like that of the great educator of faith, Saint Paul, who says to his Christians: “Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy” (2 Cor 1,24), because in reality it is the divine mystery that attracts and involves. The category of mystery can be considered as one hermeneutical key of consecrated life. Religious consecration is “deeply rooted in the consecration of baptism and express it more fully”31: this is one of the core affirmations of Perfectae Caritatis. This “fuller expression” implies a stronger bond between the person and the mystery of the One and Triune 30. GE 2. 31. PC 5.

IRRADIATION OF DIVINE SPENDOR

127

God, a deeper immersion in the Paschal Mystery of Christ and a more intense participation in the life and mission of the Church32. Pope John Paul II has developed this conviction extensively in his teaching on Consecrated life. On the occasion of the extraordinary Jubilee Year of the Redemption (1983) he wrote an Apostolic Exhortation RedemptionisDonum addressed to “menandwomenreligiousontheir consecration in the light of the mystery of the Redemption”, where he repeatedly reminded them of this essential character of their vocation33. In his Apostolic Exhortation VitaConsecratawith the purpose to share with the whole Church the fruit of the Synod on Consecrated Life (1994), he dedicated a whole section on the topic “Theoriginsoftheconsecrated lifeinthemysteryofChristandoftheTrinity”. He emphasized that “The counsels, more than a simple renunciation, are a specific acceptance of the mystery of Christ, lived within the Church”34. There is something even more wonderful: being deeply immersed in the mystery of God, who is love, consecrated persons become a manifestation of this mystery and irradiation of its beauty. The first duty of the consecrated life is to make visible the marvels wrought by God in the frail humanity of those who are called. They bear witness to these marvels not so much in words as by the eloquent language of a transfigured life, capable of amazing the world35.

Thus, consecrated life has an intrinsic mystagogical dimension. It reflects and irradiates the divine mystery drawing others to it. This is on the same line as Vatican II’s presentation of the profession of evangelical counsels as signum, “as a splendid sign of the heavenly kingdom”36, “a sign which can and ought to attract all the members of the Church to an effective and prompt fulfillment of the duties of their Christian vocation”37. b) PassionandBeauty There is this story from the desert Fathers: Abba Lot came to Abba Joseph and said: Father, according as I am able, I keep my little rule, and my little fast, my prayer, meditation and contemplative silence; and, 32. Cf. LG 44. 33. JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation RedemptorisDonum, March 25, 1984. 34. JOHN PAUL II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata, March 25, 1996 (= VC), 16. 35. VC 20. 36. PC 1. 37. LG 44.

128

H.-F.M. KO

according as I am able, I strive to cleanse my heart of thoughts: now what more should I do? The elder rose up in reply and stretched out his hands to heaven, and his fingers became like ten lamps of fire. He said: Why not become fire? In the religious vocation as well as in education, one cannot ignore this aspect of “becoming fire”, one cannot disregard the passion, the creative love and the spiritual stamina, otherwise it lapses in the execution of principles to functional purposes. Both the consecrated person and the Christian educator must have a “heart aflame with love”38. In the Bible the vocation is often felt as an indescribable experience of awe, wonder and fascination. It is not just the revelation of a truth to be accepted with the consent of the intellect, or of an order to be executed, a job to do, an attitude to cultivate, but it is much more than that. It is the attraction of the divine that comes as tremendumetfascinans. Jeremiah tries to verbalize this strong experience of attraction confessing to the Lord: “You seduced me, o Lord, and I let myself be seduced” (Jer 20,7). In the terminology of religious life before the Council, words like vows, observance, rule, etc., were persisting. The Council, instead, introduced another series of expressions that became increasingly common in the post-conciliar period, a language that reveals an overabundance of passion and beauty, a language that somehow inflames. PerfectaeCaritatis already in its first paragraph presents religious life as a “splendid sign of the heavenly kingdom”, it is in essence “following Christ with greater freedom and imitating Him more closely”. Those who embrace religious life are “driven by love with which the Holy Spirit floods their hearts”, “they live more and more for Christ and for His body which is the Church”, they enrich the Church, increase her holiness and make her beautiful “like a spouse adorned for her husband”39. Lumen Gentium, too, has some beautiful adverbs to describe the inner attitude and the dynamic tension of those who are called to walk on this path of life, they should be able “to tranquilly fulfill and faithfully observe their religious profession and so spiritually rejoicing make progress on the road of charity”40.

38. A famous expression of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux: “I understood that the Church had a Heart and that this Heart was aflame with Love. I understood that Love alone stirred the members of the Church to act. […] I understood that Love encompassed all vocations, that Love was everything” quoted by John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter NovoMillennio Ineunte, January 6, 2001, 42. 39. PC 1. 40. LG 43.

IRRADIATION OF DIVINE SPENDOR

129

Consecrated life finds a concise description in the Catechism of the CatholicChurch: The state of consecrated life is thus one way of experiencing a more intimate consecration, rooted in Baptism and dedicated totally to God. In the consecrated life, Christ’s faithful, moved by the Holy Spirit, propose to follow Christ more closely, to give themselves to God who is loved above all and, pursuing the perfection of charity in the service of the Kingdom, to signify and proclaim in the Church the glory of the world to come41.

Here the comparatives and superlatives abound: more intimate, more closely, totally, above all42. One breathes the same air and perceives the same spirit of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus admonishes his disciples not to limit themselves on the minimum indispensable, but to go beyond, to reach out, to aim at the maximum possible: to surpass the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5,20), to rise up from “what was said to the ancestors” and follow Jesus’s more demanding “but I say to you” (Matt 5,21-48), to store up treasures not on earth, but in heaven (Matt 6,19-20), to be perfect, as the heavenly Father (Matt 5,48). Above all, one is involved in the gentle joy of the Beatitudes (Matt 5,313), to which religious men and women are a “splendid and striking testimony”43. The prospect of beauty stands out eminently in the Apostolic Exhortation VitaConsecrata. The document is presented as a hymn of wonder, emerging from the contemplation of the beauty of this great gift of God to the Church. Meditating on the evangelical text of the Transfiguration, John Paul II sees religious vocation as a call to “a transfigured life, capable of amazing the world”44. It is “one of the tangible seals which the Trinity impresses upon history, so that people can sense with longing the attraction of divine beauty”45. In its different forms “consecrated life reflects the splendor of God’s love”46 and at the same time is a sign of “unbounded generosity and love” by “people who welcome the call”47. At the end of the letter John Paul II addressed directly consecrated men and women with words of warmth and trust: 41. CatechismoftheCatholicChurch, 1992, 916. 42. This is not the only case in which comparatives are profusely used. Just to quote another example: “The more fervently they [consecrated persons] are joined to Christ by this total life-long gift of themselves, the richer the life of the Church becomes and the more lively and successful its apostolate” (PC 1). 43. LG 31. 44. VC 20. 45. Ibid. 46. VC 24. 47. VC 105.

130

H.-F.M. KO

Live to the full your dedication to God, so that this world may never be without a ray of divine beauty to lighten the path of human existence. […] You have the task of once more inviting the men and women of our time to lift their eyes, not to let themselves be overwhelmed by everyday things, to let themselves be captivated by the fascination of God and of his Son’s Gospel48.

This is also true in education, which is not just the exercise of a profession or a functional service, imparting a qualification. There is a tendency towards the superlative, a movement from the minimumrequired to more and to the maximum possible in the search for what is true, beautiful and good. It is love that drives the passion and makes creative. A Gospel text seems particularly inspiring in this perspective. It is the episode of the anointing at Bethany (John 12,1-8; Mark 14,1-9; Matt 26,6-13). Disdainfully the disciples judged the gesture of the woman considering it as a waste. They calculated the price of the perfume but failed to grasp its value. Jesus, however, is on the side of the woman, “Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a beautiful work for me” (Mark 14,6; Matt 26,10). He appreciates the noble gesture of the woman and praises her without reservation, calling it “a beautiful work”49. It is a beautiful act because it is an outpouring of love, because it comes from the heart, original, creative, free, pure, total, without measure, regardless of the opinion of others. Applying the text to consecrated life, John Paul II says: Those who have been given the priceless gift of following the Lord Jesus more closely consider it obvious that he can and must be loved with an undivided heart, that one can devote to him one’s whole life, and not merely certain actions or occasional moments or activities. The precious ointment poured out as a pure act of love, and thus transcending all “utilitarian” considerations, is a sign of unbounded generosity, as expressed in a life spent in loving and serving the Lord, in order to devote oneself to his person and his Mystical Body. From such a life “poured out” without reserve there spreads a fragrance which fills the whole house. The house of God, the Church, today no less than in the past, is adorned and enriched by the presence of the consecrated life50.

This qualification of “beautiful work” applies also to the noble enterprise of education. 48. 49. “good 50.

VC 109. The Greek text reads καλὸν ἔργον, which modern Bible versions translate as work”. VC 104.

IRRADIATION OF DIVINE SPENDOR

131

c) CommunityandCommunion In our division-filled world there grows a longing for peace and unity at all levels, people yearn for human relationships supported by mutual respect and love, serene and sincere communication, genuine communion and reconciliation. Here the task of Christianity to radiate the spirit of the Gospel is urgent. Evaluating the fruit of Vatican II, 20 years after its celebration, the Bishops which had gathered at the Extraordinary Synod recognized that “the ecclesiology of communion is the central and fundamental idea of the documents of the Council”51. At the turn of the new millennium Pope John Paul II indicated the “spirituality of communion” as the great prospect awaiting the Church: To make the Church the home and the school of communion: that is the great challenge facing us in the millennium which is now beginning, if we wish to be faithful to God’s plan and respond to the world’s deepest yearnings52.

Ecclesial communion founded on the Gospel and desired by the council fathers is multi-dimensional, it is a koinonia, both vertically and horizontally, adextraandadintra of the ecclesial community, it is structural and spiritual at the same time. This communion grows and is realized in the different spheres of the life of Christians. The religious community, as well as the educational community, are called to build unity around itself spreading the communion experienced within itself. Both have the power of irradiation and creative expansion, since “charity of its nature opens out into a service that is universal”53. Both are privileged places of growth in interpersonal relationships, in genuine friendship, in learning to live unity in diversity. The religious community is called to manifest a life of communion lived to its full visibility which should be an essential characteristic of the Church from its origins: For the community, a true family gathered together in the name of the Lord by God’s love which has flooded the hearts of its members through the Holy Spirit, rejoices because He is present among them.[…] Furthermore, the unity of the brethren is a visible pledge that Christ will return and a source of great apostolic energy54.

51. 52. 53. 54.

Final Report of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops 1985, December 7, 1985. JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter NovoMillennioIneunte, January 6, 2001, 43. Ibid. PC15.

132

H.-F.M. KO

Consecrated men and women are, as is often stated, “experts of communion”55; “they have the mission of being clearly readable signs of that intimate communion which animates and constitutes the Church, and of being a support for the fulfillment of God’s plan”56. For this reason, as we read in VitaConsecrata, The Church entrusts to communities of consecrated life the particular task of spreading the spirituality of communion, first of all in their internal life and then in the ecclesial community, and even beyond its boundaries, by opening or continuing a dialogue in charity, especially where today’s world is torn apart by ethnic hatred or senseless violence57.

An appeal is made to the ability of consecrated persons to express “a fraternity which is exemplary and which will serve to encourage the other members of the Church”58. Pope Francis wanted the year 2015 to be dedicated to the consecrated life in memory of 50 years since the promulgation of PerfectaeCaritatis. Among his expectations for this year he forwarded this wish: “I am hoping that the spiritualityofcommunion, so emphasized by Saint John Paul II, will become a reality”59. The educational community, built on the foundation of shared values, must be a workshop of communion, where all members are involved in the dynamics of interpersonal relation and mutual cooperation. “Because its aim is to make man more man, education can be carried out authentically only in a relational and community context”60. Speaking of the importance of schools GravissimumEducationis says: Between pupils of different talents and backgrounds it promotes friendly relations and fosters a spirit of mutual understanding; and it establishes as it were a center whose work and progress must be shared together by families, teachers, associations of various types that foster cultural, civic, and religious life, as well as by civil society and the entire human community61.

55. SACRED CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR INSTITUTES, Religious and HumanPromotion, August 12, 1980, 24. 56. CONGREGATION FOR INSTITUTES OF CONSECRATED LIFE AND SOCIETIES OF APOSTOLIC LIFE,FraternalLifeinCommunity, January 15,1994, 10. 57. VC 51. 58. VC 52. 59. FRANCIS, ApostolicLettertoAllConsecratedPeopleontheOccasionoftheYear ofConsecratedLife, November 21, 2014, 3. 60. CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION, Educating Together in Catholic Schools:ASharedMissionbetweenConsecratedPersonsandtheLayFaithful, September 8, 2007, 12. 61. GE 5.

IRRADIATION OF DIVINE SPENDOR

133

Thus educatingincommunion enables the educational community to educate forcommunion62. “The communion lived by the educators of the Catholic school contributes to making the entire educational sphere a place of communion open to external reality and not just closed in on itself”63. GravissimumEducationis praises the vocation of educator acclaiming it as “beautiful”64, the same is said with regard to religious vocation. The words of Psalm 133 are often quoted to exalt the beauty of a religious community living in communion: “Behold how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity.[…] For there the Lord has commanded the blessing, life for evermore” (Ps 133,1-3). It can also be applied to educational settings. Indeed, living in communion is beautiful, but it is the fruit of day by day effort, which often requires sacrifice. “Let us have no illusions”, Pope John Paul II alerts us realistically, unless we follow this spiritual path, external structures of communion will serve very little purpose. They would become mechanisms without a soul, “masks” of communion rather than its means of expression and growth65.

III. INTERWEAVING TWO DIMENSIONS IN ONE VOCATION: CONSECRATED PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE MISSION OF EDUCATION The contribution of religious men and women in the field of education in different parts of the world is well known. Since the Middle Ages, the Church has been in the forefront of education mainly thanks to numerous religious communities. For centuries, religious orders were agents of culture and civilization, and countless consecrated persons have devoted their lives and talent, often under harsh financial, political and social conditions, to guiding young people in their integral formation. Even today, despite the complex circumstances and the decrease in the number of vocations, many religious men and women continue to dedicate themselves to the noble mission of education with generosity and joy. “They are enterprising and their apostolate is often marked by an originality, by a genius that demands admiration”66. By living the evangelical counsels

62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

Cf. EducatingTogetherinCatholicSchools 43. Ibid. GE 5. NovoMillennioIneunte43. PAUL VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangeliinuntiandi, December 8, 1975, 69.

134

H.-F.M. KO

they “bring the humanism of the beatitudes to the field of education and schools”67. An essential element of the education imparted by consecrated persons has always been the integral formation of young people in the context of faith, which offers them the opportunity “to develop harmoniously their physical, moral and intellectual qualities”68, that is, “to be motivated to make sound moral judgments based on a well-formed conscience and to put them into practice with a sense of personal commitment, and to know and love God more perfectly”69. The Church has always acknowledged this precious contribution and has described it in several recent documents70. Here, I limit myself to highlighting some of the statements. First, it must be stressed that the greatest contribution is not in the works they have done, but in their witness of life; not in their doing, but in their being. The same following of Christ, chaste, poor and obedient, is in itself a witness to the power of the Gospel to bring people to a fuller life through a process of conformity to Christ. The evangelical counsels, far from the rejection of human values, are considered as “spiritual therapy for humanity”71. The human person, who has a basic need to be loved and to love, finds a sure reference in a joyful witness of chastity and learns to channel one’s affectivity to true love, freed from the idolatry of the instinct. In evangelical poverty, one is trained to recognize their true wealth in God, this frees one from the materialism that craves for possessions and prompts the person to solidarity with those in need. In obedience one is educated to liberty and to the realization that one’s growth is realized only in going out of oneself and in the constant search for the truth and the will of God. Because of their special consecration, their particular experience of the gifts of the Spirit, their constant listening to the word of God, their practice of discernment, their rich heritage of pedagogical traditions built up since the establishment of their Institute, and their profound grasp of spiritual truth (cf. Eph 2:17), consecrated persons are able to be especially effective in

67. CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION, ConsecratedPersonsandTheirMission inSchools 6. 68. GE 1. 69. Ibid. 70. Pope JOHN PAUL II, in his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation VitaConsecrata, has dedicated two dense and beautiful paragraphs to this topic: nos. 96 and 97. Among the recent documents of the Congregation for Catholic Education, two are particularly significant: Consecrated Persons and Their Mission in Schools: Reflections and Guidelines (October 28, 2002); EducatingTogetherinCatholicSchools (n. 60). 71. VC 87.

IRRADIATION OF DIVINE SPENDOR

135

educational activities and to offer a specific contribution to the work of other educators72.

Religious vocation harmonizes well with the vocation of education. I can testify to it from my personal experience. My first contact with Christian faith came through Catholic Schooling. I owe my formation, my initiation to prayer and spiritual life to the sisters in my school. Even for my religious vocation, I have to thank their joyful witness, their power of attraction. Now I am a member of a religious Institute that has as its specific Charism, the education of young people. I understand myself as a woman, called to the following of Christ, to proclaim him to young people, making myself a sign of His love in the world. I see my path to holiness in my wholehearted commitment to education and at the same time in trying to propose holiness as the goal of education. I see my way of achieving the perfection of charity through teaching73. After being introduced to the mystery of God, and being attracted by the joyous testimony of others, I wish and hope to be a vital link to this amazing chain and this expanding network, so that I can also attract others to enjoy the divine beauty. I have before me an eminent model, St. John Bosco, the founder of my religious family, a holy educator who has managed to combine harmoniously his being wholly consecrated to God and offering himself totally for the good of the young. Pontificia Facoltà di Scienze dell’Educazione “Auxilium” Via Cremolino, 141 IT-00166 Roma Italy [email protected]

72. VC 96. 73. Cf. VC 96.

Ha-Fong Maria KO, FMA

THE DIALOGUE OF SALVATION IN CHANGING CONTEXTS THE CHALLENGES OFGRAVISSIMUMEDUCATIONIS

Of all the documents promulgated by the Second Vatican Council, perhaps the one most in danger of being “forgotten” is the Declaration onChristianEducation, GravissimumEducationis.During the sessions of the Council itself the schema received scant attention, and in the years following the Council it was overshadowed by the publication of the GeneralCatecheticalDirectory(1971) and TheCatholicSchool (1977). Not that the Council fathers did not care about the church’s role in education; it was a challenge of the highest urgency in many parts of the world. In the preparatory phase of the Council a statement of the highest rank was planned, a constitution titled De scholis catholicis, reflecting the vota of a great number of bishops and congregational leaders around the world in response to John XXIII’s consultation prior to Vatican II1. As the Council staggered under the weight of documents, the proposed constitution was demoted by the Coordinating Commission on 23 January 1964 to a votum, the lowest category of schema, and further reduced on 17 April that year to a series of seventeen propositions to be sent to the council fathers over the summer, and voted on without debate inaula during the third session in the fall. It was a disappointing prospect for “what many bishops of the new nations considered the most important single question in the Council”, as one peritus put it at the time2. Due to widespread disappointment among bishops and congregational superiors about this proposed treatment of the topic, considered to be inadequate in the face of the pastoral and juridical challenges facing the Church’s apostolate in education, the Council’s Commission on Education prepared a new schema under the revised heading that many bishops had previously called for, De educatione christiana. This draft was debated on the Council floor on 17-19 November 1964, followed by a 1. ActaetDocumenta, Series I Antepraeparatoria, vol. II/II, 508-519; J. POHLSCHNEIDER, DeclarationonChristianEducation, in H. VORGRIMLER (ed.), CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII, New York, Herder and Herder, vol. 4, 1969, 1-48, here p. 1. On p. 2, Pohlschneider notes that Conciliar statements on Catholic schools had been included in the agenda of the First Vatican Council, and in the draft plans of both Pius XI and Pius XII for completing that Council. 2. M.J. HURLEY, DeclarationonChristianEducationofVaticanCouncilII:ACommentary, Glen Rock, NJ, Paulist, 1966, p. 19.

138

K. LENEHAN

positive vote by the majority of fathers. Taking into account interventions in aula during this session as well as comments submitted in writing during this period, the Education Commission produced a significantly expanded eighth redaction of the schema in the following months. This version was voted on in the general congregation of 13-14 October 1965 and then in the public session on 28 October 1965, with 2,290 placet, 35 nonplacet. After receiving the votes, Paul VI promulgated the DeclarationonChristianEducation3. Reflecting on the outcomes of the final session of the Council, the young peritus Joseph Ratzinger commented that the Declaration was, “unfortunately, a rather weak document”4. This assessment expressed the widespread impression at the time that the Council’s treatment of this topic remained incomplete, and it has set the tone for much commentary on the Declaration in the decades since its promulgation5. Recently, John W. O’Malley has offered a more positive assessment, claiming that “for all the criticism the declaration received, it set out important principles and, in its approach and style, was congruent with the other documents of the council”6. This draws our attention to the Declaration’s immediate context in the conciliar debates of the third session (14 Sep – 21 Nov 1964), and the wide array of issues of major doctrinal and pastoral significance at issue: the schemas on ecumenism, on missionary activity, on collegiality of bishops, on religious liberty, the first debates on Schema XIII, and, of particular interest in this paper, the textus emendatus of the schema OnDivineRevelation, with its newly-drafted chapters on the nature and transmission of revelation, presented to the council fathers in the relatio by Archbishop Florit of Florence on 30 September 1964. In what follows, I investigate whether the DeclarationonChristianEducation is indeed congruent with the renewed understanding of divine revelation and its transmission expressed in this revised text that would become the ConstitutiononDivineRevelation, DeiVerbum. Then, I will 3. The votes on 13-14 October had been 2096 fathers: 1912 placet, 183 non placet, 1 null. On this process see POHLSCHNEIDER, Declaration on Christian Education (n. 1), p. 9; HURLEY, DeclarationonChristianEducation (n. 2), pp. 57-58. 4. J. RATZINGER, TheologicalHighlightsofVaticanII,New York, Paulist, 2009 [1966], p. 254. 5. See G. GRACE, “Vatican II and New Thinking about Catholic Education”, paper delivered at a conference, VaticanIIandNewThinkingaboutCatholicEducation,Heythrop College, University of London, June 23-24, 2015; H. DERROITTE, DelaDéclaration Gravissimum Educationis à nos jours: Réflexions sur l’éducation chrétienne, in Revue théologiquedeLouvain 45 (2014) 360-388. 6. J.W. O’MALLEY, What Happened at Vatican II?, Cambridge, MA, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008, p. 270. Despite this assessment, discussion of the Declaration occupies only 23 lines of his 380 page book.

THE DIALOGUE OF SALVATION IN CHANGING CONTEXTS

139

suggest a number of challenges that Gravissimum Educationis (GE) poses to the divine pedagogy outlined by DeiVerbum(DV), challenges arising from the profound contextual reconfigurations GE points to, and which go to the heart of the “dialogue of salvation” described by Dei Verbum. I. THE DIALOGUE OF SALVATION – THE DIVINE PEDAGOGY IN DEIVERBUM Presenting the third draft of the revelation schema on the Council floor, Archbishop Florit outlined the developments introduced into the text of DeDivinaRevelationeas a consequence of the large number of “observations” by Council fathers following John XXIII’s decision in November 1962 to withdraw the Theological Commission’s schema De FontibusRevelationis from debate inaula and establish a Mixed Commission to revise it7. In the vein of comments by Cardinal Alfrink (Utrecht) during the first session in 1962, many bishops and periti had argued for the Constitution to begin with a scripturally-based and ecumenically-aware description of revelation inipsa, rather than the doctrinally contentious topic of the “sources of revelation”, as did chapter one (Deduplicifonterevelationis) of the original schema8. Florit, the chair of a sub-commission charged with drafting this introductory material, called on a peritus of his sub-commission, the Dutch Jesuit Pieter Smulders, in March 1964 to prepare a draft on revelation and its 7. See E. FLORIT, RelatiosuperCap.IetCap.IISchematisConstitutionisDeDivina Revelatione, in F.G. HELLÍN (ed.), Dei Verbum: Concilii Vaticani II Synopsis, Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993, 489-496, here p. 489. On the rejection of the schema presented by the Preparatory Commission at the first session, see J. RATZINGER, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Origin and Background, in VORGRIMLER (ed.), Commentary (n. 1), vol. 3, 1967, 167-180; G. RUGGIERI, TheFirstDoctrinalClash, in G. ALBERIGO – J. KOMONCHAK (eds.), TheHistoryofVaticanII,5 vols., Maryknoll, NY, Orbis; Leuven, Peeters, 1995-2006, vol. 2, 1997, 233-266; O’MALLEY, WhatHappened at Vatican II? (n. 6), pp. 144-152; On the development of the original schema, with a reassessment of its merits as well as its shortcomings, see K. SCHELKENS, CatholicTheologyofRevelationontheEveofVaticanII:ARedactionHistoryoftheSchemaDe Fontibus Revelationis(1962-1965), Leiden, Brill, 2010. 8. See the nonplacet response by Cardinal B. Alfrink in HELLÍN (ed.), DeiVerbum (n. 7), pp. 205-206. On the Council fathers’ critique of the original schema, see G. BAUM,Vatican II’sConstitutiononRevelation:HistoryandInterpretation, in TheologicalStudies 28 (1967) 51-75; J.J. SMITH, AnIntroductiontotheConstitutiononDivineRevelation, in Landas 20 (2006) 78-134; L. BOEVE, Revelation,ScriptureandTradition:LessonsfromVaticanII’s ConstitutionDei VerbumforContemporaryTheology, in InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology 13 (2011) 416-433, pp. 418-422.

140

K. LENEHAN

transmission9, which was revised by the Mixed Commission and approved with the rest of the revised constitution by the Coordinating Committee on 3 July for presentation in the third session of the Council in the fall. The chapters introduced by Florit present an understanding of revelation in the light of the biblical and patristic ressourcement in previous decades. They describe revelation in a way that is: (a) theocentric, originating in the loving initiative of God in free relationship with humanity, drawing people into the communion of the Trinity; (b) historical, in the gradual outworking of that revelatory relationship in a unified, saving “oeconomia”; (c) sacramental, in that this address of God (locutioDei) to humans is received in the mutual enlightenment of words and deeds (verbaetgestis) within that saving economy; (d) Christological, whereby the entire life and paschal mystery of Jesus Christ manifests and mediates the fullness of God’s revelation in history, as the culmination of the covenants with biblical Israel; (e) interpersonal, in that revelation is the event of God’s self-communication in personal relationship with humankind, definitively and personally realised in the incarnation of the Word, inviting those who receive him in the response of faith into intimate communion in the divine life, and therefore (f) salvific, since this participation in the triune communion effects the sanctification and fulfilment of the human person. This salvation is the purpose of God’s selfgift in a loving covenant with humans, and of the inspired testimony to this revelatory self-communication in the written words of scripture10. While many of these themes were incipiently present in the original scheme DeFontibusRevelationis11, the work of the conciliar commission represented a major renewal of the Catholic understanding of revelation. In reconceptualising revelation as God’s loving gift of self in a historically enacted relationship with humanity, and in differentiating between this primary object of revelation and the secondary object that is the 9. See J. WICKS, Dei Verbum Developing: Vatican II’s Revelation Doctrine 19631964, in D. KENDALL – S.T. DAVIS (eds.), The Convergence of Theology, New York, Paulist, 2001, 109-125; G. O’COLLINS, Retrieving Fundamental Theology, New York, Paulist, 1993, pp. 57-62. On Smulders’ previous involvement as advisor to the Indonesian hierarchy and with the Dutch bishops and the papal nuncio to the Netherlands, see J. WICKS, Pieter Smulders and Dei Verbum 5: A Critical Reception of the Schema De revelationeoftheMixedCommission(1963), in Gregorianum 86 (2005) 92-134. 10. FLORIT, Relatio (n. 7), p. 491. On these characteristics of revelation, see BAUM, VaticanII’sConstitutiononRevelation (n. 8), pp. 58-59; WICKS,DeiVerbumDeveloping (n. 9); G. O’COLLINS, DeiVerbumandRevelation, in M. O’BRIEN – C. MONAGHAN (eds.), God’sWordandtheChurch’sCouncil:VaticanIIandDivineRevelation, Adelaide, ATF Theology, 2014, 1-18; SMITH, AnIntroductiontotheConstitutiononDivineRevelation (n. 8), p. 82. 11. See SCHELKENS, CatholicTheologyofRevelation (n. 7), pp. 272-279.

THE DIALOGUE OF SALVATION IN CHANGING CONTEXTS

141

scriptural testimony to this revelatory encounter, the authors of the draft were proposing “a new theological epistemology and a new understanding of Christian truth”12. At the heart of this theological renewal is the paragraph from Smulders’ redaction that was introduced to the July 1964 Textus emendatus, and proceeded with little alteration to the final text of Dei Verbum 2: Hac itaque revelatione Deus invisibilis (cf. Col 1,15; 1 Tim 1,17) ex abundantiacaritatissuaehominestamquamamicosalloquitur(cf.Ex33,11; Io15,14-15)etcumeisconversatur(cf.Bar3,38),uteosadsocietatem Secum invitet in eamque suscipiat13. The analogy of the sharing of life and conversation among friends recalls many biblical and patristic texts, and reframes revelation in personalistic and dialogical terms. In the years following the Council, this understanding of revelation as interpersonal dialogue was highlighted by theological commentators, many of whom had served as periti during the Council. Joseph Ratzinger’s treatment of chapter one of DeiVerbum in the 1967 Herder Commentary series fully exploits this motif. “The Council wishes to express again the character of revelation as a totality, in which word and event make up one whole, a true dialogue which touches man [sic] in his totality, not only addressing his reason, but, as dialogue, addressing him as a partner”. Since it is brought about by the self-giving love of God, this dialogue is much more than the exchange of words; the relation of the human “I” and the divine “Thou” is “ultimately not information, but union and transformation”. This encounter of divine and human persons is manifested and communicated in and through Jesus Christ in the totality of his paschal mystery. In him, the “dialogue of God” has been eschatologically realized14. Drawing us into the paschal mystery of Christ through Word and Sacrament, divine revelation is experienced as “the dialogue of salvation”15. Ratzinger claims that this interpersonal and dialogical understanding of revelation arose from the “new theology between the wars”, and notes the influence of Karl Barth and the personalist philosophers Ebner and Buber on Catholic thought16. Ratzinger had collaborated with Karl Rahner in October 1962 to produce a text for the German bishops that 12. BAUM, VaticanII’sConstitutiononRevelation (n. 8), p. 59. 13. “By thus revealing himself God, which is invisible, in his great love speaks to humankind as friends and enters into their life, so as to invite and receive them in to relationship with himself”. See N.P. TANNER (ed.), DecreesoftheEcumenicalCouncils, London, Sheed and Ward, 1990, vol. 2, p. 972; HELLÍN, DeiVerbum (n. 7), pp. 18-19. 14. RATZINGER, DogmaticConstitutiononDivineRevelation (n. 7), pp. 172-175. 15. Ibid., pp. 179 and 198. 16. Ibid., pp. 170-172. See A.M. NOLAN, A Privileged Moment: Dialogue in the LanguageoftheSecondVaticanCouncil1962-1965,Bern, Peter Lang, 2006.

142

K. LENEHAN

addressed the inadequacies of De Fontibus Revelationis, and described revelation in strongly personalist and historical terms17. Indeed, during his pontificate as Benedict XVI, Ratzinger continued to speak of revelation as an interpersonal dialogue initiated in love by God, as evident in the 2010 post-synodal exhortation, VerbumDomini18. Other commentators after the Council, such as Catholic scholar René Latourelle and Reformed theologian Max Thurian, developed this motif of friendly dialogue from DeiVerbum 219. To what extent is this renewed and theologically enriched concept of revelation reflected in the Council’s Declaration on Christian Education? Are the principles enunciated in Gravissimum Educationis “congruent” with DeiVerbum’s interpersonal and sacramental vision of the “dialogue of salvation”, as O’Malley suggests? Taking the characteristics outlined above as criteria, a brief assessment can be attempted. (a) Theocentric, while conscious of God’s regeneration of men and women through “rebirth from water and the Holy Spirit” (GE 2), GravissimumEducationis grounds its argument on the universal right of human persons to education, and the necessity of education for the development of civil society and promotion of the common good, to all of which the Church has its own contribution to make; (b) historical, Gravissimum Educationis strongly emphasises the historical and developmental nature of human existence and social life, and of the Church’s doctrine and pastoral activity, as well as the role of education in fostering this development towards good ends. It is very aware of rapid and unsettling dynamics of change that characterise “the circumstances of our times”; (c) sacramental,GravissimumEducationis echoes the language of Pius XI’s encyclical on Christian education, Divini Illius Magistri (DIM, 1929), in speaking of the natural and supernatural orders20, and of the 17. The text, DerevelationeDeiethominisinIesuChristofacta,was circulated to the Council fathers by Cardinal Frings with the support of the Austrian, Belgian, Dutch and French bishops’ conferences. For the text see B. CAHILL, TheRenewalofRevelationTheology,Roma, Gregorian University, 1999. On this see J. WICKS, VaticanIIonRevelation: FromBehindtheScenes, in TheologicalStudies71 (2010) 637-650, p. 646, and SixTexts byProfJ.RatzingerasPeritusbeforeandduringVaticanCouncilII, in Gregorianum 89 (2008) 233-311, here pp. 250-252. 18. BENEDICT XVI, Apostolic Exhortation, Verbum Domini (2010), 6: “The novelty of biblical revelation consists in the fact that God becomes known through the dialogue which he desires to have with us”. 19. R. LATOURELLE, TheologyofRevelation:IncludingaCommentaryontheConstitutionDei VerbumofVaticanII,Eugene, OR, Wipf & Stock, 2009, pp. 324-327, 457-463, 484-488; M. THURIAN – R. SCHUTZ, Revelation: A Protestant View, Westminster, MD, Newman, 1968, pp. 13-15. 20. See PIUS XI, EncyclicalDiviniIlliusMagistri (1929), 2, 8, 28 and, here, 98: “The true Christian does not renounce the activities of this life, he does not stunt his natural

THE DIALOGUE OF SALVATION IN CHANGING CONTEXTS

143

role of education in developing and disposing the natural capacities and communities of humans for the perfecting gift of divine grace, rather than DeiVerbum’s language of the sacramental character of the economy of salvation; (d) Christological, while Gravissimum Educationis affirms that Christian education should foster “a life lived in harmony with the spirit of Christ” (GE 3), it does not focus on the formation of Christian believers and communities to the extent that DeiVerbum and other conciliar documents such as LumenGentium and ApostolicamActuositatem do; (e) interpersonal, compared to Pius XI’s encyclical a generation earlier, a hallmark of GravissimumEducationis is its view of the cooperative and dialogical character of the Church in relation to other actors in civil society. While not directly addressing the dialogical nature of God’s relationship with humanity, GravissimumEducationis repeatedly insists on the quality of interpersonal dialogue – between the sexes and generations, in families and schools, among cultural groups within society, between Church and state, among scholars and institutes of higher education, with other Christians and inter-religious dialogue – that characterizes Christian education; (f)salvific, GravissimumEducationis is clear that the Church’s activities in the field of education flow from the mission received from its founder to proclaim and enact the gospel of salvation (GE 3), by which humans are invited into and transformed by loving communion with God. Guided by the gospel, Christians contribute to the development of society and the promotion of the common good; they become “the saving leaven of human society” (GE 8). In summary, we can identify a clear but partial congruence between the renewed theology of divine revelation articulated in DeiVerbum and the principles of the Church’s mission in education outlined in Gravissimum Educationis. The Declaration affirms the historical and salvific character of the mission mandated by Christ to proclaim the gospel to all peoples. It does not directly address the theological, ecclesiological and formational aspects of the transmission of the revealed Word of God in the way that DeiVerbum and other documents do. In terms of DeiVerbum’s central category of revelation as interpersonal dialogue, it seems that where DeiVerbum emphasises the vertical aspect, or divine-human partners, in this revelational dialogue Gravissimum Educationis rather attends to the horizontal, human-human, relation of subjects in dialogue. In this it fully conforms to this key insight of Dei Verbum, and faculties; but he develops and perfects them, by coordinating them with the supernatural. He thus ennobles what is merely natural in life and secures for it new strength in the material and temporal order, no less than in the spiritual and eternal”.

144

K. LENEHAN

contributes something lacking in the revelation document. It explores the anthropological and pastoral consequences of the “dialogue of salvation” set forth in DeiVerbum. Indeed, I argue, GravissimumEducationis poses several challenges to DeiVerbum’s vision of the transmission of revelation arising from its attentiveness to “the circumstances of our times”. Those challenges persist and are exacerbated, fifty years after Vatican II, by the dynamics of globalisation and late modernity. II. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF OUR TIMES: GRAVISSIMUMEDUCATIONIS AND CHANGING CONTEXTS After various versions of the education schema had been drafted, critiqued and re-worked by the Commission on Education during the first years of the Council, a (seventh) revised draft was finally publicly debated by the council fathers on November 17-19, 1964. While the draft was generally well received, many called for amendments to the text, precisely to make it more congruent with the tone of the Council. Reflecting the issues that were fiercely debated in the “troubled last week” of the third session21, several bishops called for a document that was more “pastoral”, “apostolic”, “missionary” or “ecumenical” in outlook. Some wanted a clearer statement of the foundations – theological, biblical and philosophical – of the Church’s approach to education. “Several requested that the tone of the entire document be made more personal, more adapted to modern times, based more closely on the spirit of the New Testament, and clearly more in line with the texts of the other documents of the Council and spirit of the Council itself”22. The subsequent revision amounted to a thorough re-writing of the text, doubling it in length. The drafters tried to hold in balance the four “voices” that had influenced the work of the commission since 1961: (a) the Preparatory Commission, (b) the bishops of the “emerging nations”, (c) the bishops of northern Europe, and (d) the bishops of the United States23. The concerns of each of these voices can be detected in the final draft of the declaration, which is marked by a strong awareness of both the necessity and the challenges of addressing the question of

21. O’MALLEY, WhatHappenedatVaticanII? (n. 6), p. 319. 22. HURLEY, DeclarationonChristianEducation (n. 2), p. 47. During the debate on November 17-19, 1964, twenty-one interventions were given inaula, and a further thirtyseven were submitted to the Commission in writing. 23. On these four groups see ibid., pp. 17-23.

THE DIALOGUE OF SALVATION IN CHANGING CONTEXTS

145

education “in the circumstances of our time” (GE, intro)24. The Council fathers had brought to their debates a strong awareness of the seismic social, political and economic shifts that were affecting the lived experience of the Church’s apostolate in their nations. During the same third session, the schema OntheChurchintheModernWorld was presented and debated, as well as revised schemas on religious liberty, missionary activity, ecumenism, relations with non-Christian religions, in addition to the revelation schema discussed above. When the bishops called for GravissimumEducationis to be more pastoral, missionary and in keeping with the spirit of the other conciliar documents, they were drawing attention to the renewed relationship between the Church and the cultural “transitions” that belong to the “circumstances of our time”. I will identify four transitions that GravissimumEducationis draws attention to, all of which pose serious challenges to our understanding of the mode of transmission of God’s revelatory and self-communicating Word. 1. FromEurocentrictoGlobalChurch Famously, Karl Rahner pointed out that the years of the Second Vatican Council mark the transition from a European Catholicism to a global Church, the opening of a “third epoch” of Christianity25. John O’Malley is less convinced: “Europe, its concerns and the legacy of its history, provided the framework within which Vatican II operated. The story of the Council is almost exclusively the story of Europeans fighting over issues arising out of European history”26. O’Malley does allow that at times the Council did transcend its “European determinations”. After the third session in 1964, Joseph Ratzinger noted a change in the dynamics of the Council. While the first session in 1962 had been shaped by the predominance of the European episcopates, by the third session the leadership of the Council agenda had “passed from Europe to the young churches of America and of the mission countries”27. The conciliar debates on the Church’s missionary activity and relations with nonChristians, its pastoral presence in the world “of our time”, as well as the emerging awareness of episcopal collegiality, all contributed to this shift of perspective. 24. POHLSCHNEIDER, DeclarationonChristianEducation (n. 1), pp. 47-48. 25. K. RAHNER, Toward a Fundamental Interpretation of Vatican II, in Theological Studies 40 (1979) 716-727. 26. O’MALLEY, WhatHappenedatVaticanII? (n. 6), p. 13. 27. RATZINGER, Theological Highlights (n. 4), p. 146. Ratzinger is speaking in the context of the debate on religious liberty in particular.

146

K. LENEHAN

In many ways DeiVerbum displays the concerns and presumptions of the earlier, Europe-dominated, phase of the Council. The question of the sources of revelation, the relation of faith and reason, the sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture, the role of the magisterium in relation to scripture and tradition, the impact of historical sciences on exegesis and theology, could indeed be described as the issues of “Europeans fighting over issues arising out of European history”, as O’Malley claims. All the same, the resolution of these issues in the text of DeiVerbum, with its distinction between the primary and secondary objects of revelation, its personalist and dialogal theology of the Word of God, its awareness of the historical mediation of God’s self-communicating address, and its endorsement of the methods of historical enquiry in theology, opens important lines of interaction between theology and “the circumstances of our time”. Nevertheless, the impact of the global reach of the Church’s mission is much more immediately evident in GravissimumEducationis. The introduction situates the document within the phenomena of development and social progress of nations around the world, and the pivotal role of education in the realisation of these goals for individuals and societies. The diversity of national contexts, and the nature and governance of educational systems within them, complicated the work of the Education Commission. In his Relatio on the revised draft of November 1964, Bishop Julius Daem (Antwerp) commented on the almost insurmountable difficulty the Commission had faced in trying to address the topic of education in so many national contexts28. This difficulty had not been identified during the debates on DeiVerbum, although the question of the transmission of the revelation in diverse cultural milieus has been a major theological challenge since the Council. Despite the difficulty, Gravissimum Educationis did strongly affirm the place of education in the material and spiritual development of persons and societies, and the contribution that the Church is ready and able to make to education in that context. It is expressed in general principles, leaving questions of concrete application to regional and local church authorities; it promotes no one model of delivery of Catholic education, nor any one style of pedagogical practice. Rather it encourages church authorities and educators to attend to the social and cultural needs in their context and to form educational initiatives and institutions that are suited to their “culture and inherited traditions, and at the same time conducive to association as sisters and brothers with other peoples in order to foster true unity and peace on earth” (GE 1). 28. HURLEY, DeclarationonChristianEducation (n. 2), p. 46.

THE DIALOGUE OF SALVATION IN CHANGING CONTEXTS

147

2. FromChristianStatetoPluralisticSociety It could be argued that the cultural context presumed in the theology of DeiVerbum is the Christian state represented by the modern European nations, in which the Church, recognised and safeguarded by law and free from state interference, is able to pursue its activities by right and with institutional support, even preferred treatment. In such a context, it is possible to speak of the serene and uninterrupted transmission of an ecclesial sub-culture, whereby “the church, in its teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to every generation all that it is and all that it believes” (DV 8). Where the juridical and moral rights of Church institutions are denied or overlooked (e.g. in France after 1905), they should be aggressively defended so that no ground is lost to the Church. To a large extent, this was the argument of the Preparatory Commission’s schema on Catholic schools. Interventions by bishops from both the “old” and “new” worlds called for a more nuanced approach to rights in education, and a spirit of cooperation with secular authorities to ensure the greatest possible access to education by all members of society. Thus Gravissimum Educationis indicates that the primary right in regard to education pertains to the human person and the right to a suitable and adequate education (GE 1). It then speaks of the legal and moral right of parents, states and the Church (reversing the order of Divini Illius Magistri) to provide education for those in their care (GE 3). There is a positive evaluation of non-Catholic schools, and of the presence both of non-Catholic students in Catholic schools and Catholic students in non-Catholic schools. The definition of a Catholic school found in Pius XI’s encyclical (DIM 80) is moderated to allow for the fact that Catholic schools “can take on various forms according to local circumstances” and with “regard for contemporary needs” (GE 9)29. Similarly, the text praises public schools that make provision for religious education in the various traditions that coexist in a pluralist society (GE 7). Of particular concern to the Church must be the provision in church schools of education for the poor, those without families, and “strangers to the gift of faith” (GE 8). All of these conditions pose significant challenges to the “uninterrupted conversation” (DV 8) of tradition within the Church. Yet, throughout GravissimumEducationis a clear statement is made that the Church exists to be at the service of humanity, not only in the proclamation of the gospel of salvation but also for the good of society (GE 3), echoing the themes of Gaudium et Spes and of Paul VI’s Opening 29. See POHLSCHNEIDER, DeclarationonChristianEducation (n. 1), pp. 34-35.

148

K. LENEHAN

Address at the Fourth Session30. Only through the practice of multidimensional dialogue can Christians be “the saving leaven of human society” (GE 8). Such a commitment on the part of the Church poses serious challenges to the maintenance of ecclesial subcultures, and to the transmission of faith within them, issues which Dei Verbum does not address. Recent statements of the Congregation of Catholic Education, marking fifty years since Gravissimum Educationis, have affirmed this commitment in Catholic education to the multi-faceted dialogue called for by today’s pluralistic and globalising cultural dynamics31. 3. FromApologeticstoHermeneuticsinChristianThinking The shift in theological epistemology represented by Dei Verbum is echoed in Gravissimum Educationis’s references to religious learning. Dei Verbum’s endorsement of the historically mediated character of God’s revelatory Word, and therefore of the benefits of the historical sciences in the study of the Word scriptumettraditum(DV 12), marks a paradigm shift in theological method from that of the manualist period. The knowledge provided by the “profane” sciences is no longer seen to be extrinsic or preparatory to revealed knowledge, but rather the mediatory field in and through which the Word of God becomes communicable and effective. Secular knowledge is no longer seen as categorically discreet from revelation, but methodologically necessary to theological enquiry and doctrinal exposition. Thus, in its comments on higher education (GE 10-12), Gravissimum Educationis insists that each field of learning should be pursued by means of its proper principles and methodologies, and enabled to operate in “proper freedom of academic inquiry” and in collaboration with other sciences (GE 10). In ecclesiastical faculties and theological research, too, appropriate freedom of scholarly investigation in the sciences should be fostered, and its results employed to enrich the theological disciplines. In a succinct description of the tasks of theology, Gravissimum Educationis urges faculties “to investigate the various areas of the sacred sciences more deeply that an ever more profound understanding of sacred revelation may be obtained, the heritage of Christian wisdom handed down by our ancestors may be 30. See HURLEY, DeclarationonChristianEducation (n. 2), pp. 65-67; See Opening AddressofPopePaulVI,14September1965, in X. RYNNE, TheFourthSession, London, Faber and Faber, 1965-1966, 269-277. 31. See CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION,EducatingtoInterculturalDialogue inCatholicSchoolsLivinginHarmonyforaCivilizationofLove (2013) and Educating TodayandTomorrow:ARenewingPassion, Instrumentumlaboris (2014).

THE DIALOGUE OF SALVATION IN CHANGING CONTEXTS

149

more completely opened up, dialogue with our separated fellow Christians and with non-Christians may be promoted, and questions arising from the development of doctrine may be answered” (GE 11)32. The contentious issue of the role of Thomistic thought in Catholic education was resolved by affirming the goal (i.e. “how faith and reason accord in one truth”) rather than the method of scholasticism (GE 10)33. The methods of critical enquiry and hermeneutical awareness, while endorsed by DeiVerbum, are not employed by the revelation constitution to provide a means of identifying and correcting errors and abuses within the tradition34. GravissimumEducationis implies this reflexive and critical use of scholarly inquiry within theological research. The principles expressed in GravissimumEducationis make it clear that Catholic education cannot exist in a ghetto, institutional or epistemological. Collaboration and multi-disciplinary research between Catholic and non-Catholic institutions is promoted, and dialogue between the various branches of learning and with the theological disciplines is seen as normative. Essentially, every educational setting, Catholic or secular, must be a place of free enquiry, where learning is enabled by the active participation of the students and the open multi-disciplinary quest for truth, including the transcendent origin and end of all things35. In Catholic education, “the whole of human culture” should be related to “the message of salvation in such a way that the knowledge which the pupils gradually acquire about the world, life and human nature may be illuminated by faith” (GE 8). This correlation between faith and culture is absent from the process of transmission of the Word of God outlined in Dei Verbum. 4. FromTraditionaltoMulti-modalTransmissionofKnowledge The method and effectiveness of correlating faith and culture has come under pressure in the pluralised and de-traditionalised cultural forms of life today. In a context in which multiple worldviews and faith commitments operate, attempts to construct a mono-correlational hermeneutic

32. Cf. GS 59. See the intervention of Cardinal Léger of Montreal for academic freedom in research in all disciplines, including the sacred sciences, POHLSCHNEIDER, DeclarationonChristianEducation (n. 1), pp. 48-49, 90-91. 33. See HURLEY, DeclarationonChristianEducation (n. 2), pp. 49, 90; POHLSCHNEIDER, DeclarationonChristianEducation (n. 1), p. 38. 34. See RATZINGER, DogmaticConstitutiononDivineRevelation (n. 7), pp. 192-193. 35. See GE 7-8; and see Pius XI’s endorsement of active learning by children in Divini IlliusMagistri 60-61.

150

K. LENEHAN

between people’s lived experience and Christian doctrine often lead to either a relativising reduction of Christian faith to a set of moral norms and aspirations or to a re-confessionalising reaction by believers against the perceived relativism of a pluralised society36. The challenges of sustaining a multi-correlational hermeneutic within the “dialogue of salvation”, especially where attitudes of indifference or resistance to religious narratives and institutions prevail, are daunting. The recent revolution in information and communication technologies has intensified and extended the cultural impact of globalisation, giving rise to de-traditionalising and pluralising dynamics wherever people can access social media. The council fathers were becoming aware of the de-traditionalising effects of modern society and communications media. Reflecting on the context of GravissimumEducationis, Bishop Pohlschneider commented that where in the past children spent most of their time in the educational sphere of family and school, now there are many factors in addition to these that influence the learner: increased leisure activity, more travel and tourism bringing experience of other cultures and ways of life, exposure to social communications, film and television. “Anyone who wants to form youth according to the spirit of Christianity has to devote interest and attention not only to the school, but also to all of these other factors affecting education”37. Gravissimum Educationis seems to be aware of this, urging religious educators to make use not only of liturgical celebrations and catechetical instruction to stimulate students’ encounter with Christ but also the opportunities offered by new technologies, mass media, and youth associations (GE 4). In its DecreeonSocialCommunication Inter Mirifica, promulgated in 1963, the Council showed its awareness of the novelty of the communications age that was dawning, and of the deep impact of information and communication technologies on the formation of persons and societies. The use and ethics of information and communication technologies has featured prominently in the magisterium and pastoral practice of all the popes since the Council38.

36. On this see L. BOEVE, Beyond Correlation Strategies: Teaching Religion in a DetraditionalisedandPluralisedContext, in H. LOMBAERTS – D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), HermeneuticsandReligiousEducation (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 180), Leuven, Peeters, 2004, 233-254. 37. POHLSCHNEIDER, DeclarationonChristianEducation (n. 1), p. 7. 38. On this, see A.M. BRAZAL, PaceminTerrisinaDigitalAge, in AustralianeJournalofTheology 21 (April 2014), no. 1, at http://aejt.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/ 623879/AEJT14.13_Pacem_in_Terris_in_a_Digital_Age_Brazal_Apr14_21.1.pdf, accessed 25 January 2016.

THE DIALOGUE OF SALVATION IN CHANGING CONTEXTS

151

Half a century later, we are even more attentive to the revolutionary but ambiguous nature of information and communication technologies. The impacts are observed at many levels. Recent research at the UCLA School of Medicine has indicated effects of habitual use of social media on the development of the brain, and on the mental states through which the world is experienced39. Others are studying the impact of information and communication technologies on the quality of personal relationship skills and community life40. The exponential increase in access to information and data is radically reframing humans’ relationship to knowledge, including religious learning. Information and communication technologies mediate to individuals and communities the factors that foster both religious belief and non-belief 41. As with all the processes of globalisation, communication technologies produce contradictory effects, contributing to a world that is at once both more and less religious. The digital age provides a resource of remarkable power to enhance religious learning and promote the gospel message. At the same time these technologies can deepen convictions of religious fundamentalism and violent intolerance of others, such as the use of broadcast media to incite genocidal violence by Christians in Rwanda, and of the self-radicalisation of Western teenagers through internet-based contact with radical Islamist groups. In conclusion, these four contextual transitions, all indicated in the text of GravissimumEducationis and experienced even more urgently today, present vital challenges to the Church’s understanding of revelation in ipse and of the method and means by which God’s self-revelatory Word is transmitted in the life and ministry of the Church. Here, dogmatic theology and pastoral practice are dynamically interrelated, and much work remains to be done in the theology of revelation to receive and respond to the challenges posed by pastoral imperatives of Gravissimum Educationis. For in the dialogue of salvation, God’s self-revelatory

39. See J. GMOSER, How Social Media Is Changing Our Brains and Reshaping Our Relationships, in TheBusinessInsider (December 30, 2014), http://www.businessinsider. com.au/social-media-impact-brain-relationships-siegel-2014-12, accessed January 25, 2016. 40. For example, see S. TURKLE, AloneTogether:WhyWeExpectMorefromTechnologyandLessfromEachOther, New York, Basic Books, 2011. 41. On the types of non-belief, communicated through information and communication technologies, see A. NORENZAYAN – W.M. GERVAIS, TheOriginsofReligiousDisbelief, in TrendsinCognitiveSciences17 (2013) no. 1, pp. 20-25, and AnalyticThinkingPromotes ReligiousDisbelief, in Science 336 (2012) 493-496.

152

K. LENEHAN

encounter with humanity in Christ is inseparable from the Church’s practice of patient, intelligent, and generous dialogue with those it meets “in the circumstances of our times”. Catholic Theological College University of Divinity 278 Victoria Parade East Melbourne, VIC 3002 Australia [email protected]

Kevin LENEHAN

PART IV DID THE COUNCIL REALLY EMPOWER THE PEOPLE OF GOD? COMPARING APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEM WITH PRESBYTERORUMORDINIS

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST, A DIFFERENT MATTER FOR LAITY AND PRIESTS? THE TRIAMUNERA IN LUMENGENTIUM, PRESBYTERORUMORDINIS, APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEM AND ADGENTES

Having focused on LumenGentium 25-27, the paragraphs dealing with the participation of the bishops in the threefold office of Christ, in another article1, in this contribution I will reconstruct the redaction history of the paragraphs dealing with the tria munera in the interconnected chapters two and four of LumenGentium. The declarations PresbyterorumOrdinis, Apostolicam Actuositatem and Ad Gentes received their decisive form only during the last session of the council. I will pay attention to the discussion on the tria munera in these documents as well, before making it clear that, unfortunately, post-conciliar magisterial documents rely more on the dual scheme of Lumen Gentium 10 than on the tria munera. I start my reflections with discussing three important steps in the reflection on the laity in the threefold office of Christ in the decade prior to the start of the Council, the years following Pius XII’s encyclical on the Church Mystici Corporis, in which the reflection on the tria munera had been limited to the ordained, stating that through them “Christ’s apostolate as Teacher, King and Priest is to endure”2. I. IMPORTANT STEPS IN THE REFLECTION ON THE PARTICIPATION OF THE LAITY IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST IN THE DECADE PRIOR TO THE START OF THE COUNCIL 1. “Jalonspourunethéologiedulaïcat”(1953):YvesCongar Already in the opening chapter – in search of a definition of a lay person – Congar anticipates the teaching on the laity of the Second Vatican 1. P. DE MEY, The Bishops’ Participation in the Threefold Munera: Comparing the AppealtotheTriaMuneraatVaticanIIandintheEcumenicalDialogues, in TheJurist 69 (2009) 31-58. 2. MysticiCorporis, no. 17: “That those who exercise sacred power in this Body are its chief members must be maintained uncompromisingly. It is through them, by commission of the Divine Redeemer Himself, that Christ’s apostolate as Teacher, King and Priest is to endure”.

156

P. DE MEY

Council. He is no longer satisfied with the clear distinction between the states of the ordained and of the laity valid in the Catholic Church since the canonist Gratian, and especially not with “the idea that the laity, concerned in temporal affairs, have no part in the sphere of sacred things”3. The English translation of Jalons also contains a few pages added on the occasion of the 1964 edition. Congar underlines that “[t]he whole of this book is a protest against reducing the lay person’s proper quality to being a reference to the world or to temporal things”4. The Council will not entirely agree with Congar. It will repeat in the chapter on the laity that “the laity have their own special character which is secular” but still it is recognized that they “play their own part in the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world”5 (LG 31). In all three subsequent chapters – dealing with the laity and the Church’s “priestly”, “kingly” and “prophetical” function – Congar makes a distinction between two ways of sharing in the threefold office of Christ, that of the lay faithful, which as a result changes the life of the Church, and that of the ordained ministers, which has an influence on the structure of the Church. Here are the three most relevant texts from all three chapters: So we can understand the existence of a double participation in Christ as priest (and also as prophet and king): one in respect of his quickening relationship with his body, the relationship of fellowship pure and simple; the other in respect of his authority over the body and of the means to fellowship6. By structure we understand the principles which are the things in her that constitute men as Christ’s Church. These are essentially the deposit of faith, the deposit of the sacraments of faith, and the apostolic powers whereby the one and the other are transmitted. By life we understand the activity which men exercise in order that the Church may fulfil her mission and reach her end7. The co-operation of the faithful in the Church’s teaching function belongs to her life and the actual exercise of apostolic powers, not to her structural powers or acts conditioning the validity of hierarchical actions8. 3. Y. CONGAR, LayPeopleintheChurch:AStudyforaTheologyoftheLaity, Westminster, MD, Newman, 1967, p. 13. 4. Ibid., p. 24. 5. The documents of the Second Vatican Council are quoted from N.P. TANNER (ed.), DecreesoftheEcumenicalCouncils, London, Sheed & Ward; Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press, 1990. 6. CONGAR, LayPeopleintheChurch(n. 3), p. 167, from the chapter on “The Laity and the Church’s Priestly Function”. 7. Ibid., p. 262, from the chapter on “The Laity and the Church’s Kingly Function”. 8. Ibid., p. 279, from the chapter on “The Laity and the Church’s Prophetical Function”.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

157

In the years closer to the start of the Council, Congar did not change his position. In the summer of 1960, Congar much to his own surprise, received a letter from Rome nominating him as consultor to the Preparatory Theological Commission. His famous JournalduConcilestarts as of that moment and reflects Congar’s scepticism on his potential influence: We are a hapax in a text whose context seems to me to be so oriented in a conservative sense! Our being named consultors is also a way of keeping us from the effective work which will be done by the members of the Commission. (…) In the Church, there’s always the attractive window display, and there’s the shop. The display advertises De Lubac, but the shop contains Gagnebet9.

Still, members and consultors were invited to react to the outlines of the four documents on which the theological commission would start to work. When commenting on DeEcclesiaCongar pleads for a chapter on the laity, but repeats the constraints developed in his 1953 book: The three offices of Christ are communicated under two forms which are not in opposition but which are related to and complete one another: it is communicated under the form of the spiritual quality of personal life, according to a private status, to all the members (they are all, in this way, kings, priests, and prophets), and under the form of public power, to some, who are ordained and qualified to be governors, priests, and teachers, on the level of authority. I think that these categories are the best way to organize the doctrine on the laity10.

Precisely on the topic of the laity a sad incident makes it clear that the Roman Curia was not yet ready to involve the real specialist on the laity in its preparatory work. In December 1960, the secretary of the Preparatory Commission, the Dutch Jesuit Sebastian Tromp had asked Congar to write the draft for the chapter on the laity, and a few months later, during the next meeting of the theological commission, to which he had not been invited, the same task was entrusted to the Louvain theologian Gérard Philips. Congar ponders in his diary: “What is the meaning of all this? Had Tromp made this request motuproprio? Was it his intention to prepare his own redaction of DeEcclesia? Anyway, what I have prepared was as it were non-existent”11. For our purposes, however, it is 9. CONGAR, My Journal of the Council, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2012, pp. 15-16. 10. ID., Réfléxions soumises à la Commission Théologique (F Philips, 0054), a seventeen page document dated 24/09/1960. This document has been translated by Joseph Komonchak as Congar’sInitialProposalsforVaticanII. See: https://jakomonchak.files. wordpress.com/2012/02/congars-plan-for-the-council.pdf, p. 6. 11. CONGAR, MyJournaloftheCouncil (n. 9), p. 40.

158

P. DE MEY

interesting to see that Congar in his 1961 proposal Delaiciseorumque locoinEcclesia repeats his famous distinction between “the life of the Church” and “the participation in Christ’s office and mission under the aspect of authority and power”12. When the emphasis is on the life of the Church then all enjoy “priestly, kingly and prophetical dignity and quality”, whereas “some participate not only in the life and dignity, but also in the authority and power of Christ as priest, king and prophet”13. In 1972, however, in a short article published in the Canon Law journal TheJuristof the Catholic University of America, MyPath-findings intheTheologyofLaityandMinistries, Congar will reveal that he had changed his mind on this topic: In Jalons I put a reasoned construction on the data by distributing two titles of participation or two fashions of participating in the priesthood, kingship, and prophetic office of Christ: one title referring to the dignity or quality of existence common to all Christians, and the other to the authority, and thus superiority, that characterizes instituted ministers. I now wonder whether this is a happy mode of procedure14.

2. “  The Priesthood of the Faithful” (1961): Secretariat for Christian UnityandBishopDeSmedt During the first plenary meeting of the Secretariat for Christian Unity in November 1960, ten subcommissions were created that would prepare texts and vota on different themes. The fourth subcommission had to deal with the theme of the priesthood of the faithful (Desacerdotioomnium fideliumetdecondicionelaicoruminEcclesia)15. The drafter of the Latin text, finalized in February 1961, was bishop Emiel-Joseph De Smedt of Bruges16. He decided to use and expand the content of the same document in a pastoral letter to the “Priests, religious and lay apostles of the 12. ID., De laicis eorumque loco in Ecclesia (F Philips, 0155), a document dated 27/02/1961. 13. Ibid., p. 2: Omnes,inquantummembrasunttantiCapitis,dignitatesivequalitate sacerdotali,regianecnonpropheticapotiuntur.(…)Siomnesspiritualitermembrasunt viva Christi Sacerdotis, Regis et Prophetae, aliqui ordinantur in corpore ad utilitatem omnium et participant non solum vitam et dignitatem, sed auctoritatem et potestatem ChristiSacerdotis,RegisetProphetae. 14. ID., My Path-findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministries, in The Jurist 32 (1972) 169-188, pp. 173-174. 15. Cf. M. VELATI, Dialogoerinnovamento:Verbalietestidelsegretariatoperl’unità deicristianinellapreparazionedelconcilioVaticanoII(1960-1962), Bologna, Il Mulino, 2011, p. 173. 16. I refer to the printed version of 12/05/1961, entitled: Desacerdotiofideliumetde officiis laicorum. Doctrina et vota proposita a Secretariatu ad christianorum unitatem fovendam, which I consulted in F. Stransky, Paulist Fathers, Washington DC.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

159

Diocese of Bruges”17. The French, German and English translations of his pastoral letter will surely have prepared the spirits of many council fathers in the months preceding the start of the Council18. The reflection of the Secretariat for Christian Unity on this theme makes its main distinction between the royal priesthood of all faithful and the ordained ministers. The introductory votes underline that the priesthood of the faithful is an “authentic, not a metaphorical” one. The commonality between the two is what is essential19. The two forms of priesthood, the next vote goes on, “are complementary in Christ Jesus, since they participate in an analogical way, partially similar and partially different, to His priesthood”20. The charges of the faithful (officia) and the ministry of the ordained are divided in the well-known tria munera and related to the salvific work of Christ. As a result, the pastoral letter of De Smedt reminds its readers by way of conclusion that there is but “One priest: Christ Jesus”21. The priestly work of the faithful consists of: Life in union with Christ offering sacrifice in the midst of his people; Life in union with Christ teaching in the midst of his people; Life in union with Christ ruling in the midst of his people22.

17. E.-J. DE SMEDT, Hetpriesterschapvandegelovigen, Tielt, Lannoo, 1961. 18. Cf. ID., ThePriesthoodoftheFaithful, New York, Paulist, 1962; Lesacerdocedes fidèles,Bruges, Desclée de Brouwer, 1961. 19. Desacerdotiofideliumetdeofficiislaicorum(n. 16), p. 5 (Votum 2): Doceatur omnesfidelesessesacerdotesquiasuobaptismoimplantatisuntinChristosacerdoteet membrafactisuntsacerdotiiregalisquodaChristopopuloDeitribuitur.Expliceturhoc sacerdotiumesseauthenticum,nonmetaphoricum,quumimplicetqualitatemquaeomni sacerdotio christiano essentialis est, nempe capacitatem offerendi in Christo oblationes spirituales,acceptabilesPatri. Bishop De Smedt’s letter makes it even more clear that an implicit dialogue with the teaching of Pope Pius XII on the essential difference between the two forms of priesthood is taking place here. Cf. ThePriesthoodoftheFaithful(n. 18), p. 17: “All the faithful are priests. Their priesthood is different from the priesthood conferred by the sacrament of Orders, but the difference is a partial one. It is true that the faithful as such have not officially received the mandate to be the Church’s representative before God, and God’s representative to the Church. Nevertheless, they share an essential element of all priesthood with ministering priests: a certain power to make an offering in, through, and with Christ”. 20. De sacerdotio fidelium et de officiis laicorum (n. 16), p. 6 (votum 3): Doceatur sacerdotiumfideliumetsacerdotiumministeriale,sacramentoordiniscollatum,complementaria esse in Christo Iesu, cuius sacerdotio omnes participant modo analogico i.e. partimeodemetpartimdiverso,proindequenonvigereoppositioneminterutrumque. 21. ThePriesthoodoftheFaithful(n. 18), pp. 105-114. 22. Ibid., pp. 25-54.

160

P. DE MEY

The apostolic work of pastors stands: In the service of Christ offering sacrifice in the midst of his people; In the service of Christ teaching in the midst of his people; In the service of Christ ruling in the midst of his people23.

The Secretariat for Christian Unity originally put a lot of emphasis on the idea that “the proclamation of the work of Christ in spirit and virtue” by the laity is their “apostolic mission”24. As the notes of the discussion on this document during the plenary meeting of the Secretariat make clear, there was some discussion on the qualification of their mission as “apostolic”25. The royal priesthood of the faithful is limited in the document prepared by the Secretariat for Christian Unity to what Pope Pius XII had called, in his AllocutiontotheSecondWorldCongressoftheCatholicAction in 1957, the “consecration of the world”, or, in the words of De Smedt, to their “secular commitment”26. The section on the way the ordained share in the kingly ministry of Christ in the pastoral letter of the Bishop of Bruges repeats that the mission of the people of God “has to be fulfilled in the midst of a thoroughly secular existence”. The Bishop continues:

23. Ibid., pp. 77-104. 24. Cf. votum 7 as formulated in DeSacerdotioFidelium.Textusreformatussecundum animadversionesfactasinsessioneSecretariatusmensefebruarii1961 (F Stransky), p. 7: Doceatur populo Dei praeterea incumbere missionem apostolicam annuntiandi verbum Christiinspirituetvirtute. 25. Whereas De Smedt found it important to underline that “the people has the duty to proclaim the good news” and whereas also archbishop Martin of Rouen had no problem to speak about the “apostolic mission” of the people of God, the Dominican Hamer objected against the qualification of this mission as “apostolic”. According to Mons. Maccarrone “apostolic mission” is reserved to the apostles. Cf. SECRETARIATUS AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM, Feria IV, 19 aprilis – ante meridiem. Subcommissio quarta (F Stransky), p. 2. The final version of votum 7 will read: DoceaturpopuloDei praetereaincumberemissionempropheticamannuntiandiaudacter,confidenterethumiliter verbum Dei non solum iis qui nondum sunt cum ipso uniti in Ecclesia, sed etiam fratribus catholicis, imo pastoribus suis. Cf. DE SMEDT, De Sacerdotio fidelium et de officiislaicorum (n. 16), p. 7. The pastoral letter of De Smedt still has a subsection on the “Apostolic mission of the people of God”, which is explained as “the duty of the People of God to proclaim the Christian message through the power of the Spirit and the abundance of its own apostolic enterprises”. Cf. ThePriesthoodoftheFaithful(n. 18), p. 33. 26. The definition of Pius XII in his allocution to the world congress of October 5, 1957 is quoted in the document: “La consecratiomundi est, pour l’essentiel, l’œuvre des laïcs eux-mêmes, d’hommes qui sont mêlés intimement à la vie économique et sociale, participant au gouvernement et aux assemblées législatives”. Cf. DeSacerdotiofidelium etdeofficiislaicorum(n. 16), p. 10. See also ThePriesthoodoftheFaithful (n. 18), p. 49: “Whatever their place in society, their secular commitment must concentrate to the creation of an atmosphere favorable for the human and Christian advancement of all those with whom they are associated”.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

161

“It is obvious that neither priests nor ecclesiastical authority as such have direct charge of this consecration of the world”27. 3. “  TheLaity”(1962):TheChapterofDe EcclesiaPreparedbyGérard Philips As was mentioned already, the Preparatory Theological Commission entrusted it to the Louvain theologian Gérard Philips, who had in 1952 published a book on the role of the laity in the Church, to write the chapter on the laity for the 1962 De Ecclesia. In the first of many drafts, dating back to May 1961, Philips added some Praelegenda. He tried to create some goodwill with more conservative readers of the commission by stating that his draft goes back to a study which the Theological Commission had made in preparation to the Second World Congress for the Lay Apostolate in 195728. He also anticipated some critique about the substantial length of the chapter by stating that it is a “relatively new question which is in need of doctrinal explanation”29. Even if the 1962 draft of the Theological Commission generally speaking received much criticism by the council fathers, this was not true for this chapter, of which many ideas would make it into the final version of Lumen Gentium. The most relevant paragraph for our purposes deals with “the universal and ministerial priesthood” (Desacerdotiouniversalietministeriali)30. It has a very simple structure. First, the legitimacy of speaking about the universal priesthood is defended by referring to a number of biblical texts. The final version of the official commentary or relatio, equally written by Philips, insists that it can especially be derived from the context of 1 Peter that “this dignity rests upon baptism and confirmation”31. 27. Ibid., p. 92. 28. Cf. G. PHILIPS, Lanatureetlavocationapostoliquedulaïcat, in LesLaïcsdans l’Église,Rome, Comité permanent des congrès internationaux pour l’apostolat des laïcs, 1958, I, 225-239. 29. De laicis (F Philips, 161), p. 1: Si textus longior est, hoc ex eo provenit quod quaestioestsatisnovaetexplicationedoctrinaliindiget. The name of the author and the date of 21/05/1961 have been added to the document by the hand. 30. Schemata constitutionum et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur in Concilii sessionibus.II.DeEcclesiaetdeB.MariaVirgine, Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1962, p. 37 (c. VI, “De laicis”, § 21). 31. Ibid., p. 42 (“Commentarius”; b. “De sacerdotio universali et ministeriali”): … Nititurautemhaecdignitasinbaptismateetconfirmatione,utexcontextuIPetripatet. The reference to “baptismal regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit” in the final draft was the result, however, of a gradual evolution. There is no trace of this in the first draft; whereas in the second draft only the words perregenerationembaptismalem were

162

P. DE MEY

Thereafter, the importance of the ministerial priesthood for the Church is reconfirmed, a.o. by stating that they “care for the people with sacred authority, bring them the means of salvation, and guide their worship”32. Finally, the relationship between the two forms of priesthood is explained as follows: [T]he ministerial priesthood and the universal priesthood, because they differ not only in degree but also in essence, both flow in their own ways from Christ the High Priest; and they are so related to one another that the former by sacred power expands and directs the priestly kingdom, while the latter accompanies the offering of the sacrifice and is exercised in prayer, witness, self-denial, and active charity33.

Already in the text of the Preparatory Theological Commission the divine origin of both forms of priesthood and their interrelatedness is deemed to be more important than their essential difference, which since the second draft of Philips had been added to the text by paraphrasing the words nongradutantum,sedetiamessentia borrowed from a 1954 address by Pope Pius XII34. It now should also be clear that, when the Council started, “universal priesthood” was considered to be a generic term, which is exercised in the various priestly, prophetic and kingly acts of the Christian life. The chapter on the laity of the Preparatory Theological Commission also paid attention to the different fields of action where the laity can actively participate in the salvific life of the Church. Even if the document also mentions the efforts of the laity in the social and political field as well as their efforts to “consecrate the world” – again a term borrowed from Pius XII – the theological commission saw no problem in stating that the lay apostolate should in first instance be oriented towards building up the people of God and that it thus has a religious goal. In view of the different opinion in this regard of Bishop De Smedt, one wonders whether Congar – himself a consultor of the theological commission, as we know added. I use the translation of the Draft for a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church made by Joseph Komonchak. Cf. http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/images/church%20 schema.pdf. 32. Ibid., p. 37: Qui viri electi auctoritate sacra populi curam gerunt, eique media salutispraestant,cultumqueadministrant. 33. Ibid.: Alterumautemalterumnonelidit,sedecontrasacerdotiumministerialeet sacerdotiumuniversale,quianongradutantum,sedetiamessentiadifferunt,suopeculiari modoaSummoSacerdoteChristoprofluunt,etitaadinvicemrespiciunt,utprimumpotestatesacraregnumsacerdotalediffundatetdirigat,alterumveroadoblationemsacrificii concurratetinoratione,testimonio,abnegationeetactuosacaritateexerceatur. 34. Ibid., p. 41, n. 3: Pius XII, Alloc. Magnificate Dominum, 2 nov. 1954: AAS 46 (1954), p. 669.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

163

– may have had some influence on the following line: “[L]ay people in the Church are not deputed solely for temporal affairs, but also perform a very precious activity within the Church”35. The relatio is even more surprising, especially in light of post-conciliar evolutions: “This activity is not merely occasional and supplementary, but ordinary and regular”36. II. HOW THE FINAL DIVISION OF THE PARAGRAPHS ON THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD (LG 10-12) AND THE LAITY (LG 34-36) IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST IN LUMENGENTIUM CAME ABOUT After the negative reception of the draft prepared by the Theological Commission, in the months following the end of the first session of the Council from many parts of the world new drafts were being submitted. The proposal by Gérard Philips, which he drafted on the request of the Belgian Cardinal Suenens, was, after a difficult debate, in February 1963 chosen as the basis of the new draft to be elaborated by the Theological Commission, probably because it succeeded better than the other proposals to maintain the valuable elements of the original draft by the Theological Commission. This draft consisted of four chapters. The chapter On the people of God and especially the laity followed those On the mysteryoftheChurchandOnthehierarchicalconstitutionoftheChurch andespeciallythebishops and preceded the chapter OnthecalltosainthoodintheChurch. Whereas the pattern of the threefold office of Christ was already used in this draft version to characterize the different tasks of the bishop, the long paragraph “On the universal priesthood, the sense of the faith and the charisms of the lay faithful” (§ 24), largely based on Philips’ own chapter on the laity of the 1962 draft, did not use the pattern of the triamunera in a systematic way. Apart from a couple of lines on the kingly office, this paragraph laid the basis for the later paragraphs of Lumen Gentium dealing with the priestly (LG 10-11) and prophetic (LG 12) function of the people of God37. 35. Ibid., p. 39: LaiciproindeinEcclesianonexclusivecuristemporalibusdeputantur, sedpretiosissimamactionemineaexercent. This version is much stronger than Philips’ first draft: Laici proinde a pretiosissimo suo munere in Ecclesia non privantur, quasi exclusivecuristemporalibusessentdestinati. Cf. Delaicis (F Philips, 161), p. 3. 36. Ibid., p. 44: Quaeactivitasnonestmereoccasionalisetsuppletiva,sedordinaria etregularis. 37. Cf. S. FRANCO, Decomplementariteitendespecificiteitvanhetgemeenschappelijk priesterschap van alle gedoopten en het dienstpriesterschap van de gewijden tegen de achtergrondvanhetonderscheid“essentiaetnongradutantum”(LG10), unpublished

164

P. DE MEY

One of the other versions, drafted by a number of theologians of the Pontifical University of Santiago de Chile, at the request of their archbishop Raúl Silva Henriquez, made much better use of the triplex munus38. The chapter Depopulochristiano in their draft states about “the priestly people” that their priesthood “is essentially common and collective”39, and prefers to speak about their “apostolic” instead of “prophetic” priesthood40. A very peculiar characteristic of this draft’s reflections on the kingly people is its attention to the fact that “the reign of Christ is a reign of compassion with the poor”41. A few months later Cardinal Silva Henriquez submitted his own version for a new chapter on the people of God, in which he intermingled lines borrowed from the same Chilean schema and from the new draft of the Theological Commission42. On the first day of the debate on the new draft, October 1, 1963, the same Cardinal made an oral intervention in the name of 80 bishops of Latin America, proposing that “in the new chapter one would speak about the prophetic, priestly and kingly people”43. All changes in conciliar documents had to be justified by referring to particular interventions by council fathers. One year later, the final division of the material dealing with the tasks of the people of God and the laity, respectively, was justified in a relatio with an appeal to the interventions by the same Cardinal Silva Henriquez, who had pleaded not to restrict the triplex dissertation KU Leuven, 2010, p. 76: “Hierbij lijken zij eerder het tweevoudige schema ‘priester – profeet’ voor ogen te hebben dan het drievoudige. Het overgrote deel van nummer 24 beslaat immers het priesterlijke en profetische ambt, terwijl het aandeel van het koninklijke ambt nauwelijks een viertal regels uitmaakt. Dit nummer vormt de basis voor LumenGentium 10–12 in de eindtekst”. 38. Cf. M. ARANDA – S. ARENAS (eds.), Ecclesiam Dei: Propuesta de Chile en el procesodeelaboracióndelDocumentosobrelaIglesiadelConcilioVaticanoII.Texto original, traducción, su Historia y sus autores (Anales de la Facultad de Teología, 65), Santiago, Facultad de teología, 2014. 39. Ibid., p. 122: Attamen sacerdotium fidelium est essentialiter commune et collectivum, dum sacerdotium episcoporum et sacerdotium secundi ordinis est personale ad ministeriapersonaliaimplendainpopuloetsuperpopulum,participationepeculiarisacerdotiiChristi. 40. Ibid., p. 123: 3.Populusapostolicus.(…)Omnischristianusinsefertetiamtotam missionem apostolicam Ecclesiae participatione missionis episcoporum sub auctoritate eorum. 41. Ibid., p. 124: DeceteroregnumChristiestregnummisericordiaeergapauperes. 42. AS II/3, 393-417. 43. AS II/1, p. 366: CumautemsacrahierarchiapopuloDeiministret,nobisvidetur optandumquodetiamdoctrinadepopuloDeiiisdemexponaturcategoriis,undeinnovo istocapitesermositdepopuloprophetico,depopulosacerdotaliacdepopuloregali,sicut anobisiamhumiliterpropositumfueratincap.VIalicuiusrescriptiadcommissionemde doctrinamenseianuariomissi.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

165

munus to the hierarchy. It was the Council’s final decision, thus the relatio stated, “to speak about the priestly office in § 10 and § 11, about the prophetic office of the people in § 12, and about the kingly office in the chapter on the laity, § 36”44. During the same debate on the second draft of the DogmaticConstitution Bishop De Smedt of Bruges intervened on October 18, 1963 with a request in the name of 60 bishops from different countries to use the triplexmunus also in the chapter on the laity. It was his conviction that the laity are called to live their priestly, their prophetic and their kingly office in union with Christ. His intervention still made use of the votum on the priesthood of all believers which the bishop had prepared on behalf of the Secretariat for Christian Unity45. One year later the relatio justifying the new paragraphs 34-36 would indicate that these paragraphs were partially new but that they also borrowed material from De Smedt’s intervention46. Indeed, each of these paragraphs – in line with the sacramental ecclesiology of the entire DogmaticConstitution – starts with a line clarifying the link between the threefold office of Christ and the way the laity shares in it: Jesus Christ, the supreme and eternal priest, wants to continue his witness and service also through the laity (LG 34). Christ, the great prophet, who by the witness of his life and the power of his word, proclaimed the Father’s kingdom, continues to carry out his prophetic task, until the full manifestation of his glory, not only through the hierarchy who teach in his name and by his power, but also through the laity… (LG 35). Christ, obedient unto death and for this reason exalted by the Father, has now entered into the glory of his kingdom. To him all things are made subject until he subjects himself and all created things to the Father, so that

44. AS III/1, p. 196: E/989(SILVA)vultutordodisponatursecundumtriplexmunus: sacerdotis,regisetprophetas,quodadestinChristo,utdiciturincapitedeHierarchia, etquodadestinpopulo.Demuneresacerdotalipopulisermofitinnn.10et11,demunere propheticopopuli,inn.12.DemunereregaliautemincapitedeLaicis,subn.36. The relatio has been signed by fr. Ae. Sauras O.P. 45. AS II/3, pp. 101-106: 1.LaicivocanturadvivenduminunionecumChristomunus suum sacerdotale exercente …; 2. Laici vocantur ad vivendum in unione cum Christo munus suum propheticum exercente…; 3. Laici vocantur ad vivendum in unione cum Christomunusregaleexercente.(…)Utlaicihocmuneresacerdotali,propheticoetregali fungipossint,IesusChristusipsisiustribuitutsustententur,doceanturetregantursacro hierarchiaeministerio. 46. AS III/1, p. 285: Tres sequentes paragraphi sunt partim novae et desumuntur praevalenterexE/938(120Epp.).ExponiturauteminiisparticipatioLaicoruminmunere sacerdotali,propheticoetregaliChristi.Vitaturtamennimisrigidaapplicatioistiustriplicis muneris, ne tripartitio theologiae imponatur. Unde magis respicitur ad sensum, nempeadcultum,adtestimoniumetadservitiumincommunione.

166

P. DE MEY

God may be all in all. This power he has communicated to his disciples so that they too may be constituted in a royal freedom… (LG 36).

In addition, the positive part of the definition of the laity in Lumen Gentium 31 also mentions the triamunera: “the faithful who, since they have been incorporated into Christ by baptism, constitute the people of God and, in their own way made sharers in Christ’s priestly, prophetic and royal office, play their own part in the mission of the whole Christian people in the church and in the world”. The decision to divide the chapter OnthepeopleofGodandespecially onthelaity into two chapters and to first speak about the people of God as a whole before dealing with the hierarchy, had already been defended by the Belgian Cardinal Suenens, following the suggestion of Prignon, in the Coordinating Commission in July 196347. While the council fathers were still debating about the second draft, the Theological Commission voted in favor of this plan. Yves Congar would play a major role in the subcommission dealing with the chapter on the people of God. Even if an explicit paragraph on the kingly function of the people of God is lacking, in a report for the French bishops on the new version of De Ecclesia written in May 1964 he explains the logic of the new chapter by stating that the first part of the chapter “develops the great conditions of Christian existence and the dignity connected with it: the Christian, the baptized, is spiritually speaking king, priest and prophet”48. 47. See e.g. A. PRIGNON, ÉvêquesetthéologiensdeBelgiqueauConcileVaticanII, in C. SOETENS (ed.), VaticanIIetlaBelgique, Louvain-la-Neuve, Quorum, 1996, 141-184, p. 166: “En juillet 1963, le cardinal fit approuver par la Commission de coordination les décisions de la Doctrinale et le texte qu’elle avait élaboré. Toutefois, au terme de son rapport, il suggéra l’introduction d’un nouveau chapitre II, consacré à ce qui est commun au peuple de Dieu avant la distinction entre hiérarchie et laïcat”. The rector of the Belgian college also mentions Philips’ first reaction: “Mgr Philips avait lui-même, en mars 1963, recommandé l’introduction du thème du peuple de Dieu dans le schéma, mais sans lui donner la portée structurale qu’il assumait dans la proposition Suenens. Lorsque, au cours des vacances 1963, appuyé par Mgr Cerfaux, je lui communiquai la résolution de la Commission de coordination, il l’accepta évidemment, mais il laissa échapper: ‘Il va falloir réécrire tout le schéma. J’y laisserai ma vie’”. 48. Y. CONGAR, RemarquessurletexterévisédelaConstitutionDeEcclesia(Études et documents, 10), Paris, Secrétariat conciliaire de l’Épiscopat, 29 mai 1964, p. 4: “Le De PopuloDei, placé comme il l’est, signifie que la première chose est la qualité de disciple et d’exister chrétiennement; Aussi développe-t-il les grandes conditions de l’existence chrétienne et la dignité qui s’y attache: le chrétien, le baptisé, est spirituellement roi, prêtre et prophète, il reçoit les dons spirituels que Dieu distribue pour l’utilité de tous”. When commenting on LG 10 he does not criticize the citation from Pius XII, even if he insists on a change in meaning: “On définit rapidement les rapports entre ce sacerdoce commun à tous et le sacerdoce hiérarchique: on le fait en reprenant une expression de Pie XII dont on explique aussitôt le sens: ‘essentia,nongradutantumintersedifferunt’, mais on ne dit pas que ce sacerdoce soit métaphorique (la pensée des rédacteurs est qu’il est réel) et

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

167

Immediately after the Council, Congar together with many other bishops and periti participated in the famous Notre Dame conference on Vatican II:AnInterfaithAppraisal organized in March 1966. In his contribution dealing with The People of God – he had another intervention on The Laity – he puts much emphasis on the fact that Lumen Gentium 9, the opening paragraph of the second chapter, repeats twice that “the People of God is the messianic people”49. Maybe for Congar LumenGentium 9 partially fulfilled the role of being the paragraph dedicated to the participation of the entire people of God in the kingly office of Christ. Still, one had better followed the suggestions prepared by the Secretariat for Christian Unity at the start of the debate on the second draft of the DogmaticConstitutionontheChurch, under the title DepopuloDei, a document dated October 16, 1963. It belonged to their tasks to assess the ecumenical quality of all the documents the Council was preparing, hence the opening phrase: “Under the ecumenical aspect we definitely appreciate that first in a special chapter the people of God in general and its royal priesthood will be discussed”50. In LumenGentium 10, the paragraph introducing the priestly character of the entire people of God, the Secretariat for Christian Unity would hope that “the similarity and dissimilarity between the ministerial priesthood and the universal priesthood would be indicated in a more accurate way”. In one short phrase they propose to leave out the line about the essential difference: “It is not said correctly that they differ by essence and not by degree. They do not differ essentially”51.

on affirme que les deux titres de sacerdoce représentent des participations différentes au même sacerdoce du Christ. Enfin, l’Église apparaît comme une communauté sacerdotale organiquement constituée” (ibid.). 49. ID., ThePeopleofGod, in J.H. MILLER (ed.), VaticanII:AnInterfaithAppraisal. International Theological Conference. University of Notre Dame March 20-26, 1966, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1966, 197-207, p. 205. See also his article on TheLaity, ibid., 239-249. 50. SECRETARIATUS AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM, DepopuloDei (F Stransky), p. 1: Subrespectuoecumenicovaldeplacetquodpriusincapitespecialitractatur depopuloDeiingenereetdeeiusregalisacerdotio. 51. Ibid., pp. 2-3: In numero (10) ubi de sacerdotio universali agitur, desideratur magisaccurataindicatiosimilitudinisetdissimilitudinisintersacerdotiumministeriale et sacerdotium universale. Non recte dicitur: ‘essentialiter et non gradu differunt’, non essentialiterdifferunt.Intersacerdotiumministerialeetsacerdotiumuniversalehoccommune est quod ét sacerdotes ministeriales ét membra sacerdotii universalis in Spiritu Sanctoconsecratasuntetveramdignitatemhabent.(…)Idquodnoncommuneest,inveniturindelegationeetspecialeconsecratione.Sacerdotesenimministerialesspecialiter vocati,institutietconsecratisuntadrepraesentandamEcclesiamCatholicamapudPatrem etIesumChristumapudEcclesiam.Daturigitursimilitudoetdissimilitudopartialisseu analogiaproportionalitatispropriedicta.

168

P. DE MEY

They appreciate that the next paragraph makes it clear for each sacrament that not only the ordained but actually all the faithful can actively exercise their common priesthood. Their suggestion, however, was to make LumenGentium 11 longer and “better indicate in which the participation in the priestly, prophetic and kingly office of Christ consists”52. Their concrete proposal is, as could be expected, based on their earlier suggestions on this matter, drafted by Bishop De Smedt: It should be taught that the priestly people unites itself with the high priest Jesus in offering a spiritual cult, leading a holy life, praying and exercising the Christian abstinence, so that God will be glorified and their sins be forgiven. It should be taught that the priestly people be united with the prophet Christ, by offering the Father each day the gift to give testimony to the truth of Christ and to evangelize His doctrine. It should finally be taught that the priestly people in Christ the king would offer the Father their attempts, made with the liberty of the children of God, to restore everything in Christ and to submit everything to His kingly power, so that the world would be consecrated to God and would be oriented towards the glory of God, while expecting the coming of the Lord53.

Since this advice was not followed, we end up with two different accounts of the munera as applied to the people of God as a whole and to the laity in LumenGentium, in which two Belgian heroes of Vatican II played a major role54. Chapter two, based on the chapter on the laity prepared by Philips for the Theological Commission, only treats the twofold priestly and the prophetic office of the people of God in Lumen Gentium 10–12 and maintains the idea of the essential difference between the common and the ministerial priesthood. Chapter four, based on a pre-conciliar votum on the priesthood of the faithful prepared by Bishop De Smedt for the Secretariat for Christian Unity, discusses the tria

52. Ibid., p. 3: Ineodemnumero(11),p.8l.8meliusindicarideberetinquoconsistat participatiomunerissacerdotalis,propheticietregalisChristi. 53. Ibid.: 1)DoceaturpopulumsacerdotalemteneriadvivenduminunionecumIesu summosacerdote adofferendumcultumspiritualem,ducendovitamsanctam,incumbendo orationietexercendoabnegationemchristianam,eofineutDeusglorificeturetpeccata expientur.2)DoceaturpopulumsacerdotalemdebereuniricumChristopropheta,offerendoPatrisuamquotidianaminstantiam adtestimoniumperhibendumdeveritate Christi eiusquedoctrinamevangelizandam.3)DoceaturpopulumsacerdotalemdebereinChristo regeofferrePatrisuaconamina,cumlibertatefiliorumDeiperacta, adomniainstauranda inChristo acEiusregalipotestatisubmittenda,itautmundusDeoconsacreturetadDei gloriamordinetur,exspectandobeatamspemetadventumDomini. 54. Cf. D. DONNELLY – J. FAMERÉE – M. LAMBERIGTS – K. SCHELKENS (eds.), The BelgianContributiontotheSecondVaticanCouncil (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 216), Leuven, Peeters, 2008.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

169

munera in LumenGentium 34–3655. As we will see in the final section of my article, however, if two approaches to the ministry of the laity exist, one which focuses on the essential difference between the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood and one which insists that the laity have their own share in the threefold ministry of Christ, then the postconciliar magisterium has the freedom to rather rely on Lumen Gentium 10 than on LumenGentium 34–36 in an attempt to protect the specific identity of laity and priests. We will first have a short look, however, at the way in which the 1965 decrees PresbyterorumOrdinis, ApostolicamActuositatem and AdGentes deal with the theologoumenon of the triamunera. III. THE TRIAMUNERA AS APPLIED TO THE PRIESTS LUMENGENTIUM 28 AND PRESBYTERORUMORDINIS

IN

The theology of the priesthood, found in LumenGentium 28 and PresbyterorumOrdinis, in line with what the Council teaches about the entire people of God and about the other groups in the Church, emphasizes that the priest shares in the threefold office of Christ and addresses him for that reason mostly as presbyter. The traditional doctrine of Trent, with its focus on the priest as sacerdos, on his role as liturgical mediator of Christ in the sacraments, did not disappear completely though. 1. Lumen Gentium28 At the end of a long chapter introducing the new insights on episcopal consecration and collegiality of bishops, LumenGentium 28 is dedicated to the ministry of priests. The paragraph starts by discussing the unity of the ordained ministry as it “is exercised in different orders by those who 55. See also O. RUSH, TheOfficesofChrist,LumenGentiumandthePeople’sSense oftheFaith, in Pacifica 16 (2003) 137-152, p. 139: “Initially in the drafting process, the principle that all the baptised faithful share fully in the mission of the church finds expression through the rubric of the common and ministerial priesthood, which enables the drafters to outline the commonality and difference between hierarchy, priests and laity. But this focus on Christ the Priest and priesthood widens to include another, one could say, more expansive rubric, the three munera of Christ as priest, prophet and king. (…) As we shall see, it will take over two years for the council to fully adopt the second rubric, while still retaining the first”. The existence of distinct theological emphases notwithstanding, it is nevertheless also possible to defend the unity of LumenGentium as a sacramental ecclesiology. Cf. P. DE MEY, TheSacramentalNatureandMissionoftheChurch in Lumen Gentium, in International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 14 (2014) 348-361.

170

P. DE MEY

right from ancient times are called bishops, priests and deacons”. With biblical quotations it is emphasized that only Christ is “the high and eternal priest” (sacerdos). The presbyteri are consecrated in his image “to preach the gospel and nourish the faithful and celebrate divine worship”. The new speak is twice interrupted, however, by mentioning that priests enjoy a “priestly honour” (sacerdotali honore) and are “true priests (sacerdotes) of the new testament”. This final title is followed by a description of the cultic aspect of their priestly ministry, which can linguistically also be predicated of their threefold office, in which case it would be even more problematic. The longer explanation of the way in which priests “share in the office of Christ the one mediator” follows the normal order of first mentioning their prophetic office, then their role as presiders of the sacraments, and finally, the way they exercise “the office of Christ the shepherd and head”. In the second half of the paragraph, first the relationship of priests and bishops56, and secondly the relationship of priests and laity (an issue of interest for my chapter) are being described. The tone of these lines, which ends up in qualifying the priestly ministry as “truly priestly and pastoral” (veresacerdotalisetpastoralis) is a bit condescending: “Like fathers in Christ, they are to look after the faithful whom they have spiritually brought to birth by baptism and by their teaching”57. This is less the case, however, in the paragraph discussing the same relationship in the chapter on the laity. Even if the laity are also encouraged to accept “those decisions that the sacred pastors make as teachers and governors of the Church and as representatives of Christ in a spirit of Christian obedience”, it is luckily also said in LumenGentium 37 that “the sacred pastors are to acknowledge and promote the dignity and the responsibility of the laity in the Church; they should willingly make use of their 56. It contains the novel idea that they “constitute along with their bishop one presbyterium”. 57. Cf. the criticism in O. FUCHS – P. HÜNERMANN, Theologischer Kommentar zum DekretüberdenDienstunddasLebenderPriester, in P. HÜNERMANN – B.J. HILBERATH (eds.), HerderstheologischerKommentarzumZweitenVatikanischenKonzil, vol. 4, Freiburg i.Br. – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2005, 337-580, p. 456: “Der Abschnitt belegt, wie stark das hier gezeichnete Priesterbild noch von einem patriarchalischen Denken geprägt ist. Es gibt nicht einen Satz darüber, dass der Presbyter als Leiter der Ortsgemeinde für eine angemessene Unterscheidung der Charismen, die es in der Gemeinde gibt, verantwortlich ist, ferner für die Moderation und Förderung der Initiativen, die auf seiner mündigen Gemeinde aufbrechen. Es wird weder davon gesprochen, dass die Gemeinden selbstverständlich Rechte gegenüber ihrem Presbyter haben, noch dass sie für die Hervorbringung der geeigneten Kandidaten für diesen Dienst zu sorgen haben oder dass deren Dienst wesentlich auf die Sendung der Gemeinde in der Welt bezogen ist. Der Priester erscheint vielmehr als jener, der die Gaben Christi ausspendet”.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

171

prudent counsel; they should confidently entrust to them offices in the service of the Church and leave them freedom and space to act”. All this leads to a “familiar relationship between laity and pastors” (ibid.) from which “many advantages for the Church can be expected. (…) In this way the whole Church, strengthened by all its members, is able more effectively to carry out its mission for the life of the world”58. 2. Presbyterorum Ordinis One of the great fans of this forgotten document is Gilles Routhier. He realizes that the debates inaula on this document were far from passionate, but the decree in his opinion remains a thorough doctrine on the priestly ministry that deserves to be better studied and received59. In the title of the first two drafts, DeClericis and DeSacerdotibus, one still observes the pre-conciliar focus on the person of the priest and on the ontological difference that takes place in him through the sacrament of ordination. The state of perfection which this implied and which was accompanied by a spirituality that separated the priest as much as possible from the impurity of the world and its inhabitants, situates the priest closer to Christ than to his fellow Christians. Much emphasis went to his acting inpersonaChristi and he was also seen as alterChristus, a title which was no longer used in the decree60. The title which the document obtained in November 1964, Devitaetministeriosacerdotali, reflects the shift from a focus on his person to his ministry, which has its own place within the missionary task of the Church as a whole, aimed at the salvation of the entire world. This shift was only possible after the council fathers had embraced the new order of chapters within LumenGentium61. It also entailed a change in spirituality, as the document now states that “priests will achieve the holiness proper to their state by sincere and untiring fulfilment of their duties in the Spirit of Christ”62 (PO 13). 58. Cf. ibid., p. 481:“Betrachtet man die grundsätzlichen theologischen Erklärungen über die Aufgabe der Laien in der Kirche nicht nur als theologische Rhetorik, sondern als ernstgemeinte Glaubensaussagen, dann bedarf es entsprechender rechtlich umrissener Strukturen, Freiräume und Interventionsmöglichkeiten für die Laien, damit sie ihrer Sendung entsprechen können”. 59. G. ROUTHIER, L’écho de l’enseignement de Vatican II sur le presbytérat dans la situationactuelle, in RevuethéologiquedeLouvain 41 (2010) 86-112, 161-179. 60. Routhier observes that PO 12 contains a quotation from the encyclical AdCatholici Sacerdotii of Pius XI which stops just before these words. Ibid., p. 90. 61. Ibid., p. 91. 62. The chapter on the universal call to holiness in Lumen Gentium still approaches the spirituality of priests partially in line with the tradition: “… the pastors of Christ’s flock … must carry out their ministry with holiness and zeal, with humility and courage.

172

P. DE MEY

We do not need to read further than the introduction to become aware that PresbyterorumOrdinis understands the ministry of the priest to be a threefold one: “By the sacred ordination and mission they receive from bishops, priests are promoted to the service of Christ the teacher, priest and king whose ministry they share, so that the Church may be unceasingly built up here on earth into the people of God, the body of Christ and the temple of the holy Spirit” (PO 1). The chapter on The ministry of priests (PO 4-11) starts with three paragraphs gathered under the heading Presbyterorummunera. Here, the precise way in which priests share in the threefold office of Christ is exposed in greater detail. Faithful to the statement of LumenGentium 25, that “among the principal tasks of bishops the preaching of the gospel is pre-eminent”, Presbyterorum Ordinis 4 states that “priests as the fellow-workers of bishops have as their first charge to announce the gospel of God to all”. As Gerald O’Collins comments in a 2015 Theological Studies article, “PresbyterorumOrdinis … went beyond the limited view of priesthood offered by Trent. Most importantly, Vatican II insisted that preaching the word is an essential and, indeed, primary obligation of ministerial priests”63. PresbyterorumOrdinis 5 makes it unambiguously clear who is to exercise a “priestly role” (sacerdotale munus) in the Church: “Made sharers in a special way in the priesthood of Christ, they may act in the celebration of the sacred rites as the ministers of him who in the liturgy continues to exercise his priestly role for our sakes by his Spirit”. This is evidently followed by a paragraph focusing on how priests also “fulfil within their own measure of responsibility the role of Christ the head and the shepherd (caputetpastor)” (PO 6). We encounter the triamunera in a slightly different form in the first paragraph under the heading Therelationofprieststoothers (PO 7-9), where it is said that “bishops regard them as necessary helpers and advisers in the ministry and office of teaching, sanctifying and shepherding (docendi, sanctificandi et pascendi) the people of God” (PO 7). In the first schemata regendi had been used. In response to a modus that wanted to return to the old terminology in view of arriving at a better concordance of this phrase with LumenGentium and ChristusDominus, it was argued that the idea was the same and that the term pastores was also found in ChristusDominus. Fulfilled in this way their ministry will be also for themselves an excellent means of sanctification”. Ibid., p. 172. 63. G. O’COLLINS, Does Vatican II Represent Continuity or Discontinuity?, in D.G. SCHULTENOVER (ed.), 50YearsOn:ProbingtheRichesofVaticanII, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2015, 83-111, p. 99.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

173

To this focus on the tria munera, a paragraph has been juxtaposed which makes it clear that the more cultic approach to the priesthood of Trent cannot be declared obsolete. The TrueandCatholicDoctrineofthe Sacrament of Order proclaimed in Session 23 of the Council of Trent, condemned in its first chapter and canon the view that priests would only have the “duty and mere service of preaching the gospel”, and taught instead “that power was given to the apostles and their successors in the priesthood to consecrate, offer and administer his body and blood, as also to remit or retain sins”. Presbyterorum Ordinis 2 recalls this teaching and summarizes it by speaking about an officiumsacerdotale: The same Lord appointed some as ministers who would have the sacred power of Order within the company of the faithful, to offer sacrifice and to forgive sins, and would publicly discharge their priestly function (officium sacerdotale) for people in the name of Christ (PO 2).

This definition seems to isolate the cultic task of the priest from the triamunera.The sacerdotalemunusis no longer one of the three offices of the priest, but his entire function seems to be defined as an officium sacerdotale.As a result Cardinal Ratzinger could conclude, in his address to a 1995 symposium organized by the Congregation for the Clergy, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of this decree, that one cannot argue that the Council has preferred one of two alternatives, considering the proclamation of the Word as the first task of the priest or focusing on his task “to offer sacrifice and to forgive sins”64. Whereas the presence of this pre-conciliar theology of the priesthood in the final text of the decree receives strong criticism by Bernard Sesboüé65, Gilles Routhier brings to memory that the term mostly used to 64. J. RATZINGER, ZurLehredesZweitenVatikanischenKonzils:Formulierung–Vermittlung–Deutung(Joseph Ratzinger Gesammelte Schriften, 7/1), Freiburg i.Br. – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2012, 897-915, pp. 899-900: “Man kann das Konzil nicht auf eine bestimmte Alternative festlegen. In der einleitenden Definition des Priestertums wird gesagt, dass die Priester durch die Weihe zum Dienst für Christus den Lehrer, Priester und König bestellt werden und an seinem Amt teilnehmen, durch das die Kirche auf Erden zum Volk Gottes, zum Leib Christi und zum Tempel des Heiligen Geistes auferbaut wird (PO 1). Im zweiten Punkt wird von der Vollmacht zur Darbringung des Opfers und zur Nachlassung der Sünden gesprochen”. (…) “Fassen wir das bisher Bedachte zusammen, so können wir feststellen, dass das erste Kapitel des Dekrets einen deutlichen Nachdruck auf den ontologischen Aspekt des Priesterseins legt und dabei auch die Vollmacht des Opfers herausstellt. (…) Umso mehr mag es dann aufhorchen lassen, wenn zu Beginn des zweiten Kapitels das von den konkreten Aufgaben der Priester spricht, gesagt wird: ‘Die erste Aufgabe der Priester als Mitarbeiter der Bischöfe’ ist es, ‘allen die Frohe Botschaft zu verkünden’ (PO 4)”. 65. B. SESBOÜÉ, Dequelquesaspectsdel’Église:Païensetjuifs–ÉcritureetÉglise –autorité–structureministérielle, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 2011 (VI. Lesvicissitudes

174

P. DE MEY

designate the priest – at least as of the fourth redaction of the text – is presbyter. In this more problematic line sacerdotalis is still used as an adjective, in respect for the priesthood of Christ. Only in LumenGentium 10 the substantive sacerdotium is used, accompanied by the adjective ministeriale66. Routhier also has words of praise for the decision taken upon the final redaction of the text, in December 1965, to separate Presbyterorum Ordinis 2 and 3 from the introduction so that it became the first chapter of the decree, dealing with ThePriesthoodintheMissionof the Church67. As a result, before defining the mission of the ordained ministers, this chapter recalls the mission of the entire Church in a way reminding the reader of the second chapter of LumenGentium: The Lord Jesus, “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world” (Jn 10,36), gave his whole mystical body a share in the anointing of the Spirit with which he was anointed. In that body all the faithful together become a holy and royal priesthood, offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ, and declare the wonderful deeds of him who called them out of darkness into his marvelous light. Hence, while each member has a part to play in the mission of the whole body, all must reverence Jesus in their hearts and give testimony to Jesus by the spirit of prophecy (PO 2).

IV. THE TRIAMUNERA AS APPLIED TO THE LAITY IN APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEM AND ADGENTES 1. Apostolicam Actuositatem The first draft of Apostolicam Actuositatem was sent to the council fathers in April, 1963, but there was only time to discuss this draft inaula from October 7-13, 1964. In the written reactions to this text, which did not yet contain a reference to the triamunera, some bishops were pleading in favor of such an addition, and their number grew during the oral debate, since at that moment the almost final texts of chapters 2 and 4 of LumenGentium were known; others continued to defend the pre-conciliar view that the laity could only take part in the threefold mission of the ordained ministers. d’une réception: Le déplacement des catégories du ministère à Vatican II et sa gestion jusqu’en 2010), 163-211, pp. 182-183: “Ce développement logique et unifié est interrompu par la reprise de la formulation tridentine. (…) Cette définition tridentine du ministère est juxtaposée à l’autre, sans qu’elle lui soit véritablement intégrée. Cette phrase est posée là comme une garantie de continuité de la doctrine catholique”. 66. ROUTHIER, L’échodel’enseignementdeVatican (n. 59), p. 107. 67. Ibid., pp. 95-96.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

175

When the council fathers had to vote on the final version of the text on September 23, 1965, they saw that the textusemendatus finally contained a couple of references to the participation of the laity in the threefold office. In Apostolicam Actuositatem 2 the drafting committee had chosen to mention both the ordained and the laity in relation to the threefold office, following a beautiful line stating that, “In the church, there is diversity in ministry (diversitasministerii) but unity in mission”68. The office and power of teaching in the name of Christ, of sanctifying and ruling (munus…docendi,sanctificandietregendi), were conferred by him on the apostles and their successors. Laypeople, sharing in the priestly, prophetic and kingly offices of Christ (munerissacerdotalis,propheticiet regalisChristiparticipes), play their part (suaspartes) in the mission of the whole people of God in the church and in the world (AA 2).

The different order of the munera reflects the theology of the priesthood which since the Council of Trent had given priority to the teaching office. Only adjectives are used for the laity’s share in the threefold office, whereas the ordained are believed to possess the full reality. The next paragraph highlights the sacramental basis of the apostolate of the laity and their share in the threefold office of Christ: Laypeople have their office and right to the apostolate from their union with Christ their head. They are brought into the mystical body of Christ by baptism, strengthened by the power of the Spirit in confirmation, and assigned to apostleship by the Lord himself. They are consecrated as a royal priesthood and a holy people (see 1 Peter 2:4-10), so as to offer spiritual sacrifices in all their works and to bear witness to Christ throughout the world (AA 3).

A few paragraphs further we encounter the triamunera for the last time, when the idea of LumenGentium 31 is repeated that, “sharing in Christ’s priestly, prophetic and kingly office, the laity have an active part to play in the church’s life and work” (AA 10). Ludwig Schick, whom I follow in his analysis of the conciliar and post-conciliar teaching on the laity, deplores that this decree declares that the participation of ordained and of the laity in the threefold office is different, but that it is left to post-conciliar theology to develop a more precise distinction between the two69. 68. In his contribution to the UnamSanctam volume on this decree, Congar seems not to have paid attention to the Latin version of the decree, when stating: “Notons enfin l’affirmation très importante du n° 2,2: ‘Il y a dans l’Église diversité de ministères mais unité de mission’”. Cf. Y. CONGAR, Apports,richessesetlimitesduDécret, in Lesprêtres: décretsPresbyterorumOrdinisetOptatamTotius(Unam Sanctam, 68), Paris, Cerf, 1968, 157-190, p. 163. 69. L. SCHICK, TeilhabederLaienamdreifachenAmtChristi–einzurealisierendes Programm, in P. KRÄMER (ed.), Die Kirche und Ihr Recht (Theologische Berichte, 15),

176

P. DE MEY

2. Ad Gentes As of its revision of May 28, 1965, the schema of the DecreeonMission has its own version of the participation of communities of lay faithful in the triamunera: Missionaries therefore, as fellow workers with God, should create communities of the faithful such that, walking worthily in the vocation to which they have been called, they may fulfil the priestly, prophetic and royal roles entrusted to them by God (AG 15).

The same paragraph also offers a firm basis to assign particular ministries to the laity, since it states that, “for the implanting of the church and the growth of the Christian community various ministries (varia ministeria) are necessary”. V. COLLABORATING IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF THE PRIESTS INSTEAD OF SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST: ECCLESIAE DEMYSTERIO (1997) Unfortunately, as Bernard Sesboüé makes it clear in the great chapter of his 2010 book, De quelques aspects de l’Église, dealing with the changes in the vocabulary to describe the ministries of priests and laity since Vatican II, many documents of the post-conciliar magisterium seem to have returned to the pre-conciliar category of sacerdos. An obvious example is the apostolic exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis (1992) in which the term sacerdos is used almost 350 times and in which the order of treating the triamunera has again become the Tridentine one of priest, prophet, king70. I prefer, however, to end my contribution by making a few comments on a document which speaks about priests and laity, the Zürich, Benziger, 1986, 39-81, p. 63: “Die Textgeschichte von ApostolicamActuositatem zeigt, daß die direkte unmittelbare Teilhabe der Laien am Dreifachen Amt Christi aufgrund von Taufe und Firmung sich erst allmählich und gegen vielerlei Widerstände durchsetzte. (…) Die Aufnahme des Munus Triplex in Lumen Gentium IV DeLaicis hat entscheidend dazu beigetragen, daß dieses Theologumenon auch im Laiendekret akzeptiert wurde. Jedoch hat das Munus Triplex im Laiendekret mehr deklaratorischen Charakter. Es ist nicht zum Theologumenon geworden, das für die Systematik der Aussagen über die Laien in der Kirche Gewicht bekommen hat. Indem im Dekret über das Laienapostolat die Teilhabe der Ordinierten am Dreifachen Amt Christi und die Teilhabe der Laien am Dreifachen Amt Christi hintereinander genannt werden, ist zwar die eigene ursprüngliche Teilhabe beider Stände der Kirche auf je eigene Weise deklariert, aber nicht gesagt, wie diese Teilhaben konkret aussehen und sich voneinander unterscheiden. Diese Aufgabe wurde der nachkonziliaren Theologie überlassen”. 70. SESBOÜÉ, Dequelquesaspectsdel’Église (n. 65), p. 109.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

177

famous 1997 InstructiononCertainQuestionsregardingtheCollaboration of the Non-ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest, the only document of the post-conciliar magisterium signed by the heads of seven dicasteries71. Already the title is forgetful of the rich teaching of Vatican II on the sharing of the entire people of God in the threefold office of Christ. Instead of the constant attention of the Council to link the threefold office of all the faithful to the threefold office of Christ, the focus is now on the collaboration of the “non-ordained faithful” in the sacred ministry of priest. Luckily, in 2005 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops gave a more positive title to their document aiming at adapting the teaching of the universal Church to the local situation: Co-workers in the VineyardoftheLord:AResourceforGuidingtheDevelopmentofLay EcclesialMinistry72. The introduction to the Vatican instruction admittedly starts with a beautiful line: “The source of the call addressed to all members of the Mystical body to participate actively in the mission and edification of the People of God, is to be found in the mystery of the Church”. The first part of the document, however, expanding on a few “Theological principles” before offering “Practical provisions”, immediately focuses on the right interpretation of the teaching of Lumen Gentium 10 on “the essential difference between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood”. The same is true for the first practical provision, dealing with the “need for an appropriate terminology” and suggesting that one better refrains from using the term ministers and definitely the term pastors for co-workers in the vineyard of the Lord. Here also the primordial preoccupation of the document seems to be the defence of the holy line on the essential difference in LumenGentium: “It must be admitted that the language becomes doubtful, confused, and hence not helpful for expressing the doctrine of the faith whenever the difference ‘of essence and not merely of degree’ between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is in any way obscured”. Borrowing from the 1992 CatechismoftheCatholicChurch one then tries to explain the essential difference by pointing to the differentgoal of both forms of priesthood. The common priesthood of the faithful is said to be exercised “by the unfolding of baptismal grace – a life of faith, 71. Cf. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_ interdic_doc_15081997_en.html. 72. Co-workersintheVineyardoftheLord:AResourceforGuidingtheDevelopment ofLayEcclesialMinistry, Washington, DC, United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2005.

178

P. DE MEY

hope and charity, a life according to the Spirit” and the ministerial priesthood “confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful”. In my opinion it is better to focus on the distinctivesacramentalbasis, if one wants to safeguard this line of LumenGentium 10. The common priesthood of the faithful is based on the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, the ministerial priesthood on the sacrament of ordination. Even if I understand that it was not the goal of this instruction to develop a full teaching on the ordained ministry, it becomes very alienating to read that the first of two “characteristics which differentiate the ministerial priesthood of Bishops and Priests from the common priesthood of the faithful and consequently delineate the extent to which other members of the faithful cooperate with this ministry” consists in the following: The ministerial priesthood is rooted in the Apostolic Succession, and vested with “potestas sacra” consisting of the faculty and the responsibility of acting in the person of Christ the Head and the Shepherd.

Not only will a healthy theology of ordained ministry, also in the Roman Catholic Church, not exclusively have to refer to the inpersona Christi but also to the innomineEcclesiae; the restriction of apostolicity to apostolic succession is ecumenically very unhelpful. Luckily the second part of the summary restores the important idea found in LumenGentium that ministry in first instance consists of serving others by imitating the example of Christ: It is a priesthood which renders its sacred ministers servants of Christ and of the Church by means of authoritative proclamation of the Word of God, the administration of the sacraments and the pastoral direction of the faithful.

CONCLUSION Pope Francis is not afraid of criticizing certain decisions by his predecessors. When recalling the invitation in UtUnumSint to look for more ecumenically acceptable modes of exercising the primacy in his apostolic letter EvangeliiGaudium, the judgement of Pope Francis is crystal clear: “We have made little progress in this regard”73 (EG 32). Especially the institution of the episcopal conference in his opinion has to play an important role in the transformation of “the papacy and the central

73. Cf. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/ papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html.

SHARING IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

179

structures of the universal Church”. By stating that “a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated”, and by referring in footnote to the 1998 motu proprio ApostolosSuos by Pope John Paul II which precisely intended to determine the juridical status of this institution in a very narrow way, Pope Francis publically criticized the decision of his two predecessors, since one can be sure that the president of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had been the main drafter of this document. One may wonder whether the lines on the laity in the same apostolic letter do not constitute a similar but more implicit criticism of Ecclesiae de Mysterio: “Lay people are, put simply, the vast majority of the people of God. The minority – ordained ministers – are at their service. There has been a growing awareness of the identity and mission of the laity in the Church. (…) At the same time, a clear awareness of this responsibility of the laity, grounded in their baptism and confirmation, does not appear in the same way in all places”74 (EG 102). In order to avoid that his successor will have the freedom to rely more on EcclesiaedeMysterio than on Lumen Gentium, in my opinion Pope Francis should urgently entrust it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to write a new document encouraging the laity to fully play their role in the entire mission of the Church. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies KU Leuven Sint-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Peter DE MEY

74. In § 104, on the other hand the Pope felt the need to repeat the definitive teaching of OrdinatioSacerdotalis. He insisted that the Church is not entitled to grant “the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist” to women, but added: “This presents a great challenge for pastors and theologians, who are in a position to recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life”.

DID THE COUNCIL REALLY EMPOWER THE PEOPLE OF GOD? THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEM AND PRESBYTERORUMORDINIS

INTRODUCTION: HALF

AND

HALF

The title of this essay consists of two halves, the first of which poses a direct question: Did or did not Vatican II empower the people of God? My answer is: yes, it did. So we can just end the session here now and enjoy a nice coffee break. The second half, though, creates an interesting apples-and-pears comparative scenario by placing ApostolicamActuositatem (DecreeontheApostolateoftheLaity, 18 November 1965) alongside PresbyterorumOrdinis (DecreeontheMinistryandLifeofPriests, 7 December 1965). The mismatch is evident, not least because the former deals with laypersons, while the latter focuses on ordained ministers, and, seemingly, to borrow a phrase from Rudyard Kipling, never the twain shall meet. What has the laity got to do with the clergy? In the highly stratified hierarchical power and ministerial structure of the community called Church, both groups fall into separate categories. Varieties of ecclesiology and traditions of the Church assign markedly different roles and positions to laity and clergy. Almost invariably, in popular perception and actual practice, laypersons occupy a lower rung in the ladder of importance in the sacramental and ministerial life of the Church. This observation by no means prejudices the value of the textual structure of Vatican II’s DogmaticConstitutionontheChurch (LumenGentium) that deliberately attempted to forestall or close the gap by subsuming both categories under the wider framework of “People of God” who are called equally to holiness1. The methodology and structure of this essay unfolds in three stages. The first stage is an overview of the two decrees and a textual exposition of their respective contents, messages, and meanings, unencumbered by extraneous analytical preoccupation that would influence our reading. The second is a comparative study of both texts to identify, highlight, and 1. See LumenGentium, Chapter II.

182

A.E. OROBATOR

analyze points of convergence and divergence. And finally, the third stage presents a critical analysis of three structural and theological obstacles or constraints that militate against the empowerment of the people of God as decreed by Apostolicam Actuositatem relative to the understanding and application of PresbyterorumOrdinis. To set the context for this analysis, I will advance a plausible explanation for considering these two documents as part of the forgotten corpus of Vatican II. I. FUNCTIONAL AMNESIA: ILLITERACY FORGOTTEN DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

AND THE

On the table of forgottenness, ApostolicamActuositatem and PresbyterorumOrdinis rank high among the forgotten documents of Vatican II. From the perspective of the Church in Africa, at least two factors explain this status of being forgotten, neither of which is intentional or culpable. The first is general and concerns the reception of Vatican II; the second is specific and relates to the implementation of the teaching of Vatican II. Besides the fact that Africa’s presence at the Second Vatican Council was demographically negligible, the functional and theological illiteracy of the continent hindered its capacity to engage meaningfully with the Council’s documents. Patrick Kalilombe frames this point in the following terms: Africa’s problems and preoccupations, therefore, came only indirectly: they did not determine the central perspective from which the Council’s deliberations were moving … Moreover, real acquaintance with the documents must not be exaggerated, even though efforts were made to publish them and diffuse their message widely in the African continent … After all, Africa is largely a nonliterate continent2.

In the 1960s, a Council that conducted its affairs in high ecclesiastical Latin, and composed and delivered its decrees in the same language would have proved unappealing, inaccessible, and incomprehensible to the ordinary Christian. Historian of Vatican II in Eastern Africa, Albert de Jong, merely stated the obvious when he asserted that “[t]he average lay person with no understanding of English had no possibility whatever 2. P.A. KALILOMBE, The Effect of the Council on World Catholicism: Africa, in A. HASTINGS (ed.), ModernCatholicism:VaticanIIandAfter, London, SPCK, 1991, 310318, pp. 310-311.

DID THE COUNCIL REALLY EMPOWER THE PEOPLE OF GOD?

183

of reading and studying the Vatican II documents [in Latin]”3. Similarly, African priests and bishops were not spared the concomitant effects of this illiteracy. Another historian of the Church in Africa, Adrian Hastings, corroborated De Jong’s assertion: The bishops returned to their dioceses with a heap of Latin documents to redirect a clergy far less informed about what had been going on than their counterparts in Europe but also, for the most part, far more willing to be redirected. The laity, of course, were still more uninformed4.

Although this may seem an inconsiderate judgment to make, the evidence shows clearly that the Catholic Church in Africa lacked the theological wherewithal and linguistic aptitude at the Council, as well as after the Council, to engage with the processes and outcomes of Vatican II. It is important to note that this assessment neither assigns a value nor makes a value judgement. Functional and theological illiteracy was a sign of the times and context of the Church in Africa, rather than an evidence of a collective moral deficiency. One practical consequence of this view is that the reason for the forgottenness of these documents is extraneous. They are forgotten not because they are defective or were not received by the faithful, but that they were never discovered in the first place. 1. Apples:Apostolicam Actuositatem The Council set out the aim of this decree on the apostolate of the laity in explicit terms, namely, to “describe the nature, character, and diversity of the lay apostolate, to state its basic principles, and to give pastoral directives for its more effective exercise” (AA1). Using this framework, it is possible to summarize the main points of the decree in the following terms. First, regarding the nature, character, and diversity of lay apostolate, the decree recognizes and affirms the indispensability of the apostolate of the laity as constitutive of the mission of evangelization of the Church. So critical to the mission of the Church is this apostolate that “the Church could scarcely exist and function without the activity of the laity” (AA 1). The ecclesiological model upon which is premised this recognition is the organic model of the Church as the mystical body of Christ in which all 3. A. DE JONG, TheChallengeofVaticanIIinEastAfrica:TheContributionofDutch Missionaries to the Implementation of Vatican II in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, and Malawi,1965-1975, Nairobi, Paulines, 2004, p. 34. 4. A. HASTINGS, TheCouncilCametoAfrica, in A. STACPOOLE (ed.), VaticanII:By ThoseWhoWereThere, London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1986, 315-323, p. 316.

184

A.E. OROBATOR

the constituent parts have unique roles and contribute to the proper functioning of the entire edifice. In this ecclesiological arrangement, by virtue of baptismal calling, laypersons participate and share in the triple office of Christ as Priest, Prophet, and King. An important consequence derives from this notion of participation in the triple office of Christ: Not only are the laity “assigned to the apostolate by the Lord Himself”, the Risen Christ also imbues them with the requisite charisms (AA 2; see AA 4) to accomplish their apostolate effectively, either individually or in groups (AA 16, 18), and, in both instances, formally or informally, spontaneously or in an organized manner. Second, at the level of the local Church, laypersons and ordained ministers collaborate in running the affairs of the Church through appropriate parochial and diocesan structures. The decree recommends a similar structure of collaboration and cooperation at the level of the universal Church through the establishment of a secretariat for the promotion of the apostolate of the laity (AA 26). Third, from the perspective of mission, Apostolicam Actuositatem clearly circumscribes the contours of the apostolate of the laity. The sphere of the apostolate of the laity comprises two dimensions: adintra and adextra, that is, “both in the Church and in the world” (AA 5). To begin with the latter, mission adextra is a function of the special character and context of laypersons: Since the laity, in accordance with their state of life, live in the midst of the world and its concerns, they are called by God to exercise their apostolate in the world like leaven, with the ardor of the spirit of Christ (AA 2).

In this context, the key elements of their mission ad extra would include an exemplary witness of life, especially as it concerns family life and marriage (AA 6, 11; 16), the defence and propagation of the faith (AA 6), the renewal and perfection of the secular sphere or the temporal order, a task widely understood as “Christian social action” (AA 7), and a commitment to works of charity and humanitarian assistance (AA 8). As individual witnesses to the faith in the social milieu, the apostolate of the laity is essentially personal, direct, and practical. ApostolicamActuositatem succinctly designates it as “the apostolate of like toward like” (AA 13). Beyond the individual domain, the primary purpose of engagement in public affairs and public policy issues is precisely to infuse them with elements of Catholic social doctrine, such as the principle of the common good (AA 13-14). In sum, the layperson carries the banner of faith in the temporal or secular domain: “he [or she] renders the Church present and active in the midst of temporal affairs” (AA 29).

DID THE COUNCIL REALLY EMPOWER THE PEOPLE OF GOD?

185

Notwithstanding, this extroverted focus on the apostolate of the laity is anything but exclusively secular. It is founded “upon the laity’s living union with Christ” (AA 4). More importantly, however, the apostolate of the laity is neither detached from the mission of the Church nor is it an appendix of the latter. It forms an integral part and service of “the mission of the Church to the world” (AA 19, 20). Thus, as a corollary to its mission adextra, the apostolate of the laity extends to the Church as well. It is mission ad intra. According to Apostolicam Actuositatem, “Their activity is so necessary within the Church communities that without it the apostolate of the pastors is often unable to achieve its full effectiveness” (AA 10). Already, we can perceive a subtle hint that the apostolate of the laity is ancillary to that of priests, since it completes and complements the latter’s ministry. The privileged milieu for the exercise of this apostolate is the parish, but it extends to diocesan, supra-diocesan, and international forums (AA 10, 16). Fourth, in addition to the God-given charisms for the mission of laypersons, ApostolicamActuositatem places special emphasis on their triple formation for mission: spiritual, doctrinal, and practical (AA 28-29). In this instance, both priests and laypersons are granted specific roles, the former “in their catechetics, their ministry of the word, their direction of souls, and in their other pastoral services” (AA 30), the latter by giving doctrinal, spiritual, and practical formation to members in small groups (AA 30). Beyond these three types of formation there is a fourth form of formation that I would characterize as “specialized formation”. The decree recognizes and commends the need of the laity for particular skills in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, social doctrine, and charitable and humanitarian work (AA 31). Fifth, Apostolicam Actuositatem makes it clear that the relationship between the apostolate of the laity and the ministry of the clergy should unfold in an atmosphere of mutuality, complementarity, dialogue, and respect (AA 5, 10). The pastors have a duty of care and support toward those who serve the Church as lay women and men (AA 22). Quite interestingly, the decree recognizes instances where the apostolate of the laity “takes the place of priests”, particularly in situations of violence, conflict, and religious persecution, or geographical dispersion (AA 17). Sixth, the issue of control and direction of lay associations looms large in the decree. On the one hand, while always conscious of their relationship with the Church, membership, control, and direction of lay organizations devolve directly on the laity by right (AA 19, 20). However, this recognition of the right to self-direction is hardly an unmitigated autonomy of action. The hierarchy, that is, bishops and priests, exercise a

186

A.E. OROBATOR

“higher direction” or suitable direction (AA 23) that manifests as the power to “sanction this cooperation by an explicit mandate” (AA 20). This mandate is the measure of the catholicity of any apostolate undertaken by laypersons in the Church (AA 24). Without ambiguity, the decree endorses the “higher ecclesiastical control in the performance” of the work of the laity in service of the mission of the Church. Particulars of this control include: teaching, interpreting, judging, legislating, and deciding on the nature and structures of conducting the apostolate of the laity. The subjection of the apostolate of laypersons to the direction and control of the hierarchy is an apparent manifestation of benign solicitude for the people of God and concern for the proper and coordinated functioning of the apostolate of the entire Church (AA 23). In practice, however, it gives wide berth, as I shall argue below, to the entrenchment of clericalism in the Church. To conclude this brief exposition on Apostolicam Actuositatem, in articulating these principles, already we see points of tension, of which there are numerous examples. For instance, although the ministry of the laity devolves directly from the Lord, and they are empowered with requisite charisms, both apostolate and charisms come under the explicit control and direction of “their pastors who must make a judgment about the true nature and proper use of these gifts not to extinguish the Spirit but to test all things and hold for what is good” (AA 3). This is not to discount the importance of the exhortation that bishops and pastors should be fraternal in promoting the apostolate of the laity through spiritual guidance and good counsel (AA 25). 2. Pears: Presbyterorum Ordinis The second document sets out in clear terms the basic elements of the Catholic understanding of the life and ministry of priests. To begin with, as was the case in Apostolicam Actuositatem, priests participate in the ministry of Christ as Teacher, Priest, and King. For the people of God, including the laypersons and priests, this is the foundation of the priesthood of the faithful (PO 2). The central characterization of the status of priests that surfaces in this decree is that of “co-workers of the episcopal order” (PO 2), who, nevertheless, are empowered to act “in the person of Christ the Head” and to offer spiritual sacrifice in the manner of Christ the high priest (PO 2, 5; PO 12). Although set apart or consecrated for this ministry, “they are to live as good shepherd that know their sheep” and serve them (PO 3,

DID THE COUNCIL REALLY EMPOWER THE PEOPLE OF GOD?

187

12, 13), or, in the manner of speaking of Pope Francis, “smell of their sheep”, especially the poor and the weak, the sick, and the dying (PO 6). This following is mutual, even if unequal: the faithful also follow the priests as “their pastors and fathers” (PO 9). The mission of priests is evangelical and sacramental (PO 4-5), by which they not only gather the people but also instruct and train them in participation in the liturgical celebrations, as well as teach and admonish the faithful (PO 5-6). By this act they become “educators in the faith” (PO 6). Already subtle hints of superiority are discernible here, albeit in their relationship with laypersons the priests are to serve them after the model of Christ, promote their dignity and mission, and foster the growth of charisms for the edification of the Church, while allowing for “freedom and room for action” (PO 9). In relation to bishops who are endowed with the “the fullness of the priesthood” priests are bound by an obligation of respect and obedience, which the bishops are enjoined to reciprocate by regarding them as “brothers and friends” (PO 7, 14). For the purposes of emphasis, it is important to point out the following features in Presbyterorum Ordinis. First, Presbyterorum Ordinis repeatedly emphasizes the doctrine of priestly action as a sacramental action inpersonaChristi (PO 2, 12, 13). Priests are called to holiness in their ministry at the center of which is the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist which serves as a means for their sanctification (PO 18). In addition, Presbyterorum Ordinis encourages priests to be lifelong learners through ongoing study and acquisition of new knowledge (PO 19). Second, both priests and laypersons belong to the body of Christ as disciples in equal measure (PO 9), in much the same way that they share in the triple office of Christ. Third, Presbyterorum Ordinis is careful to safeguard the experience and expertise of laypersons in the fulfilment of their mission adintra as explained above. In this regard, priests “must willingly listen to the laity, consider their wants in a fraternal spirit, recognize their experience and competence in the different areas of human activity, so that together with them they will be able to recognize the signs of the times” (PO 9). This is true especially in the management of temporal goods entrusted to the Church, like finances (PO 17, 21). Laypersons have the obligation of contributing material support and sustenance to their pastors (PO 20). Fourth, priests are identified as leaders of the faith and of the community. However, in keeping with the model of leadership portrayed in

188

A.E. OROBATOR

ApostolicamActuositatem, the decree conceives of priestly leadership as embodied in self-sacrificing service: As leaders of the community they cultivate an asceticism becoming to a shepherd of souls, renouncing their personal convenience, seeking not what is useful to themselves but to many, for their salvation, always making further progress to do their pastoral work better and, where needful, prepared to enter into new pastoral ways under the direction of the Spirit of Love, which breathes where it will (PO 13).

Fifth, as mentioned, the status of priests is set in the context of a hierarchical relationship to the episcopate. The exercise of priestly ministry depends on the fullness of priesthood of the bishop. Consequently, priests function as co-workers and collaborators of bishops. Sixth, as concrete manifestations of their call to holiness, the life of priests is characterized by virtues and the faithful practice of obedience, celibacy, and poverty. II. COMPARING APPLES AND PEARS: A WALL OF SEPARATION From the foregoing, the question of whether or not Vatican II really empowered the people of God appears a moot point. The Decreeonthe ApostolateoftheLaity indicates clearly the various points of empowerment, as outlined above. Yet, in reality, the empowerment of laypersons by ApostolicamActuositatem is constrained by several degrees of ambivalence and tension when studied in conjunction with the patently hierarchical nature of Presbyterorum Ordinis. Three key arguments can be advanced to explain this ambivalence and tension. I designate them as bridgeheads of resistance and opposition. The following points create a backdrop for analyzing and understanding these factors of separation. First, although Apostolicam Actuositatem (18 November 1965) preceded Presbyterorum Ordinis (7 December 1965) in chronological order of promulgation, PresbyterorumOrdinis does not reference Apostolicam Actuositatem, as it does Lumen Gentium (21 November 1964), Optatam Totius (Decree on Priestly Training, 28 October 1965), and ChristusDominus (Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops, 28 October 1965). Second, since Vatican II, not counting the documents authored by local and regional episcopal bodies, at least two documents of note have emerged relative to laypersons and priests, both of them authored by Pope John Paul II: Christifideles Laici (a post-synodal apostolic

DID THE COUNCIL REALLY EMPOWER THE PEOPLE OF GOD?

189

exhortation, 30 December 1988) and PastoresDaboVobis (an apostolic exhortation, 25 March 1992). Third, one indispensable feature of the decrees of Vatican II concerns the elaboration and conferral of the threefold office of Christ on all the baptized, categorized as bishops, priests, and laypersons. In this regard, in addition to LumenGentium (chapter 4), the relevant decrees are: Apostolicam Actuositatem, Presbyterorum Ordinis, and Christus Dominus. Vatican II’s principle of sharing and participation by the faithful in the threefold ministry represented an unprecedented development in Catholic theology: Never before in the history of Roman Catholicism had a general council published documents dedicated to the life and ministry of bishops, laypersons, and priests. Never before had a council attended to the royal priesthood and prophetic office conferred on all the baptized5.

1. Clericalism The first bridgehead of opposition is clericalism, one of three characteristics – the other two being juridicism and triumphalism – of a preVatican II model of Church roundly denounced by Bishop Émile De Smedt of Bruges at the Council. In general, clericalism refers an ascribed status that derives from a person’s function as an ordained clergy in the Church. This status further confers authority on the clergy “as the source of all power and initiative” relative to other members of the Church. Besides, it also provides rationale and claims to entitlements and privileges that are not necessarily reciprocated in accountability and responsibility. The consequence is the pyramidal pattern in which all power is conceived as descending from the pope through the bishops and the priests, while at the base the faithful people play a passive role and seem to have a lower position in the Church6.

An exaggerated appropriation of the image of the priest as a person called and set apart to offer holy things in persona Christi distorts the relationship between laypersons and the clergy. As evident in both ApostolicamActuositatem and PresbyterorumOrdinis, notwithstanding the multiple theological hedges to guard against this 5. G. O’COLLINS, Does Vatican II Represent Continuity or Discontinuity?, in D.G. SCHULTENOVER (ed.), 50YearsOn:ProbingtheRichesofVaticanII, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2015, 83-111, p. 99. 6. A. DULLES, ModelsoftheChurch (Expanded Edition), New York, Doubleday, 1987, p. 39.

190

A.E. OROBATOR

attitude of clericalism, principally by affirming the dignity and autonomy of the apostolate of the laity, significant vestiges and outgrowth of power differentials remain in both documents. Quite clearly, in both documents, “The language of an ordering of relationships in terms of superior and inferior sits uncomfortably beside the language of participation and equality”7. Especially in ApostolicamActuositatem, the subjection of the apostolate of the laity to the superior and higher direction of priests and bishops creates a propitious environment for the cultivation of the self-image of a priest as “alter Christus”. Such a portrait prioritizes the exercise of power over the lay faithful in a manner that is unmitigated by the requisite mutuality, collaboration, cooperation, and humble learning prescribed for the equal participation of all – laypersons and priests – in the triple office of Christ. Anecdotal and empirical evidence demonstrates that the practice and culture of clericalism remain major blocks to the empowerment of the people of God as intended and decreed by Vatican II. In EvangeliiGaudium (24 November 2013), Francis names “excessive clericalism” as one of the formidable obstacles to the realization of the identity, mission, and ministry of laypersons in the Church envisaged in ApostolicamActuositatem: At the same time, a clear awareness of this responsibility of the laity, grounded in their baptism and confirmation, does not appear in the same way in all places. In some cases, it is because lay persons have not been given the formation needed to take on important responsibilities. In others, it is because in their particular churches room has not been made for them to speak and to act, due to an excessive clericalism which keeps them away from decision-making. Even if many are now involved in the lay ministries, this involvement is not reflected in a greater penetration of Christian values in the social, political and economic sectors (EG 102).

In this regard, what I find particularly intriguing is how this excessive clericalism distorts the core nature of the Church. If we take seriously the lesson of the history of the Christian community, what requires explanation and justification is not the apostolate and ministry of laypersons but the appropriation of authority and the conflation of ecclesial identity, role, and meaning with the personality of the clerical class in a church that we know, from scriptural and historical evidence, was at its foundation fundamentally lay and lay-led. Francis hints at this issue in Evangelii Gaudium when he reminds us that “Lay people are, put simply, the vast 7. K. WALSH, The Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), in HASTINGS (ed.), ModernCatholicism (n. 2), 151-156, p. 156.

DID THE COUNCIL REALLY EMPOWER THE PEOPLE OF GOD?

191

majority of the People of God. The minority – ordained ministers – are at their service” (EG 102). Clericalism does not emerge or grow in a vacuum. Avery Dulles has argued convincingly that clericalism is a manifestation and sign of a particular theological self-understanding of the Church, namely, church as an institution. 2. GenderDiscrimination The second bridgehead of opposition concerns the place, status, and role of women in the apostolate of the Church. Ambiguity, controversy, and ambivalence are the operative terms in trying to conceptualize the problem. Twenty-five years after Vatican II, Rosemary Radford Ruether argued that The Second Vatican Council precipitated a host of expectations of renewal which its hierarchical leadership has been unwilling or unable to fulfil. Perhaps potentially the most explosive of these conflicts is between the male hierarchy and Catholic women8.

Kathleen Walsh corroborated her views “that among the situations that can be regarded as post-conciliar concerns are the liturgical ministries of lay people within the Church, and especially the place and role of women”9. Apostolicam Actuositatem mentions women twice. The first mention makes a general reference to the need for women to participate in the life and mission of the Church: “Since in our times women have an ever more active share in the whole life of society, it is very important that they participate more widely also in the various fields of the Church’s apostolate” (AA 9). The second mention occurs at the end of the decree as part of a general reference to the group of laypersons whose natural capacities need further development and honing through the means offered by specialized centers of documentation and study. At best these references are passing, since no further elaboration is offered on the status and role of women within the apostolate of the laity. Since Vatican II, there has been no dearth of official statements, exhortations, and declarations that laud effusively the special “genius” of women and the gift that they bring to the development of the Church as body of Christ. Two familiar historical examples include Pope John 8. R.R. RUETHER, The Place of Women in the Church, in HASTINGS (ed.), Modern Catholicism (n. 2), 260-266, p. 263. 9. WALSH, TheApostolateoftheLaity (n. 7), p. 154.

192

A.E. OROBATOR

Paul II’s Mulieris Dignitatem (on the dignity and vocation of women, 15 August 1988) and Letter to Women (29 June 1995). More recently, Pope Francis has revisited the question in the context of his wide-ranging appraisal of the evangelizing mission of the Church outlined in Evangelii Gaudium. Without delving into points of controversy surrounding the contents of these documents, such as the idea of “feminine genius” and the notion of gender “complementarity”, a considerable number of theologians criticize the domineering hierarchical and clericalist culture that resists and upends the full and equal participation of women in the life and mission of the Church10. Despite notable progress, Francis’s observation sums up the inadequacy of the present situation: “But we need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church” (EG 103). In general, within the category of laypersons, feminist theologians consistently point out several barriers that negate the contribution of women’s ministerial and professional expertise to the mission and ministry of the Church. The areas are as diverse as the issues are serious: catechetics, pastoral leadership, sacramental leadership, ministerial participation, liturgical proclamation, synodal participation, etc. Taken together, these areas illustrate considerable gaps between the principles enunciated in Apostolicam Actuositatem and their concrete application relative to the understanding of clerical authority in PresbyterorumOrdinis and similar magisterial documents that deal with these issues. 3. Ecclesiology The third and final bridgehead of opposition is the theological self-understanding of the Church. For many theologians, it is axiomatic that the focus of Vatican II was ecclesiological11. Considered a “watershed event in the modern history of the church”12, ecclesiology permeates the foundational documents of the Council. Its elaboration of the nature and mission of the Church adintra and adextra unfolds successively in Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes, both “twin pillars on which the entire

10. See, for example, The Catholic Women Speak Network (ed.), Catholic Women Speak:BringingourGiftstotheTable, Mahwah, NJ, Paulist, 2015. 11. T.H. SANKS, Salt,LeavenandLight:TheCommunityCalledChurch, New York, Crossroad, 1992, p. 22. 12. J.A. KOMONCHAK, TheSignificanceofVaticanIIforEcclesiology, in P. PHAN (ed.), TheGiftoftheChurch:ATextbookonEcclesiologyinHonorofPatrickGranfield,O.S.B., Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2001, 69-92, p. 70.

DID THE COUNCIL REALLY EMPOWER THE PEOPLE OF GOD?

193

conciliar ecclesiology rests”13. Notwithstanding the unity of ecclesiological focus and purpose of Vatican II, it would be futile to seek “a definitive and systematic treatise on the Church in the conciliar documents”14. Thus to the questions: “Are there many distinct ecclesiologies in Vatican II?”; “Is there a basic underlying notion or ‘overarching ecclesiology’ of Vatican II?”; or “Are there just many images and models of the Church?”; one can respond affirmatively, precisely because Vatican II outlined many elements of the theological self-understanding of the Church but did not develop them all. Joseph Komonchak holds the position that The council sought to set out the elements of the Church’s life but it left it to theologians to construct a synthesis of them. These elements are many, but the council’s ecclesiology includes them all and is, therefore, single in intention15.

There is a shared consensus among theologians that Vatican II left unresolved the tension between two dominant models of the Church: hierarchical/institutional and communion/conciliar (People of God). As T. Howland Sanks notes perceptively, the Council did not “repudiate earlier ecclesiological understandings”. In other words, The council unseated the dominant hierarchical and juridical approach to the Church but did not replace it completely. Instead, it placed a more communal, sacramental understanding epitomized by the “People of God” side by side with older view without resolving apparent contradictions16.

Sanks’s position confirms an earlier assessment by Ruether that observed “a pervasive conflict between two different models of ecclesiology, the traditional Roman concept of the Church as a hierarchical clerical corporation, and the populist view, that took its charter from the Vatican II Constitution on the Church, of the Church as ‘the people of God’”17. There are unmistakable signs of reaffirmation and innovations 13. R. MCBRIEN, TheChurch:TheEvolutionofCatholicism, New York, HarperCollins, 2008, p. 164. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen correctly designates LG as “the basic and primary source” of Catholic ecclesiology. See V.-M. KÄRKKÄINEN, AnIntroductiontoEcclesiology:Ecumenical,HistoricalandGlobalPerspectives, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2002, p. 28. Sanks corroborates this view: “The Dogmatic Constitution on the church marks some major and dramatic shifts in the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church … Lumen Gentium remains the core programmatic statement of Vatican II on the church”. SANKS, Salt, LeavenandLight (n. 11), pp. 128-129. 14. KOMONCHAK, TheSignificanceofVaticanIIforEcclesiology (n. 12), p. 76. 15. Ibid. 16. SANKS, Salt, LeavenandLight (n. 11), p. 139. 17. RUETHER, ThePlaceofWomenintheChurch (n. 8), p. 263.

194

A.E. OROBATOR

as well as continuity and discontinuity within the larger framework of the conciliar ecclesiology18. In my opinion, this ecclesiological variety unwittingly creates a menu of choice that allows theologians and the hierarchy to promote either of the two models, or more as circumstances dictate, and in support of preferred theological or doctrinal positions. At best, the concomitant theology, status, and mission of laypersons and priests respectively seem poorly integrated in each of these two ecclesiological arrangements, or, at worst, they appear antithetical. As mentioned, in the conception of the Church as people of God, the empowerment of laypersons as full members of the body of Christ and equal participants in the triple office of Christ receives greater emphasis. In reality, however, such emphasis is diluted by the insistence of the institutional hierarchical model on the priority of priests in the order of importance, authority, and responsibility for the sanctioning, direction, and control of the apostolate of the laity in the Church. CONCLUSION In this essay, I have revisited two forgotten documents of Vatican II, Apostolicam Actuositatem and Presbyterorum Ordinis, and argued that their oblivion can be traced to circumstantial factors that are contemporaneous with Vatican II. A close analysis of both documents leads to the conclusion that, in theory, Vatican II empowered the people of God. However, such empowerment founders at the bridgeheads of clericalism, androcentric opposition to women’s roles and contributions in the Church, and a fluid definition of the theological self-understanding of the Church. Notwithstanding this historical constraint on the empowerment of the people of God, subsequent history and present evidence bear eloquent testimony to the achievements of laypersons in the Church. In the numerous lay theologians of repute, committed lay ministers, and lay experts in various fields of human endeavor who participate in the mission of the Church by their own right, both the letter and the spirit of Apostolicam Actuositatem continue to be validated and fulfilled: first, that laypersons are indispensable; second, that their ministry derives directly from the mandate of the risen Christ; and third, that their ministerial and professional contribution builds and strengthens the body of Christ, the Church.

18. See, MCBRIEN, TheChurch (n. 13), p. 181.

DID THE COUNCIL REALLY EMPOWER THE PEOPLE OF GOD?

195

In reality, there is nothing new in this. Perhaps, like the documents under review, the realization of the critical importance and vitality of laypersons has fallen prey to theological oblivion and indifference in a church that is resolutely clericalist. The time is right to recognize and celebrate this gift of laypersons to the Church not as threat to the clerical class, but as a service of the mission of the Church in the world and to the Church. A key prerequisite for this recognition and celebration consists in dismantling the remaining walls of separation. Hekima Institute Agbonkhianmeghe E. OROBATOR, SJ of Peace Studies and International Relations Riara Road, off Ngong’ Road (or) Jesuits Eastern Africa Loyola Curia House P.O. Box 21399 00505 Ngong’ Road, Nairobi Kenya [email protected]

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRIAMUNERA WITHIN THE PROPOSITIOCHILENSIS ECCLESIOLOGICAL IMPULSES ON THE STRUCTURAL RELATION OF LAY AND ORDAINED MINISTRIES IN THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION In a retrospective focus on Vatican II, the idea of communio-ecclesiology has emerged blatantly obvious as one of the most important structural formulae which have shaped theological reasoning since then. As it emphasizes the Church as a whole, another formula within the texts of Vatican II, the doctrine of the triamunera, illuminates the Church in a complementary manner: It provides a scheme of differentiated union which especially in LumenGentium is used to outline the inter-dependency between the ministries of clergy and laity in the Church. While the idea of communio made its career at the Council and beyond it, the doctrine of the tria munera, however, could not yet find a clearly settled place in ecclesiology. The following thoughts therefore discuss the doctrine of the tria munera against the background of one of the preparational texts to the ConstitutionoftheChurch – the text proposed by the Chilean bishops in 1963, after the first session of the Council. As this regress behind the promulgated version of Lumen Gentium is in need of an explanation, the very first remarks will shortly outline the normative and systematic status of such a pre-text, before we will introduce how the Chilean proposition provides an ecclesiology based on the threefold ministry. I. THE THEOLOGICAL STATUS OF THE PROPOSITIOCHILENSIS In order to discuss the theological framework within one of the preparational documents, several questions may arise: Why is a pre-text such as the Chilean proposition much more than just wastepaper in light of the finally adopted version of the text? And what is the theological reason to consider a pre-text that has been outpaced by its final version? In the wider context of the historic council research such an attempt might recall the development of the text-genesis: The documents are the results

198

S. HORSTMANN

of hermeneutical processes which preclude any expectations towards one clear and central theme within them. Council research therefore is well-advised to analyze mixing proportions and processes within the text stages1. The traditional reasoning moreover might apprehend the approach to consider this pre-text as an attempt to strengthen the legitimacy of the final text. This is the most common idea of normative tradition – referring to a former text, a former status usually legitimizes what is valid today. Jan Assmann related to this strategy as a connective structure2 which is to shape the identity of the people of God. The idea of cultural memory reminds us that every future needs its history and everything considered to be part of our identity is founded in what was before. Yet recalling the beginnings in a legitimating way often served as an argument against something new. However, the forming of Jewish-Christian identity through the memory of its own history goes beyond this practice of legitimation. In the same way it relies on tradition, it is also very well aware of the fact that religious memory culture is susceptible for socially orchestrated interventions that use cultural memory in order to solidify certain structures. Against such an understanding it is important to emphasize a different understanding of how history contributes to the Jewish-Christian identity. The biblical references to foundation-memories obviously are not meant to legitimize the status quo, on the contrary, their memories are determined by the experience of suffering and liberation. Their memories are strictly meant to give hope to the poor and the weak. They give testimony of the lasting election of the poor and the small. Especially to them, the biblical memory reserves space for their still unsatisfied longings. To every given authority however the memoriapassionisetresurrectionis is a “dangerous memory”3; unlike the aetiological memory, its function does not aim to legitimize what is through what has always been, but moreover reminds us that what is has not (at least not necessarily) to stay the same. The memoria passionis in other words even competes with the classic understanding of cultural memory in its legitimizing content; Jürgen Werbick therefore calls it “subversives 1. G. WASSILOWSKY, Karl Rahners gerechte Erwartungen ans II. Vatikanum (1959, 1962, 1965), in ID. (ed.), Zweites Vatikanum – vergessene Anstöße, gegenwärtige Fortschreibungen (Quaestiones Disputatae, 207), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2004, 31-54, p. 53. 2. J. ASSMANN, DaskulturelleGedächtnis:Schrift,ErinnerungundpolitischeIdentität infrühenHochkulturen, München, Beck, 72013. 3. J.B. METZ, GlaubeinGeschichteundGesellschaft, Mainz, Grünewald, 51992, p. 95.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRIAMUNERA WITHIN THE PROPOSITIOCHILENSIS

199

Hoffnungsgedächtnis”4, a subversive memory of hope. For this purpose, the biblical memory can hardly be used to shut criticism down but opens a space for the diversity of the biblical testimony. It gains its theological strength from being simultaneously related to the past and yet being able to see this past as being imbued with unredeemed promises5, which paradoxically remembers what is still open and unfulfilled. Reading the Chilean proposition as a pre-text to Lumen Gentium against this background, one has to keep in mind that the question and struggle for Christian identity in general, and for a theology of Church ministries in particular as it takes place in the discussion on the tria munera, will hardly find success only through feeling obliged to a continuity in tradition, but also through the faithful confidence in God who urges his people towards an attitude of exodus, which includes the basic tension of Catholicism: to reconsider a productive relation between continuity and discontinuity that is not so much led by obsessive continuity but by the confidence in updated identity. II. TRIAMUNERA WITHIN THE CHILEAN DOCUMENT These short remarks outline a wider framework for analyzing the Propositio Chilensis which among other propositional texts was suggested to replace the former Roman schema for Lumen Gentium in 1963. It comprises 89 pages containing twelve chapters, and in fact, this length is generally considered to be one reason why this document attracted rather little attention within the preparation of the final document6. Yet it is, among other topics, especially meaningful due to its ecclesiological understanding of Church ministries. 1. AShortTheologicalClassificationoftheTria MuneraDoctrine Ludwig Schick has described the stages of development which the tria munera doctrine has undergone, beginning at the first century and the tripartite formula which Eusebius of Caesarea used to delineate the sovereign title “Christ”, having resulted in the unfolding of four different 4. J. WERBICK, GrundfragenderEkklesiologie, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2009, p. 35. 5. W. BENJAMIN, Über den Begriff der Geschichte: Werke und Nachlass – Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 19, ed. G. RAULET, Berlin, Suhrkamp, 2010. 6. G. ALBERIGO – G. WASSILOWSKY (eds.), Geschichte des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils (1959-65): Die Kirche als Gemeinschaft, Mainz, Grünewald; Leuven, Peeters, 2006, vol. 4, pp. 396-404.

200

S. HORSTMANN

types of theological trilogies. While the (1) Christological trilogy describes the munera of Christ, the (2) anthropological-theological trilogy characterizes the gift of baptism and the resulting assignments of all baptized. The shift between these two formulae also indicates that transferring the threefold munera upon the Christians, whether lay or clergy, was not at all properly fixed in the very beginnings of the early Church. It can by no means be taken for granted that priestly, prophetic and kingly ministry are related to all Christians since New Testament writings apply these titles almost exclusively to Christ himself. One might consider oneself well-advised to keep in mind that the tria munera do not aim at an understanding of the Church which is grounded on ministries or positions but on the proclamation of Christ7. Based on these two formulae, Schick also mentions a third type of trilogy which promotes an (3) official theology, while a forth type sees the triamunera in a wider (4) ecclesiological context that captures the whole Church as continuation of the three munera of Christ8. The ecclesiological discussion within the 20th century bears characteristics on all four types. Depending on how they are combined, the answer to another question varies strongly, namely, that of the theological significance of the laity and their munera9. Whenever the Christological trilogy is associated strongly with the official theology, the munera of the laity becomes less important. The concept of Georg Phillips can be seen as an example10. At the beginning of Vatican II Gérard Philips and Yves Congar deserve credit for having set up concepts that bind a theology of laity closer to the doctrine of the triamunera11. Especially Philips, however, reveals a strong tendency to establish a unilateral dependence between the threefold munus of the laity and those of the Church hierarchy. The Council therefore was in need to clarify the dependency of the

7. P. NEUNER, Abschied von der Ständekirche: Plädoyer für eine Theologie des Gottesvolkes, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2015, p. 226. 8. L. SCHICK, DasdreifacheAmtChristiundderKirche:ZurEntstehungundEntwicklungderTrilogien, Frankfurt/M., Peter Lang, 1982, pp. 40-46. 9. S. DEMEL, DaskirchlicheAmtinseinersakramentalenVerankerung:KirchenrechtlicheÜberlegungen, in EAD. (ed.), ImDienstderGemeinde:WirklichkeitundZukunftsgestaltderkirchlichenÄmter, Münster, LIT-Verlag, 2002, 29-48, cp. on the still uncleared canonical difference between munus, ministry and office. 10. G. PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht: 1845-1869, Graz, Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1959. 11. Y. CONGAR, Der Laie: Entwurf einer Theologie des Laientums, Ostfildern, Schwabenverlag, 1957;G. PHILIPS, TheRoleoftheLaityintheChurch, Cork, Mercier, 1955.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRIAMUNERA WITHIN THE PROPOSITIOCHILENSIS

201

munera which are assigned to the laity: Do they depend upon the Church hierarchy or upon the munera of Christ12? This lack of clarity at least has been resolved by the Council. During the sessions the Council considered various approaches to outline an understanding of a theology of the tria munera that would be capable of including the laity. More frequently than the threefold munus, a twofold munus was discussed. While the priestly and prophetic munera could consistently be connected to the laity, their participation in the kingly ministry seemed rather feeble to the council fathers13. Compared to how the other propositions pick up on the concept of the threefold munus, the Chilean document finds a courageous approach. The preparatory commission used the concept in order to describe the ministerial capacities of the bishops and the proposition of Gérard Philips refers to it in context of the Church hierarchy, however, the Chilean proposition uses the munus triplex also for the laity. In this point the proposition differs from all the other contributions and preparatory texts. To be more precise, one even has to say that it relates the triamunera not only to the laity, but to the whole people of God and therefore finds an understanding of it beyond the separation of laity and clergy. One might assume that the Chilean document presumably finds the clearest response to the objections that were made concerning the very first Roman schema14. The way in which the Chilean proposition outlines the relation between clergy and laity is reflected in the fact that the proposition, unlike LumenGentium, does not distinguish between two different chapters: one for the clergy and one for the laity. But rather, it introduces the doctrine of the threefold ministry in a context of the whole people of God. Although the doctrine can partially be found within the whole document, it becomes especially evident in chapter VI, which will also be the main focus of the following reflections.

12. P. DRILLING, ThePriest,ProphetandKing-theology:ElementsofItsMeaningin Lumen GentiumandforToday, in Égliseetthéologie 19 (1988) 179-206. 13. SCHICK, DasdreifacheAmt (n. 8), p. 50. For a discussion on the relation between the threefold munera and the potestasordinis/potestasiurisdictionis see A. RUDIGER, Leitung und Macht in der Kirche: Eine ekklesiologische Studie zu “munus regendi” und “sacrapotestas”–ausgehendvonderKirchengewaltindenFrühschriftenKlausMörsdorfs, PhD diss., 2001, https://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/319 (accessed February 19, 2016). 14. ALBERIGO – WASSILOWSKY, GeschichtedesZweitenVatikanischenKonzils (n. 6).

202

S. HORSTMANN

2. ACloseReadingofChapterVI One the first intriguing observations on the threefold ministry in the Chilean document can be found in the beginning of chapter 615. Even before the chapter unfolds its remarks on the three ministries, it displays them under the overall theme of vocation. a) TheVocation Still before any details on the three ministries are explained, the vocation of all Christians is named and thus outlined as legitimizing basis for any further ecclesiology. It says: Each Christian carries within himself the whole Church, as Christ lives within him (Gal 2,20), whose body is the Church. Each Christian makes the Church present at the respective place and time he has been sent to through the Holy Spirit, and he carries within himself the whole vocation of the Church. Thus every Christian is a guarantor for the mission of the Church according to the amount of grace he has received (Rm 12,6). OmnischristianusfertinsetotamEcclesiamsiquidemineovivitChristus, cuiuscorpusestEcclesia.OmnischristianuspraesentemredditEcclesiam ineolocoeteotemporemundiadquaemittituraSpirituSancto,atquein se fert totam vocationem Ecclesiae. Et sic omnis christianus sponsor est missionisEcclesiaesecundummensuramgratiaeeiimpertitam.

Thus the text truly sets in with quite an announcement. Whatever will be said about the three ministries later on, will have to be considered in the wider context of an understanding of ecclesiology, that confers a clear refusal to any formal and juridical idea of Church. Church is not as much settled in an ontological dimension, but takes place with and in each and every Christian. Church is made, it is realized, it is an activity far more than an institution and lives through the vocation. According to its mission one can say that the inherent ecclesiology of this document bears actualistic as much as pneumatological characteristics. And yet this vocation is not based on individualistic capriciousness, but is as the document states, committed to the preaching of Jesus: Everybody was given the Lord’s order: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Mt 5,48). To everybody has been said: Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are they that mourn, blessed are

15. The work, H. GIL (ed.), LumenGentium:ConstitutiodogmaticadeEcclesia.ConciliiVaticaniIISynopsisinordinemredigensschematacumrelationibusnecnonPatrum orationes, Roma, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1996, provides the complete Latin text of the Chilean document quoted below. English translation has been drafted by the author.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRIAMUNERA WITHIN THE PROPOSITIOCHILENSIS

203

the meek, blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, blessed are the merciful, blessed are the pure in heart, blessed are the peacemakers. Not infrequently the following dictum is applied: Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake (Mt 5,3-10). Unicuique data est lex Domini: Estote ergo vos perfecti, sicut et Pater vester perfectus est. Omnibus dictum est: Beati pauperes spiritu, beati mites,beatiquilugent,beatiquiesuriuntetsitiuntiustitiam,beatimisericordes, beati mundo corde, beati pacifici. Immo haud raro applicandum venitdictum:Beatiquipersecutionempatiunturpropteriustitiam.

Such a Latin-American ecclesiology of liberation claims the election of the poor and the weak as it was brought forward by the Apostle Paul. It gains special significance within the reality of a church that for a long period of time has been reproducing social class structures. b) “PriestlyMinistry” Like all of the three ministries explained in the schema, the priestly ministry is explicitly related neither to the clergy nor to the laity, but to the people of God – the headline of the respective chapter thus names the populus sacerdotalis. The overall tenor of this paragraph concerning the priestly ministry of the people of God quickly becomes evident in the document: all of the members of the body of Christ participate in his priestly ministry. The idea that the laity merely participates in the ministry of the ordained priesthood is thereby rejected. Still, the document implies a certain difference: while the common priesthood, which belongs to all the faithful, is specified as commune et collectivum, the ordained priesthood is named personale. However, this assignment is explained in a footnote, quoting Pope Leo I. All those, who have been renewed in Christ, are made kings through the sign of the cross; the anointing of the Holy Spirit yet ordains the priests. So the special servitude of our ministry shall lead all endowed Christians to realize that they are of royal descent and also participate in the priestly ministry. OmneseniminChristoregeneratos,crucissignumefficitreges,sanctivero Spiritus unctio consecrat sacerdotes ut praeter istam specialem nostram ministriiservitutemuniversispiritalesetrationabileschristianiagnoscant seregiigenerisetsacerdotalisofficiiesseconsortes.

The personal priesthood accordingly is no individual honor or award but a compassionate service, which has the clear objective of leading others to recognize their own priesthood. Therefore the personal priesthood truly is a ministry of sanctification, deeply devoted to the salvation of others and therefore in this document only understandable from the

204

S. HORSTMANN

idea of kenosis and not so much from a hierarchy that is concerned about existing boundaries. It also gains special proximity to the growing distance which the gospels outline between the traditional Jewish understanding of priesthood and the way Jesus comes into contact with this traditional understanding16. Apart from all inherited role-models of Jewish priesthood, Jesus understands his ministry clearly distinct when he celebrates the good will of his Father, when he gives his life in order to share and open up the community with God for others17. Based on the Chilean document one could even assume that the understanding of ministerial priesthood is conceptualized in a very functional way; that is, the document highlights that all members of the body of Christ participate in the priestly ministry. Or as the text says: they puton the participation – this idea of ministry is derived from the New Testament metaphor “to put on Christ” (e.g. Gal 3,27) which finds the personal dignity of the baptized to be best suited to an understanding of ministry, even of the personal ministry, that is characterized by personal restraint rather than personal award. As already argued by Karl Rahner, emphasizing a functional understanding of Church ministries might indicate a practicable way for future ecclesiology: the differentiation of Church ministries originated in the first centuries of Church history and was influenced by socio-cultural factors. Various and different challenges in the present time therefore might also support the necessity to discuss new forms of ministries 18. Also Peter Hünermann pointed out that the specific form of Church ministries in the early Church and within medieval theology was conceptualized to a great extent due to reasons of appropriateness19. But the document even goes beyond this elaborate and audacious approach; as it shapes out the priestly dignity given to all the baptized, it also comes to implicate a common priesthood: The Christian people is distinguished from other people (Rv 5,9f; 14,5) and sanctified within the blood of the sacrifice of Christ trough baptism (Rv 7,14), so it would be a sanctified priesthood (1 Pt 2,5.9).

16. F.-W. MARQUARDT, Das christliche Bekenntnis zu Jesus, dem Juden, München, Kaiser, 1991, vol. 2, p. 197. 17. WERBICK, Grundfragen (n. 4), p. 148. 18. K. RAHNER, ÜberdasLaienapostolat, in ID.,SchriftenzurTheologie, vol. 2, Einsiedeln, Benziger, 1961, 339-373, pp. 341-345. 19. P. HÜNERMANN, OrdoinneuerOrdnung?DogmatischeÜberlegungenzurFrage derÄmterundDiensteinderKircheheute, in F. KLOSTERMANN (ed.), DerPriestermangel undseineKonsequenzen: EinheitundVielfaltderkirchlichenÄmterundDienste, Düsseldorf, Patmos, 1977, 58-94.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRIAMUNERA WITHIN THE PROPOSITIOCHILENSIS

205

Populuschristianussegregatusestabomnibusnationibusatqueconsecratus in sanguine sacrificii Christi per baptismum ut esset sacerdotium sanctum.

Since baptism founds the full participation in the priestly ministry of Christ, the whole people of God builds one sanctified priesthood. On this point, the Chilean document proposes a more distinct vision of the relationship between the ordained ministry and the lay people; while Lumen Gentium remains ambiguous on the understanding of how, on the one hand, all the baptized participate in the tria munera, and on the other hand, there still has to be an essential difference between the priesthood of all the faithful and of the ordained believers (LG 10)20. According to the Chilean document the priestly ministry of the Christian people even goes beyond the traditional understanding of potestasordinis, as it is not only related to a liturgical context but overcomes the border between sacred and profane: The whole life of the Christians is priestly, at day and night they offer their ministry to God. Totavitachristianorumestsacerdotalis;cultumtribuuntDeodieacnocte.

Even the inherent theology of sacrifice provides the innovative statement that the people of God and thus not only the ordained are mediators between God and his creation – a function which traditionally was reserved to the clergy. In Christ the Christian people is mediator between God and the creation. It offers the nations’ glory and honour to God (Rv 21,26) and interprets the creatures’ adoration (Rv 5,9-14). Populus christianus est in Christo mediator Deum inter et creationem. Offert gloriam et honorem gentium Deo atque interpretatur adorationem creaturarum.

In the Chilean document even the eucharistic sacrifice is associated with the priestly ministry of the people of God. The text presents an understanding of the sacrifice in which the lay faithful as well as the ordained faithful participate but each with distinct but nevertheless inextricable assignments: The priestly people even offers the eucharistic sacrifice to God, but unlike the ordained priests. Through the hands of theirs priests they offer together with Christ the sacrifice of the cross and they offer themselves and the 20. P. DE MEY, TheBishops’ParticipationintheThreefoldMunera:Comparingthe AppealtotheTria MuneraatVaticanIIandintheEcumenicalDialogues, in TheJurist 69 (2009) 31-58, p. 35.

206

S. HORSTMANN

whole Church together with this sacrifice. The people agrees to the acts and words of the priests with its heart and voice. PopulussacerdotalisoffertetiamDeosacrificiumeucharisticum,sedaliter ac sacerdotes ministeriales. Ipsi per manus sacerdotum suorum offerunt cumChristovictimamincruceoblatamatqueseipsosettotamEcclesiam offeruntcumea.Illisquaesignificantetefficiuntactusetverbasacerdotum totuspopulusconsentuscordeetore.

c) “PropheticMinistry” Upon closer examination of the prophetic ministry, as it is conceptualized in the Chilean document, it first comes into view that the distance between the prophetic ministry in the text and the traditional understanding of the magisterium is markedly wide. The Christian vocation received with baptism and confirmation again is the reason that the document can state with utmost determination: Yet every single Christian carries within himself the apostolic mission of the Church, […] which in particular is fulfilled by the bishops, the successors of the Apostles. SedomnischristianusinsefertetiamtotammissionemapostolicamEcclesiae,[…]missioEcclesiaeeminenterassumiturabepiscopis,successoribus Apostolorum.

The prophetic ministry in other words is far from any solely pulpit-mentality, it is nothing else than every Christians’ mission into the world, which in particular is carried out by the bishops. The context for grounds and reasons here is not related to the idea that the individual Christians participate in the bishops’ mission, but that the bishops realize the common mission of all Christians in a particular way. Their special mission is moreover characterized by the tasks to regulate and organize the common prophetic ministry according to the requirements of time and place. But it belongs to the bishops’ higher assignment to arrange it correspondingly to the needs of time and place; they also can assign tasks and extraordinary ministries. Sed subditur missioni superiori episcoporum qui eum ordinare valent secundumnecessitatestemporumetlocorum,velpossuntconferremissiones etofficiapeculiaria.

One can argue whether this classification sees the episcopate merely in functional terms; but based on the whole paragraph, the ministry of the bishop rather seems to be based on the understanding that those assignments can only be realized when fulfilled by the whole person.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRIAMUNERA WITHIN THE PROPOSITIOCHILENSIS

207

This assessment is moreover supported by the way the text emphasizes that the Christians mission is inspired by the Holy Spirit – his gifts are manifold, yet the one charism of love is to be pursued by all faithful. It seems clear that this understanding of a prophetic ministry, which is based on this charism, goes beyond any understanding of ministry that is only functionally shaped. d) “KinglyMinistry” When we finally draw our attention to the kingly ministry, several highlights in the text should be mentioned. As in both former paragraphs, the people of God is called kingly, the munusregendi in other words is attributed not exclusively to the ordained priesthood. The Christian people rules together with Christ (1 Pt 2,9; Rv 1,6; 5,10; 20,4.6), not only in a new and future Jerusalem (Rv 22,5), but already in this world (Rv 11,15). Populus christianus regnat cum Christo, non tantum in nova Hierusalem futura,sedinchoaturetiaminhocmundo.

Regarding the content of the kingly ministry the document states that a Christian understanding of domination and rule within the kingly ministry must be seen as an antithesis to any form of secular government and authority. As Jesus Christ expressed his kingly ministry, as a servant in order to allow others to rise against any destructive captivities and dependencies, truly Christian domination expresses itself moreover in the renouncement of any kind of self-sustaining domination and can find its only permission where it can expropriate itself in favor of the poor and needy people. Thus the document suggests an understanding of ruling which is very close to how Christ lived this ministry, since he “is a king who lives and dies within the negation of everything considered royal”21. As so understood, kingly ministry implies, especially in the Latin-American context, the need for criticism towards any established form of power and domination. Furthermore it outlines the munusregendi as an obligation towards God and towards the restoration of the divine order of creation. The munus regendi as outlined in this text is not ecclesiocentric, but basileo-centric. This argument is also stressed by the eschatological perspective of the paragraph which also is a characteristic of the whole document. While it

21. MARQUARDT, Das christliche Bekenntnis (n. 16), p. 151. Translation by author, original quote: “Er ist ein König, der in der Negation alles Königlichen lebt und stirbt”.

208

S. HORSTMANN

states that the rule of the Christian people already begins in this world, its fulfilment is still awaited. But when Christ returns like a benign king (Mt 21,5), who neither breaks the fractured reed nor extinguishes the smouldering wick (Mt 12,20, cf. Is 42,3), than the Christians will rule in mildness, patience and with no arming than the words of God. SedsiChristusapparuittamquamrexmansuetus,quiarundinemquassatam non confringit et linum fumigans non extinguit, sic etiam christiani regnabuntmansuetudine,patientiaetsolisarmisverbiDei.

This tension between the hope for the Basileia and the already in this world perceived forms of political as well as ecclesiastical power are put in a relation of a productive difference by this document. Jürgen Werbick once named this relation the “critical and dangerous memory of God’s Future and its even bigger justice”22 which appeals to the awareness that all forms of rule reveal their contingency and need for justification in front of this even bigger and yet completely different kingdom. The eschatological perspective in other words bears the potential to defend the analogue understanding and usage of Church against a univocal manner of speaking23. Especially a univocal understanding of Church tends to deny the difference between the visible and invisible Church and thus is likely to narrow ecclesiological questions down to merely juridical issues. Against such a reduction the Chilean document brings invisible and invisible Church into balance. By its eschatological reservation it separates the perfect character of the Church on the one hand from its contemporary and contingency-afflicted form on the other. Yet this outlined relation does not lead to a mere spiritualization, it rather sees the character of the visible Church not so much in terms of institution but in the diverse form of Christian praxis and compassion in society. Fakultät 14, Katholische Theologie Technische Universität Dortmund Emil-Figge-Str. 50 DE-44227 Dortmund Germany [email protected]

Simone HORSTMANN

22. WERBICK, Grundfragen (n. 4), p. 149. 23. P. HÜNERMANN‚ TheologischerKommentarzurdogmatischenKonstitutionüberdie KircheLumen Gentium, in ID. – B.J. HILBERATH (eds.), HerderstheologischerKommentar zumZweitenVatikanischenKonzil, vol. 2, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2004, 269-582, p. 273.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE THREEFOLD OFFICE SERVING AS THE BASIS FOR A NEW ORDER OF THE MINISTRIES IN THE CHURCH INTRODUCTION The doctrine of the participation of the entire people of God in the threefold office of Jesus Christ seems to be one of the most innovative concepts of the Council. On the one hand, the doctrine expresses the new self-perception of the Church precisely. On the other hand, it entails a new structure of the ministries in the Church. If the relation between the common priesthood and the hierarchical ministry is reorganized on the basis of the munera-doctrine, the “lack of priests” will not exist anymore. Not only is the overcoming of such a lack to be expected, but also a different type of ministry, which can be better combined with the theology of the Council and which corresponds at the same time to the challenges of our time. Surprisingly, the munera-doctrine did not fully develop its potential yet1. My thesis is that a reason for this can be found in the Council itself. The munera-doctrine is crossed by other concepts, especially by one concept that suggests a difference “in essence” (LG 10) between the common priesthood and the hierarchical priesthood. While describing the munera with regard to the bishops and laypeople, it will be shown that this concept leads to equivocations. One can hardly realize that the same aspects are addressed. In this respect, the documents of the Council, which deal with the munera-doctrine, can be called “forgotten documents”. I will hint at the equivocations and try to point out how these can be avoided. At the end, I will provide some impulses and considerations for a recreation of the ministries on the basis of the munera-doctrine.

1. This can be seen in e.g. the recently published book of the renowned dogmatist Peter Neuner which does not even know the meaning of the munera-doctrine. See, P. NEUNER, AbschiedvonderStändekirche:PlädoyerfüreineTheologiedesGottesvolkes, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2015.

210

T. RUSTER

I. THE THEOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE MUNERA-DOCTRINE First, I want to comment on the theological profile of the muneradoctrine. The history of the munera-doctrine and its reception in the Council has already been researched and therefore it does not have to be repeated2. The offices of the priest, the king and the prophet are ministries of the biblical Israel. That is why the munera-theology always contains a transformed Israel-theology evolving in the New Testament. Due to its biblical content, new coordinates for the understanding and practice of the ministries derive. Therefore, the priestly office cannot be reduced to sin offerings. In the context of biblical speech, the sacrifice effects a pleasant smell that rises to God. One can speak of a sacrifice when things or actions are transformed in a way that appeals to God. The transformation is caused by God. He lets fire come down from heaven, which turns the sacrifice into a pleasant smell (cf. Lv 9,24; 2 Ch 7,1). The Epistleto theHebrews includes this perception of the sacrifice and depicts the life of Jesus Christ as an appealing smell for God; however, the fire is embodied by the Holy Spirit3. If one follows this approach, a broad and applicable understanding of the sacrificial offering will evolve. Concerning the king’s office, it is certain that God regards the earthly kingdom as a rejection of his own kingdom, since it was the wish of the people of Israel to have a king like every other nation (1 S 8,6-7)4. At the end, Jesus Christ, the king of the Jews, is executed by the rulers of his time. It follows that the guiding positions of the Church should not be performed in the way of earthly authorities. With the prophetic office we are close to the historical Jesus, who was depicted and perceived as a prophet by the people (cf. Mt 21,11; Jn 7,40). In his annunciation he refers to the promise of the prophets of Israel and fulfills these by making the promises come alive. Whenever someone renews the belief in God’s promises in the Church, this person embodies a prophetic office5. The biblically motivated practice of the threefold office presents some kind of division of powers, which does not typically exist in the Church. However, in the biblical tradition kings, priests and prophets stand in a 2. L. SCHICK, DasdreifacheAmtChristiundderKirche:ZurEntstehungundEntwicklungderTrilogien, Frankfurt/M., Peter Lang, 1982; P. DRILLING, ThePriest,Prophetand King-theology:ElementsofItsMeaninginLumen GentiumandforToday, in Égliseet théologie 19 (1988) 179-206. 3. A. VANHOYE – F. MANZI – U. VANNI, IlSacerdoziodellanuovaAlleanza, Milano, Ancora, 1999, pp. 45-64. 4. F.-W. MARQUARDT, DaschristlicheBekenntniszuJesus,demJuden, München, Kaiser, 1991, vol. 2, pp. 138-162. 5. Ibid., pp. 162-187.

A NEW ORDER OF THE MINISTRIES IN THE CHURCH

211

mutual exiting interrelation. A balance of powers develops among these offices. One thing that has to be considered as well: there have been long periods in the history of Israel in which these offices were not present at all. The biblical specifications lead to further theological reflection. Does not the munera-trilogy contain the entire secret of redemption? As a priest the Son effects reconciliation. The revelation of truth happens in the Holy Spirit. On behalf of the Father, Jesus Christ defeats all powers and forces. The redemption results from the triune God, which can also be stated in the munera-doctrine. The triune God, the threefold redemption and the threefold office are interrelated. Christians are chosen and appointed to participate in the threefold office and thus in the redemption and in the community with the triune God6. Regarding the history of the munera-doctrine, it is important to point out that first it was formed by the reformatory theology and then, after having faced a lot of struggles, it became the heart of the Council of the Roman Catholic Church. This is a first rank factumdogmaticum etoecumenicum, maybe the most important one that exists in the ecumenical movement! On the eve of the Council, the doctrine evolved in a manner which allowed the conservative as well as the progressive fathers of the Council to refer to it. The doctrine was already part of the draft of the preparing commission for the ConstitutionontheChurch7 and, finally, found its way into LumenGentium, after the draft was rejected. Its role in the process of agreement between both sides cannot be overestimated, even though this was not highlighted by the research on the Council. The munera-trilogy provides a structure for LumenGentium as well as for the following documents (PO, AA, AG). Chapter II of the Constitution describes the participation of the entire and undivided people of God in the threefold office of Jesus Christ. Due to this, a new understanding of the Church was established in the Council. LumenGentiumII overcomes the idea of a societas hierarchica, due to which the ordained ministry is in a higher position than the laypeople and due to which Jesus Christ and the people are represented as an opposition. Lumen Gentium II creates a framework, which cannot be passed by the concretions of LumenGentium III and IV concerning the participation of bishops and laypeople. Participatio becomes a key term of the self-perception of

6. R. SHERMAN, King,PriestandProphet:ATrinitarianTheologyofAtonement, New York – London, T&T Clark, 2004. 7. Acta Synodalia Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1971ff., I, 4; 13; 15.

212

T. RUSTER

Church and thus replaces repraesentatio. Having a look at the linguistic origin, the com-munio of the Church stands for the equal participation in the munera and not only for the community, which is proclaimed by the communio-theology (in this case it has to be called com-unio). With regard to the appearance of the Church office itself, the munera-trilogy makes it possible to structure and to distinguish the interpenetration (perichoresis) of the threefold tasks of leading, sanctifying and teaching. The distinction of potestasordinis and potestasiurisdictionis was not possible until that point, because it focused on a different question8. The doctrine of the threefold office has a Christological and even a Trinitarian basis, which is connected to redemption. In other words: the establishment of the munera-doctrine leads to a theology of the ministry that deserves its name. II. EQUIVOCATIONS IN LUMENGENTIUM III AND IV LumenGentium 10 states that “the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood … differ from one another in essence and not only in degree”. Due to this essential difference, a partition of chapter III concerning the bishops and chapter IV about the laypeople develops. The difference leads to a remarkable terminological differentiation. With regard to the bishops one speaks of munussanctificandi, munusdocendi and munusregendi (LG 21), with regard to the laypeople of munus sacerdotalis, munus propheticus and munus regalis (LG 31). Looking at the grammatical structure, the munera of the bishops are linked to actions, whereas the laypeoples’ are not. Hence, the threefold office is expatiated upon two ways. I will underline this double-track in the chapters III and IV by focusing on those statements which highlight the differences. In contrast, there are also other statements which strengthen the similarities or the mutual allocation; I will not take these into account. My purpose is to explain how the threefold office is exercised with regard to the two versions upon which it is expatiated. Concerning the munusdocendi, LumenGentium 21 states “that bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher […] and that they act in His person”. It follows that “they are 8. L. VILLEMIN, Pouvoir d’ordre et pouvoir de jurisdiction: Histoire théologique de leurdistinction, Paris, Cerf, 2003. With these distinctions, which derived during the investiture conflict, the theology of ministries entrapped itself in Aporia, due to which the Council almost failed. Cf. L. DECLERCK, Lesreactionsdequelques“periti”duConcile VaticanIIàlaNotaexplicativapraevia, in NotiziarioPaolo VI 61 (2011) 47-69.

A NEW ORDER OF THE MINISTRIES IN THE CHURCH

213

authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ” and “preach to the people committed to them the faith” (LG 25). Bishops “[…] receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature” (LG 24). If they teach matters of faith and morals among themselves in their community and together with the follower of Peter and if they proclaim their doctrine as ultimately compulsory, they “proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly” (LG 25). The faithful are obliged to them, because “in matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent” (LG 25). It is about “submission of mind and will” (LG 25). The munuspropheticum of the laypeople consists of displaying their belief “so that the power of the Gospel might shine forth in their daily social and family life” (LG 35). They proclaim the messages of Jesus Christ “by a living testimony as well as by the spoken word” especially “in the ordinary surroundings of the world” (LG 35). In LumenGentium 21, concerning the munussanctificandi, we again read that the bishops should execute their office in a way that “sustain[s] the roles of Christ Himself […] and that they act in His person” (LG 21). They are “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God (dispensatoresmysteriorumDei)” (LG 21). The bishop is “‘the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood’, especially in the Eucharist, which he offers or causes to be offered” (LG 26). “Every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is regulated by the bishop” (LG 26). For the other sacraments it says: “Bishops thus, by praying and laboring for the people, make outpourings in many ways and in great abundance from the fullness of Christ’s holiness” (LG 26). “They communicate God’s power to those who believe unto salvation” and “through the sacraments, the regular and fruitful distribution of which they regulate by their authority, […] they sanctify the faithful” (LG 26). While the bishops administer the sacraments, the priestly people “[…] likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity” (LG 10). Their priestly office is a “spiritual worship”, they bring “spiritual sacrifices” in all facets of their lives. In this respect they “[…] consecrate the world itself to God” (LG 34). The difference to the munussantificandi of the bishops and the priests could not be more obvious. With regard to the munusregendi it also can be stated that the bishops exercise it in the mission and in the person of Jesus Christ himself (LG 21). They “govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred

214

T. RUSTER

power (sacrapotestas)” (LG 27). They have “the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate” (LG 27). Therefore, they “are quite correctly called […] heads of the people whom they govern (regunt)” (LG 27). “But the faithful must cling to their bishop, as the Church does to Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father” (LG 27). Their leading office is directed at themselves “by true penance and a holy life they might conquer the reign of sin in themselves” (LG 36). They have to learn that “to serve is to reign” and thus they are “serving Christ in their fellow men” (LG 36). Due to their participation in the munusregalis they “assist each other to live holier lives” (LG 36). Their responsibility evolves “in secular training” while trying to heal “the […] conditions of the world, if they are an inducement to sin” and “by so doing they will imbue culture and human activity with genuine moral values” (LG 36). The office holder executes his leading office in the Church on the backs of the subordinates, whereas the laypeople perform their office submissively in the world. The differentiation between the hierarchical and the common priesthoods based on LumenGentium 10 continues in these statements, which concentrate on the parallel participation of bishops and laypeople in the threefold office of Jesus Christ. The prophetic office is subordinated to the division of educating/obeying, the priestly office to administering/ receiving and the kingly office to leading/following. In other words: The differentiation of LumenGentium 10 generates a super-division that dissolves the unity of participation of God’s people in the threefold office. III. THE SUPER-DIVISION AND THE UNITY OF PARTICIPATION IN THE THREEFOLD OFFICE Can LumenGentium be seen as a fragmented and contradictory document? Is the doctrine of the threefold office presented in a way that blocks itself? Did the Holy Spirit let the fathers of the Council down in this respect? For a Catholic theologian these are difficult questions. Maybe they can be answered by looking even more precisely at the reasons which support the division of Lumen Gentium 10. Within the text of Lumen Gentium there are two main reasons, which support talking of a fundamental differentiation between the common priesthood of the faithful and the hierarchical priesthood of the office: on the one hand, it is the reference of the sacrapotestas of the episcopal ministry and, on the other hand, it is

A NEW ORDER OF THE MINISTRIES IN THE CHURCH

215

the nomination of the episcopal ministry by Christ himself and its continuation in the apostolic succession. I will try to interpret these two aspects to make them accessible for the unity of participation and not for its division. Thus, it has to be asked in what ways the essential difference exists, which is illustrated in LumenGentium 10. From my point of view, there are good reasons to maintain these differentiations when contrasting the diverse relationships of these offices with the public. The term sacra potestas presents a neologism within the doctrinal terminology of the Church. It not only became the task of the Council to avoid the problems of the relation between the potestasordinis, the power of sanctification, and the potestasiurisdictionis, the authority, but also to retrace them back to a common, uncontested origin9. The semantic difference between sacer and sanctus respectively between its Greek equivalence hieros and hagios creates a problematic connotation of the term. Sacer or hieros depicts the divine presence in the world, whereas sanctus or hagios depicts the correct behavior and at the same time the difference between holy and profane, which corresponds to this presence10. Due to this, one speaks of the Sancti or Sanctae, but of the sacra scriptura. The saints are no hierophants themselves, but the Bible is God’s word for the faith. Following the term sacrapotestas, the power of God respectively of Jesus Christ should be part of the authority of the bishops, who act in the world. The bishops use their power for the salvation of the faithful, who do not have this power; they exercise their power with authority. Hence, the unity of participation of God’s people in the threefold office would not be possible. Then, there would be an authorized and an unauthorized participation in the threefold office. Does one have to understand it this way? What are the reasons against a depiction of the mission of participation of the whole Church in the salvation and sanctification of Jesus Christ as a disposition of the sacra potestas, which is impressively illustrated in LumenGentium 9 and 10? God has chosen Israel as his people and has sanctified it (people = “Volk”, singular) to use it as an instrument for the salvation of all nations. God acts on all nations through Israel. The new covenant includes Jews and pagans and calls them to become a sacramentumvisibile (LG 9) of salvation for all nations. God acts through the Church. His power enables

9. A. RUDIGER, Die Leitungs- und Machtfrage in der katholischen Kirche, Buttenwiesen, Stella-Maris-Verlag, 2002, pp. 289-346; VILLEMIN, Pouvoir d’ordre (n. 8), pp. 337-343. 10. A. ANGENENDT, Heilige und Reliquien: Die Geschichte ihres Kultes vom frühen ChristentumbiszurGegenwart, München, Beck, 22007, pp. 15-21.

216

T. RUSTER

others11. Therefore, one can speak of the sacrapotestas of God’s people based on theological arguments. Another line of argumentation can be found in the nomination of the episcopal ministry through Jesus Christ and its apostolic succession. This is contained in LumenGentium 18 and 19. The line of argumentation has a long tradition and a changeful history, which cannot be repeated in detail. There is a consensus among theologians that a continuous chain of laying on of hands cannot be proved historically and, even if it could, it would deliver no evidence for the apostolicity of the Church12. To use the apostolicity of the Church as a legitimation of privileges and authority certainly contradicts its ideal. In obedience towards the apostolic origin the whole Church confesses its loyalty to Jesus Christ and to the mission which he gave to the apostles13. The entire Church is apostolic as it is said in the Creed. There are no reasons, which can be used against reading the statements of Lumen Gentium 18 and 19 in the light of such a hermeneutics of succession. Due to this, the statements are only a specific form which expresses the participation of God’s people in the threefold office of Jesus Christ. However, the question remains, what is meant by the essential differentiation in LumenGentium 10? Indeed, there is a difference in the practice of all churches between the activities of ordained offices and the realization of the participation in the threefold office given by baptism. This difference becomes plausible through sociological as well as theological arguments and their reference to the public sphere. A mother who prays together with her child, blesses or tells biblical stories, executes the offices of sanctifying and teaching. A person who rides his bike instead of using the car already contributes to the creation of Christ’s kingdom while being aware of the kingly office. In accordance to the threefold office of Christ these activities are multifaceted in the private sector. However, everyone who does church service, who reads out prayers to the parish or who preaches the gospel in the name of Christ, acts publicly. The Council called the church service a cultus publicus (SC 7). The ConstitutionontheLiturgy says the munussacerdotale to be a participation in the hymn, “which is sung throughout all ages in the halls of 11. T. RUSTER, GlaubenmachtdenUnterschied:DasCredo, München, Kösel, 2010, pp. 52-60. This empowerment is fundamentally different from the representation or the delegation of power. 12. G. WENZ, Kirche: Studium Systematische Theologie, vol. 3, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005, pp. 99-102. 13. J. WERBICK, Kirche:EinekklesiologischerEntwurffürStudiumundPraxis, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1994, pp. 86-91.

A NEW ORDER OF THE MINISTRIES IN THE CHURCH

217

heaven” (SC 83). With reference to the heavenly Sanctus it becomes apparent that the public sphere of the Church differs from the public sphere of society. In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle; we sing a hymn to the Lord’s glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army (SC 8).

The Church participates in the hymn of the angels, thus, it represents the Sanctus of the entire cosmos and anticipates the completion of the creation eschatologically. The ability to act in this public sphere and to relate the hymn to the forms of social public, be it the politicalrepresentative, the critical-intellectual or the medial sphere, is an officialsacramental activity in the Church14. Due to this, all sacraments have a connection to the public sphere, because they are “sign[s] and instrument[s]” (LG 1) as the Council states; since these are signs, they have to be visible for the public sphere. The term “public sphere”, which was hardly discussed at the Council, is appropriate to explain the essential difference between the general participation in the threefold office and the ordained office. Being able to confess God’s kingdom in the public sphere, which is itself not wholly God’s kingdom yet, is beyond the possibilities of an absolutely earthly institution and thus stands for even more than the realization of a specific social function. Because of this, the Church has connected the nomination of a public church office to the sacrament of ordination. The sacrament of ordination distinguishes between the private and the public activities in the Church. Both spheres are essentially different. IV. THE TRIAMUNERA-DOCTRINE OFFICES IN A CHURCH OF TOMORROW

AND THE

One can find a conferment of an office in every baptism. The prayer and the anointing with chrism declares that the baptized is now part of God’s people and forever belongs to Christ, who is anointed to be priest, king and prophet in eternity. After the chrism-anointing, the presentation 14. C. STOLL, DieÖffentlichkeitderKirche:DogmatischeÜberlegungenimAnschluss anErikPeterson, in TheologieundPhilosophie 87 (2012) 534-563; ID., Cultuspublicus: BegriffsgeschichtlicheBemerkungenzumöffentlichenCharaktervonLiturgieundKirche, in TheologieundPhilosophie 90 (2015) 19-37.

218

T. RUSTER

of the white dress follows, which is a symbol for the office. The handing over of the lighted candle connects the baptized with the mystery of resurrection and, thus, with the mystery of Christ himself in whose priestly, kingly and prophetic offices he/she participates. Finally, the ephata-rite introduces the baptized into the basics of the official activities in the Church: the hearing and proclaiming of God’s word. Due to the fact that all baptized are appointed to be office holders, the question with regard to the order of the offices is whether all people are enabled to execute the offices in the public sphere. This question refers to the definition of the public sphere in terms of a specific theological meaning. The munera-doctrine provides a structure for this. Sanctifying, leading and (prophetical) teaching are activities that always and officially have to be executed in Christ’s Church. There are no reasons against the argument that these activities can be performed by different people. Do not the problems concerning the practice within the parishes derive from the fact that the priest inherits all of the offices and that, due to this, the balance of power cannot be established, which is attested in the history of Israel? Does not the Apostle Paul talk about the different offices in a parish, which supplement and correct each other especially during the service (1 Cor 12,4-11; 14,26-33)? Why should these offices not be executed for a specific period of time assigned to someone else afterwards? The concept of the sacerdosinaeternum derives from an understanding of a sacramental grace of the office (potestasordinis), which is not compatible with the tria munera-theology. Nowadays, large parts of the Church suffer from this situation. Due to the lack of priests, it is not possible anymore to administer the Eucharist regularly in the parishes. The Eucharist is one but not the only form of a sacramental collective celebration in the Church. In VerbumDomini, the apostolic exhortation of 2010 on TheWordofGodintheLifeandMissionoftheChurch, Pope Benedict XVI has spoken about the sacramentality of the word and created a direct analogy to the Eucharist. The presence of God in the spoken word is not less than his presence in the elements of the Eucharist (VerbumDomini 56). Word of God celebrations are no forms of fading of the Eucharist, which are only committed if no priest is available. The differentiation between the three offices offers an occasion for this new awareness that can be realized in the practice of the parishes. The holder of the prophetic office would have the task to take over responsibility for the Word of God celebrations. He would be on an equal level with the holder of the priestly office, who is in charge of the Eucharist. In these circumstances, the representative of the kingly office would have to coordinate with the parish when and how often what

A NEW ORDER OF THE MINISTRIES IN THE CHURCH

219

kinds of celebrations should be conducted. This would be only one of his numerous responsibilities, which also refer to the communication in the parish, to the reconciliation in conflicts, to the inspiration of mission and to a lot of other areas. The following procedure would be imaginable: By using a particular method, the parishes choose people who are qualified to execute in public one of the three offices. Naturally, both – men and women – can act out an office. These people are asked to affirm the election. If they affirm, their candidacy will be suggested to the bishop. The bishop verifies their qualification and guarantees an appropriate education. When satisfaction for everyone is achieved, the bishop performs the sacramental ordination in a liturgical ceremony. With that, God is asked to give his affirmation and blessing for the decision, which was made by the community, the candidates and the bishop15. Thus, the person can execute his/her office publicly16. Moreover, many practical questions have to be answered: Is the ordination only valid for the parish that has suggested the candidates, is it valid for the diocese or for the entire Catholic Church? Is the person allowed to execute his/her office for life or is there a general time limitation (like in Poitiers)? Can one person hold more than one of the three offices at the same time? How can the relation between the new office-holders of the munera and the priests as we have them today be defined? Is it possible for office-holders of the munera to become bishop? There are solutions available for all of these questions and for many others. Every bishop has the chance to introduce this or a similar form of institutionalization of the three offices of Jesus Christ as public offices in the Church. Although, there would be some canonical provisions against him, the Council and the theology as such would support the decision. Certainly, many other bishops would follow his example. Furthermore, he could rightly refer to Evangelii Gaudium of Pope Francis (especially to EG 20-33). Hence, the lack of priests, that weakens the Church even more than the secularization of the modern world, would 15. It follows the structure of the episcopal ordination and the ordination of the priesthood, cf. A. JILEK, DasGroßeSegensgebetüberBrautundBräutigamalsKonstitutivum derTrauungsliturgie, in K. RICHTER (ed.), Eheschließung–mehralseinrechtlichDing?, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1989, 18-41. 16. It is no coincidence that the procedure shows similarities with the institution of the pastoral equips in the diocese of Poitiers, cf. A. ROUET etal., Unnouveauvisaged’Église: L’expériencedescommunautéslocalesàPoitiers, Paris, Bayard, 2005. The division of the pastoral offices in Poitiers correlates with the tria-munera-doctrine. However, the relation between the ordained priests and the pastoral offices is not exemplified in Poitiers.

220

T. RUSTER

come to an end. The Church would become more alive and attractive; the Church would appreciate the charisms of all people. It would come to a realization of the most profound intentions of the Second Vatican Council. The mercy of the triune God would be experienced in a new light through the performance of the threefold-office of Christ in the Church. Fakultät 14, Katholische Theologie Technische Universität Dortmund Emil-Figge-Str. 50 DE-44227 Dortmund Germany [email protected]

Thomas RUSTER

THE DECREE ON THE APOSTOLATE OF LAY PEOPLE APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEMAND“CO-WORKERS IN THE VINEYARD OF THE LORD” IN DIALOGUE WITH THE COMMUNIO THEOLOGY OF WALTER KASPER INTRODUCTION The Second Vatican Council opened the windows for new thinking about ministries of the Catholic Church being exercised by all the baptised. The Council encouraged the Church to return to the roots of the Christian tradition for greater clarity and courage about how to shape the present and imagine the future. The dual strategies of Vatican II reform, aggiornamento and ressourcement, continue to be at our disposal. How can we understand the nature and growth in lay leadership today? Why is it important for the life of the Church? What can we do to promote and strengthen it? This paper will trace key themes from the Council Decree ApostolicamActuositatem(DecreeontheApostolateof Lay People) that are reinforced and developed forty years later in the U.S. Bishops’ document “Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord”. The paper then turns attention to Walter Kasper’s theology of communio that attends to the person and work of the Spirit. This theology offers nourishment for the Church to deepen its commitment to and reception of the growth of lay leadership. I. PRELIMINARY REFLECTION ON TERMINOLOGY The post-Vatican II emergence of lay leadership at the service of the life, communion and mission of the Catholic Church has not come out of a vacuum. North American theologian Janet Ruffing refers to research that describes “the entire Jesus movement [as] a lay phenomenon. The first Christian churches were house churches, presided over by the leader who hosted the community”1. Ministries emerged in the Early Church

1. J. RUFFING, FormationofLayEcclesialMinisters:RootedinaGenuinelyLayand EcclesialSpirituality,in D.M. ESCHENAUER – H.D. HORELL (eds.), ReflectionsonRenewal: LayEcclesialMinistryandtheChurch, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2011, 139-150, p. 141.

222

J. TRINIDAD

encouraged by recognition of a variety of charisms or gifts of the Spirit at the service of extending and expanding the mission of Christ: for the Reign of God to continue to break through into history. The foundational identity of the Early Church is linked to the word laos: the people of God, called and sent together by God’s Word and Spirit to witness to the power of faith, hope and love. I use the term “lay” to describe this foundational feature of the identity of the Church, a kind of ecclesial intelligence and spirituality, rooted in “ordinary” experience. This “lay” experience provides the context for discernment, participation and mission. “Lay” does not refer to a role or function of certain individuals or a certain class in the Church. Over the Church’s long history clerical and hierarchical structures and language emerged that reinforced and delineated classes. This development was at odds with the more inclusive theology of identity and mission we learn about from the New Testament. Eventually these delineating structures led to tendencies in the Catholic Church, right up to Vatican II, to hold beliefs about lay identity and faith expression as inferior to or, at best, derivative of and at the service of a hierarchical clerical class. While remnants of this theology remain, the experience of the Church understood as the pilgrim people of God is stunted. II. THE GROWTH OF LAY LEADERSHIP IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SINCE VATICAN II Since Vatican II there has been much discernment about the Church’s relationship with the modern world. New self-understandings about the identity of the Church and its mission in relation to its contexts have also emerged. In response to those discernments lay Catholics today generally do not see themselves as passive, uncritical church members. Most reject the once famous descriptor of the laity as those who “pray, pay and obey”. There is greater valuing of such categories of experience as participation, voice and personal agency as underpinnings for mission. Many lay people resist divisions that neatly separate a church that governs from those governed, a church that teaches from those taught or a church that sanctifies from those who are sanctified. There is greater valuing of reciprocity and inter-dependence in ministry. The terms “lay” and “leader” are no longer considered contradictory. On the contrary, the term “lay leadership” affirms the diverse ways members of the Church are called and sent to live out baptismal promises to be the face, hands and feet of Christ in the world.

APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEM AND “CO-WORKERS”

223

For the purpose of this paper I use the terms “leadership” and “ministry” drawing on the work of North American theologian Zeni Fox. Fox’s research confirms the experience of many lay leaders about the need for contemporary language to express their experience of an unfolding, enduring call or life vocation. She argues that ecclesial leadership today, whether lay or clerical, implies a level of permanence or stability in exercising Christian ministry. The ministry of lay leadership is beyond spontaneous or occasional acts of service. It involves a whole life orientation and set of commitments2. Who are the Church’s lay leaders today? Pastoral associates, parish ministers, liturgists, catechists, chaplains, school leaders are mostly lay. Leaders in Catholic institutions – health, welfare, counselling, social justice agencies – are lay. Lay leaders work with many Religious Congregations to establish canonical processes to help carry their history, charism and ministries forward. There are lay theologians, canon lawyers, church historians, administrators and diocesan chancellors. Lay leaders are found teaching, healing, offering hope, leading faith communities in prayer, opening up the Gospels and accompanying others in a myriad of ways on their individual and communal journeys. Lay leaders prepare children and families to celebrate belonging to the Church, support couples who desire to marry or need support on their path of deeper commitment and accompany the imprisoned or those who are grieving the loss of loved ones. Others call the communities to help the poor, support refugees, care for the natural world and advocate for greater justice. The list goes on. The historical contexts which give birth to a call to these ministries are the ordinary challenges and realities of family and community relationships and responsibilities. North American theologian Richard Gaillardetz provides helpful insight into the difference between actions in response to baptismal call and ministry: “one of the distinguishing features of ministry pertains to its public character. A ministry is something to which I am called by the community over and above my baptismal call”3. Many Catholics exercise prophetic and practical faith leadership in their professional work outside of the Church, in the world of politics, education, culture, media, health care and so on. The reality of lay leadership implies participation in new 2. Z. FOX, Why Did You Choose Your Work? Reflections on Vocation, in EAD. – R. BECHTLE (eds.), CalledandChosen:TowardaSpiritualityforLayLeaders, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, 3-15. 3. R.R. GAILLARDETZ, The Theological Reception of Co-Workers in the Vineyard of theLord, in Z. FOX (ed.), LayEcclesialMinistry:PathwaystowardtheFuture, Plymouth, UK, Rowman & Littlefield, 2010, 17-30, p. 23.

224

J. TRINIDAD

ecclesial inter-relationships with associated discernments, recognition and accountability processes. An expanded and inclusive understanding of ministry is called for that bridges divides between intra or extra church activity. Zeni Fox suggests that when lay leaders working within a wide variety of ministry settings have the space to reflect on why they chose or continue to choose their work or life commitments, they often speak of their story in terms of three threads: 1. Despite knowledge that choices about how to live, work or serve may lead to risk, uncertainty, criticism or questioning by others, there is an inner certainty that it feels right; 2. A deep belief in the mission of the organisation, the people or the task to which one is committed; 3. A sense that the person does not choose the work but that the work or ministry chooses them4. Traditionally the term “vocation” has been restricted to a call to priestly or religious life. However, Fox insists that at the heart of lay leadership is no less an experience of call to a vocation than that of a religious or priest. Lay leaders often understand their path as a life-long journey of vocation, not of short term service. The Church is being called to receive expanding understandings of vocation and the relationship of this expansion to the practice of public, authorised ministerial leadership. The call to lay ministerial leadership is a call to a stable and recognised religious life orientation and to choices to be of service to the Gospel. Essential to being church is being called together to deeper and more transcendent levels of existence and commitments, and being sent at the service of the coming of God’s Reign. We should not ignore, filter, block or put conditions on these dynamics of the work of the Spirit. Nor should we doubt that God continually provides the gifts or charisms needed for ministries. The early churches recognised a diversity of gifts or charisms in their midst. However something happened, especially in the second millennium. German born theologian Monika Hellwig explains that the governing and community organising functions, as well as the work of biblical and theological reflection and explanation was left to the clergy. At the same time, works of teaching and caring for all kinds of people in need 4. FOX, WhyDidYouChooseYourWork? (n. 2).

APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEM AND “CO-WORKERS”

225

was left to the religious. Hellwig comments: “it was good that so many generous people came forward and devoted their lives entirely to good works, but it was not good that, with notable exceptions, the rest of us assumed that the call to these works was not directed to us”5. 1. TheDecreeontheApostolateofLayPeople Vatican II challenged and sought to reverse the dominant second millennium model of Church that reinforced these divisions. On November 18, 1965, less than a month before the closure of the Council, the Decree ontheApostolateofLayPeoplewas promulgated6. The English translation of the opening line of the document calls the Church “to intensify the apostolic activity of the people of God”. North American theologian Edward Hahnenberg points out that the decree “is remarkable not so much for what it says, but that it says it at all. By placing the laity as a major issue on the agenda, Pope John XXIII set Vatican II apart from all previous councils”7. TheDecreeontheApostolateofLayPeoplewas the fruit of the first Council of the Church to deal explicitly with the subject of laity. However, it has taken almost fifty years for the word “ministry” and “leadership” to be used confidently with the word “lay”. I will highlight three main threads from this Decree. a) Baptism The Decree on the Apostolate of the Lay People states that the lay person is assigned to the apostolate [or service] of the Gospel by Christ himself: “inserted as they are in the mystical body of Christ by baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation, it is by the Lord himself that they are assigned to the apostolate” (AA 3). The Decreeaffirms that the Spirit of God is at work within each of the baptised, enabling them to grow in knowledge of their gifts, capacities, and competencies and encouraging their desire to offer them in service to the Gospel.

5. M.K. HELLWIG, TheReignofGodIsAmongYou, in FOX – BECHTLE (eds.), Called andChosen (n. 2), 45-52, p.47. 6. VATICAN II, ApostolicamActuositatem, in N.P. TANNER (ed.), DecreesoftheEcumenical Councils 2, Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press, 1990. Subsequent references to ApostolicamActuositatem will be placed in parentheses in the text (AA). 7. E.P. HAHNENBERG, TheConciseGuidetotheDocumentsofVaticanII,Cincinnati, OH, St Anthony Messenger Press, 2007, p. 101.

226

J. TRINIDAD

b) CalltoMissionintheWorld The DecreeontheApostolateofLayPeopleencourages the practice of the baptised sharing in the living conditions, labours, sorrows and aspirations of neighbours, helping to transform society, in fact the whole world, (AA 13) for the common good. We read that because of the value of family, social and professional experience, wisdom and expertise “the weight of [the layperson’s] opinion should be felt” in discerning the directions of church life and mission (AA 14). Apostolic engagement should enable “an increasing sense of solidarity with all peoples” (AA 10). The Decree, which expands on Chapter Four of LumenGentium, especially makes the call for the laity to “take up the renewal of the temporal order – personal life, family, culture, economics, trades, professions, politics, international relations and so on – as their special obligation” (AA 7). The Decree calls the laity to be educated to engage in dialogue, be prophetic, exercise just stewardship of the Church’s and the earth’s resources, and know and live out the principles and conclusions of Catholic Social Teaching (AA 31). In commenting on the Decree, Austrian theologian Ferdinand Klostermann, himself a key member of the Council commission responsible for writing the text, points out that a major breakthrough was the insight that “the world …. is taken seriously as a value in itself, as a reality issuing from the creative hand of God”8. Another key contributor to the document was German Bishop Franz Hengsbach. Hengsbach insisted in the Council debates that the spiritual and temporal not be understood as mutually exclusive: “grace permeates ordinary life, and the order of creation, being fundamentally good, is … the “matter” which is to undergo a divine transformation”9 in the hands of lay people. In order to facilitate the contribution of the laity to this transformation, the Decree places great emphasis on the need for spiritual formation that links vocation with service, growth in the capacity to discern the movement of the Spirit in one’s life, and the freedom to respond to a sense of call.

8. F. KLOSTERMANN, DecreeontheApostolateoftheLaity, in H. VORGRIMLER (ed.), CommentaryontheDocumentsofVaticanII, New York, Herder and Herder, 1969, vol. 3, p. 320. 9. G. PHILIPS, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: History of the Constitution, in VORGRIMLER (ed.), Commentary (n. 8),vol. 1, 105-137, p. 120.

APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEM AND “CO-WORKERS”

227

c) UnityofMissionthroughaPluralityofMinistries A third key theme in the Decree, echoing Pauline theology, is the development of ecclesiology founded on the value of a diversity of ministries and ministers for a unity of mission. In Article Two of the Decree we read: “In the Church there is a diversity of ministry but a oneness of mission. Christ conferred on the Apostles and their successors the duty of teaching, sanctifying and ruling in His name and power … the laity likewise share in the priestly, prophetic office of Christ and therefore have their own share in the mission of the whole people of God and in the world” (AA 2). Though only tentatively developed, fifty years ago the Council was imagining for the first time in the modern experience of the Latin Church the desire for mutual and co-responsible interrelationship between lay and ordained ministers. 2. “  Co-WorkersintheVineyardoftheLord”:AResourceforGuiding theDevelopmentofLayEcclesialMinistry Hahnenberg argues that “the emergence of lay ecclesial ministry since the council stands out as one of the top four or five ministerial shifts of the past two thousand years”10. He compares it to the rise of monasticism in the fifth century, mendicant orders in the thirteenth century, apostolic orders in the fifteenth century and women’s religious communities in the seventeenth century11. Something profoundly new and unplanned in the history of the Church is happening. Since the Council, what has become formally known as lay ecclesial ministries have flourished in many local churches. The US Bishops produced a resource for encouraging the growth of these ministries in North America. This was published in 2005 as “Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord”12. The document was the fruit of extensive field research and theological reflection on the post-Vatican II phenomenon of Lay Ministry, including the ministry of leadership. The theology of the Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People helped shape and make space for the emergence of the phenomenon of lay

10. E.P. HAHNENBERG, TheologyofLayEcclesialMinistry, in FOX (ed.), LayEcclesial Ministry (n. 3), 67-83, p. 71. 11. Ibid. 12. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Co-WorkersintheVineyardofthe Lord:AResourceforGuidingtheDevelopmentofLayEcclesialMinistry, Washington, DC, USCCB Publishing, 2005.

228

J. TRINIDAD

ecclesial ministry to which “Co-Workers” pays attention. “Co-Workers” affirms four main themes: 1. the priority of the ecclesial identity of Baptism for ministry; 2. that ministry grows out of discipleship, but does not equal it; 3. that all ministry within an ecclesiology of communio implies the need for a renewed understanding of the interrelationship of ecclesial relationships; 4. the importance of the faith community for the discernment of an individual’s call to ministry. The Foundations section of the “Co-Workers” document states: God calls. We respond. This fundamental, essential pattern in the life of every believer appears throughout salvation history … the Risen Lord calls everyone to labor in his vineyard, that is, in a world that must be transformed in view of the final coming of the Reign of God; and the Holy Spirit empowers all with the various gifts and ministries for the building up of the Body of Christ13.

These words offer a summary of the Vatican II theology found in the DecreeontheApostolateofLayPeoplethat all the baptised are called to participate in the transformation of the world as a path of Christian discipleship. “Co-Workers” draws directly from Apostolicam Actuositatem 10, in affirming that the foundation for this participation is a share in “the function of Christ, priest, prophet and king”14. “Co-Workers” goes further in calling for communal discernment of the gifts of the Spirit among all the baptised, for public recognition of charisms and authorisation of a plurality of ministries for ever expanding mission contexts. “Co-Workers” represents a particular moment of a local church’s reception of Vatican II’s ongoing retrieval of pneumatology at the service of mission and ministry growth. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are continually and in ever new ways provided to the people of God to sustain and animate the Church’s mission in history. III. WALTER KASPER THEOLOGY OF COMMUNIO

AND THE

German theologian Walter Kasper has made an enormous contribution to the post-Vatican II retrieval of pneumatology. The practice of 13. Ibid., p. 7. 14. Ibid., p. 9.

APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEM AND “CO-WORKERS”

229

recognising and valuing the charism of lay leadership is a powerful affirmation of the Church’s belief in the third article of the Creed: We believe in the Holy Spirit. Kasper reflects on the significance of this doctrinal affirmation: Time and again (the Spirit) shakes the Church, calls charismatically gifted people to help to keep the apostolic heritage free from encrustations and to make it young and fresh again. [The Spirit] … open[s] for the Church a new way into the future15.

Kasper emphatically states that “the laity’s mission is not due to the shortage of priests, the significance of co-responsibility and cooperation in today’s world, or even the Church’s democratization … the inner basis lies in a clearer and deeper awareness of the Church itself [as communio] and its mission in the world today”16. Kasper’s pneumatologically conditioned theology of communio affirms and strengthens new models of collaborative formation and leadership with mutually accountable processes for calling the Church to the fullness of its Catholic identity. A Church led by the Spirit of Christ models and makes participation in the dynamic of being called and sent into mission possible. This dynamic is an icon of the dynamic life of the Trinity. God, out of freedom and abundance, goes beyond God’s self to draw us into God’s life of reciprocal love. Kasper’s theology of the Trinity sees the Spirit as creator of communion and reciprocity, as God’s overflow or abundance of immanent love, and as source of unity and power that reveals God as personal and involved in every dynamic of creation. Kasper sees God’s essential nature as “an ecstatic going-beyond-oneself and self-transcending, a being-out-of-oneself such as is proper to love”17. This theology assists the Church to understand the mission of the lay ministry as necessary for the Church to be imaged in the likeness of the Trinitarian God: a plurality of unity that flows beyond itself as love. Then who does what and how, vital for coordination and effectiveness, becomes secondary for the sake of the unity of mission of Christ’s Body in and for the world. Communio theology understands that co-participation in ministry and coresponsibility for mission begin with and are sustained by friendship,

15. W. KASPER, TheCatholicChurch:Nature,RealityandMission, London, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013,p.139. 16. W. KASPER, The Mission of the Laity, in Theology Digest 35 (1988) 133-138, p. 133. 17. W. KASPER, TheGodofJesusChrist, London, T&T Clark, 2012, p. 279.

230

J. TRINIDAD

mutual concern, and love. The goal is recognition and valuing of a plurality of vocational pathways and ecclesial ministries. Kasper understands God as trinitarian: as a symbol of unity in diversity. This understanding of unity does not impoverish individuality. It brings difference to completeness, fullness and uniqueness, into a communion of plurality. The Spirit of God “draws the faithful into the unity which is the mark of the divine being”18. Central to this theology is the experience of God being both sender and being sent. This serves as a reminder of the importance for ministry of the call of the baptised to mission. However it also encourages deeper theological and pastoral attention to ensure that vocational calling can become concretised into practical opportunities for “being sent” into mission. All ecclesial leadership is in view of the mission of Christ to the world – that is, it is underpinned by a theology of Church as mission and communion, a church going beyond itself in love and at the service of mercy. In many of his works, but particularly TheologyandChurch, Kasper argues that the theology of communio has brought about a deepened awareness that we are all Church and thus, new forms of mutual responsibility19. Indeed, this mission-oriented ecclesiality was declared at the 1985 Synod of Bishops, under Kasper’s leadership as theological secretary, to be “the central and fundamental idea” of the documents of the Council20. Kasper stresses that communio ecclesiology “puts an end to the pattern of a welfare church for looking after people. It tends to the subjectivity of the church and all who belong to it”21. CONCLUSION This paper has argued that the post Vatican II growth of lay leadership can be affirmed, sustained and developed by the theological framework of communio ecclesiology that sees the work of the Spirit, as Kasper 18. Ibid., p. 248. 19. W. KASPER, TheologyandChurch, London, SCM, 1989, p. 150. 20. “The Final Report of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod” C 1, https://www.ewtn.com/ library/curia/synfinal.htm. See also: W. KASPER, The Catholic Church: Nature, Reality and Mission, Norfolk, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015, p. 20. Here Kasper argues that communio is the key ecclesial model of Vatican II: “while studying the council documents … I came to the conclusion thatcommunio-ecclesiology was the main concern and main motif of the conciliar ecclesiology. Together with the relator of the Synod, Cardinal Godfried Daneels von [sic] Mechelen, I was able to contribute this aspect to the Synod. It has become fundamental for me ever since”. 21. Ibid., p. 162.

APOSTOLICAMACTUOSITATEM AND “CO-WORKERS”

231

describes it “demolishing frontiers”22 and creating relationships that flourish in reciprocity, not competition. Following Kasper’s understanding of communio as participation through the work of the Spirit in the trinitarian life of God, a theology of ministry today de-emphasises what divides or separates ministries in favour of an emphasis on what unites: a theology of reciprocal vocations of all baptised Christians and the mission of those who have been gifted by the Spirit to transform the world in the light of the Gospel. Further work is needed to help the Church understand that ministerial identity is to be discovered in mutual and reciprocal relationship, not in dependency, defensiveness or anything that sets ministries and ministers apart from one another. From the seeds of Vatican II renewal church ministry is blossoming into a large tree with many branches. The pneumatological ecclesiology of communiounderpinned by the relational theology of the Trinity, nourishes the soil. The theology of communio enables the call and practice of lay ministry and leadership to be appreciated as an essential dimension of the identity and function of the Church: unity of mission and a plurality of ministers. While the DecreeontheApostolateofLayPeopleretrieved ecclesial valuing of the individual’s baptismal call to the service of the Gospel, “Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord” contributes to deeper valuing and reception of interdependent, diverse yet unified ecclesial relationships at the service of God’s mission. The growth of lay leadership in the Catholic Church today is, and continues to be, the work of the Spirit. Catholic Studies Dept School of Education University of South Australia Mawson Lakes Boulevard Mawson Lakes South Australia 5095

Julie TRINIDAD

22. W. KASPER, TheSpiritActingintheWorldtoDemolishFrontiersandCreatethe Future, in LumenVitae34 (1979) 86-99.

“THE HOLY SPIRIT LEADS THE CHURCH THROUGH CHARISMAS” (LG 12) THE CONCILIAR DOCTRINE ON CHARISMA AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE LAITY’S ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION Scholars generally agree that the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on charismas helps to conceive an active involvement of the faithful in the Church. Yet scholars disagree on the question how far the potential of the teaching has been realised. For example, in the 1980s, the French Dominican Yves Congar evaluated the conciliar teaching on charismas very positively, identifying charismas as one of the Council’s pneumatological “living seeds” that in the time following the Council “have yielded fruits”1. In the same years, the Hungarian theologian Alexandre Ganoczy acknowledged the merit of the conciliar teaching on charismas yet not without reservations. He stated that it contains the theological foundation for a more active involvement of the laity in the Church but added that it needs a more precise articulation2. More recently, reflecting on baptism as the new foundation of Catholic ecclesiology and ministry, the American theologian Richard Gaillardetz spoke in a similar manner. According to Gaillardetz, “the Second Vatican Council augmented its rich treatment of the common matrix of Christian baptism and discipleship with an uneven yet still significant use of the biblical notion of charism”3. The American Jesuit professor in religious ethics John 1. Y. CONGAR, Actualité de la pneumatologie, in J.S. MARTIN (ed.), Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983, p. 16. Cf. the French: “Le deuxième concile du Vatican a commencé à nous rendre la dimension pneumatologique de l’Église …. Vatican II est resté comme en mi-chemin, mais il a ensemencé l’Église de germes vivants, qui ont fructifié depuis. Nous pensons à la place reconnue aux charismes …”. 2. A. GANOCZY, Der Apostolat der Laien nach dem II. Vaticanum, in E. KLINGER – R. ZERFASS (eds.), DieKirchederLaien:EineWeichenstellungdesKonzils, Würzburg, Echter, 1987, 86-106, p. 95, cf. “[d]ie theologische Grundlage dazu [sc. shared responsibility] liegt allerdings schon in der Gestalt der konziliaren Charismenlehre vor, wenn sie auch noch der Präzisierung bedarf”. 3. R.R. GAILLARDETZ, TheEcclesiologicalFoundationsofMinistrywithinanOrdered Community, in S.K. WOOD (ed.), OrderingtheBaptismalPriesthood, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2003, 26-51, pp. 27-29.

234

J. MOONS

Haughey was more outspoken in his critique of the conciliar teaching on charismas. In a reflection from 1999, he stated that “there is considerable uncertainty about exactly where … charismas fit ecclesially”, and that “the ecclesiological implications [of charismas] are not pursued”4. As claims like these usually lack elaboration, I will delve in this chapter into the conciliar teaching on charisma and explore both its promise and limitation for conceiving the laity’s active involvement in the Church. I. CHARISMA AND CHARISMATICUS The Council mentions charisma (in singular and plural) eleven times, and charismaticus (as adjective and noun) three times5. These fourteen references are spread over various documents, with a prominent proportion of six references in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium, LG). Charismas are also mentioned in the DogmaticConstitutionon Revelation (DeiVerbum, DV) and in the Decrees on Mission (AdGentes, AG), on the Apostolate of the Laity (ApostolicamActuositatem, AA) and on the Life and Mission of the Priest (PresbyterorumOrdinis, PO)6. Sometimes the documents make use of synonyms. For example, before speaking of charismas, LumenGentium 12 first states that the same Holy Spirit not only sanctifies and guides the people of God by means of the sacraments and the ministries and adorns it with virtues, He also apportions his gifts “to each individually as He wills” (1 Cor 12,11), and among the faithful of every rank He distributes special graces7.

After specifying that these make the faithful ready to serve the upbuilding of the Kingdom, Lumen Gentium introduces the term charismata, thereby implying that these dona and gratiasspeciales function as synonyms for charismas8. Similarly, PresbyterorumOrdinis 9 first speaks of charismata and then of the donaDei. 4. J.C. HAUGHEY, Charisms: An Ecclesiological Exploration, in D. DONNELLY (ed.), Retrieving Charisms for the Twenty-First Century, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1999, 1-16, p. 3. The book followed a symposium with the same title, held in 1996 in honor of Cardinal Suenens. Haughey shared with Suenens an interest in the charismatic renewal. 5. Cf. J.O. SANZ, IndexverborumcumdocumentisConciliiVaticaniSecundi, Roma, Commentarium pro Religiosis, 1967, p. 71. 6. See LG 4, 7, 12, 25, 30, 50; AG 4, 23, 28; AA 3, 30; PO 4, 9; DV 8. 7. Quotes from the Council documents in English are based on the translation edited by Tanner, that I occasionally modify, see N. TANNER (ed.), DecreesoftheEcumenical Councils, Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press, 1990, vol. 2, pp. 849-898. 8. See also AA 3, which is inspired by LG 12 and makes a similar movement, and LG 7, which first speaks of the variasuadona and then about charismaticos.

“THE HOLY SPIRIT LEADS THE CHURCH THROUGH CHARISMAS” (LG 12)

235

The use of synonyms in the Council documents raises the question whether or not the Council intended to speak of charisma in those cases that only the synonym is used. Should the donumSpiritusSancti which a priest is said to receive at his ordination (PO 7) also be understood as a charisma? And what about the donum spirituale bestowed on the bishop at his ordination (LG 21)9? The statement that the laity “should perseveringly cultivate the qualities and gifts appropriate to their condition of life and should make use of the gifts which the Holy Spirit bestows” (AA 4) begs the question10: Are these synonyms for charisma? The reflection on the laity in Lumen Gentium 32–33 raises similar questions11. The redactional-historical and textual-theological exploration needed to answer this question exceeds the scope of this article. Therefore I will limit myself to the cases in which the word charisma is explicitly used. When the conciliar texts refer to charismas, they mostly do so without elaboration. For example, the Spirit-focused sections LumenGentium 4 and AdGentes 4 briefly state that the Holy Spirit “instructs and directs the Church through a diversity of gifts both hierarchical and charismatic”. Similarly LumenGentium 30 calls upon the pastors to acknowledge the laity’s ministrationesetcharismata without commenting further on how it understands these. Three texts develop the reference to charismas. Lumen Gentium 7 reflects at some length on the tension between diversity and unity in the mystical body with the help of the concept of charisma: there are different charismas but there is one author, the Holy Spirit12. LumenGentium 12 introduces charismas as a way in which the Spirit guides the Church, and that is complementary to ministry, sacraments and virtues. ApostolicamActuositatem 3’s statements on the Holy Spirit and charisma’s are inspired by LumenGentium 12 and make a similar point13. 9. See PO 10, spiritualedonum, also related to ordination. 10. AA 4, cf. the Latin, Nedesinantergoqualitatesetdoteshiscondicionibuscongruentessibicollatasassidueexcolere,propriisqueutidonisaSpirituSanctoacceptis. 11. Cf. LG 32’s reference to the diversitasgratiarum,ministrationumetoperationum that is unified by the Spirit, and that may implicitly refer to charismas. Cf. also LG 33’s statement on the lay faithful’s active involvement in the Church, the content of which reminds of charisma: “In this way every lay person, because of the gifts received (exipsis donissibicollatis), is at the same time a witness and a living instrument of the Church’s mission ‘according to the measure of Christ’s gift’ (Eph 4,7)”. 12. The relatiodesingulisnumeris explains that LG 7 has been reorganised into two parts, one focused on community (with this section on unity and diversity), and one on Christ as the head of the mystical body, see ActasynodaliaSacrosanctiConciliiOecumeniciVaticaniII (AS) III/1, p. 174. 13. For the connection between LG 12 and AA 3, see the footnote at the end of AA 3. Cf. PO 9, which seems to summarize LG 12 in speaking about multiform charismas, both

236

J. MOONS

II. A PROMISING DOCTRINE What is the significance of what is stated in these sections for conceiving an active involvement of the laity in the Church? In the first place it implies a broad, inclusive ecclesiology. Not only bishops, priests and deacons have an active role to play, but all the faithful, including the laity. LumenGentium 12 explicitly states that the Spirit gives his charismas to “the faithful of every rank (omnisordinisfideles)”. This phrase meant precisely to state “more clearly that the Holy Spirit gives charismas to the faithful of all conditions”, so the explanation that accompanied the text14. These charismas that are given to all “are to be accepted with thanksgiving and consolation”, so LumenGentium 12 continues. Other passages call specifically on pastors and priests to acknowledge and welcome the charismas of the lay faithful: Priests should sincerely acknowledge and promote the standing of the laity and their proper role in the Church’s mission. … They are to test the spirits to see whether they are of God, discern with a sense of faith the manifold charismas, both exalted and ordinary, that the laity have, acknowledge them gladly and foster them with care (PO 9, cf. AA 3 and LG 30).

What was new and therefore contested in these statements is not that the Holy Spirit was said to have worked in all the faithful for the upbuilding of the Church in the early days of the Church. That charismas had been manifold in the apostolic era was also admitted by traditionalists such as Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini, archbishop of Palermo (Italy)15. But Ruffini then added that charismas had become rare since that time16. humble and exalted, that are to be welcomed. The redaction history clarifies that the text of AA 3 has been elaborated over the course of two rounds of redaction, at a time that LumenGentiumwas already approved, see AS IV/6, p. 361 and AS IV/7, p. 171. 14. See the relatiodesingulisnumeris to the Third Schema, discussed during the Third Period, AS III/1, p. 199, clarius dici debet Spiritum Sanctum charismata dare fidelibus omnisconditionis; the new phrase was borrowed from the intervention during the Second Period by John McEleney, bishop of Kingston (Jamaica), see AS II/3, pp. 504-505. 15. Ruffini (1888-1967), who started his career as a Scripture scholar, was during the Council a member of the Council of Presidents; he was involved in the traditionalist Coetus Internationalis Patrum from its earliest days. See Ph. ROY, Ruffini, Ernesto, in M. QUISINSKY – P. WALTER (eds.), Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2013, 234-235. 16. AS II/2, p. 629: Charismataenim,quorumfrequensmetiofitinscriptisapostolicis, copiosaerantinitioEcclesiae;sedposteapaullatimitadecreveruntutferecessaverint. Cf. the famous phrase hodie rarissima sint et prorsus singularis, p. 630. For a similar view, see the contribution of Ermenegildo FLORIT, during the Council archbishop of Florence (Italy) and a member of the Doctrinal Commission, AS II/2, p. 160.

“THE HOLY SPIRIT LEADS THE CHURCH THROUGH CHARISMAS” (LG 12)

237

What was contested therefore was the idea that the Spirit still works in all the faithful, and that He does so through ordinary charismas. Amongst the pioneers of this thought are Yves Congar and the German Jesuit Karl Rahner. In a 1953 essay, Congar claimed cautiously that the Holy Spirit’s involvement in the Church is not only paired with the hierarchy’s, but that the Spirit has some sort of autonomy, expressed through charismas and “eruptions and unforseeable behaviour of the Spirit”. Congar criticized the lack of attention to these in theology, ecclesiology and Church history17. Rahner had addressed the topic too, in a way that is both less clear and more fundamental for he focused not on charismas, but on what surpasses the Church’s institutional dimension. This he called the charismatic reality of the Church or “das Überamtliche”18. During the Council, especially Cardinal Léon-Joseph Suenens, archbishop of Malines-Bruxelles (Belgium)19, pleaded passionately for these aspects of charismas. In a talk that had been prepared by Karl Rahner and the young Swiss theologian Hans Küng, and that was the only address that dealt exclusively with charimas, Suenens claimed that “the Holy Spirit is given not only to the hierarchy but to all Christians” and that charismas existed both in ordinary and extraordinary form20. The teaching on charismas is not only promising for its ecclesiological breadth but also for its depth. Because charismas are not presented as a feature of the structure or set-up of the Church, but as gifts of the Spirit, 17. See Y. CONGAR, LeSaint-EspritetleCorpsapostolique,réalisateursdel’œuvre duChrist, in ID. (ed.), Esquissesdumystèredel’Église, Paris, Cerf, 1953, 129-179, p. 166 and p. 171. 18. See K. RAHNER, DasCharismatischeinderKirche, in ID., DasDynamischeinder Kirche, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1958, 37-73, first published in Stimmen der Zeit 160 (1956-57). 19. Suenens (1904-1996), during the Council involved in various governing bodies, played an important role in designing an alternative draft on the Church, see the detailed investigation by M. LAMBERIGTS – L. DECLERCK, The Role of Cardinal Léon-Joseph SuenensatVaticanII, in D. DONNELLY – J. FAMERÉE – M. LAMBERIGTS – K. SCHELKENS (eds.), The Belgian Contribution to the Second Vatican Council (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 216), Leuven, Peeters, 2008, 61-217. 20. Suenens spoke 22-10-1963, AS II/3, pp. 175-178. Although he did not mention Ruffini’s earlier 16-10-1963 address, the intervention is commonly understood as a response to Ruffini’s. Surprisingly the Relatio of the 1964 text fails to refer to the interventions by Ruffini and Suenens – to prevent the impression of taking sides? – and only refers to bishop McEleney’s address, from which it borrows extensively. This is surprising as all three addresses explicitly refer to the same section no. 24 (of the 1963 draft). McEleney’s contribution is precious for its practical suggestions, but Suenens’ address is both longer and rhetorically more powerful. For an English translation, see H. KÜNG – Y. CONGAR – D. O’HANLON (eds.), Council Speeches of Vatican II, New York, Paulist, 1964, pp. 29-34.

238

J. MOONS

they have deep theological roots. According to Lumen Gentium 7, the Spirit “distributes his various gifts”, and Apostolicam Actuositatem 30 speaks about the “the charismas which the Holy Spirit has conferred on each one for the good of their brothers and sisters”21. The theological depth of charismas is especially apparent from the fact that these gifts are not given in such a way that the giver disappears. Rather, in charismas it is the Spirit who acts, as particularly the following phrases clarify. According to Lumen Gentium 4 and Ad Gentes 4, the Spirit “instructs and directs” the Church through charismas. By stating that the Spirit sanctifies the Church not only through ministry and sacraments but that He also gives other gifts, that make the faithful ready for undertaking their tasks, LumenGentium 12 suggests that the Spirit sanctifies through charismas. ApostolicamActuositatem 3 states in a similar way that the Holy Spirit, who works the sanctification of God’s people through ministry and sacrament, also gives special gifts [that are later the same section called charismata] to the faithful. Other texts on charismas do not feature a reference to the Holy Spirit, so that no active role of the Holy Spirit is specified. For example, Lumen Gentium 25 simply states that the pope enjoys the charismainfallibilitatis, or Presbyterorum Ordinis 4 explains that a homily is determined amongst others by the various charismas of the preachers (diversitas praedicantiumcharismata)22. III. A LIMITED DOCTRINE Thus the conciliar teaching on charismas is promising both for its deep theological roots and for the broad ecclesiology growing from those roots. Unfortunately, however, these promises are anything but realised in the text. The teaching on charismas had a limited impact on the conciliar

21. See also AG 23: dividit. 22. Further LG 30 invites pastors to acknowledge the ministrationesetcharismata of the faithful, and LG 50 links having charismata with being holy without explicating these as gifts of the Spirit. DV 8’s statement on the episcopal charismaveritatis resembles LG 25. AG 28 specifies that the faithful have different gifts and therefore have to contribute according to their possibilities and charismas, with no reference to the Spirit: Christifideles,cumdonationeshabeantdifferentes,prosuaquisqueopportunitate,facultate,charismate ac ministerio, in Evangelio collaborare debent. PO 9 suggests that charismas are God-given by proposing to discern if they are indeed from God: Probantesspiritussiex Deo sint, charismata laicorum multiformia, tam humilia quam altiora, cum sensu fidei detegant,cumgaudioagnoscant,cumdiligentiafoveant.

“THE HOLY SPIRIT LEADS THE CHURCH THROUGH CHARISMAS” (LG 12)

239

ecclesiology and its conception of the active involvement of the laity in the Church. John Haughey, whom I referred to in the introduction, opened his reflection on the conciliar teaching on charismas by stating that “any orientation to charisms should begin with Vatican II’s sporadic and brief attention to charismas”23. One senses both satisfaction with the fact that the Council spoke about charismas and dissatisfaction with the quality of that speech. The number of fourteen explicit references in the whole of the conciliar corpus points to a sporadic attention indeed. The brevity of the conciliar attention to charismas is apparent from the fact that only three references are developed into a somewhat sustained reflection, so that in eleven cases the reference to charisma is (almost) not specified. Rather it functions as loose element, sometimes introduced for apologetical purposes. In the first place therefore, the impact of the conciliar teaching on charismas remained limited because it situates itself at the margins rather than at the core of the conciliar theology. For example, the DecreeontheApostolateoftheLaity’s attention to charismas is not only sporadic as it refers to charismas only twice (AA 3, AA 30), it is also brief. The statement that older faithful make better use of their talents and charismas (AA 30) is part of a reflection on the need for formation or training for the apostolate. This reflection is elaborated in relation to various age groups. In that context the statement on charisma is a loose element, that is not essential for the reflection but rather adds further detail to one of its aspects. The reflection on the biblical roots, theological foundation and practical outlook of the priestly preaching of the gospel in Presbyterorum Ordinis 4 has also sporadic and brief attention to charismas. For the statement that there is a diversity of concrete ways in which the gospel may be preached depending on the charismas of those who preach it may offer important information, that information is not further elaborated. Therefore, the phrase on charismas is an isolated statement, the concrete significance of which remains unclear. Secondly, the impact of the conciliar teaching on charisma is further limited by the fact that, insofar as substantial statements are made, these lack practical elaboration and implementation. As Haughey complained, “the ecclesiological implications are not pursued”24. That is especially clear for the statements on charisma in LumenGentium, sections 4, 7 and 23. HAUGHEY, Charisms (n. 4), p. 3. 24. Ibid., cf. p. 4. He does not substantiate his claim.

240

J. MOONS

12. LumenGentium 4 features a brief phrase on the Spirit who guides the Church by means of hierarchical and charismatic gifts. LumenGentium 7 clarifies the diversity-in-unity of the body of the Church by referring to the diversity of charismas and the unity of the giver, the Holy Spirit. Finally, LumenGentium 12 explains the active involvement of the people of God in the Church through charismas, that are said to be given to anybody according to the Spirit’s freedom for the upbuilding of the Church, and that are therefore to be received gratefully, insofar as the hierarchy judges them to be authentic. According to Gérard Philips, Council peritus and the main editor of Lumen Gentium, the document offers a synthetic ecclesiology with a coherent “4×2” structure. In that structure, the chapters on the mystery of the Church (chapter one) and the people of God (chapter two) consider the Church as a theological salvation-historical mystery, after which the chapters on the hierarchy (chapter three) and the laity (chapter four) focus on the concrete shape that this mystery takes25. Sections 4, 7 and 12 are part of the foundational chapters one and two of Lumen Gentium. One would therefore expect a follow up with concrete consequences in the following chapters. However, when LumenGentium makes the transition to the concrete ecclesial reality of hierarchy and laity in chapters three and four, the chapter on the laity appears to be almost unaffected by the teaching on charismas. The opening section of LumenGentium’s chapter on the laity features a brief reference to charismas to the effect that the hierarchy should welcome the ministries and charismas of “the faithful” (fideles) so that all may be actively involved in the Church (LG 30, cf. PO 9). But in the reflection on the prophetic office of the laity in LumenGentium 35 there is no mention whatsoever of charismas, which starkly contrasts with the reflection on the prophetic office of the people of God in LumenGentium 12. The official explanation in LumenGentium35 adds to the confusion, for it states that “this statement on the prophetic character of the laity should be complemented with what is being said in section 12, on the sensusfidei and charismas”26. Apparently, the issue was noticed but not deemed important enough to amend the text. The Decree on the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem shows the same lack of implementation. The redaction history reveals that section 3 was 25. See G. PHILIPS, LaConstitutiondogmatiquesurl’ÉgliseLumenGentium, in EphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses 42 (1966) 33-36. Cf. the Relatio to the third draft in AS III/1, pp. 334-335. 26. AS III/1, p. 287: Haecexpositiodeindolepropheticamunerislaicorumcompleatur exillis,quaedicuntursubn.12,desensufideietcharismatibus.

“THE HOLY SPIRIT LEADS THE CHURCH THROUGH CHARISMAS” (LG 12)

241

added to provide the reflection on the lay apostolate with a more elaborated theological foundation; its working title was therefore Deapostolatus fundamentis27. Indeed, Apostolicam Actuositatem 3 featured a substantial reflection on charismas that was inspired by LumenGentium 1228. Therefore when the document makes the transition to the chapters on the concrete reality of the laity’s apostolate, such as the fields of the apostolate (chapter three), the forms and organisation thereof (chapters four and five) and formation (chapter six), one would expect these to revisit the topic in a more practical way. Yet charismas are only mentioned when ApostolicamActuositatem 30 claims that older age brings wisdom and thereby a more efficient use of charismas. IV. FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES However, the issue is more fundamental than the number of references to charisma and a consistent practical elaboration. The documents give mixed signals on where to “locate” charismas ecclesiologically, suggesting thereby that the Council’s conception of charismas is not very clear. In the first place, LumenGentium 12 understands charismas as part of the prophetic dimension of the “munus triplex”, together with sensus fidelium. However, the link between the sense of the faithand charismas is anything but clear, as the German Jesuit and Scripture scholar Cardinal Augustin Bea remarked during the Council29. One also wonders how charismas pertain to the prophetic mission, for charismas are not necessarily prophetic. Rather, some are priestly (in the sense of sacrificial), such as dedicating oneself to work with vulnerable children, or royal (in

27. The second draft of the Decree (briefly summarised in AS II/6) had been shortened by taking out the doctrinal foundation, for that was what LumenGentium dealt with. Yet at the request of many Council fathers, the 1965 draft reintroduced fundamental theological and spiritual consideraton in the new sections AA 3 and AA 4. These draw on Lumen Gentium, thus AS IV/2, p. 309. At the presentation in 1965 the Relatio qualified ApostolicamActuositatem as a practical supplement to LumenGentium: partemaliquamConstituionisDogmaticae“Lumengentium”,quaedelaicisagit,inordinepracticocompleat, AS IV/2, p. 303. 28. See AS IV/2, p. 303 and p. 309. For further details, see the Relatio de singulis numeris, AS IV/2, pp. 317-318. 29. See his detailed critique of Schema 2, especially no. 24 (which was to become LG 12). In response to Schema 2, he stated that the link between sensusfidei and charismas “is in no way clear” (nullomodoapparet), AS II/3, p. 395; see at this page the section that starts with “p.8, lin.13s”, which refers to AS II/1, p. 259. During the Council, Bea (1881-1968) was the president of the newly erected Secretariat for Christian Unity, see Ph. ROY, Bea,Augustin, in QUISINSKY – WALTER (eds.), Personenlexikon (n. 15),48-50.

242

J. MOONS

the sense of leadership), for example the gift for organising and animating a team of youth ministers. It seems that charismas relate to all three aspects of the munustriplex. Interestingly, therefore, ApostolicamActuositatem does not treat charismas under the heading of the munustriplex. After it has introduced the notion of the munustriplex in section 2, in the next section, the document conceives the active involvement of the laity rather from unity with Christ and anointment with the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, on the basis of which it speaks amongst others about charismas30. In addition, the Council documents lack a sophisticated account of the relationship between what LumenGentium 4 called “gifts both hierarchical and charismatic”. The documents appreciate the freedom of the Spirit who gives charismas while entrusting the judgement on the authenticity of the charismas of laity (and priests) to the pope and the bishops (see LG 12 and AA 3). That is a marked step forward in comparison to preconciliar accounts and to the view of charismas in the first draft of De Ecclesia. Moreover, it is clear that something as unpredictable and unorganized as charismas needs an overseeing role, and that the hierarchy is best placed to have that role. Nonetheless, the issue is more complicated, and only when these complications have been considered one may hope for charismas to fulfill their promise. For if charismas have indeed the deep theological roots that I argued them to have, so that charismas do not depend on Church organisation but on God, how does one appreciate the Spirit’s freedom sufficiently? How to make sure that it is not too quickly subdued to the hierarchy’s evaluation? How to make sure that the hierarchy discerns properly? How to safeguard openness? And how to credibly conceive tensions between the two forces of charisma and office? To claim that the hierarchical discernment of charismas is a charisma as well does not solve the problem. Rather it brings us back to the same issue of the Spirit’s gifts “both hierarchical and charismatic” (LG 4) by illustrating that there are two types of charisma, one office-related and another person-related. If the hierarchical charisma of discernment between charismas is given in ordination, it is thereby an office-related 30. Cf. the 1988 exhortation on the laity ChristifidelesLaiciwhich discusses the munus triplex as part of the fundamental consideration on dignity in chapter one and charisma as part of the more practical reflection on participation in the Church in chapter two, JOHN PAUL II, Christifideles Laici: Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Vocation and MissionoftheLayFaithfulintheChurchandintheWorld. The exhortation followed the 1987 Synod of bishops entitled “Vocation and Mission in the Church and in the World Twenty Years after the Second Vatican Council”.

“THE HOLY SPIRIT LEADS THE CHURCH THROUGH CHARISMAS” (LG 12)

243

charisma. By contrast, the charismas of the laity are typically person-related31. The question is how these are related. The issue of hierarchical charismas is especially delicate in some seemingly apologetical statements, such as that the pope or bishops have a special charisma of infallibility or truth (LG 25, DV 8). These statements echo a preconciliar ecclesiology in which pneumatology mainly served to justify hierarchy-related claims32. This means that in these statements charismas are not conceived from the Spirit but from the institution.

V. EVALUATION Thus the conciliar teaching on charisma holds both great promise and has various limitations. In part, a redaction-historical and theological-historical perspective explains these limitations. For it was new for the Council to conceive an active involvement of the laity in the Church. The Acta speak explicitly of the novitas of the topic of lay apostolate33. A proper reflection on the lay apostolate was hindered also by the restructuring of the De Ecclesia schema according to the new ecclesiological paradigm in which the reflection on the laity (and the hierarchy) was preceded by a reflection on the people of God. Concretely, this meant that the material of the chapter on the laity was divided over the new chapters two (people of God) and four (laity) and that the text on charismas in Lumen Gentium 12 was taken away from the latter and transplanted to chapter two. Unfortunately however the council fathers did not discuss the new structure but the undivided old chapter “On the people of God, especially the Laity”, so that they probably failed to notice that

31. See also PO 4, that considers preaching a person-related rather than office-related charisma, cf. “the ministry of the word is discharged in a variety of ways, according to the needs of the hearers and the gifts (charismata) of the speakers”. 32. Cf. Yves Congar on pre-conciliar ecclesiology: “En un mot, on a vu l’Esprit … comme la garantie des actes de l’institution, en particulier de son enseignement infaillible”, in Y. CONGAR, Jecroisenl’EspritSaint, Paris, Cerf, 1979, vol. 1, p. 216. 33. See the short summary presentation at the end of the second session (AS II/6, p. 369), also the presentation of the text at the third session (AS III/3, p. 385). The novitas is mentioned as one of the reason for the tortuous trajectory of the drafting process. For background, see K.B. OSBORNE, Ministry. Lay Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church:ItsHistoryandTheology, New York, Paulist, 1993. Osborne argues that, although the laity took a more active role in the Church and in society in the decades before the Council, it was conceived within a hierarchy-focused ecclesiology. For historical-theological background, see pp. 511-527; for the Council, see pp. 527-581.

244

J. MOONS

absence of a reflection on charismas34. Probably the chapter on the laity’s pneumatology would have benefitted from a separate discussion. In addition, the teaching on charismas itself was theological-historically new. The substantial differences between the three different drafts “On the Church” suggest the conciliar teaching may be best appreciated as a first exploration of the concept. For in the first Schema on the Church charisma referred to the spiritual dimension of the Church, the hierarchy who have the charismaveritatis, or simply grace35. In the second draft charisma had the more specific meaning of talents given to the faithful for the upbuilding of the Church36. The hierarchy was still said to have a special grace of the Holy Spirit, but this gift was not called charisma37. The final version restored especially the place of the hierarchy38. For Lumen Gentium 4’s statement that the Holy Spirit directs the Church through charismas was enlarged to include hierarchical gifts; the hierarchy was said to have the final say over the charismas of the faithful (LG 12); and the special hierarchical charisma of truth was reintroduced (LG 25, charismainfallibilitatis). For another part, however, the limitations of the conciliar teaching on charismas point to the fact that, as Haughey commented, “the Council was quite unprepared to deal with charisma. They entered through the backdoor, so to speak, and received no adequate treatment in the Council documents”39. Charismas posed a fundamental ecclesiological and theological challenge, of which I have elaborated some aspects. Therefore, for charismas to be able to support the laity’s active involvement in the Church, what is needed is something similar to what Congar proposed in 1953 in his pioneering work on the laity, Jalons pour une théologiedulaïcat. In the introduction, he stated that the issue is not to 34. For the new outline, see AS II/1, pp. 324-336; for the discussion, see AS II/2 and AS II/3. 35. See AS I/4, pp. 12f. For the spiritual dimension of the Church, see no. 6, Cum autem S. Spiritus multa charismata Ecclesiae elargitur, quae correspondent indoli eius socialietmissionieiusdivinae,invariisofficiisetministeriis,…falsoEcclesiahierarchicaseuiurisabEcclesiacharismaticavelamoris,quamvocant,redifferedicitur. For the charismaveritatis, which is linked to infallibility, see no. 28 and no. 30. For its more general meaning, see no. 14 in which Christ is called the fons omnium charismatum. No. 37 hints at non-hierarchy related charismas, albeit with a warning: those who have these should not claim independence from the hierarchy. 36. See no. 24 (the later LG 12), especially the text itself, AS II/1, pp. 259-260, but also footnote 14, p. 266, and the Commentarius, p. 268. 37. See no. 14, AS II/1, p. 233: perspicuumestmanuumimpositioneetverbisconsecrationisepiscopalisgratiamSpiritusSancticonferri. Cf. nos. 18-19. There is no mention of an episcopal charismaveritatis. 38. AS III/1, pp. 158f. 39. See HAUGHEY, Charisms (n. 4), p. 4.

“THE HOLY SPIRIT LEADS THE CHURCH THROUGH CHARISMAS” (LG 12)

245

add a section here and there, but to fundamentally reconceive ecclesiology in an inclusive manner40. In the same way, it is not sufficient to increase the number of references to charisma and to spell out better their practical consequences. What is needed is fundamental reflection on what it means that the Spirit guides the Church through charismas, and to consistently integrate the outcomes of that reflection into ecclesiological reflection and ecclesial practise41. Waversebaan 220 BE-3001 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Jos MOONS, SJ

40. See the introduction of Y. CONGAR, Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat, Paris, Cerf, 1953, pp. 13-14. Cf. “Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’ajouter un paragraphe, voire un chapitre”. 41. For a recent attempt at such a reflection, see J.A. MERKLE, BeyondOurLightsand Shadows:CharismandInstitutionintheChurch, London, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Cf. Edward HAHNENBERG’s attempt at an alternative ecclesiology, see Ministries:ARelationalApproach, New York, Crossroad, 2003.

KENOSIS, UNITY, AND KINGDOM CHRISTOLOGY AND ECCLESIAL RENEWAL AT VATICAN II

I. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF VATICAN II: AGGIORNAMENTO AND RESSOURCEMENT In his last speech of the first session of Vatican II, Christopher Butler OSB reminded the council fathers that “[w]e have the opportunity to show to the eyes of the whole world that are turned upon us a new vision of the unchanging Christ”1. In a similar vein, Lumen Gentium commences with the claim that “Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod […] eagerly desires […] to bring the light of Christ to all men2, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church”3. These remarkable appeals suggest that the unchanging Christ can be perceived in the renewal of the Roman Catholic Church4. Reversely, the renewal of the Catholic Church in the wake of the Council itself is attributed Christological significance. Joseph Ratzinger consequently argues that Vatican II “appears to be dependent upon Christology, and it belongs to it”5. He writes “[i]f you want to understand Vatican II correctly, you must begin again and again with this [that is: Lumen Gentium’s] first sentence”6. This indicates that although the council fathers have not formulated a systematic Christology, it would be wrong to conclude that the Council has no substantial Christological foundations. Seeing the centrality of Christ in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, it is surprising 1. C. BUTLER, ActaSynodaliaSacrosanctiConciliiOecumeniciVaticani II, I/4 (1971), cited by A. MAYER, EditorialArticle:TheSecondVaticanCouncil’s50thAnniversary: VisionsandRe-visions, in InternationalJournalfortheStudyoftheChristianChurch 14 (2014) 339-340. 2. We are critically aware of the gender-exclusivity of the language used in the Council documents but maintained the original vocabulary in all citations throughout this article. 3. Lumen Gentium 1. All Council documents cited in this article can be found at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm. 4. See GaudiumetSpes 10 where it is stated more explicitly than in LumenGentium that all worldly changes have their foundation in the changeless Christ. 5. J. RATZINGER, TheEcclesiologyoftheConstitution Lumen Gentium, in ID., Pilgrim FellowshipofFaith:TheChurchasCommunion,San Francisco, CA, Ignatius Press, 2005, 123-152, p. 140. 6. J. RATZINGER, Church,Ecumenism,andPolitics:NewEndeavoursinEcclesiology, trans. M.J. Miller etal., San Francisco, CA, Ignatius Press, 2008, p. 15.

248

C. ALPERS – S. VAN ERP

that, to date, little effort has been made to study systematically the underlying Christology of the Council documents7. This article responds to this lack in the existing theological literature by extrapolating the Christology hidden but discernible in the Council documents8. We will attempt to make explicit the underlying Christology of the Council documents by connecting references to Christ scattered throughout the various constitutions, decrees, and declarations. In doing so, we will show in this article that key moments in most of the documents rely on Christological concepts that function either as foundation or confirmation of the issue at hand. Our claim is that Vatican II’s impetus for ecclesial renewal discernible across the surface of the Council documents is undergirded by

7. Christological analyses thus far have been focused on one or two specific documents. For example, see A. GASPARI, Pontificial Theological Academy Considers Vatican II Christology, in Zenit (2 February 2012), https://zenit.org/articles/pontificaltheological-academy-considers-vatican-ii-christology/ (accessed February 19, 2016): “The 6th international forum of the Pontifical Theological Academy was centered on the Christology of the Vatican II document ‘Optatam Totius’ in the context of the faith-reason dialectic”. A certain Christocentrism has been discerned in Vatican II’s understanding of the Church’s priesthood (G. MANSINI – L.J. WELCH, TheDecreeontheMinistryandLife ofPriests,Presbyterorum Ordinis, in L. LAMB – M. LEVERING [eds.], VaticanII:Renewal withinTradition, New York, Oxford University Press, 2008, 205-227, p. 215) and mission (Cardinal F. GEORGE, TheDecreeontheChurch’sMissionaryActivity, Ad Gentes, ibid., 287-310, pp. 291, 293). There is also a considerable discussion about the relation between Christology and interreligious dialogue. Arguments tend to stress Vatican II’s more open Christology towards the conflation of Christology and ecclesiology in Dominus Iesus (J.D. MAY, CatholicFundamentalism?SomeImplicationsofDominusIesusforDialogue and Peacemaking, in Horizons 28/2 [2001] 271-293). See also R. DEL COLLE, Towards theFullnessofChrist:ACatholicVisionofEcumenism, in InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology 3 (2001) 201-211, who argues that Vatican II’s pneumatological Christology should be revived in order to strengthen the Catholic’s Church potentials for ecumenical dialogue. Or, E.T. OAKES, Infinity Dwindled to Infancy: A Catholic and EvangelicalChristology, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2011, who claims that Vatican II’s failure to fulfil people’s expectations for the Council is related to heretic Christologies arising in the wake of Vatican II. He claims that the ressourcement of Chalcedonian Christology is necessary to settle the disputes surrounding Vatican II’s impetus for ecclesial renewal. In contrast to this, our argument shows that the Christology implicit in the Council documents itself is already in continuity with Chalcedonian Christology. 8. This is an extension of a recently published article, in which an incarnational and universal Christology in GaudiumetSpes and a Kingdom Christology in LumenGentium have been extrapolated (S. VAN ERP, Incarnatieennavolging:Dechristologievandekerk sindshetTweedeVaticaansConcilie, in Communio39 [2014] 465-480). For this article, we have read in addition to these two documents also SacrosanctumConcilium,DeiVerbum,AdGentes,DignitatisHumanae,PerfectaeCaritatis,ChristusDominus, PresbyterorumOrdinis, ApostolicamActuositatem, InterMirifica,GravissimumEducationis, and found other Christological accents of a more pronounced Christology, in which the incarnational principles of DeiVerbum and GaudiumetSpes are qualified by the kenotic and the authority that results from it, the relational, and the apocalyptic.

KENOSIS, UNITY, AND KINGDOM

249

a traditional kenotic as well as apocalyptic Christology9. As such, our argument further nuances the recent discovery of a Trinitarian Christology in the Council documents10. In this sense, the Council offers “a new vision of the unchanging Christ”. In the first part of this article, we argue that the extrapolation of a Christology from the documents of Vatican II discloses a strong emphasis of kenosis. In order to answer the question about how this Christology translates into the concrete, visible shape of the Church and its relation to the secular world, we focus particularly on the way in which the Council documents depict the kenotic bestowal of authority from God onto Christ onto the Church onto the world. We argue that through the connection between authority and service, this kenotic movement is also mediated by a renewed emphasis of the Church’s task of worldly liberation. Second, we argue that this kenotic view is further nuanced through the documents’ emphases on unity and family relations. This inserts a strong sense of equality into the kenotic hierarchy of descent and gives the latter a sense of direction towards unity. Again, we demonstrate how this Christological foundation is to be mediated in the visible renewal of the Church according to the Council documents. Finally, we extrapolate an apocalyptic interest in the implicit Christology of Vatican II. On the one hand, this means that the Church’s social renewal is meant to mediate

9. As such our article is an extension of James Hanvey’s argument that the two Council documents GaudiumetSpes and LumenGentium are undergirded by a kenotic Christology (J. HANVEY, VaticanII:FortheLifeoftheWorld, in G. D’COSTA – E.J. HARRIS [eds.], The Second Vatican Council: Celebrating Its Achievements and the Future, London, Bloomsbury, 2013, 45-68, pp. 65-67). Hanvey claims that kenosis is “[r]unning implicitly throughout the Council’s texts” (p. 66) without further elaborating on this claim. Our article serves to extrapolate this implicit kenotic Christology systematically. For a debate about the importance and role of kenotic Christology in contemporary theology see C.S. EVANS (ed.), Exploring KenoticChristology:TheSelf-EmptyingofGod, Vancouver, Regent College Publishing, 2009; D. BROWN, Divine Humanity: Kenosis and the ConstructionofChristianTheology, Waco, TX, Baylor University Press, 2011. 10. A. LÓPEZ, VaticanII’sCatholicity:AChristologicalPerspectiveonTruth,History, andtheHumanPerson, in Communio:InternationalCatholicReview 39 (2012) 82-117. By a Trinitarian Christology López means that, far from christomonism, the Council texts are marked by a Christocentrism that mentions Christ most frequently together with the Father and the Spirit (p. 84). However, López’s arguments centres mainly on how (post) modern atheism can be countered by Vatican II’s Christology. Our argument is less reactive. In this context, it must be stressed that it would surpass the scope of this article to respond to discussions about the extent to which the Council documents present the Church as the continuous Incarnation of Christ and to which extent the Church is presented as involved in the Trinitarian relations of Father, Son, and Spirit. However, the results of our article might suggest that due to the documents’ emphasis on kenosis, the continuous Incarnation of Christ cannot be understood in isolation of Christ’s relation to the Father and the Spirit.

250

C. ALPERS – S. VAN ERP

Christ’s glory in a sinful world and on the other hand, the Church’s best efforts of renewal are relativised through the expectation of Christ’s Second Coming11. In what follows, we will show how we have extrapolated these Christological characteristics from the language used in the Council documents. The systematic endeavour of the article will contribute to ongoing discussions about the relation between ressourcement and aggiornamento at Vatican II12. Since ressourcement was used as method to renew the Roman Catholic Church within the tradition, opponents called this combination of ressourcement with the updating move of aggiornamento an altogether new theology (nouvellethéologie)13. Debate about whether it is actually possible to reconcile these two themes has continued to the present day14. We agree with those who claim that Vatican II’s call for social renewal and liberation is accompanied by a theology of resourcing the Catholic tradition in order to preserve its best inspirations15. The council fathers were concerned to engage with the contemporary world in unity with the Christian tradition16. As such, aggiornamento itself is not simply renewal but an expression of the traditional truth in its newness17. In this sense, the Council peritus Yves Congar understood Vatican II’s underlying ressourcement theology as the movement from a less to 11. ApostolicamActuositatem 2; DignitatisHumanae 11. 12. MAYER, TheSecondVaticanCouncil’s50thAnniversary (n. 1), pp. 338-347. 13. G. FLYNN, Introduction:TheTwentieth-CenturyRenaissanceinCatholicTheology, in ID. – P.D. MURRAY (eds.), Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth- CenturyCatholicTheology, New York, Oxford University Press, 2014, 6-10. 14. See for example T.M. KOCIK, The Reform of the Reform in Broad Context: Re- EngagingtheLivingTradition, in UsusAntiquior 3 (2012) no. 2, 102-114. In his investigation of the continuity and discontinuity of Vatican II with the previous tradition, Gerald O’Collins seeks to stress the discontinuity of Vatican II precisely as a sign of “apostolic identity” (G. O’COLLINS, DoesVaticanIIRepresentContinuityorDiscontinuity?, in TheologicalStudies 73 [2012] 768-794, pp. 793-794). Matthew L. Lamb’s and Matthew Levering’s Vatican II: Renewal within Tradition argues for the fundamental continuity of Vatican II with respect to the previous tradition of the Roman Catholic Church (LAMB – LEVERING [eds.], Vatican II [n. 7], pp. 439-440). The book systematically analyses the Council’s dogmatic constitutions, decrees, declarations with respect to the question of continuity or discontinuity. Our article will complement this study by systematically abstracting the Christology underlying all Council documents of Vatican II. 15. M. BARNES, OpeningupaDialogue:Dei VerbumandtheReligions, in Modern Theology 29 (2013) 10-31, p. 14. Barnes refers also to G. ALBERIGO, Conclusion:PreparingforWhatKindofCouncil?, in ID. – J. KOMONCHAK (eds.), TheHistoryofVaticanII, 5 vols., Maryknoll, NY, Orbis; Leuven, Peeters, 1995-2006, vol. 1, 1995, 501-508, who speaks of the “deep structures” of the Council that provide for continuity. 16. FLYNN, TheTwentieth-CenturyRenaissanceinCatholicTheology (n. 13), p. 9. 17. MAYER, The Second Vatican Council’s 50th Anniversary (n. 1), p. 338. Mayer stresses that ressourcement theology is thus integral to Vatican II’s aggiornamento (pp. 338-339).

KENOSIS, UNITY, AND KINGDOM

251

a more profound tradition18. Traditional answers were not used to settle contemporary disputes, but the systematic implications of traditional propositions were examined in light of the contemporary context19. The argument of this article confirms this vision of the balance between aggiornamento and ressourcement by showing that Vatican II depicts ecclesial renewal as the consequence of contemporary reflections about Christ’s kenosis and his Second Coming20. The purpose of our article will be to trace the movement from affirmation of traditional truths to the reforms of the Catholic Church at Vatican II.

II. KENOSIS AND AUTHORITY There is a distinct kenotic Christology present in most of the Council documents, although it remains implicit. On the one hand, the salvific work of Christ is repeatedly portrayed as a Trinitarian economy, a descent from the Father through the Son, through the Church into the world. On the other hand, in an inverse movement, Christ restores the world by taking it up into the Church, into himself and bringing it finally to the Father21. The world is depicted as fallen into sin from which it has been raised up again through Christ’s death and resurrection22. Moreover, the kenotic can be detected in the documents’ frequent emphasis of the hardships and sufferings that Christ had to undergo for the world’s

18. FLYNN, TheTwentieth-CenturyRenaissanceinCatholicTheology (n. 13), p. 4. 19. A.N. WILLIAMS, The Future of the Past: The Contemporary Significance of the Nouvelle théologie, in International Journal of Systematic Theology 7 (2005) 347-361, p. 360. See also B. PETERSON, CriticalVoices:TheReactionsofRahnerandRatzingerto “Schema XIII” (Gaudium et Spes), in Modern Theology 31 (2015) 1-26, pp. 25-26. Peterson argues that GaudiumandSpes relies on a creative tension between Christocentrism, an anthropological methodology and a critical openness to the world and claims that this tension is not coincidental but systematic and should be retrieved in contemporary theology. 20. It is important to highlight in this context that there is wide scholarly agreement that the doctrine of kenosis originates in the Bible, which means that the doctrine belongs to the core tradition of Christian faith (see for example G. FEE, TheNewTestamentand Kenotic Christology, in EVANS [ed.], Exploring Kenotic Christology [n. 9], 25-44; S. DAVIS, IsKenosisOrthodox?, ibid., 112-138. For the contrasting claim that there is no evidence for the doctrine of kenosis throughout the Christian tradition see S. COAKLEY, Does Kenosis Rest on a Mistake? Three Kenotic Models in Patristic Exegesis, in ibid., 246-264. 21. ChristusDominus 1; AdGentes 9, 22; DignitatisHumanae 1; GaudiumetSpes 58; LumenGentium 27, 31; PresbyterorumOrdinis 2. 22. GaudiumetSpes 2, 13, 22.

252

C. ALPERS – S. VAN ERP

redemption, whereby the stress is laid on Christ’s free self-sacrifice for the sake of redemption23. These kenotic movements are extended into the Church, the fruit of the divine economy, which still suffers the hardships for the full restoration of the world24. In order for the world to be fully restored, there needs to be a prior emptying out and dying. The way into the glory of the Father is presented as one of following Christ’s obedience unto death25. For example, Christian missionaries are called to always bear “about in [themselves] the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may work in those to whom [they are] sent (2 Cor 4,10ff.)”26. The Church is called to “follow the poor Christ, the humble and cross-bearing Christ in order to be worthy of being sharers in His glory”27. The kenotic downward movement is completed when Christ and His Church share in the “joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties” of the poor28. Besides this necessary emptying out of Christ and the Church, the glorification of the Father is also repeatedly stressed as the goal of both Christ’s and the Church’s mission29. All creation is to be restored to “a fuller praise of Christ and of God”30. The glory of God is furthered when people receive Christ and consequently manifest the perfection of God’s work in their own lives31. In other words, God’s glory coincides with the full restoration of the world in Christ. One can see that this kenotic Christology is closely linked to Vatican II’s impetus for ecclesial renewal. Our findings suggest that instead of being a triumphant Church, the Church is called to align itself with the poor in order to take them up into Christ’s restoration of the world32.

23. Dei Verbum 16; Dignitatis Humanae 11, 13; Gaudium et Spes 22, 38, 52, 78; Lumen Gentium 5, 6, 9, 28; Nostra Aetate 4; Presbyterorum Ordinis 4, 12, 13; SacrosanctumConcilium 5. 24. Ad Gentes 5; Apostolicam Actuositatem 16; Christus Dominus 7; Dignitatis Humanae 11; LumenGentium 7, 34, 41, 42; PerfectaeCaritatis 14; PresbyterorumOrdinis 12. 25. GaudiumetSpes 22; LumenGentium 36. 26. AdGentes 25. 27. LumenGentium 41. 28. GaudiumetSpes 1. 29. AdGentes 7, 11, 22; ApostolicamActuositatem 2; ChristusDominus 12; Lumen Gentium 17, 34, 40; PerfectaeCaritatis 25;PresbyterorumOrdinis 22. 30. LumenGentium 51. 31. PresbyterorumOrdinis 2; GaudiumetSpes 76. 32. For an article about the movement “Église des pauvres” see, D. PELLETIER, Une marginalité engagée: Le groupe “Jésus, l’Église et les Pauvres”, in J. GROOTAERS – M. LAMBERIGTS – C. SOETENS (eds.), LesCommissionsConciliairesàVaticanII, Leuven, Bibliotheek van de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, 1996, 63-89.

KENOSIS, UNITY, AND KINGDOM

253

1. KenoticAuthority This emphasis on the kenotic as a double movement from and towards the glory of the Father is also evident in the way in which the documents depict authority as a hierarchical descent from the Father to the Son to the Church33. The main authority is with the Father who sent the Son into the world, who then authorized the Church to perpetuate His own mission34. Every ecclesial officeholder is enlisted at some point as personally authorized by Christ in his office. And yet, it is emphasized that neither Christ nor the Church but God alone establishes God’s Kingdom on earth35. Nevertheless, Christ is called the author of salvation36. This hints at a rather complex vision of the council fathers concerning the question of who holds authority with regard to the salvation of the world. The documents suggest that the Father has sent the Son into the world where Christ is the active subject who establishes the Kingdom of God37. However, this establishment accords with the will of the Father. This indicates that the bestowed authority is never an authority over the next upward level of the hierarchy from which it stems but only an authority over the level below. 2. FromFathertoSon The documents refer to the relation of the upper hierarchical level from which the authority of the lower is derived in terms of obedience. The Father’s bestowal of authority to Christ coincides with Christ’s obedience to the Father38. Christ’s work is thus defined as the subjection of all things under God. However, this obedience and submission under the Father is depicted as free and not coerced39. Likewise, the Church’s authority over the world coincides with the Church’s joining of Christ’s obedience to the will of the Father40. Consequently, all individual

33. For an argument about Vatican II’s Trinitarian Christology see LÓPEZ, VaticanII’s Catholicity (n. 10), pp. 82-117. 34. AdGentes 3, 5; ApostolicamActuositatem 3; ChristusDominus 1; DeiVerbum 7; DignitatisHumanae 10, 13; GravissimumEducationis 0; InterMirifica 3; LumenGentium3, 17, 18, 25, 28, 33; PresbyterorumOrdinis 2, 10; SacrosanctumConcilium 6. 35. AdGentes 42. 36. AdGentes 9; LumenGentium 9. 37. LumenGentium 3. 38. AdGentes 7, 21, 25; LumenGentium 3, 46; PresbyterorumOrdinis 14. 39. DignitatisHumanae 10. 40. PresbyterorumOrdinis 14, 15; LumenGentium 65.

254

C. ALPERS – S. VAN ERP

Christians are called to obey the Church41. This is justified insofar as the Church is not concerned with its own life but “seeking the things of Jesus Christ”42. The transferal of authority also entails that acting against the truth which the Church proclaims is seen as identical with the rejection of the will of God43. “Fidelity to Christ cannot be separated from faithfulness to his Church”44. 3. FromChristtotheChurch In reference to the next lower level of the hierarchy over which authority is gained, the transferal of authority from Christ onto the Church is associated with a bestowal of both powers and duties45. Concerning Christ’s sharing of His powers with the Church, it is stressed that the Church can do nothing without Christ. Christ’s primacy is frequently referred to in terms of His unique Mediatorship between God and the world46. The sharing of Christ’s power with the Church is consequently understood as the Church’s participation in the fullness of Christ47. Christ is the abundant source which overflows into the Church. As such He is still active within the Church as its sustainer and as the one who still uses the Church for His redeeming of the world48. But since Christ does really empower the Church, the Church is presented as a self-governing institution, independent from civil authorities49. There is a real entrusting of Christ’s authority to the Church, which allows the Church a certain degree of freedom in perpetuating the Christian tradition50.

41. ApostolicamActuositatem 12; ChristusDominus 2; LumenGentium27;PresbyterorumOrdinis 7. For an argument that the term obedience to the Church in the Council documents refers to a firm unity of faith with the Church, which includes both to accept the Church’s teaching as well as to join the Church’s search for further clarification of that teaching see L. ÖRSY, TheChurch:LearningandTeaching.Magisterium,Assent,Dissent, AcademicFreedom, Wilmington, DE, Glazier, 1987, p. 89. 42. PresbyterorumOrdinis 9. 43. DignitatisHumanae 13; LumenGentium 20. 44. PresbyterorumOrdinis 14. 45. ApostolicamActuositatem 2, 33; ChristusDominus 2; DeiVerbum 7; LumenGentium 6. 46. LumenGentium 7, 28, 41. 47. LumenGentium 26, 50. 48. LumenGentium 7, 9. 49. ChristusDominus 20; GravissimumEducationis0, 3. 50. DeiVerbum 9, 10, 26.

KENOSIS, UNITY, AND KINGDOM

255

4. FromChurchtotheWorld The Church’s relation to the world as the next lower level of the hierarchy is clarified in the documents’ evaluation of worldly developments. Human developments in the world – for example the establishment of Human Rights – which are seen on the level below the Church, can be good51. However, they have to be tested and validated by the Church’s insights from revelation. The Church then takes this development from the level below up by interpreting it in relation to Christ. With regards to secular freedom, the Church will have to discern the extent to which the secular concept of freedom coincides with the Church’s knowledge about Christ from revelation. The Church then has the task of directing secular freedom towards faith in Christ52. The light of revelation must shine on secular developments to correct their defects and to celebrate the dignity and destiny of humankind53. The kenotic emphasis is apparent when it is claimed that freedom attains its end only if it is used in a Christ-like manner as a service to humankind54. This evaluation of secular developments is paradigmatic for the documents’ spiralling movement of the bestowal of authority: although Christ authorizes the Church to rule the world, the aim of this rule is Christ, whose example also specifies the manner in which the Church should rule. Concerning the duties implied in the obedience to the source of one’s authority, the Church is primarily called to follow the example of Christ55. This following is often depicted by the Vatican II documents as marked by obedience, humility, and service56. Most frequently the emphasis lies on the imitation of Christ’s servant role. Special attention is paid to Christ’s poverty and to the direction of Christ’s ministry towards the poor and needy57. It is emphasized that followers of Christ have to walk this path of poverty, service, and even self-sacrifice unto death58. Respectively, Christ is claimed to be present primarily in and to the poor and

51. DignitatisHumanae 9; GaudiumetSpes 11, 15, 17, 34, 41, 44, 54, 55, 59, 73. 52. DignitatisHumanae 9; GaudiumetSpes17, 20, 21; PresbyterorumOrdinis 6. 53. GaudiumetSpes 12, 35, 36. 54. GaudiumetSpes 31, 41, 57. 55. LumenGentium 37; PresbyterorumOrdinis 14. 56. AdGentes 3; GaudiumetSpes 3; LumenGentium 5, 21, 29; PerfectaeCaritatis 5; PresbyterorumOrdinis 15, 32. 57. AdGentes 3; 5; GaudiumetSpes 1, 21, 42, 72, 88, 90; LumenGentium 8; PerfectaeCaritatis 1, 13, 25; PresbyterorumOrdinis 6, 17. 58. AdGentes 5, 24; ApostolicamActuositatem 4; LumenGentium 8; PerfectaeCaritatis 13; PresbyterorumOrdinis 17.

256

C. ALPERS – S. VAN ERP

the afflicted59. This shows that Vatican II’s kenotic Christology is at the basis of the Council’s impetus for ecclesial renewal. Our discovery of a kenotic Christology undergirding Vatican II’s impetus for the socio-political renewal of Church and world connects well to contemporary discussions concerning the doctrine of kenosis. It is often highlighted that precisely a kenotic understanding of God compels Christian conceptions of God to be continuously challenged and reshaped in reference to the reality of the world60. Just as Vatican II stresses the restoration of God’s glory through kenosis, recent discussions claim that the doctrine of kenosis challenges Christians to discern God’s activity in the imperfect human striving for liberation61. Our argument that the ecclesial renewal in the wake of Vatican II is based on a kenotic Christology particularly accords with recent theological objections to the assumption that a kenotic Christology would be intrinsically predisposed to be abused for the consolidation of oppressive social structures62.

59. AdGentes 12; GaudiumetSpes 88; LumenGentium 8. However, at the same time, the Vatican II documents portray Christ as Priest, Prophet, and King and as bestowing all these roles onto the Church in its relation to the world. This means that those whom Christ empowers must sanctify, teach, and rule in Christ’s name. The priestly sanctifying task is to manifest Christ and to communicate Christ’s grace to the world. The prophetic teaching duty consists in the Church’s authority and mission to bring the world to a fuller understanding of Christ. Finally, the kingly ruling task implies the Church’s duty to conquer ‘the reign of sin’. 60. See for example R. LE POIDEVIN, Kenosis,NecessityandIncarnation, in TheHeythropJournal 54 (2013) 214-227, who argues that the doctrine of kenosis implies that divine necessity is not to be contrasted with worldly contingency. See also C.S. EVANS, Kenotic Christology and the Nature of God, in ID. (ed.), Exploring Kenotic Christology (n. 9), 190-217, and G. WARD, Christ and Culture, Oxford, Blackwell, 2005. The red thread throughout Ward’s ChristandCulture is said to be the doctrine of kenosis and the envisioning of a participatory relationship of humankind in God (R. NORMAN, Review ofChrist andCulture, in InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology 9 [2007] 242-245, p. 244). 61. See G.L. MURPHY, TheCosmosintheLightoftheCross, Harrisburg, PA, Trinity Press International, 2003, esp. p. 81, cited by G.L. MURPHY, KenosisandDivineAction, in Dialog: AJournalofTheology 52 (2013), p. 280. 62. In particular feminist theologians have recently refuted the necessary connection between the doctrine of kenosis and the oppression of women (R. GROENHOUT, Kenosis and Feminist Theory, in EVANS [ed.], Exploring Kenotic Christology [n. 9], 291-312; E.MCINTOSH, TheConceptofSacrifice:AReconsiderationoftheFeministCritique, in International Journal of Public Theology 1 [2007] 210-229). Marta Frascati-Lochhead argues that despite its opposition to the doctrine of kenosis, feminist thought is itself metaphysically kenotic in the postmodern sense of deconstructing essential understandings of gender (M. FRASCATI-LOCHHEAD, Kenosis and Feminist Theology: The Challenge of GianniVattimo,Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1998).

KENOSIS, UNITY, AND KINGDOM

257

III. FAMILY UNITY: THE HIERARCHY’S UNDERLYING EQUALITY This complex description of the transferal of authority between the Father, the Son and the Church hints at the Council’s fundamentally relational understanding of Christ. Prior to any calling to specific offices in the Church or tasks in the world, human beings are said to be called into a relationship with God in Christ63. It is particularly striking that the documents overflow with references to family relationships, and that these relations are always interpreted in reference to unity64. This emphasis on family bonds inserts the conception of a fundamental equality into the otherwise hierarchically understood cosmic relations through a repeated stress of “brotherly” bonds. The documents present Christ’s full humanity in terms of His voluntary equation of Himself with His brothers and sisters65. However, this equation does not mean that Christ is seen as one brother amongst many in the Church, but that Christ is the Brother in whom all other brothers and sisters participate. This means that whatever one does to them is at the same time done to Christ Himself. In other words, although the Church is hierarchically ordered, all are seen on a more fundamental level as equal children of God and thus as brothers and sisters of Christ and of each other66. Conversely, each lower level of the hierarchy is seen to hold a considerable degree of freedom because its members are brothers and sisters of Christ67. Considering the documents’ emphasis on unity, the overarching vision can be summed up as one that detects natural unions between human beings. These are perfected by Christ into familial bonds as brothers and sisters, because Christ joins them to the heavenly Father68. The goal of salvation is thus depicted as a joining of all humankind into one family with God69. In this instance, natural and cultural limits are transcended

63. AdGentes 13; GaudiumetSpes 19. 64. AdGentes 1, 3, 12; ApostolicamActuositatem 3, 8, 14, 18; DignitatisHumanae 15; Gaudium et Spes 2, 3, 21, 42, 56, 75, 90; Lumen Gentium 3, 7, 14, 51; Perfectae Caritatis 15. 65. ApostolicamActuositatem 8; GaudiumetSpes 24; LumenGentium 7, 32; PresbyterorumOrdinis 3. 66. GaudiumetSpes 22, 29, 32; LumenGentium 32; PerfectaeCaritatis 14; PresbyterorumOrdinis 7, 9. 67. LumenGentium 37. 68. Ad Gentes 7, 21; Apostolicam Actuositatem 4; Gaudium et Spes 32; PresbyterorumOrdinis 18. 69. AdGentes 1; GaudiumetSpes 40.

258

C. ALPERS – S. VAN ERP

by Christ who establishes real brotherly and sisterly relations between all70. The focus on unity then gives the theme of obedience a certain direction. Unity is at the same time the source as well as the goal of the hierarchical descent and ascent. Unity is the source insofar as the Church’s successful carrying out of its tasks is said to originate in its union with Christ71. This union is understood in terms of a bond of charity72. It is emphasized that the union does not create the bond of charity but that God’s bond of love is ontologically prior to any human charitable union73. God the Father is the source and Creator as well as the goal of humankind as one united family74. For the inner life of the Church, this stress on brotherly bonds is evident in the documents’ frequent call on the Church’s officeholders to collaborate with their colleagues, superiors, and inferiors in fraternal union and as friends75. Perceiving this bond of charity as fraternal necessitates a true sharing in the conditions, joys, and sorrows of those one loves76. It entails a carrying of their burden77. Christians are to suffer with their contemporaries because they understand each other as already related in a bond that strives towards brotherhood and sisterhood78. On the one hand, the documents of Vatican II are marked by an enthusiasm about the increasing unification of humankind in the light of modern technology and urbanization. However, on the other hand, this same unity amongst all humans is depicted also as disrupted through ideological disputes and economical inequalities79. On the lowest level, the Church is primarily united with all those who obey their God-given conscience in the search for truth80. This descent onto the next lower level of the hierarchy is then also the first step of the ascending movement towards a more perfect unity. Christ is obedient to the Father, and the Church is to imitate this obedience in order that all might be brought into one “brotherly” unity81. The Church

70. AdGentes 8. 71. ApostolicamActuositatem 4; GaudiumetSpes 1; PerfectaeCaritatis 8. 72. ApostolicamActuositatem 8; GaudiumetSpes 78, 93; LumenGentium 10; PerfectaeCaritatis 6, 15. 73. PresbyterorumOrdinis 13; GaudiumetSpes 92; SacrosanctumConcilium 47. 74. GaudiumetSpes 24, 26, 32, 86, 91, 92. 75. ApostolicamActuositatem 25; LumenGentium 28. 76. ApostolicamActuositatem 13, 31. 77. PerfectaeCaritatis 15. 78. ApostolicamActuositatem 27; GaudiumetSpes 3, 23, 27. 79. GaudiumetSpes 4, 5, 6, 8, 24, 25, 30, 33, 37, 42, 43, 54, 55, 56, 60, 84, 85. 80. GaudiumetSpes 16. 81. AdGentes 7, 28; PresbyterorumOrdinis 2; ApostolicamActuositatem 27.

KENOSIS, UNITY, AND KINGDOM

259

is to approach all people who search for peace or who belong to other Christian churches in “fraternal dialogue”82. This indicates that everyone who searches for peace is already somehow associated with Christ as the one who unites all humankind into one family.

IV. THE APOCALYPTIC CHRIST: THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF CHRIST’S SECOND COMING Besides the kenotic and relational aspects of the Council’s Christology, one can also detect an apocalyptic tendency in the documents of Vatican II. The second coming of Christ is referred to in several passages, and that final establishment of the eschatological Kingdom is less presented in terms of a gradual development, but more in terms of a sudden divine interruption83. Consequently, the Church’s task is not so much presented as the establishment of God’s Kingdom, but rather as the preparation of the world for Christ’s second coming84. This apocalyptic tendency is also evident in the call on the Church to await “with patience […] the glory that is to come”85. The time until which the Church is to increase is said to be already fixed by the Father86. In the present time, the Kingdom is imagined as an apocalyptically hidden reality, as “a sort of secret presence of God”87. This hidden presence is visibly revealed in Christ and the Church88. Especially the Church’s brotherly and sisterly union is understood as a visible foreshadowing of Christ’s return89. But still, the eschatological glory after Christ’s coming remains to a significant degree hidden. At present, Christians have to suffer for Christ in faith and trust in the – still hidden – glory to come90. Christians still have to “battle against evil through manifold tribulations”, which might end in death91. 82. AdGentes 12, 15; see also GaudiumetSpes 62 which emphasizes that Christians should collaborate with non-Christians. 83. AdGentes 1, 9; ApostolicamActuositatem 33; DeiVerbum 4; DignitatisHumanae 11; LumenGentium 9, 28, 36, 48, 51;PresbyterorumOrdinis 2. 84. AdGentes 9; GaudiumetSpes 39, 78; LumenGentium 9. 85. LumenGentium 35; SacrosanctumConcilium 8; see also DignitatisHumanae 11 about Christ teaching his disciples patience. 86. AdGentes 9; see also GaudiumetSpes 39. 87. AdGentes 9; see also ApostolicamActuositatem 4, for the necessity of the virtues of faith, hope, and charity in order to be able to recognize Christ in this world. 88. DeiVerbum 2; GaudiumetSpes 40; LumenGentium 5; PresbyterorumOrdinis 22. 89. PerfectaeCaritatis 15. 90. ApostolicamActuositatem 4. 91. GaudiumetSpes 22, 37.

260

C. ALPERS – S. VAN ERP

There is also reference to Christ’s overthrowing of “the devil’s domain” yet to be fully accomplished92. The conception of the Church as existing next to an evil world is also evident in the claim that Christ gave orders that both the “cockle” and the “wheat” “should be allowed to grow until the harvest time, which will come at the end of the world”93. The Church is thus presented as “the leaven” in the world “with the ardor of the spirit of Christ”94. Human life is presented as a “dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness”, which binds everyone to sin95. Christ alone is able to free the world from this sinful situation through “the light of revelation”96. The problem with modern atheism is thus partly that modernity is too invested “in earthly affairs”97. The passage from the evil world into the Church is imagined as one from an old and fallen humanity into a new and restored humanity in Christ98. A radical break between the two apocalyptic ages is suggested when it is claimed that a person’s joining of the Church might demand the breaking of former social ties99. The final apocalyptic interruption is understood as continuous with the Church’s work within the world, but the emphasis is on the gap between all ecclesial efforts and the fullness of redemption which will be given by Christ at His Parousia100. The Church is promised to attain its full glory only when Christ has fully re-established the entire world in heaven101. By relating its apocalyptic Christology with a social engagement in the here and now, Vatican II could be said to preempt current theological trends102. In contemporary theological literature this relation between an 92. Ad Gentes 9, see also Ad Gentes 3 where it is written that God through Christ snatches people from Satan’s power. 93. DignitatisHumanae 11. 94. ApostolicamActuositatem 2; GaudiumetSpes 40. 95. GaudiumetSpes 13, 37. 96. Ibid. 97. GaudiumetSpes 19. 98. AdGentes 13. 99. Ibid. 100. PresbyterorumOrdinis 2; GaudiumetSpes 40;LumenGentium 36. 101. LumenGentium 48. 102. See for example S.W. HENDERSON, ChristologyandDiscipleshipintheGospelof Mark, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006; ID., Jesus’ Messianic Self-ConsciousnessRevisited:ChristologyandCommunityinContext, in JournalfortheStudyof the Historical Jesus 7 (2009) 168-197; N. KERR, Christ, History and Apocalyptic: The PoliticsofChristianMission, Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock, 2008. For an argument that Paul’s apocalypticism, on which many contemporary apocalyptic politics rely, is merely a literary genre but not a worldview see N.T. WRIGHT, ThePaulDebate:CriticalQuestions for Understanding the Apostle, Waco, TX, Baylor University Press, 2015, pp. 42, 52-53. The gospel of Mark might be the more adequate basis for contemporary apocalyptic Christologies (see HENDERSON, ChristologyandDiscipleshipintheGospelofMark). For

KENOSIS, UNITY, AND KINGDOM

261

apocalyptic Christology and Christian politics is stressed103. As evident in our extrapolation of Vatican II’s Christology, the core of apocalyptic thought centres on the belief that God alone brings about the end of this world, and an apocalyptic Christology stresses that this eschatological reign has already been inaugurated in Christ104. Not unlike the above mentioned contemporary discussions about the doctrine of kenosis, an apocalyptic Christology is also said to undermine sharp distinctions between the coming kingdom of God and the earthly reality of the Church105. Like the Council documents, contemporary discussions emphasize that the world has already been redeemed in Christ and that the Church must both wait patiently for redemption’s eschatological completion as well as actively work towards it106. In some current discussions, similar to the outlined Christology of Vatican II, Christ’s life, death and resurrection are understood as the inauguration of a new eschatological age which, until Christ’s Second Coming coexists, alongside the old one107. Whereas the new age points to the Kingdom of God, the old one is marked by human sinfulness108. Although the whole world is ruled by Christ, only the Church is the present embodiment of the eschatological triumph of redemption109. For, only the Church accepts this rule, whereas the world rebels against it. This shows how an apocalyptic Christology concurs with a politics of kenosis insofar as both subvert the concept of political power in the sense of dominance over others in favour of the servant rule of those hierarchically higher to those on the lower level. Moreover, it has recently been argued that an apocalyptic Christology can serve as ideology critique concerning too narrow secular the relation between Mark’s Parousia Christology and postcolonial ideology critique see, T-S.B. LIEW, Politics of Parousia: Reading Mark Inter(con)textually, Leiden – Boston, MA – Köln, Brill, 1999. 103. See for example C. MATTHEWES, A Theology of Public Life, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, who argues that a public theology must build on the fundamental conviction that Christians live in the time of the “Christological after-Word”, insofar as the world has already been redeemed (p. 17). 104. E.T. OAKES, ChristologyandTime:ProlegomenatoAnyFutureApocalyptic, in Logos:AJournalofCatholicThoughtandCulture 15 (2012) 82-112, pp. 99-100. Oakes clarifies in particular that the Second Coming of Christ is therefore not an event in physical time. 105. Ibid. 106. MATTHEWES, ATheologyofPublicLife (n. 103), pp. 10-11,17. 107. E. PHILLIPS, We’veReadtheEndoftheBook:AnEngagementwithContemporary ChristianZionismthroughtheEschatologyofJohnHowardYoder, in StudiesinChristian Ethics 21 (2008) 342-361, p. 347. Elizabeth interprets in her argument the political Christology of John Howard Yoder. 108. Ibid. 109. Ibid., p. 349.

262

C. ALPERS – S. VAN ERP

definitions of history110. These contemporary discussions all help to see how the Council’s apocalyptic Christology underlies its impetus for the Church’s engagement in political liberation. Further research into the Christology of the Council could also include the relation between our findings and the theologies of influential council fathers. A suggestive connection seems to exist between the Christology presented in this article and the theology of Henri de Lubac who, in agreement with Butler and Ratzinger, is convinced that worldly liberation is only attainable through a Christocentric reading of the world, and not through granting the world its own independent integrity111. This is why de Lubac’s fundamental thesis has been summarised as: “Christianity is a humanism, else it is misunderstood. On the other hand, secular humanism is the absolute antithesis of the Gospel”112. The non-Christian world must be understood as “receptive readiness” to its fulfilment in Christ113. This grants the Church a central place within the world114, whilst the Church must always attend to the way in which the world prepares itself for the reception of its fulfillment115. The world is never interpreted as static, but as open-ended in its potential for goodness and completion116. This Christocentric humanism as well as this “dynamic, open ontology” are central for Vatican II’s vision of the Church’s relation to the world117. V. CONCLUSION At the beginning of this article, we cited Christopher Butler, OSB who suggested that the unchanging Christ should be discernible in the renewal of the Roman Catholic Church at Vatican II. The argument of this article suggests that a kenotic, relational and apocalyptic Christology serves as basis for the ecclesial renewal in the wake of the Council. The Church is 110. KERR, Christ,HistoryandApocalyptic (n. 102), pp. 23-62. 111. H. DE LUBAC, TheTotalMeaningofManandtheWorld, in Communio 35 (2008) 613-641, p. 624. 112. J. MILBANK, TheSuspendedMiddle:HenrideLubacandtheDebateconcerning theSupernatural, London, SCM, 2005, p. 9. 113. N.J. HEALY, Henri de Lubac on Nature and Grace: A Note on Some Recent Contributions, in Communio 35 (2008) 535-564, p. 564. 114. P. MCPARTLAN, The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henry de Lubac and John ZizioulasinDialogue, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1993, pp. 12, 22-23. 115. A. NICHOLS, Henri de Lubac: Panorama and Proposal, in New Blackfriars 93 (2012) 3-33, p. 18. 116. F.A. MURPHY, De Lubac, Grace, Politics and Paradox, in Studies in Christian Ethics 23 (2010) 415-430, pp. 429-430. 117. HANVEY, FortheLifeoftheWorld (n. 9), pp. 57-58.

KENOSIS, UNITY, AND KINGDOM

263

to participate in the Son’s descent from the Father into the world in order to assist the world’s ascent towards the Father. This implies that the previously triumphant Church must be converted into a Church dedicated to the service of the poor118. Although the Church is hierarchically organized, the transfer of authority from higher to lower levels does not primarily entail the gain of dominating power. Instead, a close reading of some of the Council’s constitutions, decrees, and declarations has shown that increased authority is juxtaposed to an increased service to the lower levels of the hierarchy. We have further argued that the kenotic hierarchy is even more balanced through a more fundamental equality between all levels. This is evident in the Council documents’ repeated emphasis on the existence of family relations within the Church and humankind. All Church members are, despite their hierarchical ordering, most fundamentally brothers and sisters of the one Brother Jesus Christ. The kenotic hierarchy as well as the family relations originate and are directed back to perfect union in God. Finally, we disclosed an apocalyptic Christology woven through Vatican II’s documents. The Council’s impetus for ecclesial renewal is related to the patient waiting for the Parousia. Moreover, the stress is laid on the Church’s ability to perceive divine glory in a sinful world in order to redeem all that which remains sinful into that glory. A less triumphant Church dedicated to the liberation of humankind through service is consequently the “new vision of the unchanging Christ” that Vatican II has offered to the world. Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt Theologische Fakultät Pater-Philipp-Jeningen-Platz 6 DE-85072 Eichstätt Germany [email protected]

Christiane ALPERS

Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies KU Leuven Sint-Michielsstraat 6/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Stephan VAN ERP

118. See also ibid., pp. 65-67, who makes a similar claim.

CONCLUDING COMMENTARY

PROCESSWORK AND THE REBUILDING OF COMMUNION RECOVERING FORGOTTEN COMMUNITY ASPECTS OF SACROSANCTUMCONCILIUM

INTRODUCTION Pope Francis is well known for cutting through legislation and processes that block creativity in the Church. He has been trying to make spaces for new creativity around him1 and is placing emphasis in the Church more on the human person and upon a personal encounter in community. Yet he is also meeting much resistance and opposition. I want to say something that has not been often said in public before, that the Church, as other human organisations, embodies an inherited abusive system that fosters intergenerational violence. Many people in the Church have been victims and so have in turn become perpetrators of racial, cultural, sexual, religious violence and abuse. They pass down abuse through the generations – and it must stop – I want it to stop. And so for reasons of justice and of self-interest I wish to find ways of studying and resolving conflict, bullying, violence and persecution, between people and interest groups, so that we can renew ourselves as ecclesial communion for service in the third millennium. Let me begin with a story. Once upon a time a very kind old man found himself in charge of the smallest state in the world. All he wanted to do was to make people happy and to help them love each other more and more. So what did he do? He called together 2000 of his friends to see how they and their outside advisers could together make the world a better and more loving place. He had met some unkind people, but he understood that they had been hurt once and that their hurts had made them unkind. The Second Vatican Council has been seen by many to be a great opportunity for creating such a space for renewal or aggiornamento. There have been many opportunities to engage in aggiornamento yet many 1. Compare the reporting of the Maundy Thursday foot-washing by Pope Francis on March 28, 2013: Carol GLATZ, CatholicNewsService, 28 March 2013, http://ncronline. org/news/vatican/pope-washes-feet-12-young-detainees-serve-them-heart (accessed 12 March 2015), and S. ADAMS – C. LAMBE, PriestsShouldNotWashWomen’sFeet,Says Liturgist, in TheTablet (13 April 2013), p. 31.

268

J.G. LEACHMAN

opportunities have been lost. I believe that the new discipline of Processwork will help strengthen the community aspects of SacrosanctumConcilium that have become marginalised or forgotten. Toward the end of the paper I suggest practical approaches by which aggiornamento may be promoted.

FOR

I. IDENTIFYING SOME TOOLS STUDYING RENEWAL AND RESISTANCE

1. AnAppealtotheHumanSciences The Catholic Church encourages the study and use of the human sciences in developing the sacred sciences in a number of magisterial documents. Pope Pius XII in the document, Divino Afflante Spiritu on the promotion of biblical studies officially sanctioned the historico-critical method2 that had originally been developed in German Universities, notably Tübingen. The Second Vatican Council issued the document Gravissimum Educationis3, that encouraged the application of human sciences to the study of theology. Pope John Paul II issued three further relevant documents. Sapientia Christiana4, Christifideles Laici 5 and Potissimum Institutioni, the latter of which affirms “the help that can come from different human sciences and cultures”6. These magisterial documents encourage the use of human sciences in considering issues relating to ecclesial matters, so we need therefore have no hesitation in considering new human disciplines as they are being developed.

2. PIUS XII, Litterae encyclicae de sacrorum bibliorum studiis opportune promovendis, DivinoAfflanteSpiritu, inActaApostolicaSedis(AAS)35 (1943) 297-325. 3. PAULUS VI, Declaratio de educatione christiana, GravissimumEducationis, in AAS 58 (1966) 728-739, nos. 10, 11, in N. TANNER (ed.), DecreesoftheEcumenicalCouncils, London, Sheed & Ward; Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press, 1990, vol. 2, p. 966. 4. IOHANNES PAULUS II, Constitutio apostolica de studiorum universitatibus et facultatibus ecclesiasticis, SapientiaChristiana, in AAS 71 (1979) 469-499, no. 58. 5. IOHANNES PAULUS II, Adhortatio apostolica,Christifideleslaici, in AAS 81 (1989) 393-521, 489-492, no. 50. 6. IOHANNES PAULUS II, Instructio, Potissimum Institutioni, in AAS 82 (1990) 472532, 498, no. 41: Huiusmodi altior pervestigatio est persequenda theologicae investigationisgratiaet“auxilioquodediversisscientiishumanisetediversisculturisprovenirepotest”.

PROCESSWORK AND THE REBUILDING OF COMMUNION

269

2. StudyingRenewalandResistance–NewDisciplines I have taken some time to become familiar with some newer disciplines of the human sciences that I think could be useful to us. The new discipline I wish to present for your consideration here is called Processwork. 3. TheDisciplineofProcesswork:APracticeandaTheory Processwork was developed in the 1980’s by Amy and Arnold Mindell working and writing in the US7, and taken up a little later by Arlene and Jean-Claude Audergon in the UK8. It has roots in Jungian psychology, Taoism and physics. Its methods reflect a dedication to accurately following the way of nature in persons and in groups, while bringing awareness into the patterns structuring our lives; including those parts normally unseen, underappreciated, disturbing or marginalized. Processwork is a cross-disciplinary approach to individual and collective change and offers new ways of working with areas of life that are experienced as problematic, difficult or painful. It discovers potential patterns for change within experiences that disturb us. In order to introduce you to Processwork I have chosen to make reference principally to Arnold Mindell’s ground-breaking presentation, SittingintheFire:Largegrouptransformationusingconflictanddiversity9. The following short statement may suffice to fire your interest in Processwork, The fire that burns in the social, psychological and spiritual dimensions of humanity can ruin the world. Or this fire can transform trouble into community. It’s up to us. We can avoid contention, or we can fearlessly sit in the fire, intervene and prevent world history’s most painful errors from being repeated. Process work … refers to the creative utilization of conflict … [as sitting in the fire]10.

“Sitting in the fire” is a process of recalling and re-living an experience of abuse or violence so that it may be named, confronted and its

7. See, Processwork&Worldwork, http://www.aamindell.net (accessed 23 September 2015). 8. See, ForceforChange&ProcessworkUK, http://www.cfor.info (accessed 22 October 2015). 9. A. MINDELL, SittingintheFire:LargeGroupTransformationUsingConflictand Diversity, Portland, OR, Lao Tse Press, 1995, 2014. 10. Ibid., p. 12.

270

J.G. LEACHMAN

power be exhausted. It also describes the process in personnel who accompany others as they re-experience their own trauma. “Burning the wood” is a practice of Processwork based on the metaphor of forest management. If the brushwood and undergrowth in a forest is allowed to grow and accumulate over the years, when a forest fire eventually occurs it destroys the whole forest. If however, the brushwood is periodically burned away, the forest floor is clear and destructive forest fires are avoided. According to this metaphor the wood or fuel that has to burn in a person and in a community consists in the hurts, rejections, traumas and abuses that we have undergone at the hand of others because of our age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or social class. I must learn to let these hurts “burn away” by giving voice to them in order that I may discern a healthy way to contribute to the betterment of society and not respond by adding my brushwood, my rubbish, to any fire I encounter in another. In this way we are better able to meet the needs and traumas of others with clarity and to break the cycle of abuse. Now I invite you to sit with me in the fire as we consider four principal periods of liturgical renewal since Vatican II. Processwork can help us interpret the events of one of these periods in terms of abuse. This may help us consider the origins of abuse and where we may act to prevent abuse in the future and to resolve its effects. II. EVENTS IN THE YEARS 1963-1965: DURING THE COUNCIL Following the Second World War in Europe and the Pacific (1939-45) Church authorities actively promoted peace and collaboration between nations and churches and worked to prevent any repetition of international violence. Michael Fahey writes, … Long standing issues disputed since the Protestant Reformation were finally being addressed. Catholic bishops in their conciliar document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, confessed the need for renewal in how their churches were celebrating the sacraments11.

Never again was the violence of the Second World War to be allowed to recur. 11. M.A. FAHEY, TheSacraments, in J. WEBSTER – K. TANNER – I. TORRANCE (eds.), TheOxfordHandbookofSystematicTheology(Oxford Handbooks in Religion and Theology), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, 267-284, p. 267.

PROCESSWORK AND THE REBUILDING OF COMMUNION

271

ParadigmShifts The Council brought about several paradigm shifts that represent the Church’s first efforts in opening new possibilities by giving greater representation in the life of the Church to laity and to bishops’ conferences. The Constitution on the Liturgy speaks clearly of “the need for the full, conscious and active participation of Christian faithful in the Liturgy in order for them to access the sources of divine grace” (SC 14). This constituted a first paradigm shift. A second paradigm shift refers to the decentralization of authority over the translation of liturgical books, which after SacrosanctumConcilium was to be entrusted to National Conferences of Bishops. In fact, even before Pope Paul VI had promulgated the Liturgy Constitution the English-speaking bishops had established the core of the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL), the body through which they sought to fulfil their rightful authority over liturgical translations12. The issue of decentralization of authority was to prove more and more contentious over the years as officials in the Vatican Congregations rescinded much of the authority given to bishops’ conferences as we shall see in the next three periods. III. EVENTS IN THE YEARS 1965-1969: A TIME OF FERMENT The years 1965 to 1969 were ones of great activity. John Wilkins wrote in Commonwealin 2005, It quickly became evident that, once begun, vernacular translations had to go the whole way. The bishops were as eager as the priests and people. The Vatican Congregation for Rites … hesitated and made attempts at retreat, but in 1967 Paul VI gave the bishops’ conferences his permission to press ahead13. 12. “The translation of the Latin text into the local language, for use in the liturgy, must be approved by local church authority mentioned above”. CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Constitutio de sacra Liturgia, SacrosanctumConcilium, 4 decembris 1963, nº 36.4, in AAS 56 (1964) 110 (tr. ConstitutionontheSacredLiturgy, in TANNER (ed.), DecreesoftheEcumenicalCouncils [n. 3], vol. 1 citation p. 828). 13. J. WILKINS, LostinTranslation:TheBishops,theVaticanandtheEnglishLiturgy, in Commonweal 28 (Nov 2005), https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/lost-translation-1 (accessed 18 January 2016).

272

J.G. LEACHMAN

A vast task awaited the bishops: the translation of several thousand texts in some thirty distinct liturgical books, a task that would not be complete until 199914. That “full, conscious, and active participation”15 desired by the Council would turn out to be a far more complicated undertaking than anyone had envisaged.

14. The revised liturgical books resulting from the work of the Consilium are listed below: cf. B. NEUNHEUSER, Storia della Liturgia attraverso le epoche culturali (Bibliotheca “Ephemerides Liturgiace”. Subsidia, 11), Roma, CLV, 1977, 19993, p. 73. 1. CALENDARIUM ROMANUM, 21 March 1969. 2. MISSALE ROMANUM, OM Ordomissae 8 April 1969; MR MissaleRomanum 26 March 1970; editio typica altera, 3 April 1975; editio typica tertia 2002; editio typica tertia emendata 5 September 2008; OLM Ordolectionummissae, 25 March 1969; editio typica altera 21 January 1981; Lectionarium, 30 September 1970; Ordocantusmissae, 24 June 1972. 3. LITURGIA HORARUM, approbation 1 November 1970, published 11 April 1971. 4. PONTIFICALE ROMANUM: DO DeOrdinationediaconi,presbyterietepiscopi, 18 June 1968, editio typica altera 29 June 1989; OC Ordoconfirmationis,15 August 1971; DILA Deinstitutionelectorumetacolythorum,15 August 1972; OCV Ordoconsecrationisvirginum,31 May 1970; OBA Ordobenedictionisabbatisetabbatissae,9 November 1970; OBO Ordobenedicendioleumcatechumenorumetinfirmorumetconficendichrisma, 3 December 1970; ODE Ordodedicationisecclesiaeetaltaris, 29 May 1997. 5. RITUALE ROMANUM: OBP Ordobaptismiparvulorum,15 May 1969; OICA Ordo initiationischristianorumadultorum,6 January 1972; OCM Ordo celebrandi matrimonium, 19 March 1969; editio typica altera 19 March 1990; OP Ordopaenitentiae, 2 December 1973; OUI Ordounctionisinfirmorumeorumpastoraliscurae,30 November 1972; OE Ordoexsequiarum, 15 August 1969; OPR Ordoprofessionisreligiosae, 2 February 1970; DSC Desacracommunioneetdecultumysteriieucharistici, 21 June 1973; DB Debenedictionibus, 31 May 1994; DES De exorcismis et supplicationibus quibusdam, 26 January 1999, editio typica emendata 10 October 2003. 6. MARTYROLOGIUM ROMANUM: MaR MartyrologiumRomanum, 2001, editio emendata 2005, supplementum 2008. 15. SC 14: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation [participatioactuosa] in liturgical celebration”.

PROCESSWORK AND THE REBUILDING OF COMMUNION

273

IV. EVENTS IN THE YEARS 1969-1998: ESTABLISHING NEW NORMS CommelePrévoit In 1969 the newly formed Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship published Comme le Prévoit as the Vatican’s guidelines and principles for translations into vernacular languages16. There had been such enthusiasm to celebrate Mass in the vernacular that ICEL produced a quick translation of the Roman Missal. In subsequent years ICEL developed the art of translating and produced better and better texts, but the initial translation of the Roman Missal in 1974 was used until 2011. During this period many criticised the results of the rushed translation, and the differences of opinion concerning the liturgical renewal came to be focussed on the work of translating. It is a simplification to say that CommelePrévoit presented a method of translating called “dynamic equivalence” for rendering liturgical texts into the vernacular. Critics said that the translation of the Latin response, Etcumspiritutuo, as “And also with you”, was an example of the weakness of dynamic equivalence that renders the general idea while disregarding the text itself, whereas a word-for-word rendering would produce “And with your spirit”. A study on this text had been available since 1967, however, in which David Hill shows that the Latin liturgical expression comes from the Latin Vulgate bible where it is a word-forword rendering of an expression found in the letters of the Apostle Paul, writing in Greek but perhaps thinking in Aramaic and so writing in Greek a word word-for-word rendering of an original expression in Aramaic, where “[your] spirit” simply means “you”, “yourself”, “the inward

16. A.J. CHUPUNGCO, “The ill-fated Instruction ‘Comme le prévoit’ of 1969 admits that ‘sometimes the meaning of a text can no longer be understood, either because it is contrary to modern Christian ideas (as in terrena despicere or ut inimicos sanctae Ecclesiaehumiliaredigneris) or because it has less relevance today (as in some phrases intended to combat Arianism) or because it no longer expresses the true original meaning as in some obsolete forms of Lenten penance’”. The Instruction was the handbook for liturgical translation in the Church until the appearance of Liturgiamauthenticam in 2001. This document of Chupungco appears in “Liturgical Studies and Liturgical Renewal”. It was a paper read on the occasion of the launch of The Broken Bay Institute – University of Newcastle’s Graduate Certificate in Theology – Liturgical Studies and Master of Theology – Liturgical Studies degrees, Mary MacKillop Place, North Sydney, Australia, 21 January, 2010 (not published in paper form). http://www.praytellblog. com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Anscar-J.-Chupungco-Talk1.pdf (accessed 3 March 2015).

274

J.G. LEACHMAN

aspect of a person”17. In this light, the rendering, “And also with you”, rather than being an inaccurate paraphrase, expresses well the fundamental meaning of the Semitic phrase underlying the Greek and subsequent Latin expressions. John Chrysostom apparently was unaware of this underlying meaning, when he attempted to give this strange way of speaking an interpretation that made sense in his own time, but had little to do with the original meaning of the expression18. His attempt to understand the phrase was used in the promotional material explaining the recent translation, “And with your spirit”. Another example is the translation of Domine, non sum dignus ut intressubtectummeum,sedtantumdicverboetsanabituranimamea, literally, “Lord, I am not a worthy man that you should enter under my roof, but speak only by a word and my spirit/soul will be made whole”. This phrase in the liturgy had already been adapted for the liturgical context from the biblical statement of the Roman soldier who asked the Lord to heal his child. The soldier politely declines Jesus’ offer to come and visit the child in the soldier’s own home, that is to enter under the roof of the soldier’s house. The English rendering simply adapted the soldier’s statement more fully to the liturgical context, when the faithful used to say, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed”. Indeed, this same sentiment is expressed in the current official translation into Italian, “Signore, non sono degno di partecipare alla tua mensa: ma dì soltanto una parola e io sarò salvato”, “Lord, I am not worthy to share at your table: but say only one word and I shall be saved”. Far from being a loose translation, both the former English and the current Italian translations simply adapted more fully the text that had already been partially adapted for liturgical use. Another example is the translation of promultis as “for many” in the institution narrative. Every commentary on this new translation states that it means “for all”, which is what the previous translation accurately said. These three examples indicate that the method of translating promoted by CommelePrévoit was not simply loose or inaccurate, but took care to understand the underlying meaning of the phrase, rather than to perpetuate a word-for-word translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English; or to adapt the phrase more fully to its use in the liturgy, rather 17. D. HILL, GreekWordsandHebrewMeanings: StudiesintheSemanticsofSoteriologicalTerms (Society for New Testament Studies. Monograph Series 5), London – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1967, pp. 284-285. 18. PG 50, 458-459; cf.: inepIadCor.hom.36, 4, PG 61, 312, as found in R.F. TAFT, TheDialoguebeforetheAnaphoraintheByzantineEucharisticLiturgy.1:TheOpening Greeting, in OrientaliaChristianaPeriodica 52 (1986) 299-324, specifically p. 322.

PROCESSWORK AND THE REBUILDING OF COMMUNION

275

than to leave it less than fully integrated into the rite; or to convey the meaning directly, rather than presenting sometimes confusing word-forword translations that require lengthy explanations. The above statement also bears repeating, in the years subsequent to the first English translation of the MissaleRomanum, ICEL did in fact improve the art of translating and produced better and better texts. In addition to concerns about translations, many clergy and lay people experienced their own felt lack of adequate initial and continuing education. The former Dean of the Pontifical Institute of the Liturgy, as recently as 2011 thought that this is where a remedy seemed to be most needed, The aspect of SacrosanctumConcilium that has been most overlooked, from the very beginning, is the insistence on the need for liturgical catechesis for the faithful, for liturgical education for pastors and for the clergy in general as well as for seminarians and young religious and for solid liturgical formation for these same groups. This desire of the Church has never been fully implemented19.

V. EVENTS IN THE YEARS 1998-2015: WORKING WITH THE NEW NORMS 1. DifferentStyleofLeadership The Holy Father appointed a new Pro-Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments on 21 June 1996 and raised him to the rank of Prefect on 23 February 199920. He held this appointment until his retirement on 1 October 2002. In 1999 the Prefect formally ordered its episcopal board to re-draft the statutes for ICEL. As the bishops dragged their feet to comply, the Prefect worked to reverse the Vatican’s former guidelines and principles for translations. He replaced Comme le Prévoit by the 2001 instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam (LA), which calls for a more literal word for word translation of the Latin text of the liturgy. With the implementation of LiturgiamAuthenticam, most of the people who had collaborated with the previous ICEL were let go. They had formed a considerable network of scholars from a variety of disciplines. They had progressively produced better and better translations of 19. E. CARR, SacrosanctumConciliumandItsConsequences:TheReformoftheLiturgy, in QuestionsLiturgiques/StudiesinLiturgy 92 (2011) 183-195, p. 193. 20. Cf. http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmedest.html (accessed 27 January 2016).

276

J.G. LEACHMAN

liturgical texts in addition to new texts modelled off their Italian counterparts; they even suggested ways of adapting the MissaleRomanum to the pastoral needs of the English speaking world by suggesting adaptations to the Ordo Missae itself. The congregation was no longer accepting newly composed prayers, much less adaptations to the OrdoMissae, and eventually rejected even the high quality English translations of the Latin texts in favour of starting the translation process over and implementing the principles of translation provided in LiturgiamAuthenticam. Processwork presents the following possible interpretations to these events. Mindell draws attention to the types of rank (skin colour, economic class, gender, sexual orientation, education, religion, age, expertise, profession and others). He suggests the subtle and acceptable ways of using rank in the service of communion. In regard to ICEL, the Prefect scored very high in nearly all these types of rank and so established the “mainstream” culture of the Congregation for Divine Worship and represented as well the “mainstream” culture in the Roman Curia and generally in the Roman Catholic Church. According to Processwork any challenge to such leadership risks alienation, unless the leader respects the different forms of rank in a community. At times of conflict, moreover, Mindell reminds us that, “No matter what the conflict is about, facilitators must be aware of every type of rank that makes the disputants feel different from one another”21. A person who does not respect the subtle ways in which rank distinguishes people in a collaborative community, may be unaware of the great personal harm caused to its members by pulling rank no matter what the ideological goal. In the case of ICEL, the abuse lay not so much in the principles of translation, because the difficulties of translating liturgical texts remain, even when using the new principles of translation provided by Liturgiam Authenticam and its accompanying ratiotranslationis. Difficulties in the Latin text are still addressed by recourse to the underlying Greek text, and the comprehensibility of the English text is still of such importance that it mitigates against a too strict word-for-word translation. Processwork suggests that the abuse lay rather in the way in which ecclesial power was used to dismiss most of the people involved in the work of the former ICEL along with their well-honed and extensive network of collaborating scholars; this ecclesial power was used as well to diminish the bishops’ authority over the translation of texts, as has been well documented by Bishop Maurice Taylor, who himself suffered as 21. MINDELL, SittingintheFire (n. 9),p. 61.

PROCESSWORK AND THE REBUILDING OF COMMUNION

277

victim and as onlooker to this series of events22. All this personal hurt and social harm had the effect of centralizing power, although the express motive was to institute a revised set of principles for translation. Processwork recognises too that people who use their rank in such abusive ways are perhaps themselves victims of abuse; “Mainstream people are, almost by definition, oblivious to their rank. This … destroys mainstream people’s lives as well”23. It may be that such perpetuation of abuse is the consequence of having been abused previously in life, or of having lived in an abusive system24. In this case, both the Prefect and the Congregation were entitled by their rank to carry out all these actions. It may also be surmised that they may have suffered as a result of the unfavourable publicity that these actions generated. It was a lost opportunity, borne out of impatience and a desire for a rapid ideological conclusion rather than respect for the persons and social structures that had been developed. As a result a generation of scholars, including some bishops, remain hurt and alienated, and not surprisingly the English translations of many liturgical books, born in such abuse of people, continue to be an area of irritation and dissatisfaction for many Catholic worshippers as well as to ecumenical partners. It is interesting also to note that the three ritual books produced in Latin during this period, DeExorcismis, MartyrologiumRomanum and the MissaleRomanumrequired so many corrections that they have been published in emended editions. 2. ConsideringtheCauses Processwork suggests that pulling rank at such human expense offers an example of “ecclesial amnesia”, “dementia”, or even, following Pope Francis in 2014, an “ecclesial Alzheimer’s disease”. Such behaviour overlooks or rejects elements in the Church’s tradition and liturgy that favour generativity and new life25. Such a retrograde attitude is not 22. See the chapter, “A Cold Wind from Rome”, http://www.praytellblog.com/ wp-content/uploads/2010/06/A_Cold_Wind_from_Rome1.pdf (accessed 8 February 2016); M. TAYLOR, It’s the Eucharist, Thank God, Brandon, Decani Books, 2009, pp. 47-74. 23. MINDELL, SittingintheFire (n. 9), p.65. 24. J. ALLEN, LiturgyCzaraPinochetAlly,FoeofLiberationTheology, in National Catholic Reporter (28 March 2000), http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2000a/ 033100/033100f.htm (accessed 27 January 2016). 25. FRANCISCUS PP, Presentation of The Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia, Vatican City, Monday, 22 December 2014, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/

278

J.G. LEACHMAN

necessarily an indication of culpability, but perhaps, as Pope Francis gently indicated, of disease or of “not-being-well” and a need for healing. This cultural shift in regard to ICEL and to bishops’ conferences reversed several of the Vatican II paradigm shifts. The Congregation assumed greater control over the translation process that had been largely decentralised to bishops’ conferences with the support of mixed commissions. The collaboration of lay people in the life of the Church through their work for ICEL was much diminished. Processwork brings to light the specific behaviours involved in using rank in ways that do not serve communion. Such pulling rank often involves delaying and diverting attention; obfuscating, blocking and imposing one’s own will. Processwork suggests the discourse about the quality of translation and its principles was a form of distracting attention from the abuse directed toward people, including bishops, and their social network, including bishops’ conferences. Such behaviour blocks effective collegiality and destroys affective collegiality among the bishops and disrupts the tissue of the body of the Church. On 16 October 2003 Pope John Paul II issued a post-synodal apostolic exhortation that depicts the collegial nature of apostolic ministry that he recommended. He said, “affective collegiality (collegialitasaffectiva) is always present among the Bishops as communioepiscoporum, but only in certain acts does it find expression as effective collegiality (collegialitas effectiva)”26. Presumably “effective collegiality” reaches out to others and brings the gospel to others, whereas “affective collegiality” concerns the bonds of communion. Both expressions of collegiality exist through living a mutual vulnerability that builds bonds of empathy among bishops, and between the clergy and laity, and presumably exists too in relationships with the marginalised and voiceless. Processwork seeks to avoid blaming or shaming any individual or group. Rather it begins with a description of events, which it interprets in terms of the abusive behaviour inherited in an abusive system that passes on abuse through generations until it can be addressed and extinguished. We want to stop such behaviour so that it does not happen again.

speeches/2014/december/documents/papa-francesco_20141222_curia-romana.html (accessed 5 March 2015). 26. IOHANNES PAULUS II, Adhortatio Apostolica post-Synodalis, Pastores Gregis, in AAS 96 (2004) no 8, 834: Affectusideocollegialis,seucollegialitasaffectiva,semperviget interEpiscoposveluticommunioEpiscoporum,sedquibusdamtantuminactisexprimitur tamquamcollegialitaseffectiva.

PROCESSWORK AND THE REBUILDING OF COMMUNION

279

VI. REFLECTION: “I HAVE COME TO SPREAD FIRE UPON THE EARTH” – BURNING THE WOOD In the face of such traumas in the life of the ecclesial communion we ask, “What can be done to resolve such conflicts and to re-establish peaceful communion between the parties, victims, perpetrators and bystanders?”. I suggest the discipline of Processwork, which has at least six strategies to address this situation of trauma, mutual distrust, recrimination and stalemate. These are “open forums”, rank, role, process-oriented feedback and finally personal detachment and “burning the wood”. A. Mindell refers to a first necessary configuration for a positive encounter of parties as “The Deep Democracy of Open Forums”27, that is, places of encounter where awareness to problems can surface. He writes, Open forums are an excellent setting for bringing awareness to these problems and to the symptoms of public abuse. Group process within open forums can change organizations and public policy. If you want to work on public abuse alone, within yourself, or as a preparation for such meetings try “burning your wood”. I learned this expression from an Israeli woman who, after hearing her compatriots continuously lash out at each other and at the Germans at an open meeting in Tel Aviv, said they were so harsh because they had not “burned their wood”. She said that until they did, their ability to resolve issues was limited. She meant that there was an overload of dead wood, of potential fuel for anger and for release of emotions28.

In the Catholic Church these “open forums” are present as pastoral councils, community meetings, conferences, Vatican dicasteries and church synods and the mass media too. Tempers often rise in these situations and it may be hard to resolve differences. Yet these “open forums” can help to bring awareness of symptoms of disease and also facilitate conflict resolution. “The trauma must be brought out into the open so that we may deal with it”. 27. A. MINDELL, TheLeaderasMartialArtist:AnIntroductiontoDeepDemocracy, San Francisco, CA, Harper, 1992. Here he introduces the concept of deep democracy. See also, A. MINDELL, The Deep Democracy of Open Forums: Practical Steps to Conflict Prevention and Resolution for the Family, Workplace, and World, Charlottesville, VA, Hampton Roads, 2002; A. AUDERGON, TheWarHotel:PsychologicalDynamicsinViolent Conflict, New York, Wiley, 2005. 28. MINDELL, SittingintheFire (n. 9), p. 125.

280

J.G. LEACHMAN

Processwork offers “process-oriented feedback”. This can take the form of leadership training sessions for selected candidates or offering training in organisational leadership and development. Cases of abusive behaviour in the Church in the past brought out public reaction and offers of feedback from the media, press and publishers. Much of this reaction seems often to have been ignored. This must not be allowed to happen again. Competent personnel that is leaders, superiors, vocation and formation directors and facilitators, equipped with formation in the skills needed for such interventions, could undertake this work in the churches. Processwork teaches “detachment” at least for key players. Mindell writes, Relationships and public work put you in the line of fire; these dojos (martial arts training spaces) are places of extreme tension, and death and rebirth as well. After you have been attacked and shot at enough, you seem to get a few holes in you. Then things go through you better, and your identity gets lighter. You become naturally more neutral and detached29.

Processwork also teaches “burning the wood” of past hurts, rejections and tensions as an important means of facing and resolving differences between people and factions. More complete detachment in Processwork comes from “burning your wood”. Once you burn through your rage, you need not worry about staying cool in conflict; you are naturally more detached. When being shot at leaves you somewhat detached from your identity, you begin to admire, or at least respect, the courage you see in the most impossible person and your most belligerent opponent30.

VII. CONCLUSION Mindell’s discipline of Processwork offers tools that could be applied in assisting the Church institution and people of authority to face up to abuse in its history and structures, in resolving conflicts and in building consensus and a shared identity and mission. Perhaps I have been “burning the wood” of my own trauma and sadness about the Liturgical Renewal too much, so thank you very much for “sitting with me in the fire”. Let me finish with a sentence from that kind old man, St John XXIII, given at the opening of the Second Vatican Council on 11 October 1962 29. Ibid., p. 208. 30. Ibid.

PROCESSWORK AND THE REBUILDING OF COMMUNION

281

and that the people of Rome still remember with affection, “Ildiscorso dellaluna”, the “Moonlight speech”31. Dear children, I hear your voices. Mine is only a single voice. But what resounds here is the voice of the whole world; here all the world is represented. One might even say that the moon rushed here this evening – Look at her high up there – to behold this spectacle. This is how we close a great day of peace … of peace! “Glory to God and peace to people of good will”. When you go back home, you will find your children: and give them a hug and say, “This is a hug from the Pope. You will find some tears that need to be dried: speak a good word: The Pope is with us, especially in times of sadness and bitterness”. And then all together let us encourage one another: singing, breathing, weeping, but always full of faith in Christ who helps us and who listens to us, let us continue on our journey.

Ealing Abbey Charlbury Grove London W5 2DY United Kingdom [email protected]

James G. LEACHMAN, OSB

31. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snMCpvJw2bc (accessed 21 December 2015). Not available in paper format.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Christiane Alpers received her PhD from Radboud University Nijmegen and KU Leuven, and works as research and teaching fellow at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. Richard K. Baawobr, MAfr, born in Ghana in 1959, is a member of the Society of Missionaries of Africa, popularly known as “White Fathers”. He studied Philosophy in Ghana, Spirituality in Switzerland, Theology at the Missionary Institute of London. After his priestly ordination, he worked in the Democratic Republic of Congo, then studied Bible at the Pontifical Biblical Institute (Rome) before teaching in Tanzania and at the Faculty of Theology of the Catholic Institute of Toulouse (France). He obtained a Doctorate in Biblical Theology from the latter with a thesis entitled QuandJésusprendlaparole:IdentitéduMaîtreetnaissancedu discipleenLuc4,16-30 (2004). Since 2004 he has been serving on the General Council of the Missionaries of Africa, first as Vicar General and since 2010 as Superior General. This has enabled him to measure the vitality of the Church in different parts of the world and the impact of the renewal that Vatican II brought in terms of the way Mission is conceived and lived by the Missionaries of Africa and other Missionary Institutes. Since 7 May 2016 he has been ordained Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Wa (Ghana). Lieven Boeve, is Professor of Fundamental Theology at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium. As of August 1, 2014, he has been appointed as Director-general of the Flemish Office for Catholic Education (VSKO). In 2000, he founded the Research Group TheologyinaPostmodernContext. With Yves de Maeseneer he started in 2010 the interdisciplinary Research Group Anthropos, with the goal of developing a renewed theological anthropology. He is the author of InterruptingTradition:AnEssayonChristianFaithinaPostmodernContext (Eerdmans, 2003); God Interrupts History: Theology in a Time of Upheaval (Continuum, 2007); (with G. Mannion), TheRatzingerReader (Continuum, 2010); LyotardandTheology:BeyondtheChristianMaster Narrative of Love (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014); Theologie in dialoog:Ophetkruispuntvanuniversiteit,Kerkensamenleving (Kapellen, 2014, an English translation appeared in 2015 with Bloomsbury).

284

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Peter De Mey is full Professor of Roman-Catholic ecclesiology and ecumenism at the Research Unit of Systematic Theology and the Study of Religions, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven. He is the founding chair of the Vatican II Studies group (2012-2016) of the American Academy of Religion. During 2004-2010, he was secretary and then president of Societas Oecumenica, the European Society for Ecumenical Research. He is also a member of the Board of the Ecclesiological Investigations Network and member of the Peter & Paul Seminar, an international network of Roman-Catholic ecclesiologists and canonists. Since 2005 he is a member of the Board of the National Commission for Ecumenism (and its president since 2010) and co-president of the Dialogue Commission with the United Protestant Church in Belgium. In 2010 the Vatican nominated him as a member of the international Catholic-Reformed theological dialogue. Peter De Mey publishes regularly in periodicals and collective volumes about the development of the Catholic view on ecumenism prior to Vatican II, the interpretation of LumenGentium and UnitatisRedintegratio, post-conciliar Roman Catholic ecclesiology and ecclesiological themes in the bilateral and multilateral ecumenical dialogue. He is a member of the board of Tijdschrift voor Theologie, Collationes and Exchange. Joshua Furnal (Ph.D. Durham) is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology in the Faculty of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies at Radboud University, Nijmegen (the Netherlands). Previously, he was a Visiting Research Fellow with the Leslie Center for Humanities and a Lecturer in the Department of Religion at Dartmouth College. Also, Dr Furnal has been a Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Catholic Theology at the University of Tübingen, and a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Durham University (UK) in the Department of Theology and Religion. His recent book, Catholic Theology after Kierkegaard was published with Oxford University Press. Simone Horstmann, Dr. phil., is research and teaching fellow at the Institute of Catholic Theology at the Technische Universität Dortmund/ Germany. She studied Catholic Theology, German Philology, Philosophy and Pedagogy in Bochum and Hagen. From 2010 till 2013 she was academic assistant at the Faculty of Catholic Theology in Bochum; between 2013 and 2014 she did a teacher training at the Max-Planck-Gymnasium in Dortmund. In 2014 she did her doctoral exam. Her research interests are: Theological Ethics (esp. Narrative Ethics, Modernity), Animal

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

285

Theology; Theology of creation; systems theory and Theology, Didactics of Systematic Theology. Her publications comprise: EthikderNormalität: Zur Evolution moralischer Semantik in der Moderne (Münster, 2016); together with Th. Ruster – G. Taxacher: Alles,wasatmet.Eine TheologiederTiere (Regensburg 2018/forthcoming). Thomas Hughson, SJ, born in New Haven CT, grew up in Milwaukee, graduated from the Honors program in English at the College of the Holy Cross, and entered the Society of Jesus in 1962. He was ordained a priest in 1971. He received a PhD in Systematic Theology from the University of St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, in 1981. He held a faculty position in the Department of Theology at Marquette University from 1979 on, with the exception of 1986-89 as Dean at the Pontifical Biblical Institute-Jerusalem, before retiring emeritus in 2010 after some years as Director of Graduate Studies. He serves on the Editorial Board of ModernBelieving, is an Associate Editor of Theological Studies and co-edits the Routledge Contemporary Ecclesiology Series. Pastoral work in the spirituality of St. Ignatius of Loyola accompanied academic theology. He was co-initiator of the Society for the Study of Anglicanism in the American Academy of Religion. Recent publications include: ConnectingJesustoSocialJustice:ClassicalChristologyand Public Theology (Rowman & Littlefield, 2013); The Holy Spirit and Ecumenism:AShiftfromHopetoCharity,in M. Chapman (ed.),Hope intheEcumenicalFuture (2017). He has recently edited TheHolySpirit and the Church: Theological Reflections with a Pastoral Perspective with“LifeAfterLiturgy:TheParacleteandSocialMission” (Ashgate, 2016). Ha-Fong Maria Ko is Chinese, born in Macau. She grew up in Hong Kong before joining the Congregation of the Salesian Sisters of Don Bosco in Italy. After her religious profession she studied Educational Sciences in Turin, Italy and Theology in Münster, Germany. She holds a Doctorate in Theology from the University of Münster, Germany. At present she is professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Pontifical Faculty of Educational Sciences Auxilium, Rome. She teaches also at the Holy Spirit Seminary in Hong Kong and at several Catholic Seminaries in China and is often invited to organize courses on biblical Spirituality at the major centres of formation of her religious Congregation in Asia, Latin America and Africa. She is Consulter to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and member of the Pontifical Theological Academy and she took part as an expert in the Synod of the Asian

286

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Bishops and in different meetings of the Federation of Asian Bishop Conferences. She has written in the fields of Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Pastoral Ministry and Biblical Spirituality in Chinese, Italian, English and German. Most of her publications are concerned with the reading of the Bible in a multicultural society. James G. Leachman, OSB, is a priest-monk of Ealing Abbey, London, emeritus associate tenured professor at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute, Rome, and guest professor at the KU Leuven Belgium. Having studied theology at Heythrop College, London, and liturgy at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute, Rome, he was instrumental in 1992 in founding the BenedictineStudyandArtsCentre, Ealing, now renamed Benedictine Institute, of which he is principal. He returned to Rome in 2002 to teach until January 2015. James is co-founder and co-director with Fr Daniel McCarthy, OSB, of the AppreciatingtheLiturgy research and publishing project (2007) and of the InstitutumLiturgicumLondon(2011). He is principal of College forLife(2015)and Ealing Abbey lead person in the research line on contemporary monastic communities (Research Unit of Pastoral and Empirical Theology, KU Leuven). He teaches the Latin language, Liturgical Spirituality and Monastic Studies in Ealing and is training in Group Facilitation and Process Work. Appreciating the Liturgy project: url: http://www.liturgyhome.org/ appreciating-the-liturgy/ Institutum Liturgicum in Anglia et Cambria url: http://liturgyinstitute. org/ Kevin Lenehan, STD, a priest of the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat, Australia, is Senior Lecturer in Systematic Theology and Associate Dean (Postgraduate and Research) at Catholic Theological College, University of Divinity, Melbourne. He works in the areas of fundamental theology, Christian anthropology, and religious education. He was Diocesan Director of Religious Education in 2002-2006, and provides professional learning in Catholic education in support of the Enhancing Catholic School Identity collaboration with KU Leuven. Recent publications include Unfolding in Friendship: Revelation and the Analogy of Friendship in Deiverbum, in Pacifica:AustralasianTheologicalStudies 29 (2016). Annemarie C. Mayer, is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and the Study of Religions at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the KU Leuven. She is a member of the Research Unit of Systematic Theology and the Study of Religions. Her research interests

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

287

focus on different approaches to inter-religious dialogue and the study of religions as well as on Christology and the doctrine of God, especially in the light of other monotheistic religions throughout the centuries (in particular polemics, controversial theology and inter-religious dialogue in the Middle Ages), ecclesiology in an ecumenical context, especially the analysis of the changing ecclesial landscapes in Europe and elsewhere, and the correlation of mission and church. She has taught Dogmatic, Ecumenical and Fundamental Theology at the universities of Tübingen, Hildesheim, and Fribourg. She was the Catholic Consultant to the World Council of Churches in Geneva and currently serves on the ReformedCatholic International Dialogue, the Joint Working Group and the Commission NationaleCatholiquepourl’Œcuménisme of the Belgian Bishops’ Conference. She is one of the academic editors of LouvainStudies, EphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses, and TheInternationalJournalforthe Study of the Christian Church. Recent publications on the topic at hand include DasZweiteVatikanischeKonzil:‘DerAnfangeinesneuenAnfangs’, in C. Böttigheimer – R. Dausner (eds.), Vaticanum21:Diebleibenden AufgabendesZweitenVatikanischenKonzilsim21.Jahrhundert (Herder, 2016) 651-654; and as editor VaticanIIandtheFreedomofReligion, in LouvainStudies 40 (2017). Jos Moons, SJ, is a Jesuit from the Netherlands. He works in the University Parish of the KU Leuven and finished a doctorate on the pneumatological renewal in Lumen Gentium at the Tilburg School of Catholic Theology of Tilburg University. He published articles on homiletics, Ignatian spirituality and the Council’s pneumatological renewal. Agbonkhianmeghe E. Orobator, SJ, is a Jesuit priest from Nigeria and currently serves as Principal of Hekima College Jesuit School of Theology in Nairobi, Kenya. He is the author of Theology Brewed in an African Pot:AnIntroductiontoChristianDoctrinefromanAfricanPerspective (Orbis Books/Paulines, 2008), editor of Reconciliation,Justice,andPeace: TheSecondAfricanSynod (Orbis, 2011) and co-editor (with Linda Hogan) of Feminist Catholic Theological Ethics: Conversations in the World Church (Orbis, 2014). Philip J. Rossi, SJ, Professor of Theology at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, works in the areas of philosophical theology, Christian ethics, and the continuing theological import of Kant’s critical philosophy. He recently completed a monograph, GraceandFreedomin a Time of Secularity: Worldly Contingency, Human Vulnerability, and

288

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

God’s Transforming Vision, articulating a theological anthropology inspired by the philosophical anthropology of Charles Taylor and focused upon the presence and working of grace in the cultures of secularity. He currently working on two monographs: The Ethical Commonwealth in History:Peace-makingastheMoralVocationofHumanity, examining Kant’s idea of “the true Church” as “the moral people of God” and its role in the historical establishment of a cosmopolitan order of world peace, and BuildingBridgesandCrossingBoundaries:Philosophyand Theology in Conversation and Contention, exploring prospects for the mutual engagement of philosophy and theology in the context of global intellectual, cultural, and religious plurality. Thomas Ruster, Dr. theol., Professor for Systematic Theology at the TU Dortmund. Born in Cologne in 1955, he studied Catholic Theology at the University of Bonn and the Institut Catholique in Paris. His main research interests comprise the distinction between God and religious powers, the theology of principalities and powers and angelology. Currently he is working on research projects concerning the theology of animals as well as the triune office of Christ and the ecclesial ministries. His recent publications include (together with Heidi Ruster) …bisdass derTodeuchscheidet?DieUnauflöslichkeitderEheunddiewiederverheiratetenGeschiedenen:EinLösungsvorschlag (München, 2013/Italian version: Finchémortenonvisepari?, Torino, 2014); DasKreuzunddie Transformation der Gewalt, in J. Flebbe – G.K. Hasselhoff (eds.), Ich binnichtgekommen,Friedenzubringen,sonderndasSchwert:Aspekte desVerhältnissesvonReligionundGewalt (Göttingen, 2017) 93-104. Julie Trinidad teaches Catholic Studies courses at the University of South Australia. She also supports the formation of educators in Catholic Schools as a member of the Staff Spiritual and Religious Formation Team, Catholic Education South Australia. Prior to this work Julie was Co-ordinator of the Ministry Formation Program for the Archdiocese of Adelaide after having led Religious Education faculties in a number of secondary schools in Australia. Julie holds Masters degrees in Education and Theology (Flinders and KU Leuven). She currently is a doctoral candidate (Australian Catholic University) working on the Pneumatology of Walter Kasper and its implications for the reception of lay ministry in the Catholic Church. Stephan van Erp is Associate Professor of Fundamental Theology and coordinator of the Research Unit Systematic Theology and the Study of

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

289

Religions at KU Leuven. He studied theology at the Theological Faculty of Tilburg and philosophy at the Catholic University of Nijmegen. His dissertation was on fundamental theology and aesthetics, and entitled The ArtofTheology:HansUrsvonBalthasar’sTheologicalAestheticsandthe FoundationsofTheology (Peeters, 2004). He has been a visiting fellow at the University of Oxford and King’s College London. In Oxford, he was a tutor in Philosophy of Religion and Doctrine and Interpretation. He has taught Fundamental Theology, Dogmatic Theology and Ethics at the universities of Tilburg, Nijmegen, and Groningen. His research interests comprise the relationship between faith and reason and the role of theology in the academy, as well as the doctrines of God, the Incarnation and Revelation. His specific expertise concerns 20th and 21st-century systematic theology, especially the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Rowan Williams, and Edward Schillebeeckx. He also has an interest in Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology, especially in the work of Giordano Bruno, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, and Ernst Cassirer. Currently he is working on a research project on the theology of Edward Schillebeeckx. Stephan van Erp is Managing Editor of TijdschriftvoorTheologie, Editor-in-chief of BrillResearchPerspectivesin Theology, Editor of T&TClarkStudiesinEdwardSchillebeeckx (Bloomsbury) and of StudiesinPhilosophicalTheology(Peeters).

INDEX OF CHURCH DOCUMENTS Ad Gentes 3, 4, 7, 51, 54, 55, 61, 67, 70, 71, 73, 82, 99, 155, 169, 174, 176, 234, 235, 238, 248, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 Allocutio to the Second World Congress of the Catholic Action 160 Amoris Laetitia 2 Apostolicam Actuositatem / Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People 6, 7, 8, 99, 104, 111, 155, 169, 174, 175, 176, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 234, 235, 238, 240, 241, 242, 248, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260 Apostolos Suos 179 Catechism of the Catholic Church 177 Christifideles Laici 188, 268 Christus Dominus 172, 188, 189, 248, 251, 252, 253, 254 Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord / Co-Workers 8, 10, 177, 221, 223, 227, 228, 231 Comme le Prévoit 273, 274, 275 Cum Cura Ardente 80 De Exorcismis 272, 277 De Fontibus Revelationis 36, 139, 140, 142 Dei Filius 18, 19, 20, 22, 33, 48 Dei Verbum / On Divine Revelation / De Divina Revelatione 3, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 43, 48, 49, 99, 105, 106, 122, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 234, 248, 250, 252, 253, 254, 259 Dialogue and Proclamation 73, 75 Dignitatis Humanae / Declaration on Religious Liberty 3, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37,

49, 69, 98, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 259, 260 Divini Illius Magistri 97, 98, 142, 147, 149 Divino Afflante Spiritu 268 Dominus Iesus 248 Ecclesiae de Mysterio 7, 176, 179 Ecclesiam Suam 67, 68 Evangelii Gaudium 76, 87, 88, 178, 190, 192, 219 Evangelii Praecones 67 Fides et Ratio

52, 53, 54

Gaudium et Spes / Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World / On the Church in the Modern World 29, 30, 48, 49, 50, 56, 67, 68, 70, 71, 75, 99, 105, 107, 122, 123, 124, 145, 147, 192, 247, 248, 249, 252, 252, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 General Catechetical Directory 137 Gravissimum Educationis / Declaration on Christian Education 4, 5, 6, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 111, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 126, 132, 133, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 248, 253, 254, 268 Inter Mirifica / Decree on Social Communication 150, 248, 253 Letter to Women 192 Liturgiam Authenticam 273, 275, 276 Lumen Gentium 1, 2, 7, 8, 70, 71, 82, 99, 103, 122, 128, 155, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 188, 189, 192, 193, 197, 199, 201, 202, 205, 208, 210, 211, 212,

292

INDEX OF CHURCH DOCUMENTS

213, 214, 215, 216, 226, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 Martyrologium Romanum 272, 277 Missale Romanum 272, 275, 276, 277 Mulieris Dignitatem 192 Mystici Corporis 155 Non Abbiamo Bisogno 80 Nostra Aetate / Declaration on the Relation with non-Christians 4, 43, 49, 61, 61, 68, 69, 73, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 98, 99 Optatam Totius / Decree on the Training of Priests 3, 47, 51, 54, 55, 188, 248 Orientalium Ecclesiarum 2 Pastores Dabo Vobis 176, 189 Perfectae Caritatis / Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life 4, 5, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 111, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 126, 128, 132, 248, 252, 255, 257, 258, 259 Potissimum Institutioni 268

Presbyterorum Ordinis 6, 7, 8, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 182, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 234, 238, 239, 248, 251, 252, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260 Quas Primas

155, 181, 194, 253,

80

Redemptionis Donum 127 Redemptoris Missio 75 Religious and Human Promotion

5

Sacrosanctum Concilium / Constitution on the Liturgy 10, 123, 216, 252, 253, 258, 259, 267, 268, 270, 271, 275 Sapientia Christiana 268 The Catholic School 98, 137 The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable 90, 91 The True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of Order 173 Together Towards Life 76 Unitatis Redintegratio Ut Unum Sint 178

1, 2, 99

Verbum Domini 218 Vita Consecrata 127, 129, 132, 134

INDEX OF NAMES ADAMS, S. 267 ALBERIGO, G. 27-28, 199, 201 ALFRINK, Cardinal 139 ALLEN, J. 277 ALPERS, C. VIII, 9, 263, 283 ANGENENDT, A. 215 AQUINAS, THOMAS 25-27, 31, 37-40 ARANDA, M. 164 ARENAS, S. 164 ASSMANN, J. 198 AUDERGON, A. 269, 279 BAAWOBR, R.K. VII, 4, 61, 71, 77, 283 BARNES, M. 250 BASIL THE GREAT 119 BAUM, G. 82, 139, 141 BEA, A. 84-85, 91, 241 BECHTLE, R. 224-225 BELLAH, R. 42 BENEDICT XVI/RATZINGER, J. 6, 50, 77, 79, 97-98, 107, 117, 124, 138, 141-142, 145, 149, 173, 218, 247, 262 BENJAMIN, W. 199 BEVANS, S.B. 70, 73 BOEVE, L. VII, 4, 5, 100, 108-109, 116, 150, 283 BORELLI, J. 73 BORRMANS, M. 63, 65, 69 BRAZAL, A.M. 150 BROWN, D. 249 BUCKLEY, M.J. 50 BURGHARDT, W. 30 BUTLER, C. 10, 247, 262 CARR, E. 275 CHAADAEV, P. 53 CHUPUNGCO, A.J. 273 CLARK, K.J. 36 CLEARY, F. 44 CONGAR, Y. 7, 121, 155-157, 166, 175, 200, 233, 237, 243, 245, 250

CONNELLY, J. 80, 83, 87 COOPER, J.W. 34, 39 CROWE, F.E. 17, 24 DAEM, J. 146 DAVIS, S.T. 36, 140, 251 D’COSTA, G. 82-83, 85, 87, 249 DECLERCK, L. 211, 237 DE JONG, A. 183 DEL COLLE, R. 248 DE LUBAC, H. 262 DEMANN, P. 85 DE MEY, P. VIII, 7, 10, 155, 169, 179, 205, 284 DERROITTE, H. 96-97, 138 DE SMEDT, E-J. 7, 158, 160, 168, 189 DONNELLY, D. 168, 234 DORAN, R.M. 17, 24, 31 DRILLING, P. 201, 210 DULLES, A. 32, 189 DUPUIS, J. 18, 61, 63, 68, 72-74 EAGLETON, T. 47 ELIADE, M. 42 ELIOT, T.S. 20 ERP, S. VAN VIII, 9, 248, 263, 288 ESCHENAUER, D.M. 221 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 71 EVANS, C.S. 249, 256 FAGGIOLI, M. 81, 137, 226 FAHEY, M.A. 270 FAMERÉE, J. 168 FEINER, J. 109 FELLAY, B. 2 FIORENZA, F.S. 32 FITZGERALD, M. 70, 73, 76 FLORENSKY, P.A. 52 FLORIT OF FLORENCE/FLORIT, E. 139-140 FLYNN, G. 250-251 FOX, Z. 223-224

138,

294

INDEX OF NAMES

FRANCIS, Pope 1, 2, 30, 34, 49, 76, 77, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 117, 118, 125, 132, 178, 267, 277, 278 FRANCO, S. 163 FRASCATI-LOCHHEAD, M. 256 FREUD, S. 15 FUCHS, O. 170 FURNAL, J. 4, 92, 284 GADAMER, H-G. 16 GAILLARDETZ, R.R. 223, 233 GALVIN, J.P. 32 GANOCZY, A. 233 GASPARI, A. 248 GAUDEUL, J.-M. 63 GEORGE, F. 248 GERVAIS, W.M. 151 GILSON, E. 20, 52 GIOIA, F. 65 GLATZ, C. 267 GMOSER, J. 151 GRACE, G. 138 GROGAN, P. 61 GUNTON, C.E. 19, 36 HABERMAS, J. 42 HAHNENBERG, E.P. 225, 227, 245 HANVEY, J. 249, 262 HARRIS, E.J. 249 HASSAN II 75 HASTINGS, A. 182-183 HAUGHEY, J.C. 234, 239, 244 HEALY, N.J. 262 HEFT, J. 87 HEGEL, G.W.F. 17, 31, 56 HEIDEGGER, M. 16 HELLWIG, M. 224-225 HENDERSON, S.W. 260 HENGSBACH, F. 226 HENRIQUEZ, S. 164 HESCHEL, A.J. 4, 79, 81, 83-87, 9092 HETTEMA, T.L. 108 HILBERATH, B.J. 96, 170 HILL, D. 273-274 HOOPER, J.L. 30 HORRELL, H.D. 221 HORSTMANN, S. VIII, 8, 208, 284 HÜNERMANN, P. 96, 170, 204, 208

HUGHSON, T. VII, 3, 31, 45, 285 HURLEY, M.J. 137-138, 144, 146, 148-149 JASPERS, K. 17 JEFFERSON, T. 15 JILEK, A. 219 JOHN XXIII, Pope 80-81, 123, 137, 139, 225, 280 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, 274 JOHN OF DAMASCUS, 64 JOHN PAUL II, Pope, 20, 52, 65, 75, 83, 120, 127-134, 179, 191-192, 242, 268, 278 KÄRKKÄINEN, V-M. 36, 193 KALILOMBE, P.A. 182 KANT, I. 15-17 KAPLAN, E. 83 KASPER, W. 9, 221, 228-230 KEATING, D. 40 KENDALL, D. 140 KERR, N. 260, 262 KESSLER, E. 82, 91 KIM, K. 61 KING, M.L., JR. 83 KLINGER, E. 233 KLOSTERMANN, F. 204, 226 KO, H.M. VIII, 5, 135, 285 KOCH, K. 88-89 KOCIK, T.M. 250 KOMONCHAK, J. 27, 157, 162, 192-193 KRÄMER, P. 175 KROEGER, J.H. 73 KÜNG, H. 237 LAMB, L. 248, 250 LAMBE, C. 267 LAMBERIGTS, M. 100, 168, 237, 252 LARCHER, F. 40 LATOURELLE, R. 142 LAVIGERIE, C. 65-66 LAWLER, P. 30 LEACHMAN, J.G. IX, 10, 281, 286 LELONG, M. 64, 75-77 LENEHAN VIII, 5, 152, 286 LEVERING, M. 40, 248, 250 LINCOLN, A. 88 LÖHRER, M. 109

295

INDEX OF NAMES

LONERGAN, B. 16-17, 20, 24-27, 3233 LÓPEZ, A. 249 LYOTARD, J.-F. 110 MAGESA, L. 63, 72 MANSINI, G. 248 MANZI, F. 210 MARCHAL, H. 65 MARITAIN, J. 20, 52 MARQUARDT, F.-W. 204, 207, 210 MARTIN, J.S. 233 MARX, K. 15 MASSIGNON, L. 65 MATTARAZO, J. 110 MATTHEWES, C. 261 MAY, J.D. 248 MAYER, A.C. VII, 10-11, 61, 247, 250, 286 MCBRIEN, R. 193-194 MCCARTHY, T. 42 MCCOOL, G.A. 47 MCELENEY, J. 236 MCINTOSH, E. 256 MCPARTLAN, P. 262 MERKLE, J.A. 245 MERRIGAN, T. 100 METZ, J.B. 198 MILBANK, J. 262 MILLER, J.H. 167 MILLER, M.J. 247 MINDA, A. 86 MINDELL, A. 269, 276-277, 279-280 MOLONEY, R. 24, 26 MONAGHAN, C. 140 MOONS, J. VIII, 9, 245, 287 MOYAERT, M. 82 MURPHY, G.L. 256, 262 MURRAY, J.C. 30, 31 MURRAY, P.D. 250 NAVONE, J. 117 NEIHARDT, J. 44-45 NEUNER, J. 18 NEUNER, P. 200, 209 NEUNHEUSER, B. 272 NEWMAN, J.H. 52 NICHOLS, A. 262 NIETZSCHE, F. 15

NOLAN, A.M. 141 NORENZAYAN, A. 151 OAKES, E.T. 248, 261 O’BRIEN, M. 140 O’COLLINS, G. 28, 32, 34, 140, 172, 189 OESTERREICHER, J. 81-82, 84-87 O’HANLON, D. 237 O’MALLEY, J.W. 27-28, 32, 48, 118, 138-139, 142, 144-146 ORMEROD, N. 32 OROBATOR, A.E. VIII, 7, 10, 71, 195, 287 OSBORNE, K.B. 243 PAUL VI, Pope 2, 120, 133, 147, 271 PETER THE VENERABLE 64 PHILIP, F. 161, 163 PHILIPS, G. 7, 161, 168, 200, 226, 240 PHILLIPS, E. 261 PIUS XI, Pope 80, 97, 119, 142-143, 149 PIUS XII, Pope 67, 81, 97, 155, 159160, 162, 268 PIVOT, M. 71, 73 POHLSCHNEIDER, J. 137, 145, 147, 150 POIDEVIN, R. LE 256 POLLEFEYT, D. 82 PORTER, J. 44 POWER, D.N. 223 PRIGNON, A. 166 QUISINSKY, M.

236, 241

RAHNER, K. 72, 109, 145, 204, 237 RAMSELAAR, A. 85 REUTHER, R.R. 191, 193 ROCCA, G. 37, 38 ROGER, J. 85 ROSMINI, A. 52 ROSSI, P.J. VII, 3, 31, 45, 285 ROUET, A. 219 ROUTHIER, G. 171, 174 RUDIGER, A. 215 RUFFING, J. 221 RUFFINI, E. 236-237

296

INDEX OF NAMES

RUSH, O. 169 RUSTER, T. VIII, 8, 216, 220, 288 RYNNE, X. 148 SANKS, T.H. 192-193 SANZ, J.O. 234 SCHELKENS, K. 36, 139, 140, 168, 237 SCHICK, L. 175, 199-201, 210 SCHMIEDL, J. 96-97, 103 SCHMIEDL, U. 110 SCHREITER, R.J. 49 SCHROEDER, R.P. 70, 73 SCHULTENOVER, D.G. 118, 172 SCHUTZ, R. 142 SESBOÜE, B. 173, 176 SHERMAN, R. 211 SHERWIN, M.S. 25-26 SMITT, J.J. 139 SMULDERS, P. 139 SOETENS, C. 166, 252 SOLOVIEV, V.S. 52 STEIN, E. 52 STOCKMAN, BR. R. 104 STOLL, C. 217 STRANSKY, T. 69 SUENENS, L.-J. 237 TAFT, R.F. 274 TANENBAUM, M. 83 TANNER, N.P. 141, 225, 234, 268 TAYLOR, M. 277 TEUFFENBACH, A. VON 1 THEIME, K. 85 THEOBALD, C. 29 THÉRÈSA OF LISIEUX 128

THURIAN, M. 142 TILLARD, J.M.R. 121 TRINIDAD, J. VIII, 8, 231, 288 TROMP, S. 157 TURKLE, S. 151 TURNER, D. 33 VANDECASTEELE, P. 108 VANHOYE, A. 210 VANNI, U. 210 VELATI, M. 158 VERHEYDEN, J. 108 VERSTRAETEN, J. 107 VILADESAU, R. 118 VILLEMIN, L. 211 VORGRIMLER, H. 81, 137, 226 WALSH, K. 190-191 WALTER, P. 236, 241 WARD, G. 256 WASSILOWSKY, G. 198-199 WEISHEIPL, J.E. 40 WELCH, L.J. 248 WENZ, G. 216 WERBICK, J. 199, 208, 216 WICKS, J. 140 WILKINS, J. 271 WILLIAMS, A.N. 251 WOOD, S.K. 233 WRIGHT, N.T. 260 YODER, J.H.

261

ZERFASS, R.

233

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

SERIES III 131. C.M. TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, 1997. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150.

XXIV-721

p. 60 € J. VAN RUITEN & M. VERVENNE (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah. FestschriftWillemA.M.Beuken, 1997. XX-540 p. 75 € M. VERVENNE & J. LUST (eds.), DeuteronomyandDeuteronomicLiterature. FestschriftC.H.W.Brekelmans, 1997. XI-637 p. 75 € G. VAN BELLE (ed.), Index Generalis ETL / BETL 1982-1997, 1999. IX337 p. 40 € G. DE SCHRIJVER, LiberationTheologiesonShiftingGrounds.AClashof Socio-EconomicandCulturalParadigms, 1998. XI-453 p. 53 € A. SCHOORS (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, 1998. XI-528 p. 60 € W.A. BIENERT & U. KÜHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima. Origenes in denAuseinandersetzungendes4.Jahrhunderts, 1999. XXV-848 p. 95 € É. GAZIAUX, L’autonomie en morale: au croisement de la philosophie et delathéologie, 1998. XVI-760 p. 75 € J. GROOTAERS, ActesetacteursàVaticanII, 1998. XXIV-602 p. 75 € F. NEIRYNCK, J. VERHEYDEN & R. CORSTJENS, TheGospelofMatthewand the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1995, 1998. 2 vols., VII-1000-420* p. 95 € E. BRITO, Heideggeretl’hymnedusacré, 1999. XV-800 p. 90 € J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), TheUnityofLuke-Acts, 1999. XXV-828 p. 60 € N. CALDUCH-BENAGES & J. VERMEYLEN (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. StudiesinBenSiraandtheBookofWisdom. FestschriftM.Gilbert, 1999. XXVII-463 p. 75 € J.-M. AUWERS & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. FestschriftP.-M.Bogaert, 1999. XLII-482 p. 75 € C. BEGG, Josephus’StoryoftheLaterMonarchy(AJ9,1–10,185), 2000. X-650 p. 75 € J.M. ASGEIRSSON, K. DE TROYER & M.W. MEYER (eds.), From Quest to Q. FestschriftJamesM.Robinson, 2000. XLIV-346 p. 60 € T. ROMER (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 2000. XII265 p. 75 € F.D. VANSINA, PaulRicœur:Bibliographieprimaireetsecondaire-Primary andSecondaryBibliography1935-2000, 2000. XXVI-544 p. 75 € G.J. BROOKE & J.-D. KAESTLI (eds.), Narrativity in Biblical and Related Texts, 2000. XXI-307 p. 75 € F. NEIRYNCK, Evangelica III: 1992-2000. Collected Essays, 2001. XVII666 p. 60 €

[2]

BETL

151. B. DOYLE, TheApocalypseofIsaiahMetaphoricallySpeaking.AStudyof the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24-27, 2000. XII-453 p. 75 € 152. T. MERRIGAN & J. HAERS (eds.), TheMyriadChrist.PluralityandtheQuest 75 € forUnityinContemporaryChristology, 2000. XIV-593 p. 153. M. SIMON, Le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II. Genèse et évaluation de son 75 € commentaireduSymboledesapôtres, 2000. XVI-688 p. 154. J. VERMEYLEN, La loi du plus fort. Histoire de la rédaction des récits 80 € davidiquesde1Samuel8à1Rois2, 2000. XIII-746 p. 155. A. WÉNIN (ed.), StudiesintheBookofGenesis.Literature,Redactionand 60 € History, 2001. XXX-643 p. 156. F. LEDEGANG, MysteriumEcclesiae.ImagesoftheChurchanditsMembers 84 € inOrigen, 2001. XVII-848 p. 157. J.S. BOSWELL, F.P. MCHUGH & J. VERSTRAETEN (eds.), Catholic Social 60 € Thought: TwilightofRenaissance, 2000. XXII-307 p. 158. A. LINDEMANN (ed.),TheSayingsSourceQandtheHistoricalJesus, 2001. XXII-776 p. 60 € 159. C. HEMPEL, A. LANGE & H. LICHTENBERGER (eds.), The Wisdom Texts fromQumranandtheDevelopmentofSapientialThought, 2002. XII-502 p. 80 € 160. L. BOEVE & L. LEIJSSEN (eds.), Sacramental Presence in a Postmodern 60 € Context, 2001. XVI-382 p. 161. A. DENAUX (ed.), NewTestamentTextualCriticismandExegesis. Festschrift J.Delobel, 2002. XVIII-391 p. 60 € 162. U. BUSSE, DasJohannesevangelium.Bildlichkeit,DiskursundRitual.Mit einerBibliographieüberdenZeitraum1986-1998, 2002. XIII-572 p. 70 € 163. J.-M. AUWERS & H.J. DE JONGE (eds.), The Biblical Canons, 2003. LXXXVIII-718 p. 60 € 164. L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava. Origen and the Alexandrian 180 € Tradition, 2003. XXV-X-1406 p. 165. R. BIERINGER, V. KOPERSKI & B. LATAIRE (eds.), ResurrectionintheNew 70 € Testament.FestschriftJ.Lambrecht, 2002. XXXI-551 p. 166. M.LAMBERIGTS & L. KENIS (eds.), VaticanIIandItsLegacy, 2002. XII-512 p. 65 € 167. P.DIEUDONNÉ, LaPaixclémentine.Défaiteetvictoiredupremierjansénisme français sous le pontificat de Clément IX (1667-1669), 2003. XXXIX302 p. 70 € 168. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ, WisdomandApocalypticismintheDeadSeaScrolls 60 € andintheBiblicalTradition, 2003. XXXIV-491 p. 169. D. OGLIARI, Gratia et Certamen: The Relationship between Grace and FreeWillintheDiscussionofAugustinewiththeSo-CalledSemipelagians, 2003. LVII-468 p. 75 € 170. G. COOMAN, M. VAN STIPHOUT & B. WAUTERS (eds.), Zeger-BernardVan Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church80 € StateRelations, 2003. XX-530 p. 171. B. BOURGINE, L’herméneutique théologique de Karl Barth. Exégèse et dogmatique dans le quatrième volume de la Kirchliche Dogmatik, 2003. XXII-548 p. 75 € 172. J. HAERS & P. DE MEY (eds.), Theology and Conversation: Towards a 90 € RelationalTheology, 2003. XIII-923 p.

BETL

[3]

173. M.J.J. MENKEN, Matthew’sBible:TheOldTestamentTextoftheEvangelist, 2004. XII-336 p. 60 € 174. J.-P. DELVILLE, L’Europe de l’exégèse au XVIe siècle. Interprétations de laparaboledesouvriersàlavigne(Matthieu20,1-16), 2004. XLII-775 p. 70 € 175. E. BRITO, J.G. Fichte et la transformation du christianisme, 2004. XVI808 p. 90 € 176. J. SCHLOSSER (ed.), TheCatholicEpistlesandtheTradition, 2004. XXIV569 p. 60 € 177. R. FAESEN (ed.), Albert Deblaere, S.J. (1916-1994): Essays on Mystical Literature – Essais sur la littérature mystique – Saggi sulla letteratura 70 € mistica, 2004. XX-473 p. 178. J. LUST, Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays. Edited by K. HAUSPIE, 2004. XIV-247 p. 60 € 179. H. GIESEN, JesuHeilsbotschaftunddieKirche.StudienzurEschatologie undEkklesiologiebeidenSynoptikernundimerstenPetrusbrief, 2004. XX578 p. 70 € 180. H. LOMBAERTS & D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Hermeneutics and Religious 70 € Education, 2004. XIII-427 p. 181. D. DONNELLY, A. DENAUX & J. FAMERÉE (eds.), The Holy Spirit, the Church,andChristianUnity.ProceedingsoftheConsultationHeldatthe MonasteryofBose,Italy(14-20October2002), 2005. XII-417 p. 70 € 182. R. BIERINGER, G. VAN BELLE & J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), LukeandHisReaders. 65 € FestschriftA.Denaux, 2005. XXVIII-470 p. 183. D.F. PILARIO, BacktotheRoughGroundsofPraxis:ExploringTheological 80 € MethodwithPierreBourdieu, 2005. XXXII-584 p. 184. G. VAN BELLE, J.G. VAN DER WATT & P. MARITZ (eds.), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS JohannineWritingsSeminar, 2005. XII-561 p. 70 € 185. D. LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon. Vol. 1: Structure littéraire du Lévitique. 120 € Vol. 2: Guidetechnique, 2005. XIV-VII-656 p. 186. R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR., Ancient Compositional Practices and the 80 € SynopticProblem, 2005. XXVIII-290 p. 187. P. VAN HECKE (ed.), MetaphorintheHebrewBible, 2005. X-308 p. 65 € 188. L. BOEVE, Y. DEMAESENEER & S. VAN DEN BOSSCHE (eds.), Religious ExperienceandContemporaryTheologicalEpistemology, 2005. X-335 p. 50 € 189. J.M. ROBINSON, The Sayings Gospel Q. Collected Essays, 2005. XVIII888 p. 90 € 190. C.W. STRUDER, PaulusunddieGesinnungChristi.IdentitätundEntschei80 € dungsfindungausderMittevon1Kor1-4, 2005. LII-522 p. 191. C. FOCANT & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Analyse narrative et Bible. Deuxième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, avril 2004, 2005. XVI-593 p. 75 € 192. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ & M. VERVENNE (eds.), in collaboration with B. DOYLE, Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in 70 € HonourofJohanLust, 2005. XVI-464 p. 87 € 193. F. MIES, L’espérancedeJob, 2006. XXIV-653 p. 60 € 194. C. FOCANT, Marc,unévangileétonnant, 2006. XV-402 p. 195. M.A. KNIBB (ed.), TheSeptuagintandMessianism, 2006. XXXI-560 p. 60 €

[4]

BETL

196. M. SIMON, LacélébrationdumystèrechrétiendanslecatéchismedeJean85 € PaulII, 2006. XIV-638 p. 197. A.Y. THOMASSET, L’ecclésiologie de J.H. Newman Anglican, 2006. XXX748 p. 80 € 198. M. LAMBERIGTS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), LayBiblesinEurope145079 € 1800, 2006. XI-360 p. 199. J.Z. SKIRA – M.S. ATTRIDGE, InGod’sHands.EssaysontheChurchand 90 € EcumenisminHonourofMichaelA.FaheyS.J., 2006. XXX-314 p. 200. G. VAN BELLE (ed.), TheDeathofJesusintheFourthGospel, 2007.XXXI1003 p. 70 € 80 € 201. D. POLLEFEYT (ed.), InterreligiousLearning, 2007. XXV-340 p. 202. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with D. CLAES (eds.), Theology and the Quest for Truth: Historical- and SystematicTheologicalStudies, 2007. X-305 p. 55 € 203. T. RÖMER – K. SCHMID (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, 65 € del’Hexateuqueetdel’Ennéateuque, 2007. X-276 p. 204. J.-M. VAN CANGH, LessourcesjudaïquesduNouveauTestament, 2008. XIV718 p. 84 € 205. B. DEHANDSCHUTTER, Polycarpiana:StudiesonMartyrdomandPersecution inEarlyChristianity.CollectedEssays. Edited by J. LEEMANS, 2007. XVI74 € 286 p. 206. É. GAZIAUX, Philosophie et Théologie. Festschrift Emilio Brito, 2007. LVIII-588 p. 84 € 207. G.J. BROOKE – T. RÖMER (eds.), Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography.L’historiographiebiblique,ancienneetmoderne, 2007. XXXVIII75 € 372p. 208. J. VERSTRAETEN, Scrutinizing the Signs of the Times in the Light of the 74 € Gospel, 2007.X-334 p. 209. H. GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei experimentalis. A Theological Genealogy of 80 € ChristianReligiousExperience, 2007. LII-457 p. 210. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER, Virtuelle Vergangenheit: Die Textrekonstruktion einer verlorenen mittelniederländischen Evangelienharmonie. Die Hand58 € schriftUtrechtUniversitätsbibliothek1009, 2007. XII-168 p. 211. R. GRYSON, Scientiam Salutis: Quarante années de recherches sur 88 € l’AntiquitéChrétienne.Recueild’essais, 2008. XLVI-879 p. 212. T. VAN DEN DRIESSCHE, L’altérité,fondementdelapersonnehumainedans 85 € l’œuvred’EdithStein, 2008. XXII-626 p. 213. H. AUSLOOS – J. COOK – F. GARCIA MARTINEZ – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), TranslatingaTranslation:TheLXXanditsModernTranslationsin 80 € theContextofEarlyJudaism, 2008.X-317 p. 214. A.C. OSUJI, WhereistheTruth?NarrativeExegesisandtheQuestionof 76 € TrueandFalseProphecyinJer26–29(MT), 2010. XX-465 p. 215. T. RÖMER, TheBooksofLeviticusandNumbers,2008.XXVII-742 p. 85 € 216. D. DONNELLY – J. FAMERÉE – M. LAMBERIGTS – K. SCHELKENS (eds.), The Belgian Contribution to the Second Vatican Council: International Research Conference at Mechelen, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve 85 € (September12-16,2005),2008.XII-716 p. 217. J. DE TAVERNIER – J.A. SELLING – J. VERSTRAETEN – P. SCHOTSMANS (eds.), Responsibility, God and Society. Theological Ethics in Dialogue. FestschriftRogerBurggraeve,2008. XLVI-413 p. 75 €

BETL

[5]

218. G. VAN BELLE – J.G. VAN DER WATT – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Miraclesand ImageryinLukeandJohn.FestschriftUlrichBusse,2008. XVIII-287 p.  78 € 219. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – M. WISSE (eds.), AugustineandPostmodern 80 € Thought:ANewAllianceagainstModernity?, 2009. XVIII-277 p. 220. T. VICTORIA, Un livre de feu dans un siècle de fer: Les lectures de l’Apocalypse dans la littérature française de la Renaissance, 2009. XXX609 p. 85 € 221. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER – W. FRANÇOIS (eds.), Infant Milk or Hardy Nourishment? The Bible for Lay People and Theologians in the Early 80 € ModernPeriod, 2009. XVIII-488 p. 222. F.D. VANSINA, Paul Ricœur. Bibliographie primaire et secondaire. PrimaryandSecundaryBibliography1935-2008, Compiled and updated in collaboration with P. VANDECASTEELE, 2008. XXX-621 p. 80 € 223. G. VAN BELLE – M. LABAHN – P. MARITZ (eds.), RepetitionsandVariations 85 € intheFourthGospel:Style,Text,Interpretation, 2009. XII-712 p. 224. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), FlorilegiumLovaniense: StudiesinSeptuagintandTextualCriticisminHonourofFlorentinoGarcía 80 € Martínez, 2008. XVI-564 p. 225. E. BRITO, Philosophiemoderneetchristianisme, 2010. 2 vol., VIII-1514 p.  130 € 85 € 226. U. SCHNELLE (ed.), TheLettertotheRomans, 2009. XVIII-894 p. 227. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN in collaboration with D. CLAES – 74 € M. WISSE (eds.), Orthodoxy,ProcessandProduct, 2009. X-416 p. 228. G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), OrigenianaNona:OrigenandtheReligious 95 € PracticeofHisTime, 2009. XIV-752 p. 229. D. MARGUERAT (ed.), Reception of Paulinism in Acts – Réception du 74 € paulinismedanslesActesdesApôtres, 2009. VIII-340 p. 230. A. DILLEN – D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Children’sVoices:Children’sPerspectivesinEthics,TheologyandReligiousEducation, 2010. x-450 p. 72 € 231. P. VAN HECKE – A. LABAHN (eds.), MetaphorsinthePsalms, 2010. XXXIV363 p. 76 € 232. G. AULD – E. EYNIKEL (eds.), ForandAgainstDavid:StoryandHistoryin theBooksofSamuel, 2010. x-397 p. 76 € 233. C. VIALLE, Uneanalysecomparéed’EstherTMetLXX:Regardsurdeux 76 € récitsd’unemêmehistoire, 2010. LVIII-406 p. 234. T. MERRIGAN – F. GLORIEUX (eds.), “GodheadHereinHiding”:IncarnationandtheHistoryofHumanSuffering, 2012. x-327 p. 76 € 235. M. SIMON, LaviedansleChristdanslecatéchismedeJean-PaulII, 2010. xx-651 p. 84 € 236. G. DE SCHRIJVER, The Political Ethics of Jean-François Lyotard and JacquesDerrida, 2010. xxx-422 p. 80 € 237. A. PASQUIER – D. MARGUERAT – A. WÉNIN (eds.), L’intriguedanslerécit biblique.QuatrièmecolloqueinternationalduRRENAB,UniversitéLaval, Québec,29mai–1erjuin2008, 2010. xxx-479 p. 68 € 238. E. ZENGER (ed.), TheCompositionoftheBookofPsalms, 2010. XII-826 p. 90 € 239. P. FOSTER – A. GREGORY – J.S. KLOPPENBORG – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, 2011. XXIV-828 p. 85 €

[6]

BETL

240. J. VERHEYDEN – T.L. HETTEMA – P. VANDECASTEELE (eds.), PaulRicœur: 79 € PoeticsandReligion, 2011. XX-534 p. 241. J. LEEMANS (ed.), MartyrdomandPersecutioninLateAncientChristianity. 78 € FestschriftBoudewijnDehandschutter, 2010. XXXIV-430 p. 242. C. CLIVAZ – J. ZUMSTEIN (eds.), Reading New Testament Papyri in Con- text – Lire les papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur contexte, 2011. XIV-446 p. 80 € 243. D. SENIOR (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early 88 € Christianity, 2011. XXVIII-781 p. 244. H. PIETRAS – S. KACZMAREK (eds.), OrigenianaDecima:OrigenasWriter, 105 € 2011. XVIII-1039 p. 245. M. SIMON, LaprièrechrétiennedanslecatéchismedeJean-PaulII, 2012. XVI-290 p. 70 € 246. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – J. TREBOLLE-BARRERA (eds.), AfterQumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts – The Historical Books, 84 € 2012. XIV-319 p. 247. G. VAN OYEN – A. WÉNIN (eds.), La surprise dans la Bible. Festschrift 80 € CamilleFocant, 2012. XLII-474 p. 248. C. CLIVAZ – C. COMBET-GALLAND – J.-D. MACCHI – C. NIHAN (eds.), Écrituresetréécritures:larepriseinterprétativedestraditionsfondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique. Cinquième colloque internationalduRRENAB,UniversitésdeGenèveetLausanne,10-12juin2010, 90 € 2012. XXIV-648 p. 249. G. VAN OYEN – T. SHEPHERD (eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical 85 € TraditionsinDialogue, 2012. XVI-632 p. 90 € 250. E. NOORT (ed.), TheBookofJoshua, 2012. XIV-698 p. 251. R. FAESEN – L. KENIS (eds.), The Jesuits of the Low Countries: Identity andImpact(1540-1773).ProceedingsoftheInternationalCongressatthe FacultyofTheologyandReligiousStudies,KULeuven(3-5December2009), 65 € 2012. X-295 p. 252. A. DAMM, AncientRhetoricandtheSynopticProblem:ClarifyingMarkan 85 € Priority, 2013. XXXVIII-396 p. 253. A. DENAUX – P. DE MEY (eds.), The Ecumenical Legacy of Johannes 79 € CardinalWillebrands(1909-2006), 2012. XIV-376 p. 254. T. KNIEPS-PORT LE ROI – G. MANNION – P. DE MEY (eds.), The HouseholdofGodandLocalHouseholds:RevisitingtheDomesticChurch, 2013. XI-407 p. 82 € 255. L. KENIS – E. VAN DER WALL (eds.), ReligiousModernismoftheLowCoun75 € tries, 2013. X-271 p. 256. P. IDE, UneThéo-logiqueduDon:LeDondanslaTrilogiedeHansUrsvon 98 € Balthasar, 2013. XXX-759 p. 257. W. FRANÇOIS – A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), “WadingLambsandSwimming Elephants”:TheBiblefortheLaityandTheologiansintheLateMedieval 84 € andEarlyModernEra, 2012. XVI-406 p. 258. A. LIÉGOIS – R. BURGGRAEVE – M. RIEMSLAGH – J. CORVELEYN (eds.), “After You!”: Dialogical Ethics and the Pastoral Counselling Process, 79 € 2013. XXII-279 p. 259. C. KALONJI NKOKESHA, PenserlatraditionavecWalterKasper:Pertinence d’une catholicité historiquement et culturellement ouverte, 2013. XXIV320 p. 79 €

BETL

[7]

260. J. SCHRÖTER (ed.), The Apocryphal Gospels within the Context of Early 90 € ChristianTheology, 2013. XII-804 p. 261. P. DE MEY – P. DE WITTE – G. MANNION (eds.), BelievinginCommunity: 90 € EcumenicalReflectionsontheChurch, 2013. XIV-608 p. 262. F. DEPOORTERE – J. HAERS (eds.), To Discern Creation in a Scattering 90 € World, 2013. XII-597 p. 263. L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with C. DICKINSON (eds.), Tradi55 € tionandtheNormativityofHistory, 2013. X-215 p. 264. M. GILBERT, BenSira.Recueild’études–CollectedEssays, 2014. XIV-402 p. 87 € 265. J. VERHEYDEN – G. VAN OYEN – M. LABAHN – R. BIERINGER (eds.), Studies intheGospelofJohnandItsChristology.FestschriftGilbertVanBelle, 94 € 2014. XXXVI-656 p. 266. W. DE PRIL, TheologicalRenewalandtheResurgenceofIntegrism:The 85 € RenéDraguetCase(1942)inItsContext, 2016. XLIV-333 p. 267. L.O. JIMÉNEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, TheArticulationbetweenNaturalSciencesand SystematicTheology:APhilosophicalMediationBasedonContributions 94 € ofJeanLadrièreandXavierZubiri, 2015. XXIV-541 p. 268. E. BIRNBAUM – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Hieronymus als Exeget und Theologe: Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Koheletkommentar 80 € desHieronymus, 2014. XVIII-333 p. 269. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN (eds.), APillarofCloudtoGuide:Text-critical, Redactional,andLinguisticPerspectivesontheOldTestamentinHonour 90 € ofMarcVervenne, 2014. XXVIII-636 p. 270. E. TIGCHELAAR (ed.), OldTestamentPseudepigraphaandtheScriptures, 95 € 2014. XXVI-526 p. 271. E. BRITO, Sur l’homme: Une traversée de la question anthropologique, 215 € 2015. XVI-2045 p. (2 vol.) 272. P. WATINE CHRISTORY, DialogueetCommunion:L’itinéraireœcuménique 98 € deJean-MarieR.Tillard, 2015. XXIV-773 p. 273. R. BURNET – D. LUCIANI – G. VAN OYEN (eds.), Le lecteur: Sixième ColloqueInternationalduRRENAB,UniversitéCatholiquedeLouvain, 85 € 24-26mai2012, 2015. XIV-530 p. 274. G.B. BAZZANA, KingdomofBureaucracy:ThePoliticalTheologyofVillage 85 € ScribesintheSayingsGospelQ, 2015. XII-383 p. 275. J.-P. GALLEZ, Lathéologiecommescienceherméneutiquedelatraditionde foi:Unelecturede«Dieuquivientàl’homme» deJosephMoingt, 2015. XIX-476 p. 94 € 276. J. VERMEYLEN, Métamorphoses:LesrédactionssuccessivesdulivredeJob, 84 € 2015. XVI-410 p. 277. C. BREYTENBACH (ed.), Paul’sGraeco-RomanContext, 2015. XXII-751 p. 94 € 278. J. GELDHOF (ed.), MediatingMysteries,UnderstandingLiturgies: OnBridging 78 € theGapbetweenLiturgyandSystematicTheology, 2015. X-256 p. 279. A.-C. JACOBSEN (ed.), OrigenianaUndecima:OrigenandOrigenisminthe 125 € HistoryofWesternThought, 2016. XVI-978 p. 280. F. WILK – P. GEMEINHARDT (eds.), TransmissionandInterpretationofthe BookofIsaiahintheContextofIntra-andInterreligiousDebates, 2016. XII-490 p. 95 € 281. J.-M. SEVRIN, Lequatrièmeévangile. Recueild’études. Édité par G. VAN 86 € BELLE, 2016. XIV-281 p.

[8]

BETL

282. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – T. MERRIGAN (eds.), The Normativity of History:TheologicalTruthandTraditionintheTensionbetweenChurch 78 € HistoryandSystematicTheology, 2016. XII-273 p. 283. R. BIERINGER – B. BAERT – K. DEMASURE (eds.), Noli me tangere inInterdisciplinaryPerspective:Textual,IconographicandContemporaryInter89 € pretations, 2016. XXII-508 p. 284. W. DIETRICH (ed.), The Books of Samuel: Stories – History – Reception 96 € History, 2016. XXIV-650 p. 285. W.E. ARNAL – R.S. ASCOUGH – R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR. – P.A. HARLAND (eds.), Scribal Practices and Social Structures among Jesus Adherents: 115 € EssaysinHonourofJohnS.Kloppenborg, 2016. XXIV-630 p. 286. C.E. WOLFTEICH – A. DILLEN (eds.), Catholic Approaches in Practical Theology:InternationalandInterdisciplinaryPerspectives, 2016. x-290 p. 85 € 287. W. FRANÇOIS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), VernacularBibleandReligious ReformintheMiddleAgesandEarlyModernEra, 2017. VIII-305 p. 94 € 288. P. RODRIGUES, C’esttafacequejecherche…Larationalitédelathéologie 92 € selonJeanLadrière, 2017. XIV-453 p. 289. J. FAMERÉE, Ecclésiologie et œcuménisme. Recueil d’études, 2017. XVIII668 p. 94 € 290. P. COOPER – S. KIKUCHI (eds.), CommitmentstoMedievalMysticismwithin 79 € ContemporaryContexts, 2017. XVI-382 p. 291. A. YARBRO COLLINS (ed.), New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, 98 € 2017. X-644 p. 292. J. FAMERÉE – P. RODRIGUES (eds.), The Genesis of Concepts and the 78 € ConfrontationofRationalities, 2018. XIV-245 p. 293. E. DI PEDE – O. FLICHY – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Lerécit:Thèmesbibliqueset 95 € variations, 2018. XIV-412 p. 294. J. ARBLASTER – R. FAESEN (eds.), Theosis/Deification:ChristianDoctrines 84 € ofDivinizationEastandWest, 2018. VII-262 p. 295. H.-J. FABRY (ed.), TheBooksoftheTwelveProphets:MinorProphets– 105 € MajorTheologies, 2018. XXIV-557 p. 296. H. AUSLOOS – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Temporalité et intrigue. Hommage à AndréWénin Forthcoming

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706