'Civilta Cattolica' fights windmills
By Fr. Giovanni Scalese, CRSP
Translated from his blog
ANTIQUO ROBORE
July 18, 2017
The most recent issue of
La Civilta Cattolica (LCC) has an article signed by the journal's editor, Fr. Antonio Spadaro, and by the editor OF the Argentine edition of
L'Osservatore Romano, Marcelo Figueroa, entitled "Evangelical fundamentalism and Catholic integralism: A surprising ecumenism". The fact that the Civilta website makes the article easily accessible to anyone, and that an English translation was immediately provided, makes it clear the intention was to disseminate the text as widely as possible, and to invest the article with an authoritativeness unlike that of other articles in the journal which, in itself, is not just any publication whatsoever, but has always been considered as an unofficial publication of the Holy See.
The article raises some surprise because it deals – with unusual verbal violence – with matters that are not directly under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church: American politics and a non-Catholic religious movement. The only sector in which LCC couold possibly claim the right to speak about is what they call 'Catholic integralism' (a term I thought had been left behind in the past, but has seemingly returned to favor during the new course that the Church has undertaken in our day).
But it must be said that the 'integrist' fringe in the US Church does not seem to be the principal target of the article: it is referred to only in passing, in the context of 'fundamentalist ecumenism'. The real target appears to be 'evangelical fundamentalism' and its influence
[real or perceived] on US politics. The wonder grows when one considers that no one has yet thought of making any analogous analyses of other political and religious realities and their impact on US politics.
Obviously, one can agree with some points made in the article. The criticism against American fundamentalists does not come out of thin air. And one can absolutely agree with the article's concern that
the Church must not become 'a guarantee for the ruling classes' and must not provide theological-political legitimization to "those who postulate and want a holy war".
Nonetheless, I take the opportunity for some annotations, especially considering the 'relevance' that was obviously meant for the article. These are disparate thoughts which I do not claim to be either systematic or exhaustive.
1. The article is not exempt from some defects that it reproaches others for.
- American politics is accused, not without basis, of Manichaeism. But the very attitude of its writers inherently embodies this tendency: it would seem that only those in 'the church of Bergoglio' are authentically Christian, and that everybody else has misinterpreted the Gospel.
- 'Fundamentalism' is attributed with a "xenophobic and Islamophobic vision which calls for walls and purificatory deportations", and then, adopting a typical Northeastern US mentality, the writers claim, not without contempt, that such fundamentalists are "predominantly white Americans from the deep South".
- The writers rightly denounce
the tendency for power to "find an internal or external enemy to combat" when they do so themselves, indicating that fundamentalism and the US politics they are purported to influence are Public Enemy Number One to be fought against (interesting that their examples are all Republicans, never ever Democratic Presidents.]
2. It is now realized that what used to be the battle standards for 'post-Vatican II renewal' can take on unwanted twists contrary to what was expected ('heteregeneity of ends"). Thus the article criticizes Biblical interpretation, ecumenism and religious liberty by 'fundamentalists'.
- On the Bible, 'decontextualized readings', 'literal interpretation of the Creation story', non-allegorical ideas about the figures in the Book of Revelations (Apocalypse); 'a one-way reading of Biblical texts".
- On ecumenism: 'fundamentalist ecumenism', 'ecumenism of conflict'. Ecumenism of hate'.
- And on religious freedom, 'the rhetoric of religious freedom', 'religion in freedom', 'direct virtual challenge to the secularism of the State'.
3. One would have expected a less superficial analysis of certain phenomena and situations. For example, more careful attention to the Puritan-Calvinist historical roots of the United States, would have allowed a better understanding of why a theology of prosperity was developed.
And it would have helped to understand the difficult situation that Catholic Americans find themselves in, who are doubtless Catholic (perhaps more than we Italians) but also, above all, Americans. On the other hand,
one must wonder at the a-critical reading of phenomena like Islamist fundamentalism as if they were natural phenomena that could never be suspected of being induced phenomena.
4. A separate comment is required for the statement about the 'surprising ecumenism between fundamentalist evangelicals and integralist Catholics". The writers profess surprise that American Catholics and Potestants could share common objectives on issues like "abortion, same-sex 'marriage', religious education in schools, and other generically moral questions linked to values"
(a few years ago, the term 'non-negotiable princ'iles' would have been used, but these have suddenly become 'fundamentalist values'). But has it not been affirmed enough that wherever agreement on theological questions is not possible, then collaboration between different religions in the service of men is always possible and desirable ?
5. It is evident that the writers, confronted with 'fundamentalist ecumenism', opt for traditional ecumenism "which moves in the direction of inclusion, of peace, of encounter and of bridges". Setting aside the questionable reduction of traditional ecumenism to some sociological categories, I ask:
"But don't they realize that 'traditional ecumenism' is being practised right now with Christian confessions that are on the way to extinction?"
If Protestantism is very much alive in the world today, it is so, not in its mainline forms, but in its so-called 'evangelical' [what an ugly English term!] and 'pentecostal' forms? Would it not be more useful to practice it with them?
[Which is what Bergoglio has been doing, even while going through the motions of ecumenism with the fast-dissolving Anglican Communion or with the widelty split Orthodox churches?]
6. It is curious that Catholics who in the past supported the alliance between Throne and Altar have now become the prime defenders – not of a healthy secular State – but of total separation between Church and State, to the point of
excluding "any possibility whatsoever of any influence in the political, parliamentary, juridical and educational spheres in order to subject public standards to religious morality".
One must ask:
"Then what are we to do if we cannot even contribute to the elaboration of laws. We might as well all retire to the desert. To whom then must we leave the task of making laws? To the Freemasons?"
7. The last part of the article goes into the field of geopolitics:
An evident aspect of Pope Francis’s geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight...Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church... Francis radically rejects the idea of activating a Kingdom of God on earth as was at the basis of the Holy Roman Empire and similar political and institutional forms, including at the level of a “party.”
I am afraid that the ingenuity of such a viewpoint can be overlooked. There is the delusion that it is possible to have a Church that is
only spiritual and equidistant from all political powers, without noting that
doing so is, in itself, playing the power game. A disembodied Christianity becomes an easy prey for the powers of the world and its ideologies – in which the pope then becomes merely the chaplain to whoever is the reigning 'emperor'.
It is true that through the centuries, the Church has soiled her hands with political power – she has entered into alliances, she has crowned kings and emperors, she acquired a temporal power which was inappropriate for her, she has inspired and promoted political parties. But it is also true that it often found itself at odds with constituted power (an outstanding example: the battle over the right to name and invest bishops).
But why did she do all that? Was it out of a lust for power? Alas, one has the impression that there is a lack of historical awareness here.
The only reason why the Church soiled her hands in politics was to guarantee that she could have freedom to carry out her mission. Libertas Ecclesiae (freedom of the Church) is the only reason that explains conducts that otherwise would be considered as sanctionable as it is anti-evangelical. On the other hand, didn't Pope Francis write that "A missionary heart… does not renounce [seeking] the good that is possible even if it risks being soiled by the mud on the streets"
(EG 45; cf AL 308)?
8. We find a confirmation of the deficient geopolitical vision of the Church today in the words of Pope Francis to the French newspaper
La Croix: "Europe, yes, has Christian roots. Christianity has the duty to water these roots, but in a spirit of service, as in washing the feet. Christianity's duty to Europe is service… Christianity's contribution to a culture is that which Christ did by washing feet, service and giving his life.
[OMG, did he just equate washing feet to 'giving his life'?] It should not be a colonialist contribution".
[Right, while Muslims all over Europe are imposing their 'colonialist' contributions on their host countries!]
That the Church contributes to society with service is undeniable. But perhaps it is forgotten that service, in order to be effective, must be organized and must translate itself into concrete works. If necessary, it must be institutionalized – which will, in turn, lead anew to soiling the hands of the Church.
[Think Malteser International and the power putsch by the German Knights of Malta! Or the recently uncovered scandal involving two top executives of the Vatican's Bambino Gesu Hospital. Or all those American Catholic activist associations which worked hand-in-glove with Democratic administrations to promote anti-Catholic practices!]
Instead, the role which Bergoglio would seem to wish for his church is that of a humanitarian agency.
[No matter how many times he denounces the idea of the Church as an NGO, that is exactly what he has made of it – the largest NGO in the world, fully in the service of the United Nations and its anti-Catholic development goals.] For the Church to think of herself only as a 'field hospital' is exactly what the powers of the world want: "Good, concern yourself with alleviating the sorrows of mankind. We will take care of the rest".
9. "Now more than ever, power must be stripped of its soiled confessional garments, of its armor, of its rusty weapons". But who are they referring to? If there is anything that is rusty, it is the description of a reality that no longer exists. Which power today is shrouded in confessional garments? It would seem the writers don't realize that the Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist centuries ago! Nor do we have the Christian Democrats around any more in Italy! Today the Church is facing powers that are completely secularized – why should we be concerned about stripping them of their confessional garments?
[The Islamic powers who rule by virtual theocracy – Iran is the best example – do strut about in 'confessional garments', i.e. everything they are and do is in the name of their religion, Islam.]
10. The most troubling thing about this article is that the writers appear to be stuck in the age of the Catholic monarchs. They don't seem to realize that meanwhile, power has changed its garments. Real power today does not belong to Trump and Putin, to Macron and Merkel, to Gentiloni and Mattarella. The true power is an anonymous, invisible power that is more economic than political, which uses both religion and politics as simple
instrumenta regni (tools for reigning).
That
La Civilta Cattolica, but above all, that the church of Bergoglio does not seem to realize this, is very serious indeed.
It is very serious not to realize that by fighting a power that does not exist, the church of Bergoglio is putting itself at the service of the true power. [Of course, the flaw in this hypothesis is that this unnamed power – whether it is simply an abstract historical force, or a Ludlumite secret council of powerful men able to impose their will on the major leaders of the world – is really as vague. amorphous and perhaps imaginary as the supposed 'external pressures' that brought on Benedict XVI's renunciation. Very likely, it is all one and the same, and for all intents and purposes, no more concrete than Ludlum's fictional 'secret council'.]
'First Things' misses the mark
on the Spadaro-Figueroa screed
by Christopher A. Ferrara
FATIMA NETWORK PERSPECTIVES
July 20, 2017
[Earlier] we addressed a liberal screed
published in the Pope’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano(OR), [Was it reprinted in OR from La Civilta Cattolica???] co-authored by “papal mouthpiece” and close collaborator Antonio Spadaro, SJ and Marcelo Figueroa, a longtime Protestant friend of Pope Bergoglio’s whom he made editor of the Argentine edition of OR.
The piece has understandably provoked fierce criticism even among “mainstream” Catholic commentators, who rightly note that Spadaro-Figueroa have produced a meandering, pseudo-intellectual jumble of liberal clichés.
One such commentator is P.J. Smith, writing in
First Things. Smith does a good job of exposing the two authors’ rejection of the Church’s constant teaching on the necessary organic connection between Church and State, religious truth and political life, and against the errors of modern “liberty,” which have severed the State from the Church as its conscience and very soul, leading to the moral and spiritual death throes of the body politic we are now witnessing.
As Smith points out, when Spadaro and Figueroa deride “Catholic integralism” — an empty epithet which, in the manner of all demagogues, they never define — they reveal only that they
“are squarely against the Church’s tradition. They apparently intend to deny the integralist doctrines contained in Leo XIII’s Libertas praestantissimum, Immortale Dei, and Diuturnum illud, to say nothing of St. Pius X’s Fin dalla prima nostra and Notre charge apostolique….
“They also apparently intend generally to deny the condemnations of liberalism contained in Gregory XVI’s Mirari vos and Bl. Pius IX’s Quanta cura and Syllabus. No doubt they see in the Second Vatican Council, particularly Gaudium et spes, Dignitatis humanae, Nostra aetate, and Unitatis redintegratio, the rejection of such tedious anti-liberal doctrines….”
So far, so good. But
Smith stumbles badly when he attempts to put distance between Pope Bergoglio and the two authors of the piece, who are, after all, his close friends and collaborators, writing in his own semi-official newspaper.
Most implausibly, Smith insists that Spadaro and Figueroa are wrong when they assert that while “fundamentalists and integralists want to unite the spiritual power and the temporal power, Francis wants to erect a wall of separation between the two.”
Sorry, but that won’t fly.
For it is none other than Pope Bergoglio who flatly declared: “States must be secular. Confessional states end badly. That goes against the grain of History. I believe that a version of laicity accompanied by a solid law guaranteeing religious freedom offers a framework for going forward.”
In other words, the separation of Church and State is mandatory, according to Pope Bergoglio. As for the “solid law guaranteeing religious freedom” that he posits, the modern regime of “religious liberty” guarantees the freedom of any and all religions, including those whose very mission is to oppose the Catholic Church and negate her teaching on faith and morals, above all Islam. The resulting religious fragmentation of the modern state system, even in overwhelmingly Catholic countries, is precisely why it is morally and spiritually falling to pieces.
Smith gamely asserts that Spadaro and Figueroa are wrong to aver that Francis “wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church”. His search for proof texts in the Bergoglian manifestos, however, produces scanty results: a few stray phrases that hardly constitute a ringing endorsement of anything like the Christian commonwealth that both he and the two authors have emphatically rejected.
Pope Bergoglio, says Smith, has declared in
Evangelii gaudium that “the whole is greater than the parts,” whereas in
Laudato si’ he observes that “the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance, unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality,” and thus he calls for “a humanism capable of bringing together the different fields of knowledge … in the service of a more integral and integrating vision.”
That’s it? Indeed, it is:
a mere vague appeal to a new humanism that integrates knowledge according to some ill-defined “vision” that has nothing to do with the Catholic faith as the unifying matrix of social order and the Church as the conscience and soul of the State.
One will search in vain through the mountain of verbiage Pope Bergoglio has produced for any sign that he accepts the very teaching Spadaro and Figueroa reject as “Catholic intregralism.” Every indication is to the contrary.
For example, Evangelii Gaudium’s infamous condemnation of
“the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism…” And so on and so forth, over the past four years of nearly daily denunciations of tradition-minded Catholics — something absolutely without precedent in Church history.
Sorry, Mr. Smith, but Spadaro, Figueroa and Bergoglio are three peas in a pod. That is why they are friends and collaborators at the highest level of the Church. And that is why the Church has reached what must be the final stage of the worst crisis in her long history — a crisis from which the Mother of God will ultimately rescue the Church through Her most powerful intercession. Just as She promised at Fatima.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/07/2017 13:23]