Pope Francis been making waves. Some pundits are surprised by his statements about the salvation of atheists, yet that's fairly old hat in Catholicism. In 20C Catholicism, that outlook goes back to Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian" category. To some degree, Rahner's position was codifed by Vatican II, which allows for the salvation of pagans (e.g. Hindus, Buddhists), as well as Muslims.
Rahner was a transcendental Thomist. Transcendental Thomism was a response to Kantian epistemology.Kant internalized religion.
The architect of transcendental Thomism was Joseph Maréchal. For Rahner, everyone knows God at a subliminal level. God is the precondition of knowledge. Rahner uses that to anchor his thesis of "anonymous Christians." You also have the hopeful universalism of Cardinal von Balthasar, who was reputedly John-Paul II's favorite theologian.
However, this outlook goes back to an earlier strand of Roman Catholicism. You have two oscillating and opposing strands of Roman Catholicism. One is more inclusivist while the other is more exclusivist. Which one is in the ascendent depends on the period of church history. On the one hand there's ultramontane exclusivism. On the other hand there's ecumenical inclusivism. These vie with each other for supremacy in Catholic historical theology. Here's some documentation:
Vatican II was, itself, a compromise between competing factions. Indeed, it was a compromise between competing popes. On the one hand you had the free-spirited John XXIII. On the other hand, his successor, Paul VI, was bureaucratic and institutional. He feared the council was going off the rails and tried to get it back on track before it became a runaway train.
Over the years, Ratzinger changed his interpretation of Vatican II. And his interpretation differed from John-Paul II:
John-Paul II and Benedict XVI were the last popes to be actively involved in Vatican II. I expect the history of the Council constrains them. They are custodians of the original vision–as they saw it and see it.
Francis is, in effect, a generation later. He has a freer hand. Since he wasn't on the scene at the time, he can pretty much interpret it however he likes.
On homosexuality, the Catechism straddles the fence on this issue. It's possible that Francis is taking that a step further.
Catholicism is like Hinduism: syncretistic. It hosts many conflicting traditions. A pope can simultaneously buck tradition and be traditional. It all depends on which tradition he choses to privilege. Just as there are cafeteria Catholics, there are cafeteria pontiffs. The buffet goes all the way to the top.
On homosexuality, the Catechism straddles the fence on this issue. It's possible that Francis is taking that a step further.
ReplyDeleteDon't BS.
The CCC, with emphasis added:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
The rest of your post is off-base, but the comments about homosexuality are off-target in the worst way. And Francis has said nothing - nada, nyet - in contradiction to the catechism.
What he has done is something important: he's maintaining the orthodox line about the sinfulness of homosexual acts, while at the same time emphasizing that having an inclination to these acts don't make an individual a bad person.
And the funny thing? This message seems to be paying off. It's allowing people to emphasize that their opposition to same-sex marriage and same-sex sexual acts and culture is not the same as a hatred of same-sex people. It's the first positive step for conservatives and traditionalists in a while - and it's probably not going to take long for the smarter Protestant conservatives to follow his lead. At least, if they haven't decided to follow the lead of liberal protestants first.
"The rest of your post is off-base, but the comments about homosexuality are off-target in the worst way."
ReplyDeleteI prefer my documentation to your assertions.
I prefer my documentation to your assertions.
DeleteConsidering I'm the only one who provided documentation on this particular question, that reply won't work.
You said that the Catechism 'straddles the fence' on homosexuality. I provided quotes straight up from the Catechism.
Your move.
You simply bolded one side of the fence. The other side of the fence is equally on display in the very paragraphs you quoted.
DeleteYou simply bolded one side of the fence. The other side of the fence is equally on display in the very paragraphs you quoted.
DeleteSpell out the other side of the fence. Is it this?
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
How about this?
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
If you think that it's some kind of 'other side of the fence' to treat people with respect and compassion, even while maintaining that their actions are wrong and their inclinations disordered, I humbly suggest you're not only dead wrong, but your attitude is part of the reason we've taken a beating in these culture wars.