That said, I don't necessarily follow how it is that certain statements become points of controversy. One of these is from this "second interview" and it comes after Francis asks Scalfari what he believes in. Scalfari responds, "I believe in Being, that is in the tissue from which forms, bodies arise." And Francis says:
And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?(Scalfari says they are, and in the next interchange Francis pushes him to explain, if he believe in "Being" but doesn't believe in God, what does he mean.)
Now, apparently this has caused some unease in Catholic circles because of the phrase "not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God". Does this suggest some kind of indifferentism in which the Catholic understanding of God is no better than any other? A generic God without qualities that everyone has some insight into?
No.
Actually, I think people are wrong to see this particular statement as problematic. There is, obviously, only one God. Or as Francis said, "[T]here is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation." We, as Catholics, recognize that the Church provides us with the most complete and accurate understanding of God's teachings available to us as human beings here on earth, and also with the body and blood of Christ through the Eucharist. But God Himself is not sectarian. He is not "the Catholic God" or "the Christian God" as if there were other gods or other ways of understanding God. He is simply God, and the Church is the way to understanding of and union with him.
We use the phrase "the Christian God" at times, as a shorthand to refer to the Christian understanding of God, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure that I've used the phrase plenty of times. But I think there's also a value, as Francis does here, in underlining that God is not some cordoned off thing relevant only to Christians or Catholics. There is the objective existence of God, and all our doctrines are simply an attempt to describe that existence. But God is primary and the Church is a response to Him, not vice versa.
This is not, clearly, something that orthodox Christians need to be reminded of. (Though perhaps flaky Christians of the sort likely to think of all religions as being true could use the reminder.) But it is, arguably, a point worth making with a non-Christian who is claiming that he believes in "Being". Our doctrines don't consist of believing in some restricted Being relevant only to us Christians. Rather, the teachings of the Church describe that Being, God, and His encounter with us through the Incarnation. The Church's teachings represent the completion, the end point, of any sense that God is out there somewhere. As Paul said, the unknown god is no longer unknown. We know him.
12 comments:
Part of the problem here is that, on the right, a lot of orthodox Catholics who are very unused to the sort of approach Francis is taking are find themselves lumped in with "radTrads" who freak out at the slightest sign of non-uber-(their version of)-orthodoxy.
Meanwhile on the left, socially liberal Catholics and some anti-Catholics (see NARAL's leadership) are presenting the Pope as 'Hey look, the Pope is approving of abortion and contraception and gay marriage!' That's a wild abuse and pretty much lie about his message, but the same worried Catholics see this and really start to worry. So they're getting hammered from both sides.
I agree that their worries are largely over misinterpretations, but at this stage I'm very worried about downplaying their concerns (not that you have.) I agree with your explanation of the 'no Catholic God' bit - it's the same as mine. But I sincerely hope the Pope clarifies his stances and views a bit more soon. I am entirely behind what I see as his goal to reach out to some liberal and non-Catholics and find some common ground in terms of message, while sacrificing no orthodoxy. But I find myself taking the worries of a lot of orthodox Catholics - not some extreme sedevacantists, but orthodox and believing Catholics, who feel snubbed - seriously.
Strictly speaking, it is possible to interpret the words in an orthodox manner.
Likewise the words "there is no Catholic truth".
And yet, how do these words sound to you? Depending on who says them, their meaning is either heretical or, at best, clever in the sense of an artful dodge.
Jeff Culbreath,
Honestly, the "orthodox manner" seemed the completely obvious one to me when I first read the interview (which I read cold as someone I knew had linked to it on Facebook without comment and I'd been to busy to ready blogs much lately, so I read it without hearing about any of the fuss.)
If anything, it seems to me like the unorthodox reading of it requires on squint slightly and hold one's head at an angle, as it seems in obvious contradiction to the sense of the question and reply.
There's stuff Francis has said I think is poorly phrased and likely to lead to confusion, but this really doesn't strike me as one.
Darwin, I think you and me both, and most everyone who has been critical of these words, have developed an instinctive habit of interpreting everything the pope says in an orthodox manner. Which is a good thing, of course.
I don't accuse Pope Francis of meaning something heretical. I accuse him of dodging the real issue - the one the interviewer was obviously getting at - as though God did not establish just one Church, the Catholic Church, for the salvation of souls.
The message that most people take away from a statement like this is that "the Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on religious truth". He said nothing in the interview to counter this interpretation whatsoever.
I don't accuse Pope Francis of meaning something heretical. I accuse him of dodging the real issue - the one the interviewer was obviously getting at - as though God did not establish just one Church, the Catholic Church, for the salvation of souls.
I think there's a sense in which Francis was dodging that issue - but I think it's similar (not exact, but similar) to how, say, someone who is arguing for the Kalam cosmological argument may dodge questions of 'But how does this show that CHRIST is God?' It's an important question, but it's not necessarily one that a person wants to focus on at the moment.
The message that most people take away from a statement like this is that "the Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on religious truth". He said nothing in the interview to counter this interpretation whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure both PJPII and B16 both disagreed with the idea that the Catholic Church had a monopoly on truth. I recall PJPII - I think - saying expressly that some amount of truth can be found in other religions or teachings. The Church offers something different and authoritative, but that's speaking about the hwole.
1. Why on earth would Pope Francis want to focus on the idea that there isn't a Catholic God? What is that supposed to achieve? And what does it even mean?
2. I didn't say "truth", but "religious truth". The Catholic Church, at minimum, does indeed have a monopoly on religious truth - at the least the only religious truth that saves.
Again, the only point of saying "there is no Catholic God" - no matter who says it - is to disassociate God with the Catholic Church and with Catholic religious truth.
Here's what I think Pope Francis may have been trying to do, with the best of intentions. He assumed that Scalfari's atheism was an emotional reaction against the Church, as it is for many. Perhaps he was trying to nudge Scalfari back towards a generic theism without all the "Catholic" baggage, thinking it to be a stepping stone.
The alternative is unthinkable, that the Vicar of Christ truly has no interest in Scalfari's or anyone else's conversion. But then, he basically said as much, so who knows?
We're just going to have to get used to the fact that Pope Francis is not a theologian, or even a careful thinker. Neither does he seem to be worried about doctrine in the least. It's as though my diocesan bishop was just elected pope, but with more piety and fewer administrative skills.
Jeff,
I don't accuse Pope Francis of meaning something heretical. I accuse him of dodging the real issue - the one the interviewer was obviously getting at - as though God did not establish just one Church, the Catholic Church, for the salvation of souls.
Well, keep in mind, at this point it's not the interviewer asking Francis questions but rather Francis asking the interviewer questions and pushing him to concede that he actually does believe in God in some sense.
Francis: But now let me ask you a question: you, a secular non-believer in God, what do you believe in? You are a writer and a man of thought. You believe in something, you must have a dominant value. Don't answer me with words like honesty, seeking, the vision of the common good, all important principles and values but that is not what I am asking. I am asking what you think is the essence of the world, indeed the universe. You must ask yourself, of course, like everyone else, who we are, where we come from, where we are going. Even children ask themselves these questions. And you?
Scalfari: I am grateful for this question. The answer is this: I believe in Being, that is in the tissue from which forms, bodies arise.
Francis:And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?
Scalfari: We are distant in our thinking, but similar as human beings, unconsciously animated by our instincts that turn into impulses, feelings and will, thought and reason. In this we are alike.
Francis: But can you define what you call Being?
Scalfari: Being is a fabric of energy. Chaotic but indestructible energy and eternal chaos. Forms emerge from that energy when it reaches the point of exploding. The forms have their own laws, their magnetic fields, their chemical elements, which combine randomly, evolve, and are eventually extinguished but their energy is not destroyed. Man is probably the only animal endowed with thought, at least in our planet and solar system. I said that he is driven by instincts and desires but I would add that he also contains within himself a resonance, an echo, a vocation of chaos.
Francis: All right. I did not want you to give me a summary of your philosophy and what you have told me is enough for me. From my point of view, God is the light that illuminates the darkness, even if it does not dissolve it, and a spark of divine light is within each of us. In the letter I wrote to you, you will remember I said that our species will end but the light of God will not end and at that point it will invade all souls and it will all be in everyone.
Now, what Francis is doing here seemed very familiar to me, in that it's a lot like what I've done when I've found myself in arguments with atheists: Start out by taking what supernatural things the atheist does believe in, and push on those beliefs in order to show that although the atheist claims he's a materialist he actually does believe in "good" or "justice" or what have you. Then I try to point out that this thing, this something more than mere matter, is a glimpse of what we call God.
In that context, of the conversation that Francis is having, it seems clear to me that what he's saying is, "Look, the God we Catholics talk about is not some relativistic thing that only has relevance to us. He is not a sectarian God which you can ignore because you are not Catholic. God is the one great fact, a fact that even without quite knowing it you have identified. And it is the Church which has the full understanding of that fact, that God came to us in the Incarnation, that He loves us, that he desires us to be perfect that we may be happy with Him forever in heaven."
I think Crude's right to point out that in this sense the Church does not have a monopoly on truth or religious truth. We have the fullness of truth, but that doesn't mean no one else has any. That have fragments of the truth, but they can only find the fullness of which those fragments are a part in the Catholic Church.
So in answer to your question:
Why on earth would Pope Francis want to focus on the idea that there isn't a Catholic God? What is that supposed to achieve? And what does it even mean? ... Again, the only point of saying "there is no Catholic God" - no matter who says it - is to disassociate God with the Catholic Church and with Catholic religious truth. ... Here's what I think Pope Francis may have been trying to do, with the best of intentions. He assumed that Scalfari's atheism was an emotional reaction against the Church, as it is for many. Perhaps he was trying to nudge Scalfari back towards a generic theism without all the "Catholic" baggage, thinking it to be a stepping stone.
No, I don't think that's it at all. I don't think that Francis is trying to disassociate God from Catholicism, but rather to make the point that God is not a creation of religion, but rather that religion is a response to God. God is the objectively existing Being.
Yes, there's a sense in which he's aiming to get Scalfari to acknowledge the existence of God before working on the question of whether the Church is the one fullest means of approaching God, but he's doing that in the sense of insisting that God precedes religion, He doesn't precede from religion.
1. Why on earth would Pope Francis want to focus on the idea that there isn't a Catholic God? What is that supposed to achieve? And what does it even mean?
I imagine something similar to when (to my recollection) Benedict and Pope John Paul II said things along those lines (the muslims and jews and the catholics all worship the same God), or even Aquinas with "and this all men call God."
And what does it achieve? For one thing, it cuts down on the misunderstanding that the Catholics worship one God and the Anglicans worship another and the Jews yet another, etc. It promotes a legitimate common ground. Now, you can argue that it also runs risk of encouraging even more misunderstanding - but at that point I think you're getting into talks of tradeoffs.
2. I didn't say "truth", but "religious truth". The Catholic Church, at minimum, does indeed have a monopoly on religious truth - at the least the only religious truth that saves.
I think that's paring away the claim an awful lot. So yes, other religions and beliefs can contain truth. They can even contain religious truth. There are unique truth and even means of devising the truth that only the Church has - absolutely. But that still leaves others with having truth.
Truth that saves? That's a whole other story. On the other hand, it's a story Francis didn't get into with that question.
The alternative is unthinkable, that the Vicar of Christ truly has no interest in Scalfari's or anyone else's conversion. But then, he basically said as much, so who knows?
The Pope didn't endorse walking into a discussion with the explicit and singular goal of 'convert someone to the faith'. And I admit, while that is nice - while that's a desire - I also don't think it should be the sole and most prominent goal. Again, not only is this not new, but it's the MO of quite a lot of the most prominent orthodox philosophers, apologists, and more. Once again, Aquinas is great here: the Five Ways don't get a person to Catholicism. They don't even get a person to Christianity in and of themselves. But they may well get a person to God. That's not conversion, but that is a fantastic step all the same.
The Pope didn't endorse walking into a discussion with the explicit and singular goal of 'convert someone to the faith'. And I admit, while that is nice - while that's a desire - I also don't think it should be the sole and most prominent goal. Again, not only is this not new, but it's the MO of quite a lot of the most prominent orthodox philosophers, apologists, and more. Once again, Aquinas is great here: the Five Ways don't get a person to Catholicism. They don't even get a person to Christianity in and of themselves. But they may well get a person to God. That's not conversion, but that is a fantastic step all the same.
Admission, for what it's worth, when having an argument with someone I know who I don't agree wi religiously, I've several times had the exchange:
Other: "Look, I'm not going to convert."
Darwin: "I'm not trying to convert you. If I can just get to the point where you understand what I'm talking about and I understand what you're talking about, I will have done as much as I can do."
Now, have I wanted those people to convert? Sure. But I know that it's not in my own power to convert them. It takes God's grace to achieve that. And I've been plenty willing to try to use the disarming phrase that I'm not "trying to convert them" (which to most people means talking at them rather than with them) but rather just trying to get them to understand what I believe.
Darwin,
I've never had someone say 'Look, I'm not going to convert', but I'm usually in a similar situation. I do want people to convert. Or I want them to change their mind about something (abortion, etc.) But I think the whole process proceeds better when it's pretty much what the Pope said - a conversation, where you're finding out what they think, why think they what they do, and so on. There, I've seen progress.
I also, for the record, encounter people for whom even that is not an option. There's no common ground, there's just hostility - so, on I move. People like that do exist, and I think they're who many orthodox have in mind when they worry about this attitude of outreach, where they imagine someone bending over backwards to appease (I keep using this example, because it's so apt) NARAL. That's nonsense and a bad idea. On the other hand, I don't think the Pope is doing that at all.
Yeah, there are other people who start from the point of, "I'm right, and I don't care what you think, I just want to know if you accept me or not."
And really, those people, you just can't talk to.
Post a Comment