Viewpoint Ratzinger explains how condemnation was right then, wrong
now
By GREGORY BAUM
In a recent document, Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger has decided to apply the historical-critical method, commonly
used in the interpretation of scripture, to the understanding of the
churchs magisterium. This nota of the Congregation of the Doctrine
of Faith of July 1, 2001, signed by the cardinal, is the first ecclesiastical
document to adopt this approach. The nota first lifts the condemnation
of 40 propositions drawn from the philosophical work of Antonio Rosmini
pronounced in 1887 and then explains how the magisterium can do this without
involving itself in an internal contradiction.
Can the magisterium be right when it made the condemnations and
right when it lifted them? Where does this leave the truth?
The nota, published in Osservatore Romano (July 1
and 2, 2001), is available in French translation in La Documentation
Catholique (Aug. 5 and 19, 2001).
Antonio Rosmini (1797-1855) was an Italian philosopher and ardent
Catholic whose holy life was widely acknowledged. Rosminis most famous
book was The Five Wounds of the Church, written in 1832 upon the
election of Pius IX as a program for church reform. Among other things, Rosmini
suggested the involvement of both the clergy and the people of a diocese in the
selection of their bishop.
This book was one of two that were put on the Index of Forbidden
Books in 1849 and yet his entire work was declared above suspicion in 1854, one
year before his death. But in 1887, the decree post obitum of the Holy
Office condemned as erroneous 40 propositions drawn from his writings, some of
which were published posthumously. Since July last year, these propositions are
no longer erroneous. Is this a switch?
No, says Ratzinger. He admits that a superficial
reading of these events suggests an intrinsic and objective
contradiction in the magisterium. But an attentive reading,
he explains, interprets the decree post obitum in the light of its
historical context and thus reveals its true meaning.
Never before, I wish to add, has the magisterium applied the
historical-critical method to its own teaching.
What was the historical context of the 40 condemnations in 1887?
Ratzinger mentions the effort of Leo XIII in his encyclical Aeterni Patris
(1879) to unify the theological education of the clergy by making
neo-Thomism the churchs official philosophy. Ratzinger says that many
passages in Rosminis writings were ambiguous and, when read from a
neo-Thomistic perspective, were clearly erroneous, implying a contrary point of
view, and hence rightly deserved ecclesiastical condemnation. The situation was
urgent, the cardinal continues, because at that time non-Catholic philosophers
were interpreting Rosmini in line with their own orientation. Hence the decree
post obitum was justified.
Today the situation is different. First, according to Ratzinger,
serious research has shown that if Rosminis ambiguous and obscure
passages are interpreted in the light of his own philosophical work, which is,
of course, the only honest way of reading a philosophical text, then their
meaning is not contrary to the Catholic tradition. Second, in his encyclical
Faith and Reason of 1998, John Paul II has welcomed philosophical
pluralism in the church and, in fact, mentioned with great respect Antonio
Rosmini among several Catholic thinkers of the 19th century. That is why, at
the present time, lifting the condemnations decreed in 1887 is justified.
The nota of July 2001 is an important ecclesiastical
document because it applies the historical-critical method to the understanding
of the magisterium. Yet has Ratzingers attentive reading
demonstrated that lifting the condemnation does not involve the magisterium in
an internal contradiction? I do not think so.
He has shown that the condemnation of Rosminis propositions
in 1887 were justified in terms of the churchs pastoral policy and hence
could be lifted without inconsistency later. Yet he does not raise the truth
question. The readers of the condemnation of 1886 were made to believe that
these propositions were erroneous: They were not told that they were erroneous
only when read from a neo-Thomist perspective and that their true meaning
should not be pursued at that time because Pope Leo XIII wanted neo-Thomism to
become the churchs official philosophy.
The nota demonstrates that the condemnation of 1886
exercised a useful ecclesiastical function, not that it was true.
Ratzingers explanation reveals that the Holy Office showed no respect for
the truth at all. Its intentions were tactical and political. The Holy Office
at that time saw itself as a servant of the churchs central government
and judged ideas in terms of their ecclesiastical implications, not their
truth.
Still, the nota is an important document since it is the
first time an ecclesiastical statement wrestles with a question that has
troubled Catholics for a long time. How are we to interpret apparent
contradictions in the magisterium?
Here is a famous example. In the bull Unam Sanctam of 1302,
Pope Boniface VIII wrote these words: We declare, we set forth, we define
that submission to the Roman pontiff is necessary for the salvation of any
human creature. And the Council of Florence solemnly declared in 1442
that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation, neither for heretics
nor schismatics, even if they should live holy lives or shed their blood in the
name of Christ. Vatican Council II appeared to proclaim an entirely different
doctrine. We read in Gaudium et Spes that since Christ has died for all
humans and since the destiny of humanity is one, we are to hold that, in a
manner known to God, participation in the mystery of redemption is offered to
every human being.
We are bound to ask with Ratzinger whether there is an internal
contradiction in the magisterium. Were the solemn declarations of Boniface VIII
and the Council of Florence wrong? The words of Boniface were so emphatic,
we declare, we set forth, we define, that the reader may wonder
whether Vatican Council II has made a mistake. At the same time, the
declarations of Boniface and the cardinals in attendance at the Council of
Florence were hard to reconcile with the teaching of the Church Fathers of the
second and third centuries who believed that Gods redemptive Word,
incarnate in Christ, was operative wherever people sought the truth. There may
have been good church-political reasons for Boniface and the cardinals of the
Council of Florence to make these harsh declarations, yet -- I would argue --
these declarations were wrong. The magisterium has made mistakes. The church,
guided by the Spirit, is forever learning.
Ratzingers document has sent theologians off into a new area
of research.
Gregory Baum is emeritus professor of religious studies at
McGill University in Montreal and editor of The Ecumenist.
National Catholic Reporter, January 25,
2002
|