Google+
 
Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » | Pagina successiva

BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Ultimo Aggiornamento: 23/08/2021 11:16
Autore
Stampa | Notifica email    
25/04/2017 20:35
OFFLINE
Post: 31.016
Post: 13.106
Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009
Administratore
Utente Gold


Doctrine vs discernment
in Bergoglian theology

Translated from

April 18, 2017

The recent interview given by the new Jesuit Superior-General, Fr. Arturo Sosa, to Vaticanista Giuseppe Rusconi (which he published on his website Rossoporpora), created a buzz especially because of his infelicitous statement that Jesus’s words have to be continually re-interpreted since we do not really know what he did say because there were no tape recorders in his time.

But Fr. Sosa also made some statements about ‘discernment’ which were ignored by most commentators, statements which I believe deserve dwelling on, considering the consequences they could have on the life of the Church.

He uses the words ‘discern’ and ‘discernment’ a total of 24 times in the interview. But I will limit myself to the passage where he talks about the relationship between doctrine and discernment:

Let me see if I understood you correctly: If my conscience, after ‘discerning’ a case, tells me I can go ahead and do something, then I can do it without feeling guilty and with the approval of the community – for example, I could then receive Communion even if I do not fulfill the norms for doing so…
The Church has developed over the centuries – it is not a piece of reinforced concrete – it was born, it has learned, it has changed – and that is why there have been ecumenical councils, in order to put developments in doctrine through a crucible. But I do not like the word ‘doctrine’ – which carries with it the image of stony hardness. Whereas human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, but a continuous development…
I take it that for you, the practice of discernment takes priority over doctrine…
Yes, but doctrine is part of discernment. True discernment cannot do without doctrine.
But it can come to conclusions that are different from doctrine…
Yes, that is right, because doctrine cannot replace discernment, nor the Holy Spirit.
[i.e., Sosa seems to think that ‘discernment’ – i.e., the judgment of one’s conscience - is equivalent or tantamount to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit!]


I chose the above excerpt from the interview because it highlights very well the new pastoral attitude taken by ‘the Church’ today: Doctrine per se is not rejected, but discernment is preferred over doctrine.

In an earlier post, we already dwelt on such a juxtaposition: that the passage from the priority of doctrine to that of discernment is the principal characteristic of the ‘pastoral revolution’ that is underway. And Fr. Sosa’s statements confirm that conclusion while giving us the opportunity for further analysis.

First of all, let us understand what doctrine really consists of. The word comes from the Latin doctrina which is the substantive of the verb docere (to teach) – so its original meaning is ‘teaching’. But it has progressively taken on a more technical meaning as “the organic complex of fundamental theoretical principles upon which is based a political, artistic, philosophical, scientific, etc movement“. More specifically, Christian doctrine is the “complex of dogmas and principles that constitute the Christian faith”.

Thus, we can understand Fr. Sosa’s uneasiness with the term – “I do not like the word doctrine; it carries the image of stony hardness”. He is not saying anything new, but he is expressing a mentality that is quite widespread in the Church today, a mentality shared by Pope Francis. Consider what this pope has said about this:

”It is true that in a certain sense, to say that we share something is also to say that there are no differences among us, that we have the same doctrine – and I underscore the word, which is difficult to understand. And I ask myself, don’t we share the same Baptism?" (Visit to the Lutheran Church in Rome, 11/15/15)

“The view that the doctrine of the Church is a monolith to be defended without nuances is wrong”. (Interview with La Civilta Cattolica, n. 3918, p. 476; cf Evangelii gaudium, n. 40)

“Rather than offering the healing power of grace and the light of the Gospel message,some would “indoctrinate” that message, [I suppose he means to turn the Gospel into doctrine – but is that not what the Gospel is? Christ’s teaching, i.e, his doctrine of salvation]turning it into dead stones to be hurled at others".(Amoris laetitia, n. 49)

“Our teaching on marriage and the family cannot fail to be inspired and transformed by this message of love and tenderness; otherwise,
it becomes nothing more than the defence of a dry and lifeless doctrine". (ibid, n. 59)


Honestly, it is difficult to understand such aversion against – stone (or rock). Stone is hard; stone is cold; stone is immovable and immutable – whereas reality is changeable, unstable, fluid, in continuous development. Reality is nuanced and difficult to encapsulate in fixed, intangible formulas. But precisely because reality is so ‘liquid’, we need something stable on which to stand. As the Gospel parable tells us, let us build our house on rock, not on sand (Mt 7,24-27), Lk 6,47-49).

And this Rock is Christ (1Cor 10,4). He is the living stone which is the foundation for the spiritual edifice formed by the living stones that we are (1Pt 2,4-5). In this passage of Peter’s first Epistle, the apostle cites a verse from the prophet Isaiah “Behold, I am laying a stone in Zion, a cornerstone, chosen and precious, and whoever believes in it shall not be put to shame” (28,16), in which faith is expressed in relation to stone. In Hebrew, the root ‘mn' (from which comes the verb ‘aman’, to believe, and our interjection ‘Amen’ (which means ‘truly’, ‘so be it’, ‘so I believe’) expresses the idea of stability, solidity, fidelity. And ‘to believe’ means, above all, ‘to acquire solidity and firmness’ by relying on something solid and firm as rock or stone.

Jesus - the only stone upon which we can build (1Cor 3,11) – chose to rename Simon ‘Peter’, the Rock. If Scriptures convey such a positive idea of stone, what right do we have to judge it negatively and consider it only cold and hard? Is it correct to cite it exclusively as it has to do with how it was used in those times as an instrument of punishment (stoning a culprit to death, as provided by law) – certainly not recommended by the Gospels?

So, if doctrine plays in the Church the role of the rock on which the faith of Christians rests, I do not see that there is anything wrong with that. Faith necessarily must be associated with something solid, fixed, immutable – it cannot be prey to the winds of human ideologies and changeable sentiments.

It is true that in the beginning, there were animated discussions among Christians – at times being true and proper ‘battles’ – on the significance to give to Jesus’s teachings. But little by little, the Church succeeded to define such meanings and to ‘fix’ them in place by certain formulas that could not thereafter be changed, if we were not to fall back into endless diatribes, and formulas by which we could consider these meanings definitive and closed.

Let us take an example: During the Arian crisis, the debate was over whether Jesus Christ was homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father, or homoiousios (os similar substance). Once it was accepted that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, it was no longer possible to lament that homoousios was a ‘fixed formula’ that impeded legitimate dialectic and theological pluralism in the Church; it could no longer be said that reality is more nuanced, that it is not black and white, etc. Christ is homoousios or he is not – there are no possible nuances. And if I affirm that Christ is homoousious, I am not casting stones at anyone: I am simply affirming my faith in the true nature of Christ. And it there are those who are scandalized by my affirmation, it is their problem, not mine.

Moreover, as Scripture anticipated, for those who do not believe, ” “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” (Ps 118, 22) as well as “a stone for injury and a rock for stumbling (Is 8,14). Non-believres would stumble on the stone because they do not obey the Word of God.

So I do not see why we should be surprised at the possibility that some may reject Christ – it is an eventuality allowed by free will. But the fact that someone could reject Christ does not authorize me to change doctrine – or, if you will, enclose it in parentheses - simply not to offend or annoy someone.

Thus it is true that doctrine is the outcome of a crystallization - a process of clarification, precision and definition of the truths of the faith. A process that cannot be seen negatively as a manifestation of a closed mind, of pharisaism or legalism, as some would and do [starting the current Successor of Peter, alas!].

Rather doctrine should be considered as a form of love and veneration for the Word of God. It is love which impels believers to seek to understand better what God has deigned to reveal to men, and once understood, to seek to define it as settled, to safeguard it, and to transmit it, as it is, without changes. It is a most precious gift especially because it can be manipulated. Depositum custodi… (Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.), was Paul’s clear advice to Timothy. How can the Church do otherwise?

But, it may be objected, fixed formulations can be transformed into ‘words that kill’, as Paul implies in 2Cor 3,6 – the characteristic of the New Covenant is not its words, but the Spirit which gives life to the words. And we have the certainty that the process of crystallizing the Word of God took place precisely under the impulse and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit that continues to give life to apparently dead letters.

But, as we said, today, discernment is given priority over doctrine. I am aware of the limitations of the earlier post in which I wrote about this, but I was unable till now to pursue the discussion more deeply. There is no doubt that ‘discernment’ can vaunt of a noble ancestry (in its New Testament sense, and later in the Ignatian tradition which is understandably the reference point for both the pope and Fr. Sosa).

It remains to be seen whether [Bergoglian/Sosan] discernment – which is now being proposed as somehow a replacement for doctrine – is a legitimate offshoot of the discernment described in the New Testament or the Ignatian one. Or should we rather consider it a bastard fruit?

Today, instead of doctrine – firm as a rock, fixed, immutable, cold and abstract – we are asked to prefer discernment because it is closer to reality, it is more malleable, as though it were therefore more able to grasp the presence and the will of God in multiple and diversified life situations.

Fr. Sosa describes the practice of discernment – namely, “setting out to heed the Holy Spirit, which as Jesus promised us, helps us to understand the signs of God’s presence in history”. See how he takes it for granted – Jesus promised it! – that the Holy Spirit is necessarily present in our discernment, forgetting that we discern precisely in order to verify his presence.

He is forgetting that Biblical discernment was discretio spirituum [‘discernment of spirits’, a biblical charism and patristic virtue, whose object is to identify the presence or absence of God in given human activity]. He is forgetting that such ‘spirits’ can be good (the Holy Spirit) or bad (the devil), that it not always easy to distinguish the presence and action of one or the other, and precisely because of this, discernment is needed.

My impression is that we are presented here with a banalization of discernment, as if it were enough to “set out to heed the Holy Spirit” (what does this mean, concretely?), when the problem is really to determine whether it is the Holy Spirit that is addressing me, or is it rather the Enemy, who as St. Paul reminds us, often masquerades as an angel of light (2Cor 11, 14). A Jesuit ought to know how difficult it is to distinguish the true Spirit from its counterfeits.

Among other things, Fr. Sosa brings up an important aspect:

“Discernment must take place together. It is never that of a single individual – we must all share in the process of discernment, which is very demanding, and not a caricature word”.


So before the individual, it is the Church that discerns – which is what she has always done. Basically, doctrine is the fruit of discernment. To get back to our example, in deciding that Christ is homoousios and not homoiousios, the Church exercised discernment. But she did so once and for always. It’s not as if the Church has to continue discerning what is supposed to be settled doctrine according to changing circumstances, as though in some cases Christ could be homoousios and at other times, homoiousios. [Which is the implication of the Bergoglian situational ethics in AL.]

Moreover, as I pointed out in my July 29, 2016 post, the Church does not exercise discernment only through her Magisterium but also through the sensus fidelium. The faithful, collectively, have an infallible sixth sense, a sense of spiritual smell whereby they instinctively recognize a good spirit and a bad one.

That which is passed off today as ‘pastoral discernment’ is nothing more than the old Lutheran ‘free examination of conscience’ camouflaged by Ignatian discernment. It is just another way of legitimizing subjectivism in the Church.

Whereas till now, there was doctrine to regulate the life of the faithful – a fixed reference point which everyone had to live up to, willing or not – now, we are invited to ‘discern’, meaning practically to decide autonomously (though ‘officially’ purporting to heed the Holy Spirit).

It doesn’t make it any less wrong to say, as Fr. Sosa does, that ‘doctrine does not disappear’ because ‘it is part of discernment – that true discernment cannot be separate from doctrine” - only to concede that discernment can reach conclusions different from doctrine since “doctrine cannot replace discernment nor the Holy Spirit. In that case, doctrine really becomes ‘a dead letter’ and gives way exclusively to unconditional discernment.

And yet, it is doctrine that should constitute one of the objective criteria of true discernment: to indicate the limits (today it is fashionable to speak of the available ‘pallette’) beyond which discernment, if it is to be authentic, cannot cross.

Thus, doctrine and discernment should not be considered as alternatives, but as complementary and reciprocally dependent. Doctrine is the fruit of discernment, yet at the same time, discernment can never be divorced from doctrine – it can only and always take place within the limits of doctrine.

There is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is superior to both – but not only with respect to doctrine [revealed by the Spirit] but with respect to discernment. Doctrine and discernment are two manifestation of the same Holy Spirit and therefore cannot in any way conflict with each other.



[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 25/04/2017 22:45]
Amministra Discussione: | Chiudi | Sposta | Cancella | Modifica | Notifica email Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » | Pagina successiva
Nuova Discussione
 | 
Rispondi
Cerca nel forum

Feed | Forum | Bacheca | Album | Utenti | Cerca | Login | Registrati | Amministra
Crea forum gratis, gestisci la tua comunità! Iscriviti a FreeForumZone
FreeForumZone [v.6.1] - Leggendo la pagina si accettano regolamento e privacy
Tutti gli orari sono GMT+01:00. Adesso sono le 10:07. Versione: Stampabile | Mobile
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com