The returns on Pope Francis’ recent “writing” are still being written, but a piece last week puts EVANGELII GAUDIUM (The Joy of the Gospel) in perspective. It is not an encyclical, the most authoritative form of papal communication. It is rather an apostolic exhortation:
Apostolic exhortations are often based on deliberations of synods of bishops, and this one takes into account the October 2012 synod on the new evangelization. But last June, Pope Francis informed the ordinary council of the Synod of Bishops, which is normally responsible for helping draft post-synodal apostolic exhortations, he would not be working from their draft.
Instead, the pope said, he planned to write an “exhortation on evangelization in general and refer to the synod,” in order to “take everything from the synod but put it in a wider framework.”
That choice surprised some, especially since Pope Francis had voiced his strong commitment to the principle of consultation with fellow bishops and even suggested that the synod should become a permanent advisory body.
This writer adds:
Popes through the centuries have issued their most important written messages in one of 10 classic forms, ranging from encyclical to “chirograph,” a brief document on a highly limited subject. But most of these are typically formulaic texts that do not express the distinctive voice or charism of the man who issues them. . . .
A category of document that Pope Francis has not yet produced, but in which he is likely to make a major contribution, is that of apostolic constitutions. These are usually routine legal documents establishing a new diocese or appointing a bishop. But they can also address exceptional matters, as did Pope Benedict’s 2009 “Anglicanorum coetibus,” which established personal prelatures for former Anglicans who join the Catholic Church.
An apostolic constitution especially relevant to this pontificate is Blessed John Paul’s 1988 “Pastor Bonus,” which was the last major set of changes to the church’s central administration, the Roman Curia. Planning a revision of that document was the one specific task Pope Francis assigned to his advisory Council of Cardinals when he established the eight-member body in September.
Another consequential type of papal document is an apostolic letter given “motu proprio,” i.e., on the pope’s own initiative. Such letters are used to set up new norms, establish new bodies or reorganize existing ones. Pope Benedict issued 18 of them in the course of his eight-year pontificate — most famously in 2007, when he lifted most restrictions on celebration of the Tridentine Mass; and most recently in February, when he changed the voting rules of a papal conclave less than a week before he resigned from office.
Not only do we need to keep an eye on the distinction between discipline and doctrine, but we need to pay attention to papal genres.
Whether any of this adds up to changes, reforms, winners, or losers is all the chattering bloggers’ guess. Sean Michael Winters appears to be pleased that Francis took a shot at Roman Catholic traditionalists. From the apostolic exhortation:
This worldliness can be fueled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is 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, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity. (94)
Winters also likes the idea of decentralizing Vatican authority:
The papacy and the central structures of the universal Church also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion. The Second Vatican Council stated that, like the ancient patriarchal Churches, episcopal conferences are in a position “to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegial spirit”. Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated. Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach. (#32)
Whether this will please Jason and the Callers, or whether this will be chalked up to more papal audacity is anyone’s guess.
I myself am wondering, though, what Francis means by the gospel. The word sinner appears only two times in the 51,000-word document. The same goes for righteousness, and both of these words come directly from biblical quotations. Sacrifice appears five times, but only once in connection with Christ’s death on the cross:
Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is nothing else than the culmination of the way he lived his entire life. Moved by his example, we want to enter fully into the fabric of society, sharing the lives of all, listening to their concerns, helping them materially and spiritually in their needs, rejoicing with those who rejoice, weeping with those who weep; arm in arm with others, we are committed to building a new world. But we do so not from a sense of obligation, not as a burdensome duty, but as the result of a personal decision which brings us joy and gives meaning to our lives. (269)
This may explain why Francis appeals to the Second Vatican Council four times, and never mentions Vatican I or the Council of Trent. But so far, Bryan Cross is treating the exhortation as business as usual — a chance for more ecumenical dialogue. He doesn’t seem to realize that confessional Protestants would be more willing to talk — not to agree — if we knew where Rome stood, that is, if Francis still used the language of infused righteousness and original sin cleansed by baptism.
Meanwhile, I read about a new book on papal encyclicals of the social teaching variety, mentioned by Peter Leithart. The post concludes with this sentence: “The Church’s aim, [John Paul II] insisted, is not to add another ideology to the public square; the task is one of ‘imbuing human realities with the Gospel.'” What recent popes don’t seem to consider — in the light of modernism both Roman Catholic and Protestant — is whether human realities obscure the gospel to the point that, say, the gospel is little more than affirming the dignity of the human person — as if sinners don’t need to hear something about the depravity of the human person and their need for a savior. Old hat, I guess.
Old Life 
That last excerpt reads like Pope Fosdick.
LikeLike
Well I think that quote you pulled out is excellent in our CtC arguments:
The other is 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, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others.
I’ve always said that Francis is a flaming Liberal and well, who else could write that? His effect has been to change the tone of the American hierarchy from preaching the gospel of banning abortion, discriminating against gay and lesbian couples, and supporting school vouchers. Anyway the focus is Francis’ direct attack on Libertarian economics. While that’s always been church doctrine his degree of emphasis on economic justice is coming as a shock to right wingers.
Also the line about separating sacramental power from political power in the church is interesting. That’s how Judaism handled their sexism for decades problem: rabbis were male while presidents of synagogues (sort of the liberal Jewish equivalent of governing elders) were often female. So the male Rabbi often bossed around women on spiritual issues but he ultimately answered to a female boss in the purely secular sense. I doubt Francis wants to go that far, but it was a success, possible a much greater success than a female ministry in balancing the demands for male ministers and the need to keep churches from being too sexist. I could see this as a huge win for Catholicism if he starts down that road. It also allows him to introduce democracy and accountability into the church.
LikeLike
Bryan is taking his cues from Francis, asking others for suggestions (instead of writing his own Tome) on what to make of the vicar’s thoughts.
Are we seeing development in callerdom?
…
There I go, looking for suggestions. It’s contagious. (insert emoticon).
LikeLike
“… Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is nothing else than the culmination of the way he lived his entire life. Moved by his example, we want to enter fully into the fabric of society, sharing the lives of all, listening to their concerns, helping them materially and spiritually in their needs, rejoicing with those who rejoice, weeping with those who weep; arm in arm with others, we are committed to building a new world. But we do so not from a sense of obligation, not as a burdensome duty, but as the result of a personal decision which brings us joy and gives meaning to our lives …”
Hmmm….sounds a lot like what we hear day in day out, year in year out lately from run-of-the-mill mainline protestants. Maybe there’s yet another ECT1&2/Manhattan (without the beef) declaration in the offing….
LikeLike
“Moved by his example…”
Exactly.
Moved by His example to stay put in our own kingdoms of the self. We know what to do. We just flat out refuse to do it because we’ve got our own business to tend to (first and foremost).
We need a Savior. Not another example.
LikeLike
PS
Of course, Bryan offers the first thought, linking to one of HIS combox statements. What is the brilliant combox statement from our favorite caller about? Well, our incorrect view of justification. Duh.
Business as usual, indeed.
LikeLike
IOW forget about Moby Dick. The Great Infallible Cuttlefish continues to emit enough ink to satiate, placate and confuse its fanbois to the point of ectasy all the while humbly professing to only be a pious, sincere and forthright follower of somebody other than Judas. But without mentioning the name of Judas and giving anybody ideas.
Modernism?
“Of course, we are not modernists.”
“We hate and abjure modernism.”
Of course it all depends on what you call modernism, but implicit faith is not all about definitions, in case anybody hasn’t noticed.
LikeLike
Name the left-wing economist – Marx? Keynes? Krugman?
We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.
LikeLike
@Jack —
That sounds like standard welfare economics, Keynes certainly would have supported that but I’d say Samuelson, if I have to play name the left wing economist. Not that I actually consider Samuelson or Keynes left wing up until the Tea Party their ideas were entirely non-controversial as Nixon put it, “we are all Keynesians now”.
LikeLike
CD,
Samuelson? How about Pope Francis, as quoted from the aforementioned document – EVANGELII GAUDIUM.
Pope Francis to the faithful – “we are all Keynesians now”.
LikeLike
CD,
Keynes not controversial? Are you saying that Hayek was a Tea Partier?
LikeLike
@jack —
Sorry I thought you were asking what left wing economist did Francis most sound like. I knew it was Francis. Francis has things well to the left of that.
Keynesianism is a system for maximizing employment and output in a capitalist economy, the church mostly likes democratic socialism.
LikeLike
@Jack —
Love that video. And Hayak as the first and 2nd video make quite clear was a fringe figure representing a new-classical pre-Keynesian whose critique of Keynes had little impact on the field.
The Tea Party doesn’t unfortunately support consistently even Austrian economics. If they did for example they would support moves to clear bad loans via. chapter 7 and not insist on complex chapter 13 which are slower. They would be more opposed to complex subsidies for corporations that create economic distortion (though I will give the Tea Party credit they more and more are attacking corruption in the Republican Party). They wouldn’t favor huge tax burdens for the poor where their marginal tax rates can be well over 80%. They wouldn’t favor medicare in its current form.
Were the Tea Party honest to Austrian economics / Hayak they would be a lot easier to negotiate with.
LikeLike
Either way. When it comes to economics Papal expertise means Keynes is Francis – Francis is Keynes.
From Hot Air.com
It’s interesting to think of Pope Francis’ assessment in light of Pope John Paul II’s past condemnation of communism and the “social assistance state.” In 1991, he observed…
“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called ‘Welfare State.’ This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoke very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State.’ Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending, In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.”
Francis: “204. We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.”
Well darn that John Paul II for helping to bring freedom to Poland and getting rid of all those “decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes” that were so beneficial to the Poles under Communism.
LikeLike
Btw, my criticism of Francis’ economic enlightenments isn’t that they’re the pedestrian socialism of the last 100 years. I thought he was the head of Christ’s visible church, not the Wold Economic Forum. Who died and left him
Popeeconomic czar?LikeLike
Jesus and the bible talk about economics quite often. The bible does seem to preach that:
a) Economic structures have effects on personal welfare.
b) The welfare of persons, especially the poor is a matter that the wealthy and powerful should be interested in.
c) Thus God’s ministers have an obligation to preach to leaders / powerful how to configure their society in such a way so as not to create economic structures that destroy the poor.
There are direct biblical demands, like the corners of fields being left for the poor, which require a welfare state. Those are ignored and certainly under utilized in western countries. Yes I think it is Francis job to preach the bible and the words of Jesus. That included the parts right wingers don’t like about social justice and economic policy. The right wing reformed tend to view those as exhortations towards private charity even though things like the jubilee are unquestionably presented as governmental policy.
LikeLike
CD, interesting that one who isn’t a Christian interprets the Bible much like Rome does, not to mention the social transformationalists in the Protestant camps… Maybe all those passages don’t have to do with worldly notions of state run economic structures and state mandated social justice. Maybe the Bible is pointing to something else…
LikeLike
Jack,
How does your citation of Francis contradict JP2’s endorsement of distributism/subsidiarity:
“Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”
Such teaching has been pretty general to the Church since Rerum Novarum.
LikeLike
satiate, placate and confuse its fanbois
The CtC blog on this topic is getting interesting to watch unfold in the combox. To say nothing of the “Schism” at CCC via stellman site numero dos. I wonder what from his past helped him think up that trick. It’s good we are united over here on our side. Their side sounds a bit disheveled.
Adios.
LikeLike
@Andrew —
Could you post deep links to what you are talking about
@Jack —
Is it equally interesting in other places where I agree with Reformed interpretations and disagree with Catholics?
LikeLike
CD, go to the caller homepage, it’s the latest blog post. Same with Jason. He runs two websites now. That was my attempt at humor given this latest endeavor of his. He’s pretty negative about Protestantism, call it pent up frustration at his words.
So they are both easy to find, and if you can’t, I’ll get the links, when I’m not on a cell phone. Just let me know.
LikeLike
CD, that would depend on what the other places are. This one assumes not only a Church role (scripturally dubious at best) for advising or speaking “truth to power” to the civil kingdom regarding how nations should order their economic systems, but also assumes the answer is an economic model that leans decidedly in the statist/socialist direction, which is a rather modern (post 1800) phenomenon. Coincidence? Inspiration from above? Or just the predominate modern mindset?
The corrective isn’t for the Church to offer “Hayek” advice. The problem isn’t the advice. The corrective would be to get out of a role to which God’s Word has given no warrant to the Church.
LikeLike
I feel like Katniss, “remember who the real enemy is,” joining with CD against JATC.
Just being silly, but Church Discipline dude, we need to get to your atheistic theosophy (if that’s what you still are) someday. I wonder if your time on the blogs has helped you understand deeper what it meant for you to leave the Christian religion. Just curious, is all, for your reflections, if you care to share. No pressure.
LikeLike
@Andrew
Happy Thanksgiving. I’m on vacation for the next 5 days so blogging time is likely to be sporadic at best. Not a good time to start a complex conversation. What part of atheism or theosophy would you want to discuss? My thinking is that when you are discussing those systems many of the Christian presuppositions drop off. There is no God from naturalism. From poststructuralism or deconstructionism we examine religious texts not as containing general supernatural revelations, because there is no supernatural to reveal, but rather in terms of fulfilling political / cultural objectives that are specific to their time and place and then later transcending those through misinterpretation. Empiricism / neo-positivism is probably the core of my beliefs, something is true if and only it is experimentally verifiable and falsifiable with all the experiments lining up in support. What is it you want to discuss in all that? Why do you want me on friendly ground?
LikeLike
CDH: “There is no God from naturalism. From poststructuralism or deconstructionism… Empiricism / neo-positivism is probably the core of my beliefs…”
Oh, good grief, that’s the zeitgeist. You can’t swing a cat on the Internet without running into all that.
LikeLike
CD, I wouldnt be Christian if I weren’t trying to convert strangers. I may email some Bultmann apologetics. Watch out.
LikeLike
IOW Andrew, you are telling us that the great unifier is not able to unify those two champions of papal unity, Bry and Jase.
Man, you are really messing with my
paradigmstereotypical view of Laurel and Hardy as being the greatest comedy duo in history or tradition.LikeLike
Bob S, sorry man (emoticon). Don’t want to spoil this show.
Just me here, but it’s not a comedy, it’s a tragedy. Anyway, lifelong protestant over here, and I’m used to people attacking me because of my beliefs. It’s happened for as long as I can remember. I expect attack from Rome, because that’s how the Gospel works, it’s offensive. But the Bry and Jase offense is of a different variety entirely. They trumpet their leader as the solution to all my apparent problems as a protestant. I watch these wheels go around on the interwebs, and just enjoy when one who has been reading their stuff posts over here on Darryl’s blog. It’s all absurd:
enjoying our latest del-boy at oldlife, myself (emoticon)…
LikeLike
@Andrew —
I like Bultmann. I wish others bad picked up the torch in demythologizing Christianity. It would be wonderful to have a Christianity that fit with 21st century culture the way the Christianity of the 12th century fit 12th century culture, or even the Victorian moralistic Christianity fit 19th century culture. Liberal Christianity ended up chickening out and moving right theologically after the fundamentalist modernist wars, into sort of a no-man’s land where traditional Christianity was still the center of the faith, but unfortunately mostly false…. So count me a big fan of Bultmann. It is still possible that with this generation of Liberal Christianity, one in which the Mainline churches are gaining ground for the first time since the later 1960s that they regain their confidence and move in that direction.
To a great extent I think that’s what theosophy tries to do for atheism is very similar to what Bultmann does for Liberal Christianity. Theosophy is the deconstructionism (though they didn’t use that term) of religion, respecting the emotional and cultural parts of the faith breaking apart the symbols. Much better than just ignoring it in a way that classic 20th century atheism did.
LikeLike
CD, that’s what I would expect your response to be. The essay is called “the crisis of faith,” I read it years ago. I’ll pull it out and email it to you, I just have to find it.
LikeLike
Wholesome, I know it gets tiring listening to the zeitgeist, CD to me is a reincarnation of BF Skinner’s Walden II, which I haven’t given much thought since high school philosophy class. I’m just glad CD’s not trumpeting what I consdier are the atheist fundamentalists of the last 5 years or so. I respect a classically trained atheist who tries to rip me to shreds for what I believe. The modem stuff just has no interest for me, it’s so trite, IMHO.
And Bob S, I meant the Schism at Jason’s site alone. I’m sure Larel and Hardy and still hand in hand. It’s second incarnation of Stellman that I’m getting kick about these days. I may not need Netflix anymore with all that’s out here, it’s that good..
LikeLike
CD, any thoughts on Paul Tillich? Tillich appears in some P&R books I wouldnt have thought. Barth is more our guy. But anyway…
No need to respond, but we’re just chatting here. I debated over email the doctrine of Scripture with an Episcopalian who has read Tillich for decades. I’m still looking for another guy like that to argue with out here, but doubt it will happen. You seem pretty good at debate, so I’m glad you seem to like this discussion board. Enjoy your time off, I am doing so over on the left coast. Regards, Andrew
LikeLike
@Andrew —
I’m on far better ground with Bultmann and his disciples, particularly Walter Schmithals. On Tillich I don’t have much interesting to say which comes mainly from my ignorance of his role and my own sort of emotional interests. From what I know, which is admittedly limited, I don’t see what Tillich adds to Heidegger. Heidegger I love, though so it is possible I just haven’t had an encounter with Tillich. I’m willing to counter punch with regard to Tillich or Tillich type themes if you had something in particular to hit on.
LikeLike
CD, thanks for the response. I don’t like taking this analogy too far, but theology and music can be compared. I have a pretty wide range, when it comes to my taste in music. I can appreciate a Tillich while still finding his Christology quite heretical. I’m not just a one trick pony, maybe is what I’m saying. Again, I’d love to point you to things you haven’t encountered yet. I gave up my strong affinity with Tilloch about 3 years ago, but the time I read him, I look on to fondly. I may have more to say. For now, that’s all. Until next time..
LikeLike
“Popes through the centuries have issued their most important written messages in one of 10 classic forms, ranging from encyclical to “chirograph,” a brief document on a highly limited subject.”
By the time Pope Francis is done we may have 12 with the addition of the puppet show and the interpretive dance.
LikeLike
Now we can add Francis himself as one of his own interpreters:
All that audacity, so much uncertainty.
LikeLike
What happens when the officer to clarify is purposefully ambiguous?
Do you shrug? Cringe?
LikeLike