Vatican City, Jul 13, 2017 / 11:56 am (CNA/EWTN News).- An analysis piece published Thursday in La Civilta Cattolica, discusses what it calls a “surprising” and unfortunate alliance between conservative Catholics and evangelicals in the U.S. on issues such as immigration – suggesting the two are in direct opposition to Pope Francis’ message of mercy.
The article, published online July 13, is co-authored by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, editor in chief of the Jesuit publication, and Marcelo Figueroa, a Presbyterian pastor who is editor in chief of the Argentine edition of L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s newspaper.
Both men are regarded as confidantes of Pope Francis. La Civilta Cattolica is also seen as a mouthpiece of sorts for the Holy See, as its text is revised and approved by the Vatican Secretariat of State before it is published.
Fr. Spadaro and Figueroa start from the US motto, In God We Trust, saying that for some this “is a simple declaration of faith,” but for others it is “the synthesis of a problematic fusion between religion and state, faith and politics, religious values and economy.”
The authors hold that in recent decades American politics have been shaped by “religion, political Manichaeism and a cult of the apocalypse.”
They cite President George W. Bush’s speaking of the “axis of evil” and the US’ duty to “free the world from evil” as an example of what they call “a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil.”
Fr. Spadaro and Figueroa trace these to the evangelical-fundamentalist movement which becan in the early 20th century, and tie them to the consideration of the US as “a nation blessed by God.”
“They do not hesitate to base the economic growth of the country on a literal adherence to the Bible,” they write. “Over more recent years this current of thought has been fed by the stigmatization of enemies who are often ‘demonized.’”
Fundamentalism has developed an exegesis which decontextualizes the Old Testament without being “guided by the incisive look, full of love, of Jesus in the Gospels,” they write, adding that “within this narrative, whatever pushes toward conflict is not off limits.”
“Another interesting aspect is the relationship with creation of these religious groups that are composed mainly of whites from the deep American South,” Fr. Spadaro and Figueroa state. “There is a sort of ‘anesthetic’ with regard to ecological disasters and problems generated by climate change. They profess ‘dominionism’ and consider ecologists as people who are against the Christian faith.”
Ecological problems are regarded by fundamentalists as signs of the apocalypse, they write, which “confirm their non-allegorical understanding of the final figures of the Book of Revelation and their apocalyptic hope in a ‘new heaven and a new earth.’”
The authors find a prophetic formula to this worldview, characterizing it as charged to “fight the threats to American Christian values and prepare for the imminent justice of an Armageddon, a final showdown between Good and Evil, between God and Satan.”
They also cite Rousas Rushdoony, a 20th century Protestant pastor, in this regard, and note his influence on Steve Bannon, who is chief strategist in the Trump administration.
Rushdoony supports, they say, the subjection of public norms to religious morals and a “theocratic necessity” which “submit(s) the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism.”
Fr. Spadaro and Figueroa then treat of the prosperity gospel and the rhetoric of religious liberty, first citing Norman Vincent Peale, another 20th century Protestant pastor. Peale authored The Power of Positive Thinking and was close to President Donald Trump, as well as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
In the section treating of the prosperity gospel, they also speak about “a particular form of proclamation of the defense of ‘religious liberty.’”
“The erosion of religious liberty is clearly a grave threat within a spreading secularism,” they write. “But we must avoid its defense coming in the fundamentalist terms of a ‘religion in total freedom,’ perceived as a direct virtual challenge to the secularity of the state.”
Next, the authors describe what they call a “fundamentalist ecumenism” developing between evangelical fundamentalists and “Catholic Integralists”, who they say are “brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.”
They note that some Catholics “express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals … Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.”
For Fr. Spadaro and Figueroa “the most dangerous prospect for this strange ecumenism is attributable to its xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations.”
They describe this as a paradoxical “ecumenism of hate” which contrasts with Pope Francis’ “ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges. This presence of opposing ecumenisms – and their contrasting perceptions of the faith and visions of the world where religions have irreconcilable roles – is perhaps the least known and most dramatic aspect of the spread of Integralist fundamentalism.”
“Here we can understand why the pontiff is so committed to working against ‘walls’ and any kind of ‘war of religion.’”
In the article, Fr. Spadaro and Figueroa argue that “(t)he religious element should never be confused with the political one.”
“Confusing spiritual power with temporal power means subjecting one to the other…There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends,” they say.
As an example, they point to the “shocking rhetoric” of Church Militant, a website formerly known as Real Catholic TV, which changed its name to in 2012 after being told by the Archdiocese of Detroit that it did not have permission to describe itself as “Catholic.”
Church Militant and its founder Michael Vorris are known for their controversial positions. Vorris has claimed on one of his programs that only faithful Catholics should be allowed to vote. In 2011, Vorris was banned from speaking at any facility owned by the Diocese of Scranton, Penn.
Fr. Spadaro and Figueroa noted that the group portrayed the U.S. elections as a “spiritual war,” creating “a close analogy between Donald Trump and Emperor Constantine, and between Hilary Clinton and Diocletian.” By suggesting that Trump’s victory could be attributed to the prayers of Americans, Church Militant portrayed “a divine election,” they said.
“This warlike and militant approach seems most attractive and evocative to a certain public, especially given that the victory of Constantine – it was presumed impossible for him to beat Maxentius and the Roman establishment.”
A truly Christian theopolitical plan would be eschatological, they said.
“And this is why the diplomacy of the Holy See wants to establish direct and fluid relations with the superpowers, without entering into pre-constituted networks of alliances and influence.”
In contrast, Fr. Spadaro and Figueroa say, Pope Francis “radically rejects the idea of activating a Kingdom of God on earth as was at the basis of the Holy Roman Empire and similar political and institutional forms, including at the level of a ‘party’.”
They also warn that fear of chaos and a breakdown of order is what “underlies the persuasive temptation for a spurious alliance between politics and religious fundamentalism.”
Political success becomes assured by “exaggerating disorder” and “agitating the souls of the people by painting worrying scenarios beyond any realism,” they say. At this point, religion becomes “a guarantor of order.”
Pope Francis, however, is fighting against “the manipulation of this season of anxiety and insecurity,” they say. The Pope “gives no theological-political legitimacy to terrorists, avoiding any reduction of Islam to Islamic terrorism. Nor does he give it to those who postulate and want a ‘holy war’ or to build barrier-fences crowned with barbed wire.”
“(T)he Christian roots of a people are never to be understood in an ethnic way,” Fr. Spadaro and Figueroa say. “Triumphalist, arrogant and vindictive ethnicism is actually the opposite of Christianity.”
[…]
We read: “He also calls for avoiding the ‘merely chronological approach’ to the history of the Church, which ‘would transform the history of the Church into a mere buttress for the history of theology or spirituality of past centuries’.”
Yes, beware the linear periodization of history, as with Joachim de Fiore who proposed three eras (the Old Testament age of the Father, the next age of Jesus Christ, and the third age of the Holy Spirit, beginning in A.D. 1260. Beware the later periodization of August Comte, founder of sociology, who discerned a a theological age, displaced by an age of metaphysics, and then by an age of science and positivism. Or, maybe the specifically periodized history of the Church with an apostolic age, then the age of councils, and now the age of inclusive synodality…
In lesser hands, will Pope Francis’ valid message about non-ideological history be dished out by others as contextualizing the Council of Nicaea, and even the doctrinal Creed, as somewhat of a period piece? Now to be left behind by the finally pastoral age of (Joachim’s!) Holy Spirit, the laity, and permanent synodality? Will we be tutored that Arianism was not really rejected (non-inclusivity!), but just put on hold until a more enlightened and self-referentially non-ideological era…
C.S. Lewis’s “chronological snobbery” in a red hat?
I say: “Make the Papacy Catholic Again.”
When has the Orwellian mind of Francis not disparaged and trivialized anything authentically Catholic as “ideology” while not praising anti-religious secular ideologies as sources of wisdom?
“No one can truly know their deepest identity, or what they wish to be in the future, without attending to the bonds that link them to preceding generations,” suggests our essential identity is not inherent within our nature, rather it’s formed by history.
Sans ideology corresponds to time is greater than space ideology, that it’s not the theological value of decisions made during crises and councils called to correct and clarify dogma. He’s suggesting in effect that the present moment may cancel out previous decisions on doctrinal matters, to wit, that doctrinal permanence is a deficient ideology.
Historical and sociological determinism has long replaced philosophy and religion in academia. And a pope who is an ambassador of the world to the Church rather than a defender of the Church from the world is not about to even consider asking the right questions.
I pray it’s a translation issue, but most of the time I honestly don’t understand what the heck Francis is talking about. Word salads and church jargon.
Pope Francis calls for study of Church history free from ideologies. Umm 🤨 🧐
God’s Fool calls for commentary free from foolishness! 💋
Not sure if Pope Francis actually wrote this. More importantly, can’t tell to whom it is addressed. It seems to want to correct problems with historicism but itself involves historicist patterning.
It is about Church history but there is no mention of the Holy Spirit.
It can’t be considered universal; and yet while it is right to emphasize the importance of particulars, in any approach to history, it gives no proper foundational truths or leads about that.
Diachrony and synchrony relate with language and linguistics through times and in moments. They both have a valid place in analyzing and understanding what is communicated.
Both of these two contain a) things sustained, b) things left behind and and c) things ambivalent and the letter fails to bring out (among other things) these characteristics related to ecclesiology or just people and culture in general.
The letter is imbued with positivism: diachrony, whether thought of as “three dimensional” or “polyhedron”, does not automatically assure of being led into any truthful reality nor itself provide a measure or yardstick.
The word “fact” is deployed in purely negative and reflexive a-historical sense.
Members of the Lodge often assert their own interpretations of Scripture by rooting hard on factuals taken out of all context including Redemption; and the letter seems to uphold this or carry it forward as authentic.
The 20th Century is marked by Modernist positivism, determinism and relativism and what seems to be morphing in our time is Modernist neutralism and syncretism. But no mention!
I have pinpointed at least a further 13 other objectionable standpoints in the letter adding to those here and what is mentioned by Fr. and Beaulieu.
I am sorry to criticize the Holy Father. I have no way to reach him in person about that so as to avoid the situation of Ham. THIS is a problem and it is not solved by allowing parrhesia!
Who is advising him? In the past 8 days or so he is lamenting war while entertaining children and Czech survivors “neutrally” and signing Burbon bottles, as Parolin avers “openly confess China ad experimentum!”
The letter seems to stake out a separation from wrongs already done yet still repeating wrong.
This prolific pontificate seems to fulfill the wish of the nineteenth century William George Ward to have a new papal Bull for breakfast every morning. While this “Letter” rightly addresses the sad ignorance of history in contemporary culture, classical Formgeschichte might detect in its opaque inferences and rhetoric, the influence of Hegel and Derrida and Kamala Harris.