Jeg leste i går hos Catholic World Report en ganske dristig formulert betraktning over av Vatikankonsilets siste dokument: Gaudium et Spes. I 1965 var mange svært optimistiske, overdrevet optimistiske syns vi nok i dag, og dokumentet bærer preg av dette – samtidig som dokumentet også justerer/balanserer denne optimismen enkelte steder, og framfor alt må tolkes på en balansert måte. Her er utdrag fra artikkelen:
It is easy to be critical of Gaudium et Spes as a document pushed through at the end of the Second Vatican Council when the Holy Spirit was out to lunch or the Conciliar fathers had eaten rather too much lunch and were not fully awake. As one of my students once remarked, “Were they all on Prozac?”
In 1965, however, people didn’t need to take Prozac. There was a general optimism about the world. Medical advances were made every day, material standards of living were the highest they had ever been, …
…. As a consequence of this generally optimistic mood, there are sections of the document which do sound as though they have been written by people who have forgotten about evil, sin, and atheistic ideologies. The young Joseph Ratzinger, writing in 1969, described some of the document’s sections as “downright Pelagian” in tone.
However, there are other sections that are highly sober.
It is no surprise, therefore, that there ended up being two dominant interpretations of this document. In shorthand terms one can call them the Wojtyła interpretation and the Schillebeeckx interpretation. The Wojtyła interpretation zeroed in on paragraph 22, according to which human persons only understand themselves to the extent that they know Christ. According to Blessed John Paul II—the former Bishop Karol Wojtyła—Christ is the answer to all the legitimate hopes and desires of persons of good will throughout the world. He read Gaudium et Spes with a Christocentric accent. However, as Ratzinger noted, the “daring new” Christocentric anthropology embedded within the document was not well expressed. There is a tension between the first section, where the human person is merely “theistically hued” or in some general way made in God’s image, and the second section, which is specifically Trinitarian.
The Schillebeeckx interpretation zeroed in on paragraph 36, which recognized a “legitimate autonomy of the world”:
If by the autonomy of earthly affairs we mean that created things and societies themselves enjoy their own laws and values which must gradually be deciphered, put to use, and regulated by men, then it is entirely right to demand that autonomy. Such is not merely required by modern men, but harmonizes also with the will of the Creator. For by the very circumstances of their having been created, all things are endowed with their own stability, truth, goodness, proper laws, and order.
On its face this sounded like the ecclesial leaders were “bowing out” from any involvement in world affairs. According to a superficial reading of this paragraph, taken out of its context with other qualifying paragraphs, the world did not need Christian revelation. …