Forfatternavn:Oddvar

John W. O’Malley, SJ, avslutter sin bok: What Happened at Vatican II? med følgende begeistrede beskrivelse av konsilets avslutning i 1965:

The next day, December 7, the solemnities moved into high gear at another Public Session, with the pope present in the basilica, filled to overflowing with dignitaries and others who were fortunate enough to get a ticket allowing them entrance. After a few preliminaries and the final voting on the four documents still requiring promulgation, one of the most moving and dramatic moments of the whole council took place. Bishop Willebrands went to the pulpit and read in French the «Joint Declaration’ of Paul VI and Patriarch Athanagoras regretting the excommunications of the Greeks by the Latins and the Latins by the Greeks in 1054, acknowledging the responsibility of both sides for the tragedy, and promising to work toward a full communion between the two churches. This was the fruit of the meeting of the two leaders in the Holy Land two years earlier. At the same time a similar reading took place in the patriarcM basilica in Istanbul. After Willebrands read the text, he exchanged an embrace of peace with Meliton, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Heliopolis, which elicited enthusiastic applause in the basilica.

Mass then began, during which Paul VI gave a long address, officially a «homily,» in elegant and difficult Latin. In it he concentrated on «the religious significance of the council» and what it meant for the church and the world. He emphasized, to a somewhat surprising degree, the aberrations and sinfulness of the times. For this situation the church, remaining true to her «Patrimony of doctrine and precepts, was the remedy. Like the Good Shepherd, he said, the council adopted a loving attitude toward the world. Perhaps most striking in the talk was the unidirectional relationship that the pope depicted between church and world, bypassing the reciprocity that was notable in Gaudium et Spes. …

Beginning at 9 the next morning, December 8, a crowd estimated at 300,000 gathered in St. Peter’s Square and along the via della Conciliazione for the final ceremony, which was also transmitted worldwide on television. Shortly after 10, with all the church bells in the city of Rome ringing, the council fathers began their long procession out of the «bronze doorway» of the papal palace to assume their places in the piazza. Paul VI followed, carried on the sedia gestatoria. Upon arrival at the altar in the square, he immediately began the Mass. After the singing of the gospel of the day, the feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, he delivered a relatively brief homily in Italian, which was mostly a greeting and word of friendship to those present in the square, by now filled to overflowing, to those who followed the ceremonylon radio or television, and finally to all humanity. He said he could address all humanity because for the church 11 no one is a stranger, no one is excluded, no one is distant.» He singled out for special greeting the bishops whose governments would not allow them to come to the council, particularly those held in prison. Toward the end he turned to the topic of Mary, praising her as model and inspiration. …

The entire ceremony closed with Archbishop Felici’S reading of the pope’s Apostolic Letter, In Spiritu Sancto, declaring the council concluded and enjoining that «everything the council decreed be religiously and devoutly observed by all the faithful. » Paul VI then imparted the final blessing and dismissal, «In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, go in peace.» To which the vast crowd responded, «Thanks be to God!» – Deo gratias! and then broke into applause and cheers.

Nå har jeg lest ferdig What Happened at Vatican II? av John W. O’Malley, SJ. (jeg nevnte også ganske grundig hvordan han beskriver behandlinga av liturgidolumentet Sacrosanctum concilium – se her). Beskrivelsen av hvordan behandlinga av dokumentet om religionsfriheten (Dignitatis humanæ – se det på norsk her) er ganske interessant, og jeg tar med noen siteter derfra.

Vi er i konsilets fjerde periode, ganske tidlig, i september, og starten av behandlinga av dette dokumentet har ikke vært lett. I USA er alle biskoper (også de mest konservative) for dokumentet, men spesielt i de tradisjonelle katolske land i Europa møter det stor motstand. (Jeg må personlig si at jeg aldri har forstått at dette dokumentet skulle være problematisk.) Slik kan vi lese hos O’Malley:

By that Friday evening, confidence in the viability of the schema had dangerously ebbed even in the Secretariat. No one seriously doubted that it could carry a majority, probably even a two-thirds majority, but Paul VI surely would not promulgate it unless it carried-the council more strongly. Moreover, the pope did not want to appear before the United Nations with four, five, six, or seven hundred bishops on record as opposed to religious freedom. The debate in St. Peter’s was supposed to conclude on Monday. Should a vote on the schema be risked? The question raged behind the scenes the whole weekend.

Within the Secretariat, Bea remained firm in his belief that, come what may, a vote had to be taken, but others in his entourage vacillated. A weak majority in favor would be the equivalent of the death knell. By Monday the moderators favored postponing the vote by simply sending the schema back to the commission for revision in the light of the interventions and then voting on t e revised text later in the Period. But Monday morning came, and no announcement was made.

The interventions on Monday, September 20, revived the hopes of the defenders of the schema. Cardinal Joseph Lefebvre, archbishop of Bourges (to be distinguished from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre), the first to speak, made a powerful impression by his lucid and systematic analysis of the objections of the opposition. As he said, he wanted to allay the fears of those who felt that they could not in good conscience vote for the schema. He reduced the objections to six points, to each of which he replied in a few words: first, the decree would not foster subjectivism and religious indifference; second, it would not mean that the council abdicated the position that the Catholic Church was the only church of Jesus Christ; third, it would not have a bad effect because of the dissemination of error; fourth, it would not diminish missionary spirit; fifth, it does not exalt human beings at God’s expense; and sixth, it does not contradict the tradition of the church.

According to reports, Lefebvre calmed the minds of some of the wavering, and the next speaker, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyiiski, archbishop of Warsaw and primate of Poland, did the same, more from the authority he had as the Catholic champion against-,the Communist regime than from his eloquence. The fourth speaker that morning, Cardinal Josef Beran, archbishop of Prague, speaking to the council for the first time since his recent release from Communist prison and house arrest, carried even more weight as he put aside abstract reasoning and spoke «from experience.» …

The intervention of Cardinal Agnelo Rossi of Sao Paolo, who offered suggestions for improvement but spoke in favor of the schema in the name of eighty-two Brazilian bishops, also very much helped the cause.21 Here was another vote of confidence and from the country with the largest Catholic population in the world. The differences among the council fathers on this issue could not, therefore, be simply divided between those coming from Catholic countries and the rest.

The pendulum had swung strongly in the direction of the schema. Bea urged the moderators to reconsider, and to that effect he also wrote to the pope. Paul responded by informing Felici that he wanted consideration of Beas request. On that same Monday evening Felici hastily assembled the Council of Presidents, the moderators, and the Coordinating Commission to consider the pope’s communication. The result, after what seems to have been a confused discussion, was negative – that is, not to put the schema to a vote. Bea, it seems, again intervened with Paul VI that evening to order a vote, and for sure Ruffini intervened with him for just the opposite. The situation had reached an impasse, and the next day, no matter what, the council had to move on to discussion of the schema On the Church in the Modern World.

The next day the late arrival in the basilica of Agagianian, Tisserant, and Felici, after Mass, did not go unnoticed. At that point, however, no one knew for sure that they were coming from the papal apartments. Business proceeded as usual, with a few remaining speeches on the schema before the council moved on to its next business. At 10: Agagianian, the moderator for the day, reminded the fathers that they had already heard sixtytwo speeches on the schema. Did they want to terminate discussion? Yes, they did, by a large majority.

With that, De Smedt wound up the proceedings as best he could. Applause. Then Felici, in the name of the moderators, made an electrifying announcement: the fathers were now to vote on the schema. Did it please them to accept this schema as the basis for a definitive version to be presented later? Yes, indeed, it did. The decision to take a vote had been made that morning during a crucial meeting in the papal-apartments.

The fathers completed their ballots, and the speeches began on the next schema. Shortly before the session ended, Felici announced the results of the vote: 1,997 in favor, 224 opposed – a majority of almost 90 percent. The schema had not only survived; it had survived splendidly, revealing that the opponents were a much, much smaller number than the interventions in St. Peter’s suggested.

I en debatt om anti-modernist-eden på denne bloggen (der det er kommet mange kommentarer), og det virker som om Kirken bare har to alternativer når det gjelder å kontrollere hva som læres i katolske kirker og læresteder: enten å gjeninnføre den gamle eden, eller å slippe alt fritt.

I debatten under forrige innlegg ble det i dag hevdet: «I dag nyter katolske forskere den samme frihet som alle andre forskere i demokratiske samfunn.» Til dette svarte jeg: «Dette er ikke korrekt. Hvis en prest, professor på et katolsk lærested e.l. går for utenfor Kirkens lære, vil han bli irettesatt, event. fratatt retten til å kalle seg katolsk teolog. Nylig meldte jeg jo om at dette hadde skjedd i USA:» http://aomoi.net/blogg/2010/09/den-amerikanske-bispekonferansen-fordommer-bok/

Men det er jo samtidig noen som mener at Kirken bør være strengere enn den er i dag, og det er vel det debatten i praksis handler om; hvor streng skal Kirken være når det gjelder å holde læren ren, og hvilke medtore skal den bruke.

Det blir også hevdet i samme debatt at katolske eksegeter kan si absolutt hva de ønsker om Bibelen, og at det ikke fins noen konservative katolske bibeltolkere. Det mener jeg heller ikke er korrekt (selv om jeg er enig i at det er for få som hevder konservative standpunkter) og jeg skrev bl.a. om et dette her: http://aomoi.net/blogg/2010/09/hvordan-kan-bibelen-studeres-historisk-kritisk/

En samtale her på bloggen om modernisme (se her) har utviklet seg til en samtale om bibelstudier/-kritikk i forholdvis stor grad. Bispesynoden i Roma høsten 2008 hadde Bibelen som sitt hovedtema, og jeg ser nå at jeg skrev følgende i et innlegg da:

«Denne overskrifta bringer mine tanke tilbake til mine studieår på MF på 70-tallet; jeg kjempa da mye med spørsmål om Bibelens sannhetsgehalt og om hvordan man best skulle tolke den, hvilke metoder som var fruktbare. Jeg var lite fornøyd med svara jeg fikk på MF; man la seg litt for flatt i forhold til de teologiske trender, og etter mitt syn klarte man i liten grad å vise hvorfor Bibelen grunnleggende sett er troverdig – slik at troen ble hengene mye i lufta (fideisme).

Nå ser det ut til at bispesynoden i Roma har tatt opp de samme problemstillingene – mer radikalt og grunnleggende. John Allen skriver om hvordan disse to spørsmåla er blitt diskutert på en ganske grunnleggende måte, og at biskopene ikke ser ut til å nøye seg med enkle eller “moderne” svar. Slik spissformulerer han det:»

The historical-critical method is valuable, but it’s not enough. It has to be integrated into the broader theological reflection of the church, which implies that theologians and exegetes need to work and play well together.

How much of the Bible is “inspired” and free from error? Is it just what one might call the Bible’s “theological” content, meaning what it teaches about salvation? Or is the whole Bible inerrant, and therefore “true,” even if that doesn’t necessarily mean literally, factually true?

Les også gjerne hele hans vurdering av denne tematikken:

The Historical-Critical Method

If all that mattered on this point were generalizations, there would be no problem. Some formula like the following would command almost overwhelming assent: The historical-critical method is valuable, but it’s not enough. It has to be integrated into the broader theological reflection of the church, which implies that theologians and exegetes need to work and play well together.

The devil, however, is in the details. Some in the synod clearly strike a more positive tone with regard to academic study of the Bible, using the essentially secular tools of historical research and literary criticism, than others. Levada characterized the contrast: “Some have criticized the historical-critical method, on the grounds that it’s difficult to overcome the philosophical suppositions which formed its basis for many of the method’s original followers,” he said. “Others see it as a useful tool for coming to a better understanding of the literal and historical sense of scripture.”

In his lone talk to the synod so far, Pope Benedict XVI touched on precisely this point, essentially arguing that scholars using the historical-critical method need to take the faith of the church as their point of departure.

On this point, two challenges present themselves.

First, the proper balanced has to be struck in the synod’s concluding documents. If there’s too much criticism of exegetes and the historical-critical method, Catholic Biblical scholars may feel under attack, or that the clock is being rolled back on tools they now take for granted. If the language is too soft, however, then the clear desire for a more “theological” reading of scripture could get lost in the mush.

Second, there’s the practical question of how, exactly, to put theologians and exegetes into deeper conversation, especially given the hyper-compartmentalized nature of academic life these days. This may well be the point upon which much drama turns—will the synod restrict itself to a fervorino about the relationship between exegesis and theology, simply echoing the basic points made by Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday, or will it actually offer concrete suggestions for fostering closer links among Biblical specialists, theologians, and pastors?

Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica, a Canadian who’s handling press briefings for the synod in English, and who is also a biblical scholar himself, offered a memorable metaphor for what’s at stake.

“Most of us were trained as surgeons,” he said on Thursday, by which he meant that exegetes learn to make very precise cuts on the Biblical text—determining what the exact meaning of a given verb form is, for example, or detailing the social contexts of the Johannine and Lucan communities.

“What we sometimes forgot is that we’re operating on a living body, not a corpse,” Rosica said. “We’re supposed to be heart surgeons, not coroners. Success is defined by whether the body survives the surgery.”

Inerrancy of the Bible

Some bishops, such as Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, have floated the idea that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith produce a document on the inerrancy of the Bible, in order to resolve what has been an open question since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and its document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum.

This point gets technical in a hurry, but in essence, here’s what’s at stake: How much of the Bible is “inspired” and free from error? Is it just what one might call the Bible’s “theological” content, meaning what it teaches about salvation? Or is the whole Bible inerrant, and therefore “true,” even if that doesn’t necessarily mean literally, factually true?

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, widely seen as one of the leading thinkers at the senior levels of the church, said in an interview this week that the second option better represents “where we’re at today,” but acknowledged that the issue hasn’t been resolved.

There’s something of a Scylla and Charybdis dynamic inherent to this debate. Veer too far towards saying that only the theological parts of the Bible are inspired, and it can seem like the church is flirting with skepticism; go too far toward saying inerrancy applies to every jot and tittle, and it can end in a kind of Catholic fundamentalism.

Whatever view one takes, there’s also the practical question of whether now is the right time for the Vatican to say something. Though this is admittedly a fairly cynical view of things, it’s often the case that people clamor for a Vatican statement when they think they’ll get the answer they want; otherwise, they tend to suggest that it’s not yet “opportune” to put out a document.

Exactly how the synod phrases its recommendation on this point—should it choose to make one at all—will therefore be fascinating to watch.

For et par uker siden ble det kunngjort at den amerikanske bispekonferansens dogmatiske utvalg hadde fordømt (dette sterke ordet passer her) en bok om katolsk seksualetikk. De skriver:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Doctrine has issued a statement in response to a request from the former and current archbishops of Omaha to review the content of a book by Creighton University professors Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler, The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology. In the statement, «Inadequacies in the Theological Methodology and Conclusions of The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology,» the Committee asserts that the authors of The Sexual Person «base their arguments on a methodology that marks a radical departure from the Catholic theological tradition» and «reach a whole range of conclusions that are contrary to Catholic teaching.»

The Committee concluded that «neither the methodology of The Sexual Person nor the conclusions that depart from authoritative Church teaching constitute authentic expressions of Catholic theology. Moreover, such conclusions, clearly in contradiction to the authentic teaching of the Church, cannot provide a true norm for moral action and in fact are harmful to one’s moral and spiritual life.» ….