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.» ….

Det kom i dag et forslag til denne bloggen om at (anti)modernist-eden (innført i 1910, og så vidt jeg forstår brukt av alle katolske prester i ca 50 år) bør gjeninnføres, for å få bukt med all modernisme, relativisme, liberalisme etc. i Kirken – og jeg fikk også dette forslaget fra noen andre katolikker for en ukes tid siden.

Eden kan leses under i engelsk utgave (fins den på norsk?), men personlig mener jeg at det er (i alle fall) to grunner til at den ikke kan innføres igjen. For det første avspeiler den den teologiske og filosofiske debatten og utfordringene for akkurat 100 år siden. Hvis den skulle brukes i vår tid, måtte den i alle fall oppdateres ganske dramatisk – selv om enkelte elementer selvsagt vil være de samme. For det andre ligger det i vår tid ikke til rette for at prester kan avkreves å underskrive en slik ed; jeg tror rett og slett ikke paven vil kunne klare å få alle prester til å underskrive den. Det må en svært lang og grundig forberedelse til, før man eventuelt kan gjeninnføre en ed av denne typen – om man ønsker det.

Jeg har heller ikke hørt noen antydning om at pave Benedikt tenker å gjøre noe slikt. Men les gjerne eden selv, og se og skriv hva dere syns:

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .