Pope Benedict: Theologians must be both radical and humble
2007 April 4
From Zenit.org:
“Universities, societies and humanity need questions and also answers,” the Holy Father affirmed [recently, when receiving in audience a delegation from the theology faculty of the University of Tuebingen]. “In places where they no longer ask questions, particularly those regarding essential issues that go beyond specializations, they also no longer receive answers.“Only if we ask questions, and are radical with our questions, radical as theology has to be, going beyond specializations, only then can we find answers to these fundamental questions that affect all of us,” Benedict XVI said. “Before everything else, we have to ask questions.
“But, in the case of theology, in addition to the courage to ask questions, it is also necessary to have the humility to listen to answers which the Christian faith gives us: the humility to perceive in these answers their reasonable character and to make them in this way, accessible to our times and to ourselves.
“In this way, not just the university is built up, but also, humanity itself is helped to live.”
Read the rest here.
I like the particular virtues that were noted as necessary for constructive theology: courage, humility, and—presumably—curiosity. I wonder where penitence fits in? Michael and I have been speaking about that very thing—both in and out of our classes together. What do actual ecclesial practices and habits look like, that are immersed in and embody these virtues? Apart from a concrete community of scholar/Christian/human being, it seems a little abstract to speak about these qualities as if they exist in some netherworld. I suppose it’s an appropriate week to be thinking about penitence. What does a penitent Christian look like?
It sounds good, but how does he reconcile his involvment in silencing Hans Kung for asking one of the most radical and essential questions in Catholic theology, why papal infalliabillity? I agree that humillity is essential to the Christian life and theology but the doctrines of Pius IX fly in the face of that. Perhaps I’m smoking near a powder kegg here but the claimed infalliabillity of the pope is something I’ve had a really hard time squaring off with my belief in Christ and my personal attempts at humillity. This isn’t meant as an attack or denigration, only a troublesome observation that has come between myself and my tenure in the Catholic Church.
The thing I hear most often from other Catholics is that “it’s not like it’s used all the time” or else the person will talk about the restrictions on it’s use, as though that is justification—but to me it isn’t. The fact remains that no-one—regardless of position—is infalliable, the only person I could ever concieve of as ever being infalliable is Christ Himself. wouldn’t it be the best example of Christian humillity and pennitence for the successor of Peter to speak ex-cathedra in order to renounce any claims regarding his infalliability? Being the leader of the Catholic flock and Apostolic successor to the one Christ commissioned to “feed his sheep” setting the standard and example of Christian humillity might go a long way towards healing all kinds of breaches between the churches, God grant.
I think papal infallibility is an attempt to preserve the orthodoxy of the church by establishing a formal common law, in much the same way judges use precedents to judge cases.
Chris—Ah good question. Of course, Hans Kung was silenced, not because he asked a “radical” question about papal infallibility, but because of the answer that he gave!
I have had issues with the teaching on papal infallibility before, but I have less problems with it not only because it’s “not used all the time” but because the belief in papal infallibility is situated within the belief of the infallibility of the Church. Neither type of infallibility means that error never occurs, but that in some aspects of its teaching, the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error, and thus, when the pope expresses that teaching, in communion with the whole Church, then what he teaches is infallible. The Church had expressed many infallible teachings long before a doctrine of papal infallibility was formulated, for example. I do agree that the papacy is a huge obstacle for ecumenical relationships, and that more work needs to be done to come to some kind of reconciliation on the issue.
John—I would hesitate to use that analogy because it doesn’t leave room for God’s action. Although humans are involved (the whole Church, not just the pope), the preservation from error that can occur is a gift of the Holy Spirit, not simply a legal process.
This may bring us back to Gavin’s question… Where does penitence fit in? What does a humble, yet radical, theologian look like?
I think we could benefit from looking at an example of a proud and impenitent ‘theologian’ in the ‘establishment prophet’ Hananiah from the book of Jeremiah. Judgment is coming from Babylon, but Hananiah refuses to consider the possibility of calling the people to turn from sin. From him we hear things like: “This is the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord” – (Jer. 7:4); “Thus says the Lord of Hosts… I will break the yoke of the King of Babylon” – (Jer. 28:2, 4). This was good theology. It was built on solid Tradition. However, Hananiah is all about asserting things with an inordinate confidence, of seeing God’s promises as Israel’s own possessions, and of using the promises of the covenant as an excuse to ignore covenant faithfulness. After all, ‘we’re God’s people… he can’t punish us… the Temple can’t be destroyed… Babylon can’t touch us… Jerusalem is the holy city… etc.’ Jeremiah, on the other hand, weeps.
The implication seems to be that as Christians – and as theologians – the big promises of our covenant (“the Spirit poured out on all flesh”, “the gates of hell will not prevail,” etc.) cannot be used to place Christianity over and above God’s judgment, or to confidently assure ourselves that we know our place in the unfolding of God’s plan. Any doctrines that create this impression must be reduced in their gradeur (Infallibility, while I affirm it, is included). Theologically justified Christian pretentions, even when well meaning and based in the truth, must be nailed to the cross as the idols they can easily become. We should expect hopeless error, we should expect terrible sins of commission and ommision, and we should be quick to admit it (and quick to tears). We should be surprised (and moved to worship) when we find that we somehow, sometimes transcend these things. We should always understand that if (and when) the Church and the Gospel is preserved, this is never because of anything inherent to the Church, but always the result of the tenuous gratuity of grace. Karl Rahner once wrote (hold back the anti-Rahner isms) in reference to the individual believer, “of ourselves we are nothing but nothingness, and left to ourselves we are nothing but sin.” The leaders of the Church (and I) would do well to take this as a motto.
A couple practical suggestions on top of this: We divest ourselves of a lot of language we like to use to talk about Christianity, the Church and Church leadership, public confession of all manner of ecclesial sin accompanied by communal acts of pennance become regular activities facilitated by bishops in their dioceses (including the bishop of Rome), etc…