Angus Harley

Sea-change

I have the burdensome and dubious job of teaching world religions. It does provide one advantage: it reveals to me what other religions actually do teach. Few ordinary evangelical Christians know, for example, that right now in Roman Catholicism that there is a tug-of-war going on over the spuriously called ‘Holy Eucharist’, which battle I will come back to later. The Roman Catholic establishment saw the writing on the wall decades ago for the old-school form of Catholicism that anathematized all non-Roman Catholic religions. What resulted was Vatican II (1962-1965). It created the ‘space’ for a modernization of the RC Church. It began this change with ‘holy’ documents that removed some old wording and produced some new wording; but, far more importantly, it created a slew of articles that laid the foundation for a thorough-going facelift of RCism, so that the RCC would become culturally relevant in today’s society.

Francis

The true face of RC modernity is Pope Francis. Other popes have ventured forth in the spirit of Vatican II, but he has embodied it, lives it, and promotes it fully. He was chosen especially because he: 1) was not from Europe; 2) was a brilliant ‘politician’ and PR guy, who could say just the right thing at just the right time, and everybody was kept on board; 3) was super-aware culturally; and, 4) successfully counteracted growing Evangelicalism in Argentina by, essentially, implementing some Evangelical churchmanship (e.g., he removed Latin from masses, took away old terms, encourage congregational participation, used modern choruses, etc.). He knew how to ‘grow’ modern RCism!

Groups

There are now various groups in RCism. The truly old-school form of RCism hated both Vatican II and Francis, and still does. But, they are a tiny, and shrinking, minority, and have no real powerbase any more.

Another ‘wing’ is pro-Vatican II, but sees its documents as merely a modern extension of the old ways. These are the new ‘traditionalists’. They read all the documents of Vatican II in a very old-school, rigorous way, yet, allowing for the RCC to grow into a modern religion and be ‘culturally relevant’. This particular group ranges in its attitudes toward Francis. Many, like the truly old-school group, hate his guts (see YouTube), others are sitting on the fence, and others again are cautiously optimistic.

The majority are with Francis: they are a hybrid of new traditionalists and modernists, but with the sole aim of keeping the RCC culturally relevant and ‘growing’. It is not so much, then, about preserving the old and its theology, but making sure the old (Vatican I) and new (Vatican II) both serve the greater purpose of modernization and growth. Francis ‘wears’ this mindset like a model modelling clothes on a catwalk! 

The most culturally relevant group is the younger, Woke, idealists in RCism. They are the ‘cutting edge’ of modern RCism. As culturalists first and foremost, they have simply cut out the ‘middle man’ of Vatican I and II and all their theology, calling them ‘symbolic’ and the like, and through activism call out for change.

Consequently, the Woke group interprets the documents of Vatican II ‘liberally’. The problem is that Vatican II itself is somewhat like a political speech: deliberately worded to avoid controversy and division, so that it can promote unity and cultural growth. As a document, as it were, Vatican II is like a wax nose that can be shaped in favor of either new traditionalism or Woke Catholicism.  The hermeneutic of the Woke group is to take old-school language from Vatican I, or even in Vatican II, and re-interpret this theology as merely symbolic for the greater vision of spiritual and cultural unity and growth. Or, they simply discard some old-school theology. I am reminded of Obama’s reading of the American Constitution: he claimed fidelity to it, but then interpreted it exclusively in the light of his modern political agenda; any exegesis of the text was irrelevant, except as it served his political agenda. So is the hermeneutic of Woke Catholicism.

The war

This brings us to the war. Francis is the both hero and villain, heretic and saint, all wrapped into one. The new traditionalists can’t make up their mind about him. The Woke group adore him. He, however, must carefully straddle the fence and make sure he keeps both groups on board (he doesn’t care about the old-school traditionalists, only the new traditionalists). Francis and the majority movement are like a submarine carefully threading its way through a minefield in wartime. Two subjects bring this out: the gay issue, and the debate over the Eucharist.

                Gay issue. There is no disputing the old-school rejection of homosexuality. Francis affirms this, as he has to, for Vatican I is, on paper at least, as ‘holy’ and ‘infallible’ as Vatican II. So, if pushed into a corner, Francis will stand by this position. However, Francis, being a modernizer, wants to bring ‘gays’ into the RCC. How does he do this? He affirms their ‘gayness’. He identifies with their ‘sexuality’. It is an ‘orientation’, and not so much a matter of sin. All that language of sin and condemnation is set aside, or put to the periphery, or deconstructed. A newcomer can therefore be accepted into the congregation as ‘gay’, and his ‘gay’ identity affirmed. However, the purpose of being accepted is to transform the ‘gay’ person into the likeness of Jesus , and to overcome the inner ‘gayness’ /sexuality/orientation that will forever be there. Of course, in accepting entrance into the church, the gay ‘believer’ must disavow the gay life. The Gay wing of RCism absolutely loves this new teaching; but they think that Francis does not go far enough- surprise, surprise! The Bible’s teaching of utterly and completely discarding the old man, and openly and resolutely rejecting it and anathematizing it, are never an option for Francis, for, it’s not the way that the spirit of Vatican II works. Check out modern RC attitudes toward Francis and the gay issue: they will vary wildly, and that’s all because Francis is a chameleon who can change color to suite his environment!

                Eucharist. The old school way of referring to the nature of the Eucharist was to call it ‘transubstantiation’. The bread and wine became the actual and real body and blood of Jesus; they just ‘looked’ outwardly like bread and wine, but they really were Jesus’ actual body and blood.

Most modern RCs in the West are vague on this teaching, and, indeed, concerning most of the traditional teachings. Many would shudder at the thought of a religious form of cannibalism, of eating Jesus’ actual body, or vampirism (drinking his actual blood). Yet, as before, transubstantiation is the formal face of RC doctrine.

Due to the confusion and cultural irrelevance of transubstantiation, a minority of modern RC theologians are opting for a new tern, ‘transignification’. Its argument is that the bread and wine signify the actual body and blood of Christ, but do not actually become his body and blood; the bread and wine are the means to receiving Jesus Christ. Others think this goes to far, and are leaning toward a Lutheran model, where the bread and wine do not ‘become’ the body and blood of Jesus, but are ‘in, with, and under’ the bread and wine. Lutheranism! Whether transignification or consubstantiation, each belief is celebrated as a movement toward ecumenism, as the whole process of presenting a ‘deconstructed’ real presence is made ‘the star of the show’. In other words, the agenda of modernization is driving the RC theology, the tail wagging the dog.

Warning to Evangelicals

Over the decades, I have intellectually absorbed (but not in terms of faith!) Barth’s theology, Bonhoeffer’s, RCism’s, and other deviant, heretical views of Christianity. It continues to utterly astonish me that modern Evangelical elders and theologians lift up these groups and individuals as exemplary Christians. I will warn you, my fellow Evangelicals, with comments from my old, Modernist, Liberal professor, Paul Badham (who repudiated Evangelicalism). He thought that Karl Barth was a complete fraud. He understood exactly what he did: Barth took evangelical language and theology and poured into it a modernist, ‘Barthian’, anti-traditional theology. This was my Liberal, Modernist professor’s belief, which I wholly agree with. Please, please, please, brothers, I appeal to you, stop being so incredibly naïve and thinking that RCism and Barthians, or Bonhoeffer, represent biblical Christianity. They take Christian terms and concepts, deconstruct them, and fill them with their heresies. Do not be swayed, then, by the fact that there is a sea change in RCism. It is still the same old ‘salvation by works’ model, but it is wrapped with somewhat different paper.