Jon Sobrino, SJ, put on notice. (update)
The story hasn’t made much of a splash Stateside, but Fr. Jon Sobrino, SJ, a well-known liberation theologian, is the subject of a “notification” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which takes issue with several aspects of his Christology. The Spanish newspaper El Mundo broke the embargo on the document, and Catholic World News has run two stories on the matter, both of which contain a serious error. Their most recent story again claims that Sobrino has been sanctioned:
The disciplinary notice will reportedly stipulate that Father Sobrino should
cease publishing theological works and cannot teach at a Catholic university
while he maintains the positions that the Vatican has identified as clashing
with Catholic doctrine.
Calling the ten-page notification a “disciplinary notice” is misleading, and claiming it stipulates that Sobrino cannot publish theology or teach at a Catholic school is simply false. Unlike the notification regarding the theology of Roger Haight, SJ, Sobrino’s contains no sanctions whatsoever. He is not ordered to cease publishing, nor is he told he cannot teach Catholic theology. Apparently Catholic World News has not read the notification they’re reporting on. More updates as they come.
Update: The CDF has released the notification, which can be read here. And John Allen has written about it here. As I reported, the notification contains nothing about sanctions, and Allen’s sources confirm that this is the case, although they don’t “rule it out” in the future (of course). Why, if the reports are correct, did Sobrino’s archbishop tell El Mundo otherwise?
Grant,
Just curious – have you actually seen the document? I have only seen speculative references about what it will contain – like the CWN report.
Yes.
I suppose the sanctions will come because the Church of Dogma gears into action faster than the church of the poor and downtrodden.
And when it comes to the abuse of women, the Vatican is ever slower.
Unambiguosly, orthodoxy over orthopraxy.
We often hear how the church is growing in the third world countries but we don’t realize how even worse abuses occur there. The church grows there because of our great gospel but is compromised by an elite clergy which takes advantage of trust. http://www.calltoaccountability.org/report
The priests abuse of nuns remains a major scandal. http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/031601/031601a.htm
This is why nuns in the philipines and other places will not even invite a priest for the liturgy. They prefer a shortage of priests.Yet the Vatican keeps talking dogma and sanctions.
Perhaps Catholics are too conditioned to handle this kind of thing. But the bishops continue and we let them.
You can call it ranting or whatever. But our tolerance of the bishop’s continuing lies and stonewalling is surely an enabler to some degree.
Grant,
The document you saw is the one to be released Thurs? Not available anywhere online, is it? I’m assuming it’s not…
Yes, Michael, what I have is the one to be released Thursday. I haven’t seen it online.
Are there any specifics available on the precise doctrinal issues?
All this is very interesting, but I have never read any of Fr. Sobriuno;s books and in fact I cannot say I have ever heard his name before. Hence I am in no position to say anything about him or his work.
I was struck by this citation from Pius XII in the CDF document: “For hardly was He (Jesus)conceived in the womb of the Mother of God when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision”. I wonder what “began” here might mean. But apart from that, while I know that Thomas Aquinas and many others have held that Jesus enjoyed the beatific vision from the beginning, I believe that many others, generally considered orthodox, reject that view. Any thoughts?
I’ve never read Fr. Sobrino either.
I think that he raises several important issues though both in his case and in the larger context of Church matters.
Folowing Allen’s nalysis, it’s important to note that the Congregation views his comments as either “erroneous or dangerous.” It’s not clear which is which.
This is an old problematic of what does “dangerous” mean and is often conflated with concern about “confusing” the poor sheep. There is a natural brake offered by conservative curialists, but…
Sobrino’s complaint about his work having been previously approved underscores the problem of how little dialogue exists between theologians and hierachical leaders and the vital question of the shape that dialogue should take.
In rejecting the notification, Sobrino may indeed face further sanction and that’s an old story too -fall in line, especially if you’re an SJ and a Papal soldier.
But the major issue is how the Church sees complexity agains the background of the modern world. Bill’s right about the Southern Hemisphere. If Sobrino is a champion of the “base communities” that the curialists want to see go, there is a tremendous engagement problem.
In our ecumenical Lenten discussion here, our Anglican leader is trying to contrast Borg and Crossans “The Last Week” with Mel Gibson’s “Pasion of Christ.” It’s too bad that the Christ of Faith and the Historical Jesus have been so far seperated that we’re asked to buy into a one-sided view.
Too bad too that the powers that be cannot blend the Jesus, champion of the poor, with the Lord who is God and who saves, or did Fr. Sobrino do that and the politics of the modern world intervene?
Bob Nunz points to a particularly bad part of the Congregation’s notification. For the Congregation to issue a serious report before its members can make up their minds whether to call a theologian’s position “erreoneus” or “dangerous” is irresponsible. If the position is said to be erroneous, then the Commission has an obligation to say exactly what is wrong. If the position is deemed dangerous, then the danger ought to be clearly specified both as to content and to whom it poses a danger.
I do not see how failing to make these elementary clarifications is anything other than itself a violation of justice.
Perhaps they meant that his positions were in some instances erroneous, in others not clearly erroneous but dangerous.
Joseph, does the congregation not have the duty to say which positions are erroneous, if any, and which are dangerous, if any and to whom? Justice requires specific charges, not general ones.
“Extra pauperes nulla salus, Sobrino writes – “Outside the poor, there is no salvation.”
Good for him.
The church has never dealt with the bunch of characters that emerged in the fourth century, from Nicea on. Almost completely denied is, that Constantine wanted an end to diversity in the church, and that Athanasius wanted a man-God to exalt Christianity.
Angelo Roncalli tried to get that point across in his opening letter to the council about secular influences in the church and their detrimental effects. To use John XXIII’s adjective just a “cursory” look through history will show that councils have contradicted themselves, Constantine imposed his will on Nicea, Athanasius kept trying to get back his powerful see and Cyril had this thing about Theotokos (about which the West had no clue).
From then on the Catholic Church became the church of the mighty as the poor became incidental to it. Praise for the magnificat through the ages has not helped the bishops realize that it was the might that was put down while the poor were filled with good things.
Unlike Christ the monarchical church has lived like the rich throughout the centuries, even denying that Christ favored the downtrodden. That even Christianity began to be identified with wealth while the poor got what they deserved.
Of course, the women are coming and pointing to the real meaning of Mary’s words.
“He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.”
Extra pauperus, nulla salus. Now there is a gospel statement. Yet there is the eye of the needle.
Bernard – It seems clear to me when I read the statement which texts they think are dangerous and which ones are erroneous, or at least ambiguous. Not that I agree with many of them.
Just a couple thoughts on the document as a whole:
I got a cold chill when I read “the preoccupation of the Author for the plight of the poor is admirable.” A twisted version of the “preferential option for the poor”?
It is also curious that, to my knowledge, the CDF has never criticized a theologian for deemphasizing Christ’s humanity.
Sobrino is, in fact, not saying anything that many other Catholic theologians are saying about the divinity of Christ, asking tough questions about how much Jesus was aware of the salvific meaning of his death, for example. Even though they claim they have no problem with Sobrino’s liberationist perspective, is the fact that they are picking on him in particular perhaps an effort to connect in people’s minds — even more than ever — the liberation theology with dissention/heresy/etc.?
Does it take a genius to realize that Jesus would have been killed in every age by the hierarchy when they had access to the guilotine? And censured in today’s age.
It seems to me that if a church is going to express concern about the possible lack of emphasis or even denial about the universally salvific character of Jesus’s death on the cross, then the meaning of that doctrine ought to be clear enough that the rest of us can understand why it is a problem when someone underemphasizes it, or even denies it.
So, in the spirit of Jean Raber’s discussion of saying something interesting in a limited number of words, I make the following request:
In 60 words or less, can someone please explain for this wayward son how the death of Jesus on the cross is universally salvific? Two limits on your answer: 1) It cannot suggest that God’s mercy/forgiveness was not universally operative prior to the crucifixion; 2) It must really retain individual responsibility for sin.
I will be truly grateful for the efforts of anyone willing to accept this challenge.
Joe-
I’m not a theologian, so I don’t know that I could ever do full justice to your question, but I think the German theologian Johannes Baptist Metz has spoken eloquently about the universal salvific effect of the Crucifixion in his short but powerful book “Poverty of Spirit.”
According to Metz, to become fully human means “to become ‘poor,’ to have nothing that one might brag about before God.” Christ is the fullest human who ever lived, and He is therefore also the poorest human who ever lived.
Metz goes on to explain why the Crucifixion was absolutely necessary and why it was universally salvific:
“God’s countenance was hidden during the passion, and Christ gaped into the darkness of nothingness and abandonment where God was no longer present. He reached his destiny, stretched taut between a despising earth that had rejected him and a faceless heaven thundering God’s ‘no’ to sinful humankind. Jesus paid the price of futility. He became utterly poor.
In this total renunciation, however, Jesus perfected and proclaimed in action what took place in the depths of his being: he professed and accepted our humanity, he took on and endured our lot, he stepped down from his divinity. He came to us where we really are—with all our broken dreams and lost hopes, with the meaning of existence slipping through our fingers. He came and stood with us, struggling with his whole heart to have us say ‘yes’ to our innate poverty.
God’s fidelity to us is what gives us the courage to be true to ourselves. And the legacy of God’s total commitment to humankind, the proof of God’s fidelity to our humanity, is the cross. The cross is the sacrament of poverty of spirit, the sacrament of authentic humanness in a sinful world. It is the sign that one human being remained true to his own humanity, that he accepted it in full obedience. Hanging in utter weakness on the cross, Christ revealed the divine meaning of our Being.”
The Metz excerpt is of course more than the 60 word maximum of your challenge, but there are many who post here who are well-trained in theology and who are much more capable than me of meeting the word limit you imposed. For my part, being able to share some of the beautiful writing of Metz is reward enough.
William,
Thank you for the Metz text. It is indeed beautiful writing, but I am less certain about the theology. For comparison purposes, let us consider another death of a holy man.
In 135 c.e. Rabbi Akiba (Akiva), central figure in the creation of rabbinic Judaism, was executed by the Romans. According to tradition, he was flayed alive and had hot iron combs raked over his body. Tradition also says he was asked by his students why he seemed to remain so serene. He said that while he had always attempted to love God with all of his heart and soul, he had never had the chance to love God with all of his life. Now, at last, he had such a chance. It is reported that just before his death he recited the Sh’ma, dying with just after emphasizing the word One.
I wonder how Metz would understand the differences in these deaths. Can we call the death of Rabbi Akiba universally salvific? If not, why not?
I for one do not like Metz’s appeal to the divine “No” from above. I prefer images of a divine search for each one of us. Nor do I like to define our humanity in terms of absolute poverty. Rather, I define our humanity in terms of our capacity to live in accordance with the Sh’ma. This is a call to a fundamentally postive and creative relationship with God and the world. Too be sure, it has no place for pride and so one might say that we must never brag before God, and so if poverty means having nothing about which to brag before God, then I have no objections. But this is a very esoteric notion of poverty that calls out for a further description of the religious life on the other side of such poverty.
The Church has always affirmed that Christ’s death is universally salvific. HOW it is salvific has never been defined. And to my knowledge, Jesus’ consciousness on the matter, as man (sic), has not been defined either.
Joe–
Just a couple of points, again from a non-theologian who knows little about the fine points of soteriology.
1. “Universally salvific,” to my understanding, is a technical theological term that among Christians (or at least Catholics) refers to the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ as the ultimate salvation event in history, for all people and for all time.
In his encyclical Nostra Aetate, Paul VI made clear that Catholics must accept this belief. He also stated the following:
“As the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.
We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8). ”
For Christians, then, Christ, as both fully human and fully divine, is the embodiment of universal salvation for all people, Christian and non-Christian alike. Obviously, non-Christians may not agree, and I think Paul VI makes crystal clear that this belief cannot be brandished with hubris and arrogance by Christians, and that in fact to do so would be diametrically opposed to everything Christ stood for.
2. I’d never heard of Rabbi Akiba until now, but from your summary of how he faced death, he seems to me to have been a holy man who no doubt is now in the presence of God for all eternity.
However, as a Christian, although I see his death as exemplary and much like that of the witness of Christian martyrs, I don’t see his death as universally salvific. I doubt he would have characterized himself as in any way a divinity. In fact, his humility in facing death and his anticipation in seeing God would argue to the contrary. Lacking divinity, I don’t think his death could be universally salvific as the term is used theologically. For Christians, Christ’s sacrifice is so important because he rose from the dead, something that no other human can lay claim to, and because he thereby showed us that there is life with God after death.
3. God may have thundered “no” to a sinful mankind, according to Metz, but it doesn’t mean mankind heard it (then or now).
4. I did not do justice to Metz’s development of “poverty of spirit.” (It’s the theme of his whole book.) Poverty of spirit is not necessarily reducing oneself to the penurious status in life of a Francis of Assisi, although I do not think Metz would disapprove of such an action. Rather, it is self-renunciation to the degree that we become other-centered in all of our thoughts, words, acts, and deeds. I have little doubt that your comment–that living in accordance with the Sh’ma “is a call to a fundamentally postive and creative relationship with God and the world”–would be a call that rings true with Metz. It certainly is a call that rings true with me.
Two things:-the at-onement won by Christ in His death resurrection and ascension is the sacrifice that replaces the old Yom Kippur . If our salvation is being made one with God, it is in the entirety of the Passion Death and Resurrection.
I presume that through our joining ourselves to Christ (as we do each Mass), we say we want to live His way, a way that reaches out to the poor and the outcasts and marginalized and that seeks to empty oneself.
(cf. Epistle to the Hebrews)
At the height of the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa wrote the following about the citizens of Alexandria:
“If in this city you ask a shopkeeper for change, he will argue with you about whether the Son is begotten or unbegotten. If you inquire about the quality of bread, the baker will answer, “The Father is greater, the Son is less.” And if you ask the bath attendant to draw your bath, he will tell you that the Son was created ex nihilo.”
I would very much like to see a resurgence of such popular interest in theology. Yet, today, the best we can get is crass subsitutionary claims “Jesus died for my sins” which occasionally get ramped up, a la The Passion to include a necessity for vicarious suffering for every sin of humanity (I still see Riggs, the character Mel Gibson plays in the Lethal Weapon movies, not Jesus every time I see The Passion). Alternatively, we produce thoughtless orthocrats who simply say, I believe X because the church teaches it, and don’t you dare suggest that the church is wrong (even if I cannot explain why they are right).
I happen to think that the teaching office of the Church is the greatest gift of the Church to humanity. How could the Church spread the Gospel if it could not explain what the Gospel is? However, as a teacher myself, I can with confidence say that one does not teach, at least theologically speaking, when one simply asserts that something is the case.
Michael: Historically speaking, I disagree with your conclusion that the church has not defined HOW the death of Jesus is universally salvific. Instead, we have had far too many answers to the question, ranging from atonement for original sin, substitutionary punishment, satisfaction for our sins, etc. The recently discussed gospel of Judas includes the very gnostic conclusion that the death of Jesus was necessary so that the Christ could “shed” the body that he was wearing. Thus, Judas was doing Jesus a favor in betraying him. Much of the soteriology of the non-gnostic churches seems to reach a similar conclusion about the actions of Judas, they are just not as willing to be quite so explicit.
Logically speaking, I find the idea that the church would affirm THAT something is true without clarifying WHY it is true to be rather appalling, especially when speaking on matters of salvation. At some level this is like saying, “Believe XTXD!#45R, because we said so, but don’t ask us what it means.”
William: Let me say it is a joy to engage in this discussion, and for those tuning in to this thread expecting a discussion of Sobrino, let me clarify that I raised the question that I did in relation to one of the complaints against him, and my point is that it is hard to see the force of the critique of one cannot explain the doctrine under question. Now regarding your points,
1) Now you seem to have switched the topic to the salvation made possible by the entire life, death, resurrection of Jesus. This is a rather different matter than declaring that specifically his death on the cross has universal salvific significance. You also suggest that it is the divinity of Jesus that makes his salvific acts universal. Again, I ask in what way? What is the specific relevance of the full divinity of Jesus to our salvation?
You indicate that Paul VI argues against brandishing the universal significance of the Jesus against those who do not affirm it. May I humbly suggest that this is exactly what the churches have done for centuries. The logic they offer is simple
If 1) Believing something or other about Jesus is required for the salvation of any soul
and 2) Someone or some group not only fails to believe but actually denies the something or other
then 3) Those individuals or groups will suffer the damnation of their souls
This is theology by threat and intimidation, not gospel. Furthermore, if 1 is true, then any Christian ought to be able to explain what it means, and why it is true. It has been a relatively short time that the church has finally decided to affirm the possibility of salvation outside the church, and I think the consequences of this for long-standing theological positions, especially those related to Jesus, have yet to be fully felt.
2) Regarding the resurrection, I do not see how divinity is a required category for one to be resurrected. I find the church’s affirmation of the resurrection to be far more compelling as a positive affirmation of life and as a divine sign of approval for the gospel of Jesus. Additionally, I still do not understand the necessity that someone like a Rabbi Akiba affirm the resurrection in order to experience salvation. Thus, I still do not see in what WAY the resurrection might be universally salvific.
3) I still do not think God thundered NO. I see the crucifixion of Jesus as an injustice, not as part of a divinely orchestrated algorithm of salvation.
4) I am all for self-renunciation as long as we include the self-discovery that comes with self-renunciation.
Bob: I get that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus replaces Yom Kippur for Christians, but you seem to be suggesting that it literally replaced Yom Kippur. Much evil has been perpetrated against Jews (I do not for a minute suggest that you yourself support such evil) on grounds similar to this. Do Jews, Muslims, and others fail in their efforts to seek oneness with God? Alternatively, can’t Christians fail miserably at being one with God despite whatever was accomplished by Jesus?
I would still value (and I think more than a few readers of this blog would as well) any effort to clarify why it is a mistake to either to fail to emphasize, or to deny, the universal salvific significance of the death of Jesus on the cross.
It is the salvific acts of Christ that make possible oneness with God. There are many paths there, but the path par excellence is the Eucharistic celebration of the death resurrection and ascension – the mystery of faith.
The cross without the resurrection is nothing, for”if Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain.”
I don’t see how that denies the cross, but places the entire Easter event in context.
Joe — I agree that many theories of atonement have been proposed, but my point was that the Church has not defined any one of them as “the” correct theory.
I personally do not have a problem with the Church affirming “that” something is true without defining “why” or “how” it is true. The Real Presence in the Eucharist is a good example. Or, heck, the Trinity.
Ah, mystery. Is it a coincidence that mystery always appears precisely in the supposedly superlative elements of Christianity, those characteristics of the religion that make it superior to others, that make it a religion “par excellence,” that also make it something that only “the church” and its clergy can offer?
Only Christianity has the Incarnation and the Trinity, and thus only Christianity has properly presented God to the world. How are the Incarnation and Trinity to be understood? Mystery
Only Christianity has the universally salvific death of Jesus on the Cross, and failing to affirm the truth of this salvific event makes the alternatives “gravely deficient.” What is the meaning of the universally salvific character of Jesus’s death on the cross? Mystery
Only Christianity has the sacraments by which believers can “participate” in mystery. How does this participation take place? Mystery.
There are great theologians who seek to communicate the gospel with power and beauty. They have no need for appeals to mystery. Too often, however, their willingness to accept the challenge of communicating the gospel of Jesus Christ without resting on mystery (and therefore on ecclesial authority alone) is rewarded only with ecclesial sanction.
I am afraid that a God we understood would be an idol we invented, and a theology without mystery would end in banality.
Joseph,
There is a logical and theological difference between understanding nothing of mystery and understanding something of a reality that remains fundamentally a mystery. The distance between the finite and the infinite is infinite, but it does not follow that we can know nothing of the infinite.
For example, the text on Sobrino refers to the divine Christ as the “bridge” between heaven and earth. In what sense is a bridge necessary? The Jews and the Muslims find no such need for a bridge. Often, Christological claims imply some kind of limitation in God’s relation to the world prior to the Incarnation, a limitation that other theistic traditions would deny, and so would find no need for the Incarnation. Yet, Christians presumably know enough about the mystery of God to affirm these truths about God’s relation to the world.
Religious traditions that only have human founders are not obviously deficient. To argue that a merely human Jesus would place Christianity among these religions is not obviously a problem. If a Jesus who is not fully divine is a theological problem, as opposed to an ecclesiological problem, then one should be able to identify the problem in non question-begging terms (that is, the problem cannot simply be that such a Jesus is not divine, for it is the necessity of divinity that is in question).
I am not necessarily arguing against the divinity of Jesus. What I am arguing is that that this idea, more than any other idea, is one for which Christians ought to be able to provide a clear explanation. Christians, that is, should be able to provide a clear explanation of the mistake that is made, beyond simply a departure from tradition, when one either fails to emphasize, or even denies, the divinity of Jesus.
Joe,
You say: I am not necessarily arguing against the divinity of Jesus.” What I would like to know is who you say Jesus is.
Joseph,
I am not sure if this thread is being read by anyone else, I only stumbled upon your posting by accident, so I suspect this may just be between you and me.
With the qualification that I reserve the right to clarify any of the following in the future, here goes (by the way, this is a remarkably confessional question for a blog, but I will do my best to oblige)
Jesus was the Son of God in the sense of Psalm 2:7. He was filled with the Spirit of God and preached a kind of “total” and “personal” faith that was previously unknown to those who came to follow him. He was a reformer who told the Jews both where to look for God (within and in the neighbor, especially the neighbor in need) and where not to look (a new King, or in sacrificial legalism). I do not think he meant to get rid of the law, but rather to explain its proper relation to faith. Jesus healed the sick, broke down almost all social barriers that isolated the vulnerable. He was, in many ways a social and religious revolutionary. This got him killed by the powers that be. His death on the cross was an injustice, but it also may be understood in terms of the suffering servant of Israel. It was NOT planned by God. Jesus rose from the dead and it is the proclamation of the resurrection and of the religious vision that is vindicated by it that began the Christian church. The purpose of the church is to proclaim and cultivate the religious teachings and way of life presented by Jesus. We can in literal terms speak of his presence among us “until the end of the world” which I read as meaning forever (no second coming). His presence is especially powerful during the celebration of communion, but it is also effective wherever two or three are gathered in his name. While always sincere in their efforts, I do not believe the churches succeeded in presenting Jesus to the world in the best possible way. I see no reason to believe that they have been clearly guided by the Holy Spirit (despite the best efforts of the Holy Spirit!). Nothing in what I have said about Jesus requires me to believe that he was fully God. If such a belief makes me analytically not Christian, so be it. I would not be opposed to such a formulation if someone could provide a compelling reason for why that would be the best way to fulfill the original mission of those who first experienced his resurrection. Peace.