The Christology of J. Ratzinger - Benedict Xvi in the Light of His Theological Biography

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF J. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI IN THE LIGHT OF HIS THEOLOGICAL BIOGRAPHY

Jesús Martínez Gordo

INTRODUCTION ...... 3 Personal Christology ...... 3 “Sympathetic” reading...... 4 Canonical exegesis ...... 5 Theological roots of the Christology ...... 6 The theological biography of J. Ratzinger ...... 8 1. THEOLOGIAN AND COUNCIL EXPERT ...... 9 1. Ratzinger’s theological training ...... 9 2. Contribution to the Council debates on Dei Verbum ...... 12 2. THEOLOGIAN, BISHOP, AND PREFECT OF THE CDF ...... 14 1. Detachment from Karl Rahner and closeness to Hans Ur von Balthasar ...... 15 2. Anti-Roman feeling and the role of theologians ...... 17 3. The appeal to “definitive” truths: the apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem (1998) ...... 20 3. THE PAPACY OF BENEDICT XVI ...... 23 NOTES ...... 30 Jesús Martínez Gordo is a Doctor of Theology, a Professor in the Faculty of Theology of Vitoria and a Professor in the Institute of Religious Sciences of San Sebastián. Member of the theological department of Centre d'Estudis Cristianisme i Justícia.

INTERNET: www.fespinal.com - Translated by Joseph Owens - Cover illustration: Roger Torres - CRISTIANISME I JUSTÍCIA Edition - R. de Llúria, 13 - 08010 Barcelona - tel: 93 317 23 38 - fax: 93 317 10 94 - [email protected] - Printed by: Edicions Rondas, S.L. - ISSN: 0214-6509 - ISBN: 84-9730-208-7 - Legal deposit: B-53.648-08. February 2009. The Lluís Espinal Foundation would like to inform you that its information comes from our historical archive belonging to our records. These go under the name of BDGACIJ and are registered with the code 2061280639. In order to access them, rectify them, delete or challenge them, please contact us at the street Roger de Llúria, 13, Barcelona. INTRODUCTION

Three features might particularly be noted in the recently published Christology of Pope Benedict XVI: his decision to publish it now as a private theologian, his concern that it be given a “sympathetic” reading, and his preference for the so-called “canonical exegesis”. These are three aspects which, apart from the initial surprise, are important, since they condition the way this book will be read and reviewed.

Personal Christology faith (“assensus fidei”), the authentic magisterium, being fallible, seeks sim- We are encountered, first of all, by a ply religious obedience of understan- Pope who does not want to stop doing ding and will (“obsequium religio- theology as an individual. Benedict XVI sum”). But on this occasion there is no asks that his Christology be read as a requirement of “religious obedience”, strictly personal contribution, and there- nor of course any assent of faith” is fore apart from the consequences that required. The work is simply intended would follow on an act of the official as a personal contribution, meant to be magisterium (whether this be extraor- a service to the Christian community dinary, “ordinary and universal”, “defi- and to be open to theological debate, nitive” or authentic). While the forms of and thus should it be taken. the extraordinary, “ordinary and universal” and “definitive” magisterium are This way of proceeding, as surpris- infallible and so demand the assent of ing as it may be, is not something new

3 in the theological biography of J. the work because of “the one who wrote Ratzinger. When John Paul II asked him it”, thus confusing “sympathy” with to take charge of the Congregation for adulation. the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Between both extreme attitudes, we Ratzinger, who was then bishop of can find the methodological approach Munich and Freising, asked the Pope if that every Christian should practice in he could continue acting as a theologian any theological investigation: “critical in his own right, that is, in a way distinct empathy”, that is, attempting to read from his responsibility as head of that and understand an author in his own congregation. After opportune consul- right, accepting the perspective that he tation, John Paul II informed him that puts into play, hearing and respecting such a procedure was possible. In his methodological options and his publishing the first part of his Christo- arguments. Such empathy, however, logy, Benedict XVI is simply following does not refrain from critically the pattern set in the request that was appraising those positions, theses, made to and accepted by John Paul II at arguments, perspectives or conclusions that time. that are thought not to be defensible. It remains to be shown how some of Such a method of “critical sympathy” the personal positions of J. Ratzinger or “critical empathy” is the perspective have anticipated or taken final form in that should be adopted by any reader doctrinal pronouncements made while and, of course, by any theologian. he was prefect of the Congregation for Moreover, this is the genuinely the Doctrine of Faith. “Catholic” perspective, since it maintains in that unstable balance characteristic of what is Catholic; it “Sympathetic” reading applies not only to truths and behaviors, but also to attitudes that appear very But we are encountered, secondly, by a difficult to hold together: humanity and Pope who not only publishes the first divinity, unity and Trinity, Jesus and volume of his Christology as an Christ, singularity and universality, expression of his personal search, but primacy and collegiality, eternity and who also asks that it be read with a time, Good Friday and Easter Sunday, minimum of sympathy “without which and in our case empathy and critique. no understanding is possible”1. Such a request should be taken as excluding Without this “empathy” proper to two attitudes that are equally detri- theological work it is extremely difficult mental for theological research and for to understand any formulated propo- faith: the excessively critical reading by sition without distorting it. And without those who might have a poorly solved “critique” it becomes impossible for Oedipus complex regarding the Church theological knowledge to make pro- (and by extension regarding any gress and not to fall into a discourse that authority) and the totally uncritical is merely flattering or repetitive. What reading of those who simply rave about we need, then, is “critical empathy”. 4 Canonical exegesis possible for the biblical texts to appear in a new light4. It is a spiritual, prayerful There is a third feature that characteri- and theological reading of the sacred zes the first volume of Ratzinger’s texts in their own right, in tune with the Christology, namely, its distance from use which the Bible makes of its own the historical-critical method and its texts. Indeed, the different biblical option for the so-called “canonical books provide abundant testimony of exegesis”. this type of re-reading. It is true that Catholic theology, as Ratzinger aknowledges, is open to the historical-critical method, which conti- nues to be an undeniable dimension of Ratzinger’s theological and exegetical work, but it is equally true spiritual trajectory may help that the task of interpretation involves to clarify the nuances of more than that2. his thought when dealing with Interpretation involves more, be- the mystery of God or the cause historical criticism is limited by three drawbacks: it concentrates on situation of Church and society knowing what happened in the past, leaving the mystery of God in the past, in such a way that it is made incapable Surprisingly, the methodological of speaking to us in the present; it also proposal of Benedict XVI coincides ( by approaches revelation as a merely and large, not completely) with the human event; and finally it neglects the argument of those theologians who unity of the Bible as the Word of God. years ago claimed (correctly, to be sure) It consequently sets up a methodolo- that the historical-critical method ran the gical gulf between history and faith that risk of becoming inflated. Moreover, ends up in the latter being left out. Faith, they called attention to the danger of the which is ultimately what makes scriptures being kidnapped by the Scriptures to form a single book, ends exegetes, that “very rich and exclusive up dislodged from history, and no club”5. This group of theologians also attention is paid to what is the cons- argued that “scripture and reality” titutive fact of Scripture: that God by his illuminated one another mutually6; that incarnation, his words and his actions is to say, by reading the Scriptures we has entered into history and has made were virtually reading reality and history3. “reading” ourselves7. They also claimed J. Ratzinger, citing Dei Verbum (DV) that all methods of exegesis had to be “at no. 12, argues that the so-called “cano- the service of announcing the Good 8 nical exegesis” helps to overcome te News to the poor” . These important mentioned limitations, since it allows points, brought to light again by Be- one to become internally submerged in nedict’s personal position, were first the presence of the Word and makes it introduced by G. Gutiérrez with 5 unquestionable brilliance some two of whether J. Ratzinger’s synthetic decades ago. There is no doubt that both presentation of the historical-critical theologians hold that Scripture is the method is sufficiently balanced, or “soul of theology” (cf. DV 24) and that whether it suffers from a certain it must be read in a fruitful relation with oversimplification. (The historical reality. factor is indispensable for faith and is This, then, is part of the rationale that essential for keeping theology from underlies the methodological approach becoming an “eisegetic” discourse, that of J. Ratzinger. We must also point out, is, a projection into scripture of feelings, however, that the reservations desires and expectations that are foreign formulated more than two decades ago to it.). Second, the question of whether with regard to the liberation analysis and Ratzinger has duly considered the its reading of Scripture still persist today. pluralism that exists within this method Perhaps the most worrying question is in our days. We must recognize that whether this approach to the Scriptures, nowadays people talk of the third quest as legitimate and necessary as it may be, of the historical Jesus and that a does not, if due cautions are not taken, majority of important Catholic exegetes end up producing rather inconsistent have offered a great variety of critical readings (with the risk of encouraging positions concerning points that fundamentalist interpretations in the Ratzinger deals with. name of the dogma of inspiration). To sum up briefly: Ratzinger’s Along with that question comes another, appeal to the so-called “canonical more directly referring to J. Ratzinger: exegesis” prompts us to trace, in his to what extent does the magisterium theological biography, the way he has occupy again a position on a level with articulated the relation between reve- Scripture or even above it? If such were lation and tradition or between theology the case, might we claim that we meet and the magisterium. These two pairs of once again the preparatory scheme “De fundamental questions are central to all fontibus revelationis”, which was his theological work and to the different rejected by Vatican II Council fathers Church responsibilities he has held. and finally superseded by the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum? The question is not trivial, because if this is a genuine Theological roots of the danger, then we might end up favoring Christology theological and ecclesiological attitudes To come, finally, to a fourth aspect that very close to those that officially cannot be lost from sight when studying prevailed on the eve of the Vatican II. any theological work, all the more so if The theological biography of Benedict the work is that of a Pope who wants to XVI can help us to clarify these continue to act as a private theologian: questions, especially the last one. every contribution needs to be contex- Two other important reservations tualized, at least within the life context need to be mentioned. First, the question of the author, so that the critical 6 empathy with which the work is can be shown to be true, namely, that approached is properly founded. This many of his personal analyses and means that we cannot expect much from positions during his time as prefect of a reading of this first volume of the CDF and even before that time have Christology that just “limits itself to ended up sooner or later becoming reading” the work in and of itself, while doctrinal pronouncements. disregarding its ecclesial and cultural diagnoses or ignoring earlier theological reflections of Ratzinger. Quite likely this first part of the Christology many of his personal analyses has been received precisely in this way among large sectors of the Church. And and positions such an attitude might well be in accord during his time as with the excellent reception given to his prefect of the CDF first encyclical on love of God (Deus have ended up sooner or later caritas est). Many people on that becoming doctrina occasion were pleasantly surprised by the encyclical’s positive tone, which pronouncements was almost the opposite of the authoritative, even polemical, tone used by Cardinal Ratzinger during his time as Such is the case with many of prefect of the CDF. Now even more Ratzinger’s critical evaluations. Some readers are pleasantly surprised by the examples of his criticisms have tone and features of the new work. concerned the following: Nevertheless, after the initial – the liturgical renewal of Paul VI (it surprise has subsided, we must recog- produced “extremely grave damage”9, nize that a study of Ratzinger’s theolo- besides, the Latin mass has been gical and spiritual trajectory may help to reintroduced); clarify the nuances of his thought when – the role of theologians during and dealing with the mystery of God or the after the Council (the complaint was situation of Church and society, as well that theologians thought they were the as the reasons for such nuances. An only representatives of theological analysis of this kind will allow us to science, over and above the bishops; appreciate the degree of continuity that later they were declared to be diffusers may exist between his theological of the magisterium); trajectory and the present work of – the weak teaching authority of a Christology and to perceive what is good number of bishops, especially in truly new in his explanation of the mys- the Council (giving strenght to the so- tery of the crucified and risen God. called “popular church); since 1985 the Moreover, this observation is parti- image of the Church as “people of God” cularly important if what some of his has given way to that of the Church as 10 critics consider an inevitable conclusion “communion”) ; 7 – the dangers of division and mely, the relationships that exist among fragmentation that threatened the post- revelation, tradition, scripture and conciliar Church in the name of episco- magisterium. pal collegiality and baptismal co-res- Both the number and the nature of ponsibility (subsequently the teaching these questions show the importance of function of the conferences of Bishops contextualizing Ratzinger’s Christology has been downplayed, the synods have on the basis of his theological biography, been prevented from formulating with the aim of appreciating a little better review petitions about matters reserved what may be at stake theologically and to the Holy See, and preference has been ecclesially. given to an exercise of the primacy that is similar to that which existed before the Council, an exercise founded on the The theological biography of J. division between the “power of orders” Ratzinger and the “power of jurisdiction”); – the “logical and ontological pre- Three stages can be clearly distin- cedence of the universal Church over guished in the theological biography of the local Church” as a revision of the Pope Benedict XVI. conciliar decree Christus Dominus, n. 11, which maintains that in the diocese 1. The first stage corresponds to the “is found and operates truly the Church time of his theological training, his of Christ, which is one, holy, catholic work as a Professor of Theology in Mu- and apostolic.”; nich, Bonn and Münster, and his parti- – the reappearance of “Marxist cipation as an expert at Vatican II messianism” and its creeping into the (1962). utopian forms of liberation theology; 2. The second stage includes the – the so-called dictatorship of final period of his work as a Professor relativism and the need for a concept of of Theology (especially in Tübingen), truth that prevails over freedom or over his consecration as bishop, his Episco- human rights in the Church; pal ministry in the dioceses of Munich – the “professio fidei” and the new and Freising (1977), and above all the form of infallible, not defined ma- time that he was Prefect of the gisterium with the so-called “definitive Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith truths” (1981). – and the basic question that is 3. The third stage began in the spring particularly at issue in almost all these of 2005 with his being elected Pope, as analyses and later determinations, na- Benedict XVI.

8 1. THEOLOGIAN AND COUNCIL EXPERT

In this first period there are two points which deserve to be noted: Ratzinger’s theological training and his interventions in the Council debates on Dei Verbum.

1. RATZINGER’S THEOLOGICAL TRAINING

There are four important influences to theology and spirituality. He himself has be taken into account here: Plato’s stated: “Personally, I am somewhat theory of knowledge as a form of Platonic. By that I mean that I believe recalling; Augustine’s personalism and there is a type of memory, something like his defense of the knowledge that a recollection of God, that is inscribed in springs from faith; Saint Bonaventure’s man and needs to be awakened in him. conception of history, of the Holy Spirit, Man does not know from the beginning of commitment and of revelation; and, what he has to know, nor has he reached finally, natural theology and the the end he has to reach; he is a man, a ecclesiology of the First Vatican human being on the way”11. Council.

1.2. Augustinian personalism and 1.1. Platonic influence and the knowledge that springs from knowledge as an act of recalling faith The influence of Platonism is decisive in Ratzinger confesses that during his days the configuration of Ratzinger’s as a student he had no sympathy for the 9 prevailing neo-scholasticism neither 1.3. The Master Saint with the “transparent logic” of Saint Bonaventure Thomas. He considered such systems Although the influence of Augustine on “too closed in on themselves, too Ratzinger is unquestionable, it was impersonal and prefabricated12, and at Saint Bonaventure the author who most the same time far removed from his influenced the formation of his thought personal concerns. and of his theological beliefs. He found in Saint Augustine the His doctoral thesis bears witness to personalism he was looking for, espe- that. Like Ratzinger, Saint Bonaventure cially in the passioned and profoundly also had difficulties with the aridity and human Confessions. Since then, he formality of Aristotelian philosophy. admits, “I am decidedly Augustinian. So that as creation is accessible to reason That type of knowledge would have and is reasonable, one could also say that no space for personal communion with faith is a consequence of Creation and the divinity, nor does it leave any room therefore gives access to knowledge; I for Christ. am convinced of this. Faith opens the For that reason Ratzinger was way to understanding”13. fascinated by the Augustinian philo- Thus Augustine showed Ratzinger sophy of love and by his notion of the the direction in which he had to move, presence of the image of the Trinity in since the very act of believing “includes human beings, or, what comes to the the fact that it proceeds from the One same thing, by his doctrine of the who is reason itself. Because in in so far luminous radiance and the consequent as I agree to submit myself in belief to indwelling of man in the eternal truth. the One who is beyond my As Bonaventure asked on one understanding. I know also that occasion, “What is the value in knowing precisely thus I open the door to the much and tasting nothing?”15. possibility of understanding correctly”14. Ratzinger’s study of Bonaventure The study of Augustine, along with yielded four theses that proved central in the influence of Platonism, inclined him the following years, both for his own toward a theological perspective which theological trajectory and for Church is very attentive to the objectivity of governance: revelation and to its logical and – the guiding presence of the Spirit in ontological priority. the Church; the primacy of revelation This perspective is more inclined to over scripture; speak of the mystery of God from its – tradition as the comprehensive traces in creation and in the human interpretative criterion, not only of heart, and is more concerned with the scripture but also of revelation; incarnation and the kenotic process that – and the need of salvation for all, such an event unleashes, and is attentive including the most altruistic and utopian to the disconcerting surprise caused by projects that might exist. this divine way of proceeding. 10 1.4. The guiding presence of the lation, but neither can it be denied that Spirit in the Church “revelation is something alive, something greater, which must reach its goal Ratzinger’s attunement with Bonaven- and be perceived in order to be re- ture led him to find out a thesis that has velation; otherwise we would have no been important in his theology and in revelation”19. There is consequently no his role as an ecclesiastical authority, need to have appeal to the criterion of namely, that there is no determined age “sola scriptura”, since the Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit acts in a special are intimately linked to the Church as way, contrary to what J. de Fiore and his the subject who understands them: this followers claimed. Rather, the Spirit’s is how the essential meaning of tradition presence hovers over and traverses the is given. The concept of “tradition” is whole of history, from beginning to end, thus formed and brought to light: “it is and for that reason “the age of Christ is that aspect of revelation that springs the age of the Holy Spirit16. from the Scriptures and therefore cannot be expressed in a code of formulae”20. 1.5. The primacy of revelation over scripture 1.7. Solidarity also needs to be He also received from Bonaventure a visited by grace conception of revelation that is for the Fraternity and solidarity also need to be most part uncontested: revelation is not redeemed. Nothing human, as admira- simply “the communication of certain ble and utopian as it may be, is exempt truths to human reason,” but it is “God’s from the need for salvation: “fraternity historical action, in which truth is gra- also needs to be redeemed, and there- 17 dually revealed” . This means that reve- fore we must bring it near the Cross, so lation precedes the scriptures and is re- that it can assume there its authentic flected in them, but is not simply identi- form”21. cal with them. To state it another way: “revelation is always greater than scripture. Revelation, that is, God’s communi- 1.8. In synthesis cation to human beings, his coming out to meet them, is always greater than The importance of Plato, Augustine and anything that can be expressed in human Bonaventure is unquestionable. It is al- words, even greater than the words of so clear that Ratzinger’s perspective is Scripture themselves”18. legitimate but does not give due consideration to many other perspectives that it passes over, such as Aristotle (“con- crete universal” and induction), Saint 1.6. Tradition: criterion for inter- preting Scripture and revelation Irenaeus (dignifying of the person as a consequence of the incarnation) and Nobody will question that the Scriptu- Saint Thomas (the connatural know- res are the essential testimony of reve- ledge proper to every creature)22. 11 2. CONTRIBUTION TO THE COUNCIL DEBATES ON DEI VERBUM

J. Ratzinger was asked by Cardinal logy professors did not accept the Frings of Cologne to participate as an dogma of Mary’s Assumption in body expert in the Second Vatican Council. He and soul into heaven since, they said, it is responsible for the intervention by the was a doctrine unknown before the fifth cardinal in which he invited the Church century and so did not form part of the to open itself to the world and to recover “apostolic tradition”. Ratzinger held its genuinely Christian roots. Years later, that these professors had too strict a Ratzinger gave much more importance concept of “tradition”, understanding it (and rightly so) to his contribution to the as something that was already fixed. dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum. Ac- They held that any subsequent “recall- cording to him, it was an intervention that ing” could do no more than discover was hardly taken notice of and besides it what at first was not visible, but “was was wrongly considered to be one of the still given in the original word”23. open, progressive contributions. This was the conception that the Behind this important intervention German theological world had of of Ratzinger were to be found, besides “tradition” in the time immediately the deep seated ideas coming from his following the end of World War II and theological formation, two facts that prior to Vatican II, and it conditioned were greatly important for the shaping the formulation of Dei Verbum. There of his perspective and for the future of was no concept of a “living” tradition, Church government: the rejection of and therefore it was difficult to the dogma of the Assumption by some understand that tradition is the living professors (who argued that it did not channel by which revelation reaches us form part of the “apostolic tradition”) with the help of the Scriptures, but is at and the debate opened by J. R. Geisel- the same time much more than mann about the relation between Scripture, thanks to the assistance of the scripture and tradition in the acts of the Holy Spirit. Failure to grasp this capital Council of Trent. This debate (closed in point hindered any conception of the wrong way, according to Ratzinger) tradition as open and creative. was known as the debate on the “partim … partim”, and it had great importance for the final version of Dei Verbum. 2.2. The debate on the “partim … partim” This already limited conception of the 2.1. The dogma of the relations among revelation, Scripture Assumption of Mary and tradition was aggravated in the As a young man Ratzinger was course of Vatican II by J. R. extremely concerned that some theo- Geiselmann’s study on the acts of the 12 Council of Trent, which included the consigning the faith to a state of various contributions to the decree on indeterminacy and to the continuous tradition. variations of historical hypotheses (or According to Geiselmann’s study, at what appear to be such). In the end, the Council of Trent there had been “believing” would mean something proposed at first a formula, according like “opining”, having an opinion to which revelation would be “partly” subject to constant revision”25. in the holy Scriptures and “partly” in The drama of the post-counciliar tradition. In the final text, however, the time has been broadly determined by terminology “partly … partly” was this debate and by its “logical conse- avoided, and was substituted by the quences”26. It is clear that the historical- word “and”: sacred scriptures and critical method “cannot recognize any tradition together transmit revelation to evidence other than historical argu- us. Geiselmann deduced from this that ment27 and that “it does not tolerate any Trent had wanted to teach us that the delimitation by an authoritative magis- contents of faith were not divided terium”28. The consequence is that it between the scriptures and tradition, makes the concept of tradition proble- but that both contained the whole, each matic, for the historical-critical method in its own right; that is to say, they were “does not allow any understanding of in themselves complete. As a an oral tradition which, flowing along- consequence of that, it began “to be side the sacred scriptures and going held that the Church could not teach back to the Apostles, represents a anything that was not expressly source of historical knowledge together traceable to the sacred scriptures, since with the Bible”29. they contain exactly and completely all We should not be surprised that the that belongs to faith. And since there young Ratzinger thought that the me- was an identification of scriptural thod of liberal theology (Harnack and interpretation and historical-critical his school) was arbitrary and tri- exegesis, that meant that the Church vializing and that he proposed that “it could not teach anything that did not be put on the right path by means of meet the standards of the historical- obedience to dogma”30. critical method”24. The debate was thus going much In Ratzinger’s opinion, the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum “has still further than Trent; “it was being argued 31 that in the Church exegesis should be not been fully accepted” , its authentic the final court of appeal, and given the affirmations have yet to be communi- diversity of interpretations among cated to the ecclesial consciousness, exegetes, this would be equivalent to so that it can be shaped by it.

13 2. THEOLOGIAN, BISHOP, AND PREFECT OF THE CDF

Ratzinger’s second stage encompasses the final period of his career as a theology professor (especially in Tübingen), his consecration as bishop, his episcopal ministry in the dioceses of Munich and Freising (1977), and above all the time when he was at the Prefect of the CDF (1981).

It is true that Ratzinger at an earlier the Episcopal assembly ended, he began stage had denounced the fact that the to speak of a Konzils-Ungeist, a false Church “holds the reins too tightly: Council spirit, and he asserted the need there are too many laws, and many of to redirect the way Vatican II was being them have in this century contributed to implemented, especially in dealing with a lack of faith, instead of contributing to those who thought that reform consisted salvation”32. And it is true that when in releasing ballast, in making history years later –now as Prefect of the CDF– something more bearable, and in he was asked about this remark, he lightening things up in such a way that claimed that he did not remember it, and it appears in the end to be “not a he reinterpreted it as meaning that strengthening, but rather a dissolution, scholastic theology was not a good toll of faith”34. for the possible dialogue between faith Being more precise, with regard to and our modern times33. certain Christian adaptations of Nevertheless, this first diagnosis is Marxism, he observed in Tübingen that mostly by way of anecdote. Shortly after the Church had been infiltrated by

14 tendencies that were making use of of his heritage in the name of freedom Christianity for ideological purposes, have been total36. something that he felt was truly insi- The diagnosis that Ratzinger de- dious. He became convinced that peo- veloped during his final stage as pro- ple’s wholehearted desire to serve the fessor reached a well-reasoned formu- faith was being destroyed and replaced lation in the years when he was bishop by an instrumentalization that was at the of Munich, and especially when he was service of a tyrannical ideology with bru- Prefect of the CDF. The result was a tally cruel orientations: “I then under- cultural, spiritual, and ecclesiastical stood perfectly that, if we were to per- judgment denouncing the post-counci- severe in the will of the Council, we had liar tendency to overlap –with the resolutely to resist all those abuses”35. pretext of modernization– the mystery In his book Introduction to of God and the need for church Christianity he offered the first conclu- mediation. A diagnosis that was as rich sion of the diagnosis that he was de- and nuanced as it was polemical. It veloping: the dream of freedom offered would be impossible to explain it by modernity makes a Christian named adequately in a short space, but there Hans exchange some gold nuggets he are three points that should be possesses, first for a horse, then for a highlighted, since they help to give a cow, afterwards for a goose, and finally theological context for the first volume for grindstone that he ends up throwing of the Christology: Ratzinger’s relation into the sea. When Hans finally wakes to K. Rahner and H. Urs von Balthasar, up from the dream of freedom offered his reconsideration of the theologian’s by modernity, he finds himself in a role in the Church, and especially his difficult situation, because he has no- option for the so-called “definitive thing left. The decay and the destruction truths”.

1. DETACHMENT FROM K. RAHNER AND CLOSENESS TO H. U. VON BALTHASAR

In his first years as a professor, also wrote what can be considered his Ratzinger published jointly with K. first great book: The New People of Rahner some of the most emblematic God. This fruitful relationship with theological works of the time: The Epis- Rahner gradually weakened, and there copate and the Primacy and Revelation was confrontation between the two and Tradition.37 During those years he theologians in the first years of the 15 International Theological Commission lodged in the bosom of the world to because of their differing conceptions which they gave such centrality in the regarding the role of the theologian and mystery of salvation. of the Commission itself in the go- According to the theologian from vernance of the Church (should the Basel, salvation would be brought to the theologian help to formulate the magis- world not by “anonymous Christians” terium or limit himself to disseminating (persons who do not explicitly accept it?). Years later he confessed that “my Jesus as Savior, but still are committed theology differed from that of Rahner in to the liberation of people, especially the important role played by the Scrip- the most poor). Rather, the world would tures, the Fathers and the historical be saved by the martyrs, that is, those dimension of revelation”38. A relevant persons who offer their lives because anecdote tells that it was H. U. von Bal- they know by experience that they must thasar who proposed to Ratzinger that freely give what they have freely he join the team that founded the journal received. Von Balthasar reminded the Communio, which set out to be an faithful that, when the grace of salva- alternative to Concilium. tion is not cultivated and cared for and when commitment is not properly accompanied by mysticism and by an explicitly recognized and assumed Ratzinger was in agreement identity, the risk of falling into what with some of the arguments, he called “Christian atheism” with the style and increases to unsuspected levels. For with the underlying criticism him this was one of the greatest risks in the way the Council was being that made up von Balthasar’s understood and received. diagnosis With some personal modifications, Ratzinger was in agreement with some of the arguments, with the style and At the time that his relationship with with the underlying criticism that made Rahner was cooling off, Ratzinger’s up von Balthasar’s diagnosis.39 The analyses began to resemble those “secularization” of the Church and the formulated by von Balthasar, one of the eclipsing of the mystery of God can first theologians to champion an “invo- only be fought by Christians who have luted” reading of Vatican II, both during the kind of evangelical courage that the Council itself and during the long has been demonstrated by the saints pontificate of Paul VI. The Swiss theo- and martyrs in the course of the logian criticized the naïve optimism church’s history. “Of itself the evident in Gaudium et Spes, and ac- institutional guarantee is of little worth cused the Council fathers of being blind if there are not persons who sustain it to the extent to which sin was deeply with their own personal convictions40.

16 2. ANTI-ROMAN FEELING AND THE ROLE OF THEOLOGIANS

Ratzinger declared that there had been they were the true representatives of the a tacit consensus that the Church had to knowledge, and for that very reason be the principal theme of the Second they could no longer appear to be sub- Vatican Council, which would take up ject to the bishops”43. In the Church, at again and complete the path traced by least as far as public opinion went, the First Vatican Council, prematurely “everything appeared to be subject to interrupted by the outbreak of the revision; even the profession of faith no Franco-Prussian war in 1870. Accom- longer seemed untouchable, but was panying this great question was the now subject to the verifications of the relationship between the Church and the scholars. Behind this tendency of the world41. Shortly before the Council specialists to dominate, another factor ended, however, he began to realize –as appeared, namely, the idea of popular he would recount years later– that there ecclesial sovereignty, according to was a growing sensation that nothing in which the people themselves would the Church was stable, that everything establish what should be understood by could be up for revision. “The Council the term ‘Church’, which was now seems to be like a great Church clearly defined as the people of God. parliament, which could change and The ideas of a ‘Church from below’ or revolutionize everything in its own way. a ‘Church of the people’ were being It was quite evident that there was a propagated, and such ideas would later, growing resentment against Rome and especially in the context of liberation the Curia, which appeared as the true theology, become the very aim of enemy of any renewal and progress”42. reform”44. While the divisions and confronta- tions were growing, the issue was also broadening: if the bishops could change 2.1. The “Declaration of Cologne” the Church and even the faith itself, why As a result of the publication of these could only they do it and not the rest of diagnoses and the corresponding the people of God? Furthermore, magisterial decisions which were then everybody knew that the new argu- appearing, a sizeable group of German, ments of the bishops had been learned Central European and Southern Euro- from the theologians. As a result of such pean theologians was moved to influence, bishops who had been till denounce in 1989 the “authoritarian and then conservative now were making exclusivist” actions of Ratzinger and to their dioceses progressive. recommend that more attention be paid The role played by theologians in the to the opinion of all Christians (“sensus Council created in them “a new self- fidelium”), both in what the magiste- consciousness: they began to feel that rium promulgated and in how the 17 Church had to be governed. The theo- urgency of preserving Church unity and logians’ document was known as the truth. Such a concern would require “Declaration of Cologne”. recovering the centrality of episcopal This denunciation and recommen- ministry as a magisterial authority and dation were interpreted by the majority the secondary function of the theologian in the Vatican Curia as an unacceptable with relation to that ministry. All this recommendation that the Church ca- was spelled out in the instruction pitulate in the face of the modern men- Donum veritatis45. While recognizing tality and as a justification for all kinds the important role theologians played in of “resistance” to and criticism of the the preparation and realization of the Catholic magisterium. One of the con- Second Vatican Council, the instruction sequences of the “Declaration of Co- states such recognition did not mean logne” was the birth of the movement that theologians should not partly be called “We are Church”, which the same blamed for the crisis that the Church majority sector of the Vatican curia suffered after the Council. claimed was dedicated to denigrating The instruction indicates that the the image of John Paul II and of his magisterium is not a ministry extrinsic prefect in the CDF. From then on, there to Christian truth or something imposed were further accusations against the on faith. Rather, it is born from faith Curia for proposing a magisterium that itself, it consists in service to God’s showed no mercy as regards sexual word, and it is an institution positively morality and for turning a blind eye in desired by Christ as a constitutive the face of the alarming spread of AIDS. element of the Church. The magisterium The reaction came quickly, and it has the assistance of the Holy Spirit came in several forms: an instruction on promised by Jesus, and that assistance the ecclesial vocation of the theologian enables the Church to propose “in a (Donum veritatis, 1990), an encyclical definite fashion” statements on ques- on the primacy of truth (Veritatis splen- tions which, “although not contained in dor, 1993) and above all the revision of the truths of faith, are still found to be the profession of faith in the apostolic intimately linked to them, in such a way letter “Ad tuendam fidem” (1998), which that the definitive character of those contained the formal exposition of the affirmations derives, in the last analysis, so-called “definitive truths”. from Revelation itself.” Such truths “can be taught infallibly by the magisterium”46. For their part, theologians 2.2. The instruction Donum should “achieve, in communion with the veritatis on the ecclesial vocation magisterium, an ever deeper under- of the theologian (1990) standing of the Word of God contained in the inspired scriptures and transmitted The rapid dissemination of the “Decla- 47 ration of Cologne” and the strength of by the living tradition of the Church” . the resulting movement caused a whole According to the instruction, the series of alarms to be set off about the magisterium is aware that doctrinal 18 development takes place in the course Word of God. Separating oneself from of time. However, this does not justify the pastors who work to keep the apos- relativistic attitudes and claims about tolic tradition alive is to compromise matters of faith, nor does it allow irreparably the very bond with Christ”52. theological discourse to set itself up as For that it is not possible to apply “an autonomous, exclusive instance for within the Church those criteria of con- judging a doctrine’s truth”48. For that duct that have their raison d’être in civil reason, it is necessary to clarify the society, in the operating rules of a demo- dissent of some theologians in relation cracy or in the prevailing social men- to the magisterium, first by showing the tality. When recourse is made to such inappropriateness of their setting their instances, with arguments and actions own discourse up as a kind of “parallel becoming absolute, it is because “the magisterium”49 and second by pointing sense of truth and the sense of the Church out the incoherence of invoking the have been seriously weakened”53. respect due to human rights in doctrinal matters. Over and above any such claim is “the strenght of truth itself”50 and the 2.3. The objectivity of truth: respect that is due to it. When a theolo- Veritatis splendor (1993) gian does not agree with the ecclesial The encyclical Veritatis splendor (1993) sense, his appeal to human rights is irre- extended further the analysis put forth levant since he is contradicting “the ve- in the Instruction on the ecclesial ry commitment that he freely and cons- vocation of the theologian (1990). It is ciously assumed by teaching in the 51 an important magisterial text because it name of the Church” . Therefore, he is emphasizes the influence of social and completely free to stop exercising that cultural sensitivity in the life of the role in the name of and in communion Church and especially among theolo- with the magisterium. gians, and it marks the path the Church The final point made is that is not will follow in relating to the world appropriate to appeal to one’s own during the pontificates of John Paul II conscience either. The instruction holds and Benedict XVI. that such a recourse is valid only in the With the publication of this ency- case of making a decision, but is not clical, official status is given to what had valid when the truth of a doctrinal till then been a minority position in how pronouncement is at stake. To appeal to the Church’s relation with the world one’s own conscience to justify a con- was understood and practiced. This flict with the Church’s magisterium is perspective is obviously quite far re- incompatible with the economy of reve- moved from the one implemented –to lation and with its transmission in the be sure, with a certain dose of naiveté– Church. “The pronouncements of faith by the members of Vatican II when they constitute an ecclesial heritage; they are debated and approved the pastoral not the result of purely individual constitution Gaudium et spes on the research and of a free critique of the relation of the Church to the world. 19 3. THE APPEAL TO “DEFINITIVE” TRUTHS: THE APOSTOLIC LETTER AD TUENDAM FIDEM (1998)

A revision of the professio fidei and the second category, definitive doctrines. oath of fidelity for theologians and for The apostolic letter fills in this space. candidates to ecclesial ministries was published in 1998. 3.2. The commentary of J. Ratzinger and T. Bertone 3.1. The professio fidei There are three principal ways in which This profession of faith adds to the the magisterium has traditionally been Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed three presented, in the light of both Vatican paragraphs: Councils: extraordinary (infallible), ordinary and universal (equally infallible), I also believe with firm faith all that and authentic (fallible). is contained in the word of God as According to the commentary of written or as transmitted by tradi- Ratzinger and Bertone on the apostolic tion, and which the Church proposes letter, it is necessary to add to these as something to be believed as traditional forms of magisterium the divinely revealed, by means of a so- “definitive” truths, that is, those truths lemn judgment or by means of the proposed as universal and unre- ordinary or universal magisterium. formable, but not defined. Such truths I accept and firmly hold, further- are based on the Holy Spirit’s assistance more, each and every matter that the to the magisterium and therefore on the Church proposes in definitive infallibility which is proper to it, and fashion about the doctrine of faith they are proclaimed with the object of and customs. maintaining ecclesial unity around a I adhere also with religious deferen- disputed truth or practice that is difficult ce of will and understanding to the to accede to, but which must be doctrines pronounced by the Roman religiously admitted to be definitive pontiff or by the college of bishops (“tamquam definitive tenenda”) when they exercise authentic teach- because of its direct connection with the ing authority, even when they do not deposit of faith or by a “logical” or have the intention of proclaiming the “historical bond”55. doctrines in a definitive act54. Ratzinger and Bertone hold that the The present Code of canon law con- infallibility of the magisterium is templates “just sanctions” for those who effective both in a solemn definition and dissent as regards the first and third in a definitive declaration. Therefore, a categories, but there is no mention of the solemn definition is not required in order

20 for infallibility to enter into effect56. In the motu propio. Concretely, the confe- this way recourse is had to a new and rence pointed out that the first paragraph surprising form of magisterium to settle of the oath violates the unity of scripture disputed questions, bestowing on and tradition, something that was “definitive” truths a position which is expressly taught by Vatican II, in favor unusual in the life of the Church57. of two separate realities: “the word of Finally, the commentary of Rat- God as written or as transmitted by zinger and Bertone points out that the tradition.” Scripture and tradition end definitive doctrines taught with the cha- up juxtaposed in the proposed definition rism of infallibility include those re- through the Latin word “vel” (“or”). ferring to the illicit nature of prostitution Such was precisely the position and fornication, the condemnation of defended at Vatican II by those who euthanasia, the reservation of priestly favored a restrictive conception of ordination to men, and the declaration revelation, a position which in the end of Leo XIII stating that Anglican did not prosper59. ordinations were null and void. The explanations given by Ratzinger and Bertone provoked a sense of generalized perplexity in the theological Ratzinger and Bertone hold world. Furthermore, they had important that the infallibility implications for relations to other Chris- of the magisterium tian confessions (especially in what touches on the priesthood of women), is effective both in for the bishops themselves, and of a solemn definition and in course for the faithful, since any rejec- a definitive declaration tion of these doctrines or any refusal to give them “a firm and definitive assent” implies the loss of full communion with the Catholic Church. That is to say, any After the Council, Ratzinger had such rejection would constitute heresy denounced the fact that dogma was or at least would justify a withdrawal of viewed as “an external bond” and not as the authorization to teach, as was the a “vital source” that makes “new case with R. Nugent for his not accept- knowledge” possible60. ing as definitive certain positions of the Furthermore, the second paragraph magisterium regarding homosexuality58. of the oath affirms, contrary to the teachings of both Vatican I and Vatican II, the Pope’s infallibility in secondary 3.3. Critical reaction of the matters of faith, without taking into German Bishops conference account that the paragraph concerns We should not be surprised that the only an opinion which is theologically German Bishops conference offered well argued, but whose application is many objections to the application of quite contested. 21 Finally, the German Bishops critici- With the publication of the apostolic zed the oath’s third paragraph for rigidly letter Ad tuendam fidem, we find requiring the so-called obsequium ourselves before a doctrinal develop- religiosum for matters belonging to the ment as important as the very definition authentic magisterium. As can be seen, of the pope’s infallibility by Vatican I in the German Episcopal conference had 1870. great reservations about accepting and What is more, adding that oath to the applying this oath of fidelity. For that Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed does reason it did not require it of the faithful. nothing to contribute to ecumenical In 1999 the Vatican curia urgently in- unity. What has been done and the way sisted that the German bishops put the it has been done constitute something oath into effect, something that they fi- completely new –there is no precedent nally decided to do in the episcopal as- for it in the whole history of sembly of the spring of 2000. They ac- Christianity. companied it, however, with an expla- Not surprisingly, then, J. Moingt nation written by the faith commission, raised the question of how a debate which recalled that the Pope’s compe- generally considered to be open to tency for judging definitively in the field further investigation can be “definiti- of secondary teachings of faith is in fact vely” closed on the basis of faith61. He a well argued theological opinion and has been joined by other theologians that its application is strongly contested. who understand that this form of go- With respect to the request for verning by relying on so-called obsequium religiosum, the bishops “definitive” truths is one more step in expressly stated that loyal disagreement the involution of a Church that prefers on the part of theologians would be to impose a doctrine not so much by the possible under certain conditions. strength of its theological arguments as However, the consequences of the by the threat of sanctions. motu propio do not end here. They also These theologians argue further, affect the bishops, the successors of the paraphrasing J. I. González Faus, that in apostles. For example, if a prelate pu- recent years there has been a transition blicly expresses his disagreement with from the authority of faith to faith in the Pope on any of the so-called authority, from the theological “definitive” truths, he can be “punished grounding of doctrine to the authority of with a just penalty”, which would not position, from dialogue to doctrinal entail excommunication but might uniformity62. deprive him of his office if he were to And this is happening not only in the maintain his position after being duly Vatican curia’s relation to the local warned. How far we are from the voice churches, but also within many dio- of the Second Vatican Council, which ceses, since an autocratic form of go- proclaimed that Bishops should “not be verning is being adopted that at best considered vicars of the Roman listens, but does not pay heed, to what Pontiffs”! (Lumen Gentium n. 27). others manifest. 22 3. THE PAPACY OF BENEDICT XVI (2005)

The third stage began in the spring of 2005, with the election of J. Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. In the years he has been in such high office, the language and authoritative ways of the preceding phase seem to have receded, and a much more positive style has taken the stage.

The Pope has taken positive positions vate theologian shows him to be more on ecumenism, the lay nature of the concerned with encouraging people and state, and the need for the Church to giving a testimony of faith than in adapt to the new political situation. cutting and curing. However, this objec- However, his commentaries on Islam tive is not fully attained since at many and violence, his views on the conquest points, despite his unquestionable good of Latin America, his apparent failure in will, there reemerges the fundamental trying to renew the Curia, his denun- theologian who has not forgotten or has ciation of the “prostitution” of theolo- not been able to leave aside some of the gians63 and the Notificatio regarding Jon questions raised in the course of his Sobrino are some of the signs that, at career, especially those that concern the least for the moment, contradict the relation between revelation and tradi- hoped-for change that had been pre- tion and between the scriptures and the dicted by some cardinals and even by magisterium. This is something that can some theologians. be seen especially in the centrality he The publication by the Pope of this concedes to his particular interpretation first volume of his Christology as a pri- of the evangelist John, which opens the 23 way to many of the polemical questions truth. It is a way that goes beyond the that were treated during his times as historicity of the events and the words prefect of the CDF. and introduces us “into that profundity that proceeds from God and leads us to God”, that is, “it truly shows us the 3.1. The centrality of John person of Jesus just as he was, and it To be sure, in the first volume of the therefore shows us the One who not only Christology there are many references to was, but is; the One who at every time the synoptic gospels, but it is also true can say in the present tense, ‘I am’, that they are not given pride of place; this ‘Before Abraham was, I am’(John 8,58). is in the end granted to John’s gospel. This gospel shows us the true Jesus, and The fourth gospel highlights recalling we can use it quite peacefully as a source 64 and memory, which are of capital of Jesus” . importance for a Platonist and an Augus- As can be noted, the reference to the tinian. Benedict XVI maintains that, history of Jesus has only a secondary when John speaks of recalling, this is not importance, since it is articulated from the result of a simple psychological or the primacy of the living “memory” by intellectual process in the private sphere; which he reaches us. In this regard rather, it is a Church event which, since Ratzinger coincides with his teachers it is guided by the Holy Spirit, trans- Augustine and Bonaventure and with cends the properly human sphere of his friend von Balthasar, even though he knowledge and understanding; it shows occasionally points out –correctly, to be the cohesion between scripture and sure– that any faith that forgets about reality and guides us to the totality of the historical dimension becomes truth. “gnosticism” because it gives up the flesh, incarnation, and true history65. This preference for the fourth gospel refers back to important aspects of the the reference to theological biography of Ratzinger, the history of Jesus has only such as the connections between a secondary importance, since knowing and recalling, history and it is articulated from the faith, Holy Spirit and magisterium, and revelation and tradition. Not only that, primacy of the living “memory” but it also justifies, among other points, by which he reaches us his conception of “the” truth and his position in favor of the so-called canonical exegesis. Consequently the fourth evangelist, thanks to his comprehending in 3.2. Truth and evidence recalling, opens himself up to every epoch and generation a better and more There is a theme that runs through all of profound way of understanding that Ratzinger’s theological biography and 24 characterizes his Christology from Benedict XVI’s conception of truth beginning to end: his passion for explains why in his references to the showing the seductive capacity of Jesus, Fathers he does not stress as he should “the” truth par excellence. a truth that was unquestionable for Benedict XVI has always been them: that the poor are the vicars of especially interested in arguing for the Christ and that that truth contains a relation that exists between truth and capacity of seduction capable of evidence. This helps explain the anti- moving all kinds of people, starting with pathy he felt toward neo-scholasticism the same Greek and Latin Fathers, and and his preference for Augustinian passing to nearly all the saints and thought. It is not surprising, then, that he mystics, and continuing through all now should emphasize the spiritual side persons of goodwill in all the ages. of Him who presents himself –to the It is true that this way of under- scandal of Jews and outsiders– not only standing truth runs the risk of “Christian as “the way and the life”, but above all atheism,” but it is no less true that the as “the” truth. Nor is there anything perceptibly Platonic and Augustinian surprising in his doing so by claiming perspective adopted by Ratzinger must for himself the evidence that is proper strive hard to avoid the risks of to all beauty and the corresponding Docetism, intellectualism or a blind and capacity for seduction and fascination. disembodied spiritualism, that is to say, This is a legitimate procedure that the “gnosticism” that he quite correctly has a rich and fruitful tradition in the denounces in his Christology. history of theology, but it is only one It is generally agreed that Matthew perspective among many others that are 25,31 and 1 John 4,8 are two also deeply rooted in the Christian undoubtedly forceful texts that have tradition. influenced the theology of every age. There exist, for example, other Such has always been the case, with the perspectives that are more attentive to dramatic exception of the 19th century show that “the” truth of God consists and part of the 20th, a time when the precisely in his love, and especially in Church was busy healing from the his association with the crucified wounds left by the loss of the papal peoples of this world. These are states and was striving to free itself from Christologies that show abundantly that the interference of the world’s powerful the following of Jesus is “veri-fied” figures. As a result of such concerns, (that is, “made true”) in those blessed however, it ended up neglecting the persons with whom he is associated in centrality of the poor and allowed a preferential way out of pure love; and Marxism to appropriate that truth in a that as a result of such an association, violent fashion. acceptable and comprehensible only by Since then, not a few in the Catholic faith, the following of Jesus is a Church have had enormous difficulty in consolation for some and a spur for distinguishing the unacceptably violent others. and authoritarian claims of Marxism

25 from the radically evangelical spirit that tionable ability to seduce, and also to comes out in defense of the proletariat, scandalize, be made evident. and, by extension, of the poor. As a consequence of that, this group has also had great difficulty in overcoming an 3.3. Suspicion of historical-critical overprotective or merely assistance- exegesis oriented conception of poverty and in Benedict XVI states that in the 1930s opening themselves to a consideration gospel exegesis presented Jesus Christ of its structural causes. This is in such a way that God became visible something quite evident in the through the man Jesus and the image of theological biography of Ratzinger: the authentic human being could be what had been a legitimate, well-argued discerned in its relation to God. In the position with respect to the Marxism 1950s, however, there emerged the that prevailed during his time as debate about the historical Jesus and the professor and bishop seems to have Christ of faith, and the two were become, after Marxism was separated. This was done with the help ideologically defeated following the fall of historical-critical study. What could of the Berlin wall, a prejudice quite be the meaning of faith in Christ if the difficult to overcome. man Jesus was really so different from It is certainly desirable to continue the way the evangelists presented him offering opportune criticisms regarding and the way the Church announced him contemporary manifestations of Pela- on the basis of the gospels?66 There thus gianism, but such criticisms should also began a process of reconstructing the be accompanied by similar warnings historical Jesus that had more to do with regarding the present-day varieties of the history of the different authors than Docetism (which consists basically in a with that of Jesus himself. confession with words, but without any Ratzinger concludes that the coherence of life or without mystical consequence of all this was a historical experience).This is without a doubt the Jesus ever more distant from us, most widespread and harmful error and because in reality we can know very a true threat to the Christian faith. little about him. This was the However, there is hardly any critical predicament of R. Schackenburg, consideration of this in Ratzinger’s according to whom we are left with only Christology or in his preceding the tradition and redaction history. theological biography, certainly nothing For Benedict XVI such a turn of as insistent and decisive as the critique events is “dramatic for faith” because it that he launches on Pelagianism or leaves faith without a clear reference “Christian atheism”. and the relation with Jesus runs the risk Only in this way will “the” truth of being suspended in a vacuum or manifested in Jesus be shown to its full made dependent on whatever the latest extent and with all its consequences, exegete opines67. The Bible is left and only in this way will its unques- unable to speak about the living God, 26 and the conviction becomes wide- ture and tradition. Likewise, we know spread that when we approach scripture that the great variety of theological and comment on it, we are in reality just discourses that exists is due to our talking about ourselves. Worse still, we approaching a mystery that exceeds our are deciding what God can do and what intellectual capacities, and also to our we want to do or should do ourselves68. adopting different starting points; for an This manner of approaching Scrip- approach in search of truth is not the ture ends up abandoning the com- same as one in search of beauty or in munion Jesus had with the Father. The search of love. In any case, every singular quality of the historical Jesus approach, in order to be effectively consists in this communion, and with- “Catholic”, should integrate in itself out it we cannot understand anything. those truths that are meaningful for Only on the basis of such a communion other perspectives and should at the can everything be understood, even in same time be very conscious of the risks our days69. implicit in its own chosen perspective. With his preference for “canonical exegesis”, Ratzinger, in true Augus- 3.4. The “Catholic” logic tinian fashion, starts off from the Christ Ratzinger’s definitive evaluation of of faith and from there proceeds to the historical-critical exegesis (and what historical Jesus. “Going beyond simple derives from it) makes us recall, once historical-critical interpretations, I am again, the great importance of giving the only seeking to apply new methodo- so-called “Catholic” logic priority over logical criteria that allow us a properly other readings of scripture that are theological interpretation of the Bible excessively influenced by personal bio- and that also nurture faith, without graphies or by legitimate, but frequently thereby wanting or being able to limited, personal emphases. renounce in any way to historical seriousness”70. This is a legitimate Since the times of Pseudo-Diony- theological and spiritual perspective, sius we know that all theology worthy which is attentive to the inner of the name must pay heed both to the illumination that comes from on high incarnation of the Son and to the and which is eager to contemplate with resurrection of the Crucified One. We fascination the divine mystery. The also know that the richness of the Christ of faith is the axiomatic starting mystery which is given us in Jesus point of Ratzinger’s theology and Christ can be expressed only if we spirituality: “either Christ is taken to be manage to maintain, in the unstable a fool, or you follow him like a fool.” balance proper to all “Catholic” The true Christian is the person who has thought, truths which a narrow, rational been seduced by the contemplation of a way of thinking perceive to be contra- mystery that is capable of illuminating dictory or incapable of expression: all the dimensions of existence. When Jesus and Christ, transcendence and im- that happens, the Cartesian “cogito ergo manence, revelation and history, scrip- 27 sum” becomes a “Catholic” “cogitor Master’s words, we need a decided ergo sum” (“I think myself, therefore I reference to the Crucified, to the exist.”) This is the commendable historical Jesus. Thanks to the historical concern that lies behind his option for Jesus, for example, we know that our “canonical exegesis”. “Only from the self is “ec-centric”, that is, it extends viewpoint of God is it possible to outside us and beyond our subjectivity, understand man, and only by living in our desires, our aspirations, our hopes, relation with God is man’s life made and it becomes real in the crucified just. God is not a distant unknown. He people of this world. shows us his face in Jesus; in his actions For this reason, we should and in his will we recognize the remember that, along with this thoughts and the will of God himself”71. perspective to which Ratzinger grants priority, there exists another perspective: one which approaches the Christ starting from the historical Jesus. the Jesus of the kerygma is And such an approach avoids the more than the historical Jesus, masochist risk that is run by every but who also hold that the follower who stays solely with the historical Jesus must continue contemplation of the Crucified One. It is the perspective adopted, from the to be the ultimate criterion of time of E. Käsemann, by a good number Christian identity of Catholic exegetes and scholars who, like Benedict XVI, are convinced that the Jesus of the kerygma is more than the historical Jesus, but who also hold that the historical Jesus must continue to 3.5. Risk of subjectivism be the ultimate criterion of Christian Like every option, however, this one, if identity and of every Christology –as he analyzed in the light of the history of was for Paul, the evangelists, the writer spirituality, presents undeniable limita- of the letter to the Hebrews, and the tions. Not the least of these is its author of the Apocalypse. proclivity to favor “eisegetic” interpre- This circularity between Christ and tations, that is, interpretations that Jesus on the basis of the priority of project onto the historical Jesus desires history is, as these theologians and and meanings that are foreign to him or exegetes remind us, something that has even contrary to his reality. In order to persisted through the whole history of prevent our recourse to Christ from the Church, even though Christian turning into a search for an analgesic or tradition has never considered it proper a placebo, or becoming a search for a to canonize the history of Jesus (O. fascinating hippy, a duly self-centered Tuñí). post-modern one, or a believer more And in case this argument for the docile to church authority than to the priority of the historical Jesus over the 28 Christ of faith were not thought to be spiritual delights”, especially those sufficient, we should recall that this is a which came to him when he should have criterion affirmed by the declaration been sleeping or working, because they Dominus Iesus in its interesting critical made it impossible for him to do what dialogue with those who would claim he had to do72. that “Jesus separates, the Spirit unites,” Likewise, the mystic saint from and would find here the constitutive Avila writes that “it is a lack of humility axiom of their perspective. With good to want to be given what you have never reason John Paul II recalls that the Spirit deserved,” in that way “one is quite of which we speak and to which we certain to be deceived or placed in refer is the Spirit of Jesus, the one risen danger,” nobody is certain that this is the from the dead, that is, the historical road one should take, and “imagination Jesus. itself, when there is great desire, sees Therefore, the process of going whatever it likes”73. “beyond” the historical datum, which It is therefore proper to recall, citing Benedict XVI legitimately affirms now Jon Sobrino, that the cross of Jesus when he appeals to “canonical exe- is the definitive datum that calls into gesis”, must sooner or later pass through question all absolutes (and theological the test of the historical Jesus, the Cru- methods) because it is not an absolute, cified One who becomes real in the nor can it be one. crucified peoples of this world. That is the test that makes it possible to avoid This is the task that is incumbent on falling into the risk of “eisegesis” which the “canonical exegesis” that Ratzinger is found in the spiritualisms, subjecti- uses in the first volume of his visms and manipulations against which Christology. Even though he makes the saints and mystics, including Saint frequent references to the dramatic Teresa and Saint Ignatius, untiringly situation in the African continent, these warned the faithful The Basque saint references do not quite structure his says in his autobiography that he lear- theological perspective; they are almost ned to renounce “great news and spiri- always analyzed from a religious or tual consolations” and “new under- cultural perspective rather than from a standings of spiritual things and new political or economic one.

29 NOTES

1. J. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI, Gesù di Nazaret, 15. S. BUENAVENTURA, Hexaemeron, 22. 21. Città del Vaticano - Milano, 2007, p. 20. 16. RATZINGER, Sal de la tierra... p. 69. 2. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI, Gesù di Nazaret, p. 17. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 120-121. 12. 18. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 150. 3. BENEDICT XVI, Meeting with the members of 19. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 150. the Bishops’ Conference of Switzerland. 20. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 150. Address of his Holiness Benedict XVI, 21. RATZINGER, Sal de la tierra... p. 207. Tuesday, 7 november 2006. 22. Even if it is true –as Aquinas holds– that reve- 4. BENEDICT XVI, Meeting... lation confirms some of the truths attained 5. G. GUTIÉRREZ, La fuerza histórica de los po- with the means of natural reason, it is also bres, Salamanca, Sígueme, 1982, p. 14. true that other truths exist that need to be 6. G. GUTIÉRREZ, Dios o el oro en las Indias made more precise, and still others that pre- (s.XVI), Salamanca, Sígueme, 1990, p. 130. suppose faith. Revelation is a light for reason, 7. G. GUTIÉRREZ, Hablar de Dios desde el sufri- and reason always preserves its functions, miento del inocente. Una reflexión sobre el even when dealing with a question of faith. libro de Job, Lima, CEP, 1986, p. 24. 23. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 107-108. 8. GUTIÉRREZ, La fuerza histórica..., p. 14. 24. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 148. 9. J. RATZINGER, Mi vida. Autobiografía, Madrid, 25. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 148. Encuentro, 2006, p. 177. 26. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 148. 10. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 159-160: The conse- 27. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 146. quence is an insertion into the Church’s cons- 28. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 146. ciousness of the idea of a sovereign popular 29. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 148. Church, where the faithful themselves esta- 30. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 99. blish what is to be understood by the term 31. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 153. “Church”, which is already defined as the 32. RATZINGER, Sal de la tierra... p. 79. people of God. It is an anticipation of the idea 33. RATZINGER, Sal de la tierra... p. 80. of the “Church from below” or of the “Church 34. RATZINGER, Sal de la tierra... p. 81. of the people”. 35. RATZINGER, Sal de la tierra... p. 83. 11. J. RATZINGER, Sal de la tierra. Cristianismo e 36. J. RATZINGER, Introducción al cristianismo, Iglesia católica ante el nuevo milenio. Una Salamanca, Sígueme, 1972, p. 17. conversación con P. Seewald, Madrid, 37. K. RAHNER - J. RATZINGER, Revelación y tra- Palabra, 1997, p. 45. dición, Barcelona, Herder, 1970. 12. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 89. 38. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 152. 13. RATZINGER, Sal de la tierra... p. 36. Cf. Ibid. p. 39. H. URS VON BALTHASAR - J. RATZINGER, ¿Por 72: «My theology has a certain biblical, even qué soy todavía cristiano? ¿Por qué perma- patristic, or especially Augustinian, charac- nezco en la Iglesia?, Salamanca, Sígueme, ter». 2005. Original tittle: Zwei Plädoyers. 14. RATZINGER, Sal de la tierra... p. 37. 40. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 52. 30 41. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 144. 58. Cf. a summary of the R. Nugent affair in Se- 42. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 158. lecciones de teología, 171 (2004), p. 174-175. 43. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 159. 59. L. A. SCHÖKEL, «El dinamismo de la tradi- 44. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 159-160. ción»: L. A. SCHÖKEL - A. M. ARTOLA (Ed), 45. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH, La palabra de Dios en la historia de los hom- Instruction “«Donum veritatis», on the eccle- bres. Comentario temático a la constitución sial vocation of the theologian”, AAS 82 Dei Verbum, Bilbao, Mensajero, 1991, p. (1990). 243-283. 46. CONGREGATION, Instruction..., n. 16. 60. RATZINGER, Mi vida..., p. 106. 47. CONGREGATION, Instruction..., n. 6. 61. J. MOINGT, «Sur un débat clos», RSR, 82/3 48. CONGREGATION, Instruction..., n. 28. (1994), p. 322. 49. CONGREGATION, Instruction..., n. 34. 62. J. I. GONZÁLEZ FAUS, La autoridad de la ver- 50. CONGREGATION, Instruction..., n. 36. dad. Momentos oscuros del magisterio ecle- 51. CONGREGATION, Instruction..., n. 37. siástico, Santander, Sal Terrae, 1996. 52. CONGREGATION, Instruction..., n. 38. 63. J. M. LAHIDALGA AGUIRRE, «La “prostitución 53. CONGREGATION, Instruction..., n. 39. JOHN del teólogo” según Benedicto XVI, y la críti- PAUL II, Teología y Magisterio. Discurso de ca en la Iglesia (I)», Surge, 640 (2007), p. S.S Juan Pablo II a la Asamblea plenaria de 161-173. la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe. 24 64. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI, Gesù di Nazaret, de noviembre de 1995. p. 275. 54. JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter given in the 65. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI, Gesù di Nazaret, form of “Motu Propio” «Ad tuendam fidem», p. 268. by which some norms are introduced into the 66. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI, Gesù di Nazaret, Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons p. 7. of the Oriental Churches, Vatican City, 1998. 67. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI, Gesù di Nazaret, 55. J. M. ROVIRA BELLOSO, Introducción a la teo- p. 8. logía, Madrid, Biblioteca de Autores 68. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI, Gesù di Nazaret, Cristianos, 2003; R. G. GAILLARDETZ, «The p. 58. ordinary universal magisterium: unresolved 69. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI, Gesù di Nazaret, questions», Theological Studies, 63 (2002), p. p. 10. 447-471. 70. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI, Gesù di Nazaret, 56. J. RATZINGER - T. BERTONE, «Nota doctrinal p. 19. ilustrativa de la fórmula conclusiva de la 71. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI, Gesù di Nazaret, «professio fidei», ns. 6, 7, 8, 9. p. 157. 57. JOHN PAUL II, «Instrucción de la congregación 72. IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA, Autobiografía, n. 26, 54, para la doctrina de la fe», Donum veritatis, 82 ff. 1990, ns. 16, 23, 24, DzH, 4874, 4877, 4878. 73. SAINT TERESA, Moradas, 6, c. 9.16.