Religion, the state and the law

For the ecumenical movement, the Second Vatican Council was a turning point that fundamentally changed the conditions for relationships between the churches. Since the council, the Roman Catholic Church has become an active partner in the ecumenical movement, while until the middle of the 20th century it had deliberately rejected any recognition of the ecumenical movement as a new reality in the life of the churches. The change has particularly affected the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the jubilee of the Second Vatican Council (2nd VC) is an appropriate moment to assess the developments in ecumenical relations during these fifty years. Of course, the significance of the 2nd VC goes far beyond its impact for ecumenical relations. Mention could and should be made of its new understanding of the place of the church in the modern world, of its affirmations of human rights and religious liberty, as well as of its initiatives preparing the way for inter-religious encounter and dialogue. The following reflections, however, will be limited to the development of ecumenical relations in the fifty years since the council. The generation of those in the leadership of the WCC who witnessed the 2nd VC and who participated in its successive sessions as observers on behalf of the WCC and of some of its member churches has passed away. This is true in particular for the first general secretary of the WCC, Dr W.A. Visser't Hooft; for the principal observer on behalf of the WCC, Dr Lukas Vischer; and for the two Orthodox observers, Dr Nikos Nissiotis and Fr Vitalij Borovoij. Their accounts still provide a vivid testimony for the groundbreaking significance of the council. The present attempt to assess the development in ecumenical relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC is written from the perspective of someone who since 1971 has been involved in shaping these relationships, who was co-secretary of the Joint Working Group between the Vatican and the WCC, and general secretary of the WCC from 1993-2003. The foundation for the new phase in ecumenical relationships was laid decisively by the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, which was approved by the council in November 1994. With its affirmation that those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (N. 3), the decree formulated the ecumenical consequences of the new articulation of the ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). Thus, the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian churches were placed on a new basis. Soon after the council, this became evident in the development of an impressive network of bilateral dialogues between the major church families, which have led to important results. An assessment of these dialogues, which have been documented in several volumes under the title “Growth in Agreement,” is beyond the scope of these reflections. In the immediate period following the announcement of the forthcoming Vatican Council, the WCC became the privileged ecumenical partner for the Roman Catholic Church. Even before the official establishment of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, a first secret encounter took place at Milano in 1960 between Cardinal Bea, the future president of the secretariat, and Dr Visser't Hooft, the general secretary of the WCC. Subsequently, the WCC served as a facilitator for the invitations of ecumenical observers at the council and was itself represented by two observers. The position papers and commentaries of the ecumenical observers were taken seriously at the council. For example, the preface to the Decree on Ecumenism, which refers positively to the ecumenical movement, has been influenced by a memorandum from the WCC. A second encounter between Cardinal Bea und Dr Visser't Hooft took place in April of 1964, even before the promulgation of the Decree on Ecumenism. It prepared the way for the establishment of a Joint Working Group (JWG) between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC with the initial mandate to clarify the basis for future relationships. During its first mandate period between 1965 and 1967, the JWG developed a very productive activity. With the publication of a basic working document on the understanding and the methodologies of “ecumenical dialogue” it had fulfilled its initial task. As a consequence, a number of common initiatives were launched for direct collaboration between the Vatican and the WCC. Mention should be made in particular of the joint Committee on Society, Development and Peace (SODEPAX), which began its work with a joint secretariat in 1968. High hopes were placed in this endeavour and SODEPAX quickly became a symbol for the new quality of relationships. However, the increasingly independent dynamics of its activities led the two parent bodies to reduce and refocus the mandate, and eventually this form of structured cooperation was concluded in 1980. The Joint Advisory Group on Social Thought and Action that was created in its place proved to be ineffective and was terminated after a few years. The same fate caught up with two other early initiatives, that is, the Women's Ecumenical Liaison Group and a structure for cooperation in the field of the laity, both of which ceased operation after only a few years. What remained from this initial hopeful period were official cooperative relationships in the fields of theological study, especially in the framework of the Commission on Faith and Order; of mission and evangelism, facilitated especially by Catholic missionary orders; of ecumenical diakonia; and of inter-religious dialogue. The most long-lasting cooperative endeavour has been the joint preparation of the Week of Prayer for Christian unity. At the 4th Assembly of the WCC in Uppsala (1968), Fr Roberto Tucci SJ in a public address mentioned the possibility that the Roman Catholic Church might join the WCC as a full member. At the same time, the Vatican approved the inclusion of Roman Catholic theologians as official members of the WCC Commission on Faith and Order. Since then all decisive theological study processes in the WCC have benefited from full Roman Catholic participation. One year later, in June 1969, Pope Paul VI visited the WCC secretariat in Geneva. This was a gesture of high symbolic significance, even though the Pope left no doubt about the difficulties that still needed to be resolved on the ecumenical way. In the same year, the JWG formed a small working group to study the conditions and implications of a possible Roman Catholic membership of the WCC. The report under the title “Pattern of Relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches” (1972) came to the conclusion that there were no fundamental obstacles preventing possible membership. However, serious consultations on the highest levels in the Roman Curia led to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church would not further pursue this option in the near future. These conditions have not changed in the forty years since then, even though the Roman Catholic Church has joined national ecumenical structures in more than fifty countries as a full member. The focus of ecumenical activities on the part of the Vatican shifted more and more towards bilateral dialogues with the major Christian church families and structured cooperation with the WCC was reduced. despite all divisions which have occurred in the course of the centuries there is a real though imperfect communion which continues to exist between those who believe in Christ and are baptized in his name . . . Through the development of the ecumenical movement that communion has been experienced anew. This is not to claim that it has been created anew. Since it is beyond human power and initiative, it precedes all ecumenical efforts for the restoration of the unity of all Christians.1 The report also referred to the failure of the efforts to give visible and structured expression to the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC. While there was no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church could accept the basis of the WCC, the report indicates that the Roman Catholic Church understood its constitution “as a universal fellowship with a universal mission and structure as an essential element of its identity.” It sees further difficulties in “the way in which authority is considered in the Roman Catholic Church and the processes through which it is exercised.”2 In this way the report for the first time points to the fundamental differences in the understanding of ecclesial fellowship, and thus it concludes this assessment with the question: “How can the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, without forming one structured fellowship, intensify their joint activities and thereby strengthen the unity, the common witness and the renewal of the churches?”3 In any case, the question how “the real, though imperfect communion” can gain visible shape has remained open since then and it has become clear that the Decree on Ecumenism of the 2nd VC did not offer a conclusive answer. In the following years, until the 5th Assembly of the WCC at Vancouver (1983), cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church concentrated more and more on the work of the Commission on Faith and Order. During this period the commission concluded its work on the convergence documents on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (BEM), which were approved at the meeting of the commission in Lima (1982). In appropriating the results of bilateral dialogues and with full participation of the Roman Catholic members of the commission these convergence texts manifested a large measure of agreement on central issues of doctrine and church order. No other result of ecumenical theological work has been discussed on a similarly broad level in the churches. In 1987 an official response from the Roman Catholic Church to the convergence texts stated that “BEM is perhaps the most significant result of the [Faith and Order] movement.” The response underlines that baptism is the decisive basis for the communion which “already exists between divided Christians.” It is somewhat more reserved regarding the text on the eucharist, but it considers that a reception by all churches of the theological understanding and description of the celebration of the eucharist as expressed in the Lima document would be an important development in the direction of affirming a “common faith.” Critical questions were addressed in particular to the document on the ministry. But even here the response comes to the conclusion that the acceptance of the proposals of the Lima document on the ministry would represent a “major step towards Christian unity.”4 In order to avoid misunderstandings the response however underlines once again the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and its unity by quoting explicitly the affirmation in the Decree on Ecumenism (No. 4) that the “unity of the one and only Church which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning . . . subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”5 It links this with the expectation “that the study of ecclesiology must come more and more into the centre of the ecumenical dialogue.”6 When in 1984 Pope John Paul II visited the ecumenical centre in Geneva he emphasized his office as Bishop of Rome, which had served as the visible point of reference and as the guarantee of unity in faithfulness to the apostolic tradition. Ten years later, after the Commission on Faith and Order at its 5th World Conference in Santiago de Compostela also recommended a common study of the question of a universal office of unity, the Pope came back to this question in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint “on commitment to ecumenism” (1995) and invited church leaders and theologians “to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject” in order “to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation” (No. 95f). This dialogue has begun, but so far no solution has been found. The WCC assembly at Vancouver (1983) gave the impulse for a “conciliar process for justice, peace and the integrity of creation,” which became a crystallization point for ecumenical cooperation in the period until 1990. The Roman Catholic Church was invited to co-sponsor this process. While it accepted this invitation on national and regional levels, its participation on the global level remained restricted, especially because of questions regarding the ecclesiological foundations of the conciliar process. This fact served to underline the need to give more focused attention to the issues of ecclesiology, as had been urged already in the Roman Catholic response to the BEM document. On the basis of a proposal by the Faith and Order Commission, the 6th Assembly of the WCC at Canberra (1991) in its declaration on “The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling” re-affirmed the importance of the concept of koinonia in searching for a common ecumenical understanding on ecclesiology. Since its 5th World Conference at Santiago de Compostela (1993) the Commission on Faith and Order had concentrated its attention on working out a convergence statement on the church. Several preliminary statements were published and circulated among the churches for reaction. After successive revisions, a final text has been accepted by the Commission in 2012 under the title, The Church: Towards a Common Vision. In November 2013 it was received by the 10th Assembly of the WCC at Busan and it is now before the churches for serious study and appropriate reception. It will now have to be seen whether and how the Roman Catholic Church will respond to this concerted ecumenical effort to address the core issues of ecclesiology that have been at the centre of ecumenical dialogues during these past decades. This question is of particular interest since, with the document “Dominus Jesus” (2000) and the subsequent Decree with “Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the Doctrine On the Church” (2007), the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith strongly affirmed the uniqueness and exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Church and defended a rather restrictive interpretation of the teachings of Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the 2nd VC. This is a matter of concern particularly for the churches of the Reformation. The council had referred to them as “ecclesial communities,” but this has now been sharpened in the sense that they cannot “according to Catholic doctrine be called Churches in the proper sense,” since, due to “the absence of the sacramental priesthood they have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the eucharistic mystery.”7 These statements were issued by the Vatican under the responsibility of Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI. Whether new ecumenical signals will come from Pope Francis still has to be seen. At this stage it appears that there are still profound differences in the understanding of the church and of ecclesial communion. On the one hand we discern a universal ecclesiology oriented towards communion with the Bishop of Rome and the recognition of his primacy which stands over against an ecclesiology that recognizes the plurality of local churches and is oriented toward a communion in which “all churches are able to recognize in one another the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in its fullness.”8 This brief retrospective of developments during these fifty years leaves a mixed impression. The 2nd VC and particularly the Decree on Ecumenism have irrevocably brought the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement and its ecumenical commitment has been re-affirmed in very solemn terms by successive popes. In many ways the Roman Catholic Church has even begun to claim leadership responsibility regarding the development of ecumenical relationships that would have been unthinkable in the period before the 2nd VC. The numerous bilateral doctrinal dialogues have reached important clarifications regarding basic issues of faith and order and have concluded many of the doctrinal controversies between the churches. One of the most significant results is the “Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches that was solemnly signed in 1999. Ecumenical collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has so far been based on the conviction that there is only “one ecumenical movement” that embraces all Christian churches and traditions. This is reflected also in the Decree on Ecumenism, which in the headline of its first chapter speaks of “Catholic Principles of Ecumenism,” instead of “Principles of Catholic Ecumenism” as was initially proposed. However, after fifty years there are increasing doubts whether we are still dealing with one and the same ecumenical movement, or whether competitive understandings of ecumenism and its ultimate goal have emerged in the meantime. The ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church as articulated in the official interpretation of the teachings of the 2nd VC places the Roman Catholic Church with its universal structure and its hierarchical understanding of authority and its exercise into the centre of the search for Christian unity. This cannot easily be reconciled with the understanding of ecclesial unity in conciliar fellowship that has developed in the course of serious dialogue within the fellowship of churches in the WCC. The fact that it has not been possible so far to give visible and structured expression to the “real though imperfect” communion based on the common baptism indicates that there are still differences of rather basic character. The recent Vatican statements referred to above strengthen this impression, precisely where they interpret the teachings of the council. It is evident that the declarations of the 2nd VC, including the Decree on Ecumenism, were the result of controversial discussions among the council fathers trying to hold together widely divergent positions and convictions. Thus, they allow for different interpretations and show signs of internal tension or even contradictions. It should therefore not come as a surprise that the process of renewal that was initiated by the council has not yet reached its full clarity. However, that raises the question whether the changes in ecumenical relationships that were initiated by the council, and particularly by the Decree on Ecumenism, can be regarded as an open process in the sense that the ecumenical reception and discussion of the teachings of the council can make a contribution to clarifying the remaining questions and tensions, or whether the Decree on Ecumenism has to be regarded as the final word of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the challenges of the ecumenical movement. While the papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint has in many respects been received as a source of encouragement, there was disappointment among many ecumenical partners that Pope John Paul II did not go beyond repeating and re-affirming the teachings of the Decree on Ecumenism and did not appear to adequately recognize and honour the insights and clarifications that have been reached in the course of fifty years of intensive ecumenical dialogue, not least in the context of bilateral conversations. The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.9 In a lecture 2004, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Decree on Ecumenism, Cardinal Kasper as President of the Pontifical Council on Promoting Christian Unity already dealt extensively with this same issue and stated that the formulation “subsists in” “contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem.”10 The Cardinal felt that thanks to this formulation, which replaced the simple “is,” the council was able to take a decisive step forward. “It wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also ‘elements of the church’, indeed churches and ecclesial communities which, although not in full communion, rightly belong to the one church and possess salvatory significance for their members.” The concept “subsistit in”, according to the intention of the Theological Commission of the Council, means: the church of Christ Jesus has its concrete location in the Catholic Church… It is not a purely Platonic entity or a prospective future reality, it exists in a concrete historical form, it is located in the Catholic Church. Understood in this sense “subsistit in” encompasses the essential thrust of the “est.” But it no longer formulates the self-concept [self-image] of the Catholic Church in “splendid isolation”, but also takes account of churches and ecclesial communities in which the one church of Jesus Christ is effectively present, but which are not in full communion with it. In formulating its own identity, the Catholic Church at the same time establishes a relationship of dialogue with these churches and ecclesial communities. Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of “subsistit in” to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many and thus the Catholic Church is one among many other churches . . . The Catholic Church continues to as it to be the true church of Christ in which the of the of are present, but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities. It does not any new doctrine but establishes a new and formulates its self-concept in a concrete one could even The Council is that the church is on a through towards a concrete historical of what its most profound This interpretation is but it is not clear how this position can as a basis of further ecumenical dialogues on ecclesiology. the theological dialogue will But the reception of their results difficulties in all because the new and common that has been developed through these dialogues cannot easily be reconciled with the doctrinal of the churches. a towards the affirmation of a communion” will not be possible without a of the ecclesiological by the teachings of the council. The papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint also has not been able to open a way forward. An of a new ecumenical might be in the response from the Vatican to the of the WCC document Towards a Common and a Common of the WCC This response the “common or basis of ecumenism” by repeating the conviction that is a true and real, even imperfect, koinonia between the Catholic Church and other Churches and But it then “It is a real sacramental koinonia the churches a true baptism by which one is into the of explicitly the of the which already exists between the churches by of their common this statement recognizes the ecclesiological quality of these ecumenical relationships. It once again that this “real but imperfect communion” is to any to form of it even is to that understanding the WCC has ecclesiological believe that a further development of the of a as in these statements could the ecumenical dialogue about the understanding of the church and its unity from the present, and open future It is that the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has a study on the and Ecumenical of a Common was the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, from through

For centuries the dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox churches has been marked by disputes and conflicts. It was impossible, and still remains troublesome, to clearly identify the reasons for this. Some tend to blame the Vatican for its excessively ‘obtrusive’ intention to establish its hierarchy in the East. Others tend to claim that it is the Russian Orthodox Church that has triggered conflicts in its pursuit to unify the Orthodox churches and ‘dethrone’ the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic and Orthodox denominations have mainly been clashing in Central and Eastern Europe, where new factors generating conflicts are constantly emerging, whether religious or – more frequently – political (e.g. the historical conflict between Catholic Poland and Lithuania and Orthodox Russia; or the establishment of Catholic dioceses in the Russian Federation, which the Moscow Patriarchate considers to be the canonical territory of the Eastern Church). Sometimes it may even seem that the dissenting denominations do not even try to communicate. The pontificate of John Paul II was ecumenical, but it did not produce the results the Vatican would consider desirable with respect to the Orthodox Church. At present we can observe slow changes in the behavior of religious leaders – Benedict XVI and the Patriarchs of Moscow (Alexii II, followed by Cyril I). The authors of the paper present selected issues in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue during the pontificate of John Paul II and the present Pope – Benedict XVI, and they attempt to answer the question of what changes have recently taken place in the mutual relations of the two denominations, and whether the steps taken stand a chance of resulting in a permanent conciliation.

SOMMARIO: 1. Riforma del Terzo settore e servizio della carità nella Chiesa - 2. La riforma del Terzo settore e le nuove sfide per gli enti ecclesiastici - 3. Il Motu proprio “Intima Ecclesiae natura” e l’evoluzione dell’ordinamento canonico - 4. Il Codice del Terzo settore e la sua applicazione agli enti ecclesiastici - 5. Implicazioni per gli enti della Chiesa: l’esigenza di trasparenza - 6. Il principio della trasparenza nella dottrina canonistica - 7. Il “patrimonio destinato”: implicazioni nell’ordinamento canonico - 8. Attività diverse e controlli canonici: la sfida della governance e della gestione in un contesto concordatario - 9. Osservazioni conclusive. Catholic Church entities and the reform of the Third sector in Italian legislation. Canonical implications ABSTRACT: This paper deals with the canonical implications of Italy’s recent Third sector reform in Italian legislation (d. lgs n. 117/2017) for Catholic Church entities and/or agencies for charitable purposes. It starts with some preliminary remarks on the recent evolution of Canon Law concerning the discipline of charitable organizations and agencies that followed the Motu proprio Intima Ecclesiae natura, issued by Pope Benedict XVI in December 2012. It then examines the general framework of the new regulation of non profit organizations in Italian law, emphasizing the pros and cons (opportunities and risks) of its application to religious entities, particularly those connected to the Catholic Church, which in Italy traditionally enjoy a special discipline safeguarding their canonical structure and purposes. The paper then focuses on the impact of the new civil regulation that allows a wide range of charitable initiatives on behalf of religious organizations, on the governance of Catholic Church entities, which are submitted to the directives and authorizations of ecclesiastical authorities. Finally, it draws some conclusive remarks on the need to update and reform some administrative rules and praxis concerning the administration and finance of charitable institutions in Canon Law.

Reviewed by: Zwischen Protest and Propaganda: Die Zeitschrift “Junge Kirche” im Dritten Reich Katharina Von Kellenbach Zwischen Protest and Propaganda: Die Zeitschrift “Junge Kirche” im Dritten Reich. By Ralf Retter. Munich: Allitera Verlag, 2009. Pp. 387. Paper €44.00. ISBN 978-3869060668. In their efforts to reclaim moral authority and public credibility, Roman Catholic and Evangelical church leaders asserted Christianity’s principled opposition to National Socialism immediately after Germany’s capitulation in May 1945. Catholic leaders pointed to the church hierarchy’s public resistance to the euthanasia program, while Protestants highlighted the struggle of the underground Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche) to contravene the state law that imposed the Aryan Paragraph of 1933 on church employees. The military, political, and moral collapse of Nazi Germany was presented as proof of the eternal truths of biblical law and Christian doctrine: Only a return to Christian truths could protect people against the false teachings of modernity, rationalism, and secularism that had led to the type of human degradation and wholesale slaughter unleashed by the Nazis. This narrative proved to be remarkably persuasive and persistent; in fact, it is still endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI. A number of recent historical studies have slowly chipped away at this myth. Based on his dissertation, Ralf Retter’s study of the journal Junge Kirche adds more historical ammunition aimed at correcting this simplistic narrative. The journal was founded in May 1933 to disseminate information among members of the Jungreformatische Bewegung, which had been constituted that same month in opposition to the growing influence of the Deutsche Christen. The latter group, merging Christian and Nazi worldviews, had launched a campaign a year earlier to gain control of local and national church governing bodies. Appearing every two [End Page 428] weeks, Junge Kirche combined political and theological commentary with news and information. Based on unpublished materials from the archives of its publisher, Vandenhoeck-Ruprecht, Retter chronicles the internal ideological and personal struggles that reflected the overall failure of the Confessing Church to mount effective political resistance against National Socialism. In this careful and comprehensive analysis, Retter argues that Junge Kirche featured articles critical of National Socialism between 1933 and 1936, but then moved decidedly toward the right, until it finally ceased publication in May 1941 for economic and political reasons. Retter sees the year 1936 as pivotal in the journal’s loss of a critical function: that year witnessed the departure of Hanns Lilje from the editorial board, as well as growing tension between the more radical wings of the Confessing Church in Berlin and the “intact” Lutheran state churches—whose leadership had not been taken over by German Christians in the election of 1933—in Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, and Hannover. The sole remaining editor, Fritz Söhlmann, was more susceptible to National Socialist ideology and began to cater to a more conservative, Lutheran, and southern audience. Until 1936, Junge Kirche included articles criticizing National Socialism as a “political religion,” analyzing the concept of race in völkisch theology, discussing the proper relation between state and church, and denouncing the Aryan Paragraph on the basis of the Barmen Theological Declaration of 1934. Retter considers Junge Kirche in its early period to be an example of what Martin Broszat called Resistenz (i.e., nonconformist activities that denied the Nazi state’s claim to total control), because it defended Christian freedom and established an open forum for critical reflection on theological and political issues. But the journal did not move beyond a church-centered, defensive posture to advocate proactively on behalf of victims of state persecution or to demand regime change. This reflected the Confessing Church’s overall unwillingness and inability to coalesce into a political movement against the Nazi state. Instead, it splintered along progressive and conservative, Reform and Lutheran, as well as northern and southern territorial lines. When the journal began to publish articles on Lutheran piety, extolling German patriotism and soldierly virtues and peppered with anticommunist and antisemitic polemics, more progressive members of the Confessing Church called on their followers to cancel their subscriptions. Söhlmann’s gamble to increase readership by tailoring the journal’s content ever more closely to reigning Nazi views could not save...

The Roman Catholic Church’s approach to child safeguarding reveals a complex and diverse landscape across the globe. While universal requirements and structural conditions exist, regional concepts, policies, and cultures vary significantly. This paper examines the Church’s response to clerical child abuse, highlighting key developments such as Pope John Paul II’s condemnation of abuse and subsequent directives from Pope Benedict XVI and Holy See offices. It also discusses the reforms initiated by Pope Francis, including measures to hold bishops accountable and the abolition of pontifical secrecy in abuse cases. Despite these efforts, the Church faces challenges in implementation and varying levels of commitment across different regions. The paper further explores case studies from 15 countries, illustrating the diversity in responses and the ongoing struggle to ensure child protection within the Church.

Joseph Ratzinger – now Pope Benedict XVI – has a rich body of political writings that has gone largely unnoticed by political scientists. A renowned theologian, even outside the Catholic Church, he has sensitively explored the impact of secularism and religion on liberal democracy. In public and in print, he even debated the philosopher Jürgen Habermas on these topics. This article explores his novel contribution to the study of the liberal state: a secularised, religious foundation for the state will balance autonomy for the citizens with a needed moral orientation for the political realm.

Résumé Questionner Jésus de Nazareth , l’œuvre pour le moment bipartite de Benoît XVI-Joseph Ratzinger, c’est aussi chercher à identifier le genre littéraire de cet objet théologique dont l’auteur doit assumer à la fois le théologien qu’il reste, toujours sujet et objet de critique, et le pape qu’il est devenu, en charge du magistère doctrinal dans l’Église catholique. S’il y a bien une différence entre les deux, que Benoît XVI affirme savoir distinguer, il y a également une unité profonde de l’auteur, qui est aussi celle du Jésus qu’il veut présenter. Le narrateur se met sur le chemin de Celui dont il veut déployer toute la puissance d’être et, ce faisant, avoue ce qu’il doit au Seigneur de Guardini. Le genre littéraire du Jésus de Nazareth de Benoît XVI se présente alors comme une apologie évangélique narrative, raisonnée, de Jésus de Nazareth, Christ et Seigneur. En filigrane, l’auteur raconte aussi son histoire, celle d’une relation profonde au Christ qui l’a fait devenir le prêtre et le théologien Ratzinger, puis Benoît XVI, le pape.

Vatican foreign relations with Latin America comprise both bilateral diplomatic negotiations with states and the Holy See’s spiritual leadership of national Catholic Churches in the region. Apostolic nuncios—papal diplomatic representatives—are the principal intermediaries of Vatican foreign relations. Since the early 19th century, Vatican diplomacy has been the purview of the Papal Secretariat of State, the “foreign relations” branch of the Roman curia. The beginning of modern Vatican foreign relations with Latin America should be dated to the Napoleonic wars in Europe and the movements for home rule in Spain’s colonies. From 1810–1820, the papacy stood unwavering in its defense of Spanish absolutist claims to the peninsula and to its colonies. Latin American Independence shattered Spanish Royal Patronage and left a legacy of regalism in the region, with which the ultramontane papacy of the 19th century would contend. The professionalization of the Vatican diplomatic corps (1889–1914) conformed papal diplomacy to the norms of the international state system, incrementally increasing the political and spiritual legitimacy of the Holy See after its loss of temporal power to the Italian state, sparking the so-called “Roman Question” (1870–1929). During the interwar period, Vatican policy centered on concordats and Catholic Action, evincing both a pragmatic approach to diplomacy and a highly regimented and non-party political model of lay activism. Mexico’s Cristero Rebellion (1926–1929) represented the most strident conflict in the period, where Rome’s concordat/Catholic Action policy neither negotiated a durable modus vivendi nor managed to pacify radical lay Catholics until the 1940s. During the pontificate of Pius XII (1939–1958), a strident anti-communism marked the policy of the Holy See, aligning the Catholic Church in Latin America with conservatives and authoritarian leaders. After the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the policy of Ostpolitik guided diplomats towards rapprochement with communist and revolutionary states such as Cuba and Nicaragua. The end of the Cold War temporized the relationship between progressive sectors in the Latin American Church, which had been influenced by Liberation Theology, and the Vatican under John Paul II (1978–2005). A “New Evangelization” campaign was heralded by Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013). Argentine Jesuit and Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio crafted many of the seminal documents for the New Evangelization. Bergoglio, elected Pope Francis in 2013, emphasized the socio-economic and the spiritual aspects of Vatican policy, bring issues of poverty, economic inequality, and justice to center stage, fostering a diplomacy of piccoli passi (small steps) and brokering improved relations between the United States and Cuba.

In an effort to assess the latest thinking in the Roman Catholic Church on economic matters, this communications note briefly highlights the recent publication of a new encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth). Core ethical values, consistent with previous examples of Catholic Social Teaching (CST), are retained. However, some important nuances are added to previous treatments and certain points of emphasis are shifted to account for recent global developments. Key areas that relate to abiding marketing issues are spelled out and some brief commentary on matters of importance to macromarketing is offered.

In the Editorial, Giovanni Miccoli analyses the continuities and discontinuities in the passage from pope John Paul II to Benedict XVI. He identifies the trends and perspectives for the Roman Catholic under Ratzinger, who was a close and authoritative collaborator of Woytila. Ratzinger’s public affirmation, already before the Conclave, of the grave problems confronting the Church would seem to confirm his awareness of the need for an adjustment of the line of his predecessor.

A look at developments in the relationship between the Catholic Church and Judaism/the state of Israel inevitably directs attention to the burden of the past, which Emmanuel Levinas presented vividly in his metaphor of a 'tumor in the memory'. After the Shoa, approaches to Christian-Jewish talks only developed gradually. With the Second Vatican Council of October 28, 1965 and its declaration of 'Nostra Aetate', outlining the attitude of the church towards non-Christian religions, the Catholic Church took a turn for the better. 'Nostra Aetate' also had an effect on the churches of the Reformation. Its reception was significantly promoted by Pope John Paul II. (1978-2005), thus leaving a substantial legacy to his successor, Benedict XVI. A long-standing Jewish demand was met when on December 31, 1993 the Diplomatic Agreement was signed by Israel and the Vatican in Jerusalem. In its wake an exchange of ambassador and nuncio occurred. Despite current disturbances in the relationship between Israel and the Vatican, the Jewish-Catholic relationship is generally making major progress. The centuries-old animosity has been replaced by an attitude of respect towards the Jewish people and Judaism, an attitude which certainly will have to stand the test over and over again.

Reviewed by: Christ's Descent into Hell: John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger, and Hans Urs von Balthasar on the Theology of Holy Saturday by Lyra Pitstick Joshua R. Brotherton Christ's Descent into Hell: John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger, and Hans Urs von Balthasar on the Theology of Holy Saturday by Lyra Pitstick ( Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), xiv + 135 pp. Lyra Pitstick, otherwise known as Alyssa L. Pitstick, the author of the provocative Light in Darkness: Hans Urs von Balthasar and the Catholic Doctrine of Christ's Descent into Hell, the fruit of her doctoral dissertation at the Angelicum, has produced another, slimmer volume critical of Balthasar's project as she sees it. The book opens with a quick review of Balthasar's theology of the descent, followed by two chapters on Joseph Ratzinger's own comments on the descent and on Balthasar's theology, one covering his statements prior to his pontifical elevation and one addressing those subsequent. The following chapter concerns the statements of John Paul II on the descent, which she contrasts with both Ratzinger and Balthasar, but mostly Balthasar. Next, she runs through the remarks of Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, a former student of Ratzinger and undersecretary at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith commissioned by Pope John Paul with the drafting of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. Although Schönborn is a theologian in his own right, she touches on him only insofar as his Introduction to the Catechism, together with Ratzinger, is sometimes invoked in defense of Balthasar's orthodoxy with regard to the descent. Finally, she consolidates and elaborates her own comments on the respective positions of Balthasar, Ratzinger, and John Paul in two chapters entitled "The Crux of the Problem" and "The Crux, Continued," the latter of which directly addresses an issue oftentimes brought to the fore by Balthasarians: the praise lavished upon Balthasar by both Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger in the wake of his untimely death (i.e., just days prior to his awaited honorary elevation to the cardinalate). These seven chapters are bookended by a very brief introduction [End Page 665] in which she laments that the International Journal of Systematic Theology declined to publish criticisms she offered of an article there published by the late Fr. Edward T. Oakes, S.J., in which he defends Balthasar's doctrine of the descent against her earlier critique in Light in Darkness, and a conclusion that simply recaps the whole, as well as a number of appendices containing short magisterial documents, and lastly, a short supplementary text she wrote in response to an invitation from a student magazine at Gonzaga University. On the whole, the book is to be commended for its valiant work in both surveying the various occasions on which Ratzinger and John Paul address Christ's descent into hell and dealing with the misbegotten attempts of some to canonize Balthasar's thought on the basis of a few accolades from the two Pontiffs, who themselves tower above so many notable Catholic thinkers in the modern era. Although somewhat repetitive, her thoughts on the differences between these three theologians echo thoughts I have harbored on the matter for quite some time, albeit with a few key divergences. The ambition of such an undertaking is laudable, but—and this may not offend the casual reader—her recourse to secondary literature is minimal. I cannot help but think that she may have benefitted from consulting major works sympathetic to Balthasar's project by authors such as Nicholas J. Healy, David C. Schindler, Rodney A. Howsare, Cyril O'Regan, Gerard F. O'Hanlon, S.J., Aidan Nichols, O.P., and John Saward, author of the curt but illuminating book of reflections on Balthasar's triduum theology, The Mysteries of March. Her only interlocutor seems to be Edward Oakes, an esteemed Balthasarian indeed, but without much in the way of direct engagement. In any case, the primary downfall of the work is a lack of theological nuance, particularly with regard to the constitution of sacred tradition and the composition of what one might call a "charitable" interpretation of Balthasar. As one can turn...

A feature of the First World War, was the consistent condemnation of it by Pope Benedict XV and his unsuccessful efforts to bring about a negotiated peace. This paper argues that the Pope realised that the nature of modern warfare demanded a new evaluation of war and that his teaching began a real shift and development in this teaching that is clearly discernible in the teachings of his successors and the Second Vatican Council, and the work of Catholic theologians and movements. However, we can see how in many ways this shift has not been recognised in the wider church, shown by the reluctance of local church leaders to question or condemn particular conflicts. On the basis of this shift the paper argues that the Catholic Church, now committed to “virtual pacifism”, should base its witness to peace on two paradigms: first, the unmasking of wickedness, seen above all in the culture engendered by the possession of nuclear weapons; and second, a marked distancing from the powers and claims of the modern nation state.

Abstract: When Pope Benedict XVI delivered his September 2006 address at the University of Regensburg, Faith, Reason, and the University, he pined at the diminishment of universal reason in church life. He blamed the Protestant Reformation for beginning a process of dehellenization that has led to the loss of reliance upon reason. Over against the pope's claim, a closer look at Reformation history and Protestant theology will show no diminishment in the role of reason. What is distinctive to the Reformers and today's heirs is reliance on sola scriptura, scripture alone. The role that reason plays for Protestants is to expand our understanding as we reflect on scripture and, not only scripture, but also tradition and expereince. No less than Roman Catholics, Protestants embrace fides quaerens intellectum or “faith seeking understanding.”

The interwar period between 1918 and 1939 marked a crucial phase in the history of the Catholic Church's engagement with Mandate Palestine, a formative period for present-day Israel and Palestine. During this time, the Catholic Church grappled with a complex set of challenges and opportunities as it navigated its role in this politically charged landscape.<br/>This PhD thesis explores the multifaceted relationship between the Catholic Church and Mandate Palestine, shedding light on how the Church's activities intersected with the evolving social, political, and religious contexts of the region. As Great Britain held sway over the area, the Catholic Church found itself negotiating a delicate balance between its religious mission and the intricate politics of the time.<br/>Catholic institutions, including schools, hospitals, and orphanages played a significant role in the region's education and healthcare sectors, leaving a lasting impact on local communities. Catholic private schools served an especially important function in the education of the local Christian Arab population.<br/>The Catholic Church also faced internal tensions as it sought to accommodate the diverse needs and aspirations of the local Christian population while remaining neutral. Additionally, the Church's stance on political issues, such as the Zionist movement and Arab nationalism, had implications for its relationships with various groups within Mandate Palestine.<br/>By examining the Catholic Church's activities, interactions, and challenges during this interwar period, this thesis offers insights into the intricate tapestry of historical events and provides a deeper understanding of the Church's enduring influence on the region's religious and social landscape.