Part 3 - Saint Paul VI and Rahner

A Distant Duel for the Leadership of the Church - Part Three (3/3)

The New Doctrines of the Council Must Be Embraced, But Its Pastoral Approach Is Open to Discussion

Pope Benedict XVI deserves credit for clarifying that the Council, while not defining new dogmas, was not solely pastoral but also doctrinal. He reminded the Lefebvrians of the obligation to embrace the new doctrines, rather than dismissing them as modernist or Rahnerian. However, he acknowledged that the pastoral aspect could be discussed without specifying in what sense.

From an overall examination of Benedict's papacy, one can reasonably conclude that he sought to integrate the novelty and undeniable progress achieved by the Second Vatican Council within the framework of the essential continuity—and thus immutability—of Catholic dogma. His approach was more aligned with an Augustinian and patristic orientation than with a Thomistic one, particularly in areas like liturgy, morality, and theology.

It was, therefore, this great Pontiff who gave us the crucial guidance on how to assess the Council. Indeed, the previous Popes had only praised it, as if all of its decrees were free of flaws. In reality, however, as the decades passed after the Council, its pastoral shortcomings became increasingly evident: an excessive optimism toward the modern world, which in turn led to a tendency towards idealism and mercy that ended up endorsing injustices and supporting totalitarianism, the powerful, and the oppressors, as well as the relaxation and corruption of morals under the pretext of "fragility" and the duty of compassion and understanding.

In any case, Benedict's desire for a recovery of systematic theology and, therefore, metaphysics is evident. His approach was always grounded in modern historical-critical exegesis as a remedy for post-conciliar modernism. Although he had undoubtedly collaborated closely with Rahner in the Council’s work, once he noticed Rahner’s Hegelian turn disguised as Thomism, he distanced himself sharply, accusing Rahner of pantheistic idealism[1].

If there was one theologian at the Council who was progressive and a collaborator of Rahner, it was indeed Ratzinger. All the more credible and authoritative, then, was the appeal he made to us as Pope for continuity and tradition, without underestimating the innovative achievements of the Council. At the same time, his rejection of the Rahnerian vision of progress is particularly interesting, as it is entirely incompatible with the Catholic and Thomistic conception, and instead influenced by the Hegelian view, which is based on rupture and contradiction.

Taking advantage of the permission that Benedict XVI gave us to question certain aspects of the conciliar pastoral approach, I now offer to the readers some proposals that I believe could help correct the permissive and idealistic tendencies, clear reflections of Rahner's liberalism and moral relativism. I should clarify that this is not, in any way, a call to return to the pre-Council situation, as some traditionalists would wish, since the achievements of the Council must be preserved, even improved and strengthened. Rather, it is about recovering some Christian values that the Fathers of the Council overlooked in the fervor of innovative action. I present them in a list:

1. There is a need to rediscover a liturgy that recovers the sense and respect for the sacred. It is necessary to regain the true meaning and proper practice of divine worship—the gestures, signs, and symbols that pertain to religion, which is not a creative or improvised practice like poetry. Religion is a codified, official, and public rite, but not in the sense of a mere habitual legal practice. It is not a sociopolitical assembly of the people or a communal celebration. It is not the commemoration of a past event; rather, it is the elevation of the spirit, the opening of the mind, the contrition of the heart, fraternal and divine reconciliation, a prayerful silence before the Word of God, an offering of oneself to God, thanksgiving for His forgiveness, and a shared joy for the grace received.

2. The Church must recover precise, unambiguous, and normative or preceptive language in moral and disciplinary matters, without falling into pedantry or Pharisaical legalism. It should resume the practice of warning that those who reject the doctrine, teaching, norm, or precept of the Church exclude themselves from the Church's membership and can no longer be considered Catholic: this is what the Councils of the past referred to as "anathema."

3. There is a need to return to condemning heresies. Today, there is an unreasonable and untimely hesitation in the use of the term "heresy." It is certainly necessary to weigh the matter carefully before using it; however, once the issue is certain and clear, we must call it by its name with justice, charity, and frankness, to heal the illness like good doctors. It is not enough to merely point out the errors; they must be corrected.

4. We must return to valuing speculative theology. The Council places us on this path by recommending St. Thomas as a model of the theologian and praising the importance of contemplation, particularly when discussing the religious life and the contemplative and monastic life. Reducing all theology to pastoral theology is a grave mistake, and declaring scholastic theology as something obsolete or extinct, as Rahner does, is a tremendous foolishness—something utterly not intended by the Council, even though it could have emphasized the importance of speculative theology.

5. For this reason, we must restore importance to the concern for speculative truth, not just practical truth, to the rectitude of faith propositions, and not only to external actions and social engagement.

   A dislike of abstract ideas is not a good thing. Are the articles of the Creed not abstract ideas? Abstraction is the normal climate of thought and spirit. The concrete is tied to matter, although one can speak of the concreteness of a person and their actions. Undoubtedly, we must avoid the risk of reifying the abstract as Plato does, or of making the concrete abstract, as the idealists do. But to attack the abstract as such is to attack thought and intelligence, reducing knowing to the level of animal instinct. Certainly, action is something concrete, but it is not just or right unless it is the application of a law that we conceive abstractly and universally.

6. It is foolish to attack scholastic theology. Scholastic theology simply means the theology that is taught and learned through schooling. The issue is not to abolish the school, but to know how to teach and how to learn. The task, then, is to build a scholastic theology that is up to the challenges of our time. The Council does not ask for the abolition of scholastic theology, since it recommends St. Thomas Aquinas.

   The Council rightly overcame and corrected a certain closed scholasticism—too polemical, deaf to the issues of its time, suspicious of novelties, and repetitive without a spirit of inquiry. But it is careful not to despise the importance of the school of theology, where one learns to do theology and is taught how to become a theologian.

7. It is also important to remember that God forgives and saves on the condition that man repents and observes the commandments. We must remember that God punishes with Hell those who do not repent. We must remember that in Hell, the damned are found.

8. We must also remember that with divine forgiveness, sin is erased, and it is not true that it remains, with God pretending not to see it. The concept of supernatural merit must be recovered and clarified: while grace is free, for otherwise it would not be grace, this does not mean that good works are unnecessary, nor that we are exempt from the duty to atone for our sins and make satisfaction to the Father in Christ through the sacrifice of the Mass. God forgives our debts in Christ, but we must, in Christ, correspond with good works. The beatific vision is certainly a gift from God, but at the same time, we must acquire it through the good works performed in Christ.

9. It is necessary to recover the concept of the Church Militant. She is the Woman of the Apocalypse, fighting against the Dragon. We must recover the agonistic, combative aspect of the Christian life. This does not at all mean being warmongers, but knowing how to repel the enemy's force with courage and strength.

   This does not contradict the evangelical precept of loving one's enemies, which simply means being able to appreciate the good sides of one's enemies. The Christian is called to overcome the flesh, the world, and Satan. We must recover this famous triad of Christian asceticism. "The kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force" (Mt 11:12).

   The abolition of the death penalty is increasingly proving to be a possible reality, but it is utopian to believe that in this present life, all conflicts can be resolved peacefully. We can be peaceful, but we cannot think that there are no violent people. Moderate use of force is sometimes the only means to assert rights and justice and to defend the oppressed from the oppressors. It is only in the blessed future life that all wars will cease, and there will be universal peace.

10. It is also surprising, and disheartening, that in a Council which intended to be pastoral, the figure of the Bishop, the pastor par excellence, is presented in such a way that it seems he lacks the energy and strength we would expect from him, and which are especially evident in the Pastoral Letters of St. Paul.

    I refer to the decree Christus Dominus on the pastoral office of Bishops, a topic which, in my opinion, should have been given much more importance and scope than it was. It should have been a central theme of the Council, because when we speak of the episcopal pastoral office, it is clear that we are also speaking, mutatis mutandis, of the Pope, Cardinals, priests, deacons, and, by extension, religious and lay people, parents, and educators, all involved in that synodal pastoral care, about which the Pope today insists in his teachings.

    The greatest merit of the document lies in highlighting in the Bishop the virtue of service and the mercy of the good shepherd who gives his life for the sheep, along with the array of virtues that accompany or serve as prerequisites for this: humility, availability, dedication, spirit of sacrifice, delicacy, sweetness, tenderness, meekness, patience, tolerance, understanding, listening, openness to dialogue, acceptance of differences. However, it is lacking when it comes to justice, the judicial office, and its coercive and disciplinary power.

    The Fathers were too deeply impressed by the call to mercy and the mitigation of severity made by Pope John in his inaugural speech at the Council. However, this led to a situation where, in attempting to correct an excess from the past, they fell into the opposite extreme.

    Now, the risk is that we might end up with a figure of the Bishop who does not drive away the wolf to protect the flock, and perhaps doesn’t even notice its presence. A Bishop who is incapable of "rebuking those who contradict" (Titus 1:9), a Bishop who does not intervene or pretends not to see to avoid trouble and not be seen as a tyrant. A Bishop who is neither hot nor cold, and whom the Lord, as the Apocalypse says, spits out of His mouth.

    It would also be beneficial for pastors to rekindle in the hearts of the faithful that holy fear of God, which is not fear or terror of an angry God but is also a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is a sacred respect, the utmost consideration, and reverence for the divine majesty, through which, moved by the love of God, the faithful, remembering God's justice, refrains from sin, knowing intimately the consequences of sin, and thus avoids it, obtaining mercy.

    Today, heresies are so widespread, whether in good or bad faith, that the disciplinary or punitive intervention of authority has become materially impossible. The Church today confines itself to teaching the sound doctrine, enduring, offering sacrifices, praying for heretics, and invoking the Holy Spirit to transform their hearts.

    Today, the Church selects only certain cases, not necessarily the most serious or dangerous, because, unfortunately, some have strong protections even within the Church itself, such as the Rahnerians. However, these cases are evident and significant, and the Church generally intervenes through excommunication, reduction to the lay state, transfer in the case of clergy, expulsion from the institute for religious members, or dismissal from teaching or prohibition from publishing for professors.

    The Church leaves to the State the task of punishing the social consequences of heresies on the level of interpersonal or societal relations, as crimes against the common good, which are violations of civil laws.

    Finally, I observe that a Council, which was intended to be pastoral, ultimately shows insufficient regard for the supreme model of the pastor, which is Christ. Christ, yes, bends with compassion over the sufferings of the sick, certainly frees the possessed from the devil, weeps for the fate of Jerusalem and the death of Lazarus, forgives the good thief and the penitent prostitute, tells the parable of the prodigal son, certainly shows tenderness toward children, has mercy on human miseries, understands and excuses the weakness of the fragile, forgives invincible ignorance, and certainly gives Himself as a ransom for many. But He also knows when the moment is right to launch invectives and threats of eternal damnation against the Pharisees, the hypocrites, the oppressors, the liars, the wicked, the thieves, the murderers, and the unbelievers.

    And is this not always charity? Can we think that when Christ gets angry or raises His voice, it is because He has lost control and succumbed to rage? Excessive delicacy and excessive regard for adversaries are not signs of charity and respect for their persons, but signs of timidity, opportunism, lack of care, and uncertainty about our convictions. What does the prophet Isaiah tell us?

    "Shout aloud, do not hold back; raise your voice like a trumpet. Declare to my people their rebellion, and to the house of Jacob their sins" (Isaiah 58:1). If the Council had raised its voice a little more, perhaps more of the deaf would have heard?

    P. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP
    Fontanellato, January 13, 2025

Source:

https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/san-paolo-vi-e-rahner-un-duello_15.html

Note:

[1] As we find in the important pages of critique on Rahner that Ratzinger published in Les principes de théologie catholique, Téqui, Part 1982, pp. 178-190.