In my view, there are many things to criticize in Archbishop Chaput's First Things article entitled The Pope and Other Religions. However, I am not sure the point that most interested me has much to do with the remarks made by the pope and criticized by Chaput. In any case, here's my observation. Archbishop Chaput says
To borrow a thought from C. S. Lewis, if Jesus were just one among many, he’d also be a liar, because he emphatically claimed that, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). A loving God may accept the worship of any sincere and charitable heart—but salvation comes only through his only son, Jesus Christ.
Of course he is alluding to Lewis's trilemma (Jesus is "lunatic, liar, or Lord"), an old bit of apologetics. Much as admire C. S. Lewis, it's one of his lesser contributions to Christianity. And it is odd to see a noted archbishop relying on apologetics in attempting to correct the pope.
The problem that both Lewis and the archbishop have, and what interests me, is that the current scholarly consensus is that Jesus is not being quoted in the following (thanks to ChatGPT for the list):
John 6:35 - “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”
John 8:12 - “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
John 10:7 - “I am the gate for the sheep.”
John 10:11 - “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”
John 11:25 - “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.”
John 14:6 - “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
John 15:1 - “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.”
Certainly for Catholics, these words are no less authoritative in being attributed to John (or some other source other than Jesus) than they did before modern scholarship made its current claims. Jesus can still be thought of as "the way the truth and the life" not because Jesus made this claim on his own behalf, but because John, a divinely inspired evangelist wrote them. Still, I can't believe I am the only one who finds it odd when someone as highly placed as Archbishop Chaput writes as if, in red-letter Bibles, the red letters indicate actual words of Jesus.
Just in general, I was put off by Archbishop Chaput attempting to rebut a very informal comment by the pope with sterile statements of dogma and lists of church councils.
It seems like Archbishop Chaput has gotten pretty grumpy in his old age. Since Pope Francis didn't say anything heretical, (Vatican II documents pretty well clarified that what he said about other religions is Catholic belief) what he mostly doesn't like is the pope's tone. I guess he thinks popes are always supposed to speak in stentorian tones from St. Peter's, not to reporters and others on an airplane. I enjoy reading about his airplane talks.
ReplyDeleteTo use the "many roads lead to God" analogy, some roads are better than others, but God meets us where we are (LOL, I am never sure of the difference between analogies, metaphors, and similes). It doesn't mean we are denying the truth of who Jesus Christ is.
FWIW, I don't think what the church needs most is more apologetics.
"... sterile statements of dogma and lists of church councils"
ReplyDeletePretty much describes the CCC, beloved rule book of fundamentalist Catholics who seem to be ascendant in the Church today.
Tangential to yr point probably, but:
I take inspiration from Catholicism and its long, imaginative, and creative relationship with the Eternal.
But to sit and listen to arguments about why you must do abc to get xyz, as if your salvation was something you could buy with increasingly fussy attention to your church attire, position while receiving the Body and Blood, dietary laws, strict calendar of devotions (First Fridays, chaplets of Divine Mercy, and novenas to official saints of the month), etc.--Nope.
Speaking only for myself, all of that "let's be authentic super Catholic" stuff just promotes a sense of scrupulosity and guilt that fosters despair. It drains energy that, imo, Jesus expects us to use to show our love and gratitude through prayers of praise and helping others with a glad heart and open hands.
The "super Catholic stuff" can also promote pride, which isn't supposed to be an attribute of Christians.
DeleteThe pope said “ all religions are paths to God”. I have believed this most of my life. But I also think that those who have no religion also have a path to God, even though they may not realize that they are on that path. I have no respect for Chaput.
ReplyDeleteThe judging of who is a good Catholic reminds me of the Zionists. They label non-Zionist Jews as inferior to them or self-hating Jews. They always did, even before the Holocaust and the founding of Israel. So you have Catholics saying only they are the real Catholics. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus is the only real Catholic. Like Bono said, "I'm a follower of Jesus but I have a hard time keeping up."
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that all religion is a conversation between Creature and Creator. Some conversations are more fruitful than others. But how fruitful the convo is MAY depend as much on the openness and sincerity of the Creature than on his creed, denomination, or demands of his clergy. I'll find out soon enough, I guess.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChaput begins his article by saying:
ReplyDelete"Pope Francis has the habit, by now well established, of saying things that leave listeners confused and hoping he meant something other than what he actually said."
Near the beginning of his pontificate, Muller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Faith suggested that Francis should have his speeches vetted by the congregation for similar reasons.
Francis, of course, waited until Muller's term expired, and not only did not reappoint him; he also gave him no other post. Francis of course also failed to make Chaput a cardinal, and promptly accepted his resignation at age 75. Francis understood both of them.
Francis "spontaneous remarks" are always intentional. Recently in response to a question about the American election, he said neither candidate was pro-life. I am sure that some American bishops were furious that he would deny that title to Trump. Francis never used their names. The following appeared in our Sunday bulletin in the pastor's column:
VOTE. Although we are understandably concerned about the rights of the pre-born, as well as the well-being of mothers, remember, that “Respect Life” means all life, from conception until natural death, and there are many issues that are of great importance when it comes to safeguarding the dignity of all life. Pope Francis recently made a statement that neither of the presidential candidates gets right. The Holy Father states, “They are both against life. The one who throws away the migrants as well as the one who kills children.” He rejected single-issue voting and urges each person to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and to vote with their conscience.
While MSM over at NCR thinks that Francis should have ducked the question, I am sure that he intended to override any bishop's attempt to claim that Trump was pro-life because he chose SC appointees that overturned Roe.
Likewise, I am sure that Francis intended his remarks about other religions to be a model for dialogue with persons of those religions. When I was a Jesuit novice, I learned that "We go in their door in order that we can lead them out our door." In other words, we adopt their framework of viewing things rather than insisting that they adopt our framework.