“The new prefect’s task is to ‘promote theological knowledge’, something that is not primarily equated with acts of condemnation. The new prefect and a new style can make the valuable work that is part of theology often independent of desire (and sometimes blackmail). pomegranateknew how to work it out for at least 40 years.”
Such is the opinion of Italian theologian Andrea Grillo, professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm in Rome. The article was published on your blog come on07/02/2023.
Here is the article.
A letter accompanying the appointment of a new mayor is already a unique fact. However, if in the letter the bishop of Rome expresses very clear judgments about the limits of a “censorship” administration of the dicastery and calls for the introduction of a different style, many things will change. One sentence of the letter was very striking, which I shall reproduce shortly.
The dicastery you will preside used immoral methods in other times. These were times when possible doctrinal errors were investigated instead of promoting theological knowledge. What I expect from you is certainly something very different Pope Francis
“The dicastery you will head is needed immoral methods in other times. These were times when possible doctrinal errors were investigated instead of promoting theological knowledge. What I expect from you is certainly something completely different.”
I want to reflect briefly on how this phrase stems from decades in which the best postconciliar theology has called for a profound change in the way the first did Holy Officeand then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithfulfilled the task of “keeping the faith”.
For many centuries, beginning in modern times, each state had a dominant body of knowledge. The church didn’t just have one Holy Office. But with the advent of late modernism and the birth of a liberal and open society, both became Directory of banned books and the protective body of right knowledge has vanished in all states. Only the church has preserved it to this day.
Behind these governing bodies is the idea that “freedom of conscience” is a sin. Since the Vatican II, there was a slow movement toward a revision that would, at least formally, attribute to the censorship process a procedure that was at least partially controllable and offered a guarantee of defense for the individuals being examined. In fact, however, they were largely inquisitorial procedures, looking for mistakes and enemies. It was more difficult to influence the Congregation’s way of “doing theology”. It is here, as we shall see, that the gravest immorality lurks.
Overcoming both of these institutional immoralities (in terms of people and in terms of ideas) represents a truly central reform program for the Catholic Church Andrea Grillo
Indeed, in this story it becomes clear that “immorality“First and foremost, what was meant was the way people were treated. Great authors were investigated, blocked, prevented from publishing and teaching. Vatican IIbut still heavy and with fragile or flimsy arguments until 5 days ago, with the Lintner case.
But that’s only part of the truth. Perhaps the most serious problem concerns not individuals who have suffered unjustly, but ideas in the way they have been treated, taken into account, ignored or eliminated. One of “immoral“For the last 40 years of the Congregational Dicastery are those who have tried to ‘block’ any real discussion. Where there was a problem, it was about denying it and bringing the solution back to a level that was as unassailable as it was empty. Let’s just take a few examples.
In the midst of the pandemic (2020), a section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wasted time with the “reforming”. Rite of Pius Vwhich indirectly confirms the parallel coexistence of two ritual forms of the same Roman rite, contrary to all theological evidence that the Congregation should have protected quite differently.
Immoral was not only the way people were treated, but also the way we hid in the face of so much new evidence that church life was discovering and, in part, appreciating Andrea Grillo
on the occasion 50th Anniversary of the Second Vatican Councilin 2012, a Message from the Congregation wanted to change the subject and point out that it was an equally important anniversary 20th Anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Churchthrough which the advice could/should be read as well!
Before that, one Message from the Congregation rejected the possible extension of the spiritual character of the Anointing of the Sick to the deacon, referring to a quote from the famous letter of Pope Innocent I to the Bishop of Gubbio, deleting however any words that would have contradicted the decision taken.
In short, it was about “denying every movement on the liturgical, sacramental and institutional levels”, even jeopardizing obedience to the faith and preserving the solutions of the past without the possibility of change, which always presented itself as a threat of faith.
This immoral action was considered a duty, a moral task, to preserve the solutions of the past without possibility of change, which have always presented a threat to the faith Andrea Grillo
This immoral action was considered a duty, a moral duty to preserve the solutions of the past without the possibility of change, which has always presented a threat to the faith. This immoral action was considered a duty, a moral duty. to preserve the solutions of the past without any possibility of change, which has always presented itself as a threat to the faith. This immoral action was considered a duty, a moral duty.
This improper role that the Congregation, especially after the Second Vatican Council, should have ended some time ago. Because keeping the faith means just like that Vatican IImaking sure it walks in history, develops new evidence, integrates new cultures and expresses new sensibilities.
Precisely as Vatican II taught, protecting the faith means letting it walk in history, generating new evidence and allowing it to integrate new cultures and express new sentiments Andrea Grillo
A congregation that has become accustomed to judging everything by the CCC handbook could have ended up receiving yesterday’s letter. For decades we have needed an institution that allows faith to grow through dialogue, not censorship.
For centuries we have relied on a theological reason which was limited to the “condemnation of errors” and whose raison d’être was that: it will not be easy to immediately adopt a new style. no longer Vatican Council I The idea was to compose a “summary of modern errors”, but the Konzilswerke, still in 1870, partially introduced a new path.
Then this came Vatican II, which expanded and articulated the novelty even better. The indolence of the Holy Office was to maintain a Catholic identity that can only be saved by condemning mistakes.
A congregation that has become accustomed to judging everything by the CCC handbook could have ended up receiving yesterday’s letter. For decades we have needed an institution that allows faith to grow, in dialogue and not in censorship Andrea Grillo
The new prefect has the task of “promoting theological knowledge”, which is not primarily equated with acts of condemnation. The new prefect and style can add value to the valuable work of a part of theology, often regardless of the desires (and sometimes blackmail) that result pomegranate, has known how to work it out for at least 40 years. Immoral was not only the way people were treated, but also the way we hid in the face of so much new evidence that church life was discovering and, in part, appreciating. The overcoming of both of these institutional immoralities (in relation to people and in relation to ideas) represents a truly central reform program for the Catholic Church.
Continue reading