Pope Francis's Paradigm for Catholic Theology
Assessing Ad Theologiam Promovendam
Last week, Pope Francis presented his vision of the shape Catholic theology needs to take to effectively communicate the faith in the midst of “profound cultural changes.” These reflections came in the apostolic letter Ad Theologiam Promovendam, announcing the revision of the statutes of the Pontifical Academy of Theology (PATH), a Vatican institution first established by Pope Clement XI early in the eighteenth century and that today fosters the study of theology through conferences and other events, under the umbrella of the Dicastery for Culture and Education (PATH is separate from the International Theological Commission, an advisory body of theologians that is part of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith). In particular, Francis proposes that theology should be: 1) contextual; 2) transdisciplinary; 3) synodal; and 4) sapiential.
Francis’s statement has been framed by the Catholic and secular press as putting forward a new way of theology, an impression reinforced by some of the language in the letter: he refers in the future tense to what theology “will have to” do (1), and “calls for . . . a paradigm shift” (4) in how theology is carried out. But the theological methods outlined by Francis are well within the Catholic theological mainstream and have been for a long time. Indeed, the letter suggests that Francis is familiar with contemporary theological methods. This is also not the first time Francis has presented his vision for theology; Ad Theologiam Promovendam draws significantly from two earlier documents, the 2018 apostolic constitution Veritatis Gaudium revising the norms for ecclesiastical faculties and universities, and an address to the International Theological Commission from last year.
Francis isn’t proposing a new way of doing theology; that’s not the job of a pope. What he’s doing in Ad Theologiam Promovendam is proposing that certain aspects of contemporary Catholic theological method that reflect the understanding of divine revelation and the experience of faith that emerged from Vatican II are normative. The fact that these methodological shifts are now normative for an august institution like PATH, as well as for ecclesiastical faculties of theology (per Veritatis Gaudium), should be seen as a confirmation of the work of those theologians who have pioneered new methodologies in the decades since Vatican II, but it also suggests that the impact of Vatican II on theology is still being worked out today, sixty years later.
The first thing that Pope Francis proposes is that theology should be “contextual.” He calls for a theology that is:
capable of reading and interpreting the Gospel in the everyday conditions in which men and women live, in different geographical, social and cultural environments, and having as its archetype the Incarnation of the eternal Logos, who entered into the culture, worldview, and religious tradition of a people. (4, my own translation)
Coincidentally, in the introductory theology course I am teaching this semester, we have been reading through Stephen Bevans, S.V.D.’s An Introduction to Theology in Global Perspective. Bevans, who has written extensively on missiology, is a leading expert in contextual theology. He explains it this way:
[W]e can define “contextual theology” as a way of doing theology that takes into account two things. First, it takes into account the experience of the past, that is, the experience of our ancestors in the faith recorded in Scripture and the doctrinal Tradition both as a source and as a parameter of our Christian life and Christian theologizing. Second, it takes into account the experience of the present or, in other words, the context in which Christians of a concrete time and place find themselves. (p. 166)
Bevans goes on to outline six models of contextual theology, or six ways that theologians have attempted to resolve the tension between remaining faithful to Tradition and communicating the faith in a particular cultural and social context (these six models are more fully elaborated in his Models of Contextual Theology). For example, in what Bevans calls the “translation model,” the content of Christian revelation is “translated” into, or adapted to, different cultural contexts. The substance of the faith remains the same, although taking different cultural forms.
In my view, Pope Francis’s account of contextual theology is closest to what Bevans calls the “synthetic model,” which the latter notes could also be called the “dialogical model.” Francis writes:
[T]heology must develop a culture of dialogue and encounter between different traditions and different forms of knowledge, between different Christian denominations and different religions, openly engaging with everyone, believers and non-believers alike. Indeed, the need for dialogue is intrinsic to human beings and to the whole of creation . . . (4, my own translation)
One of the distinguishing characteristics of the synthetic or dialogical model, according to Bevans, is that it proposes that the Christian faith is not just adapted to a particular context, as in the translation model, but is itself enriched by the encounter with distinct cultures. This idea can be found, for example, in Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes:
Likewise the Church, living in various circumstances in the course of time, has used the discoveries of different cultures so that in her preaching she might spread and explain the message of Christ to all nations, that she might examine it and more deeply understand it, that she might give it better expression in liturgical celebration and in the varied life of the community of the faithful. (58, emphasis added)
In Veritatis Gaudium, Francis goes further than in the more recent letter, adding that dialogue is “an intrinsic requirement for experiencing in community the joy of the Truth and appreciating more fully its meaning and practical implications” (4b, emphasis added). Likewise, in his address to the International Theological Commission, Francis proposes that theologians should be guided by a “creative fidelity to Tradition,” and he suggests that Tradition is a “living river” or a tree that grows.
Some have argued that contextual theologies, focused as they are on the distinct experiences and perspectives of particular cultural and social groups, can become exclusive and make the common task of theology difficult, if not impossible. In a dialogical approach, however, according to Bevans, contextual theologies can be mutually enriching, contributing to a shared but diverse Tradition. Francis expresses a similar sentiment in Veritatis Gaudium, where he states that a “culture of encounter” can foster “a reciprocal exchange of the gifts of each in that luminous space opened up by God’s love for all his creatures” (4b).
Pope Francis’s call for theology to be “transdisciplinary” is closely linked to his emphasis on dialogue and encounter. He writes that theology should “understand itself as embedded in a web of relationships, first and foremost with other disciplines and forms of knowledge” (5, my own translation). Demonstrating an impressive familiarity with academic lingo, he identifies a “weak” form of interdisciplinarity, or multidisciplinarity (sometimes also called “cross-disciplinarity”), that looks at a problem or issue from a number of complementary but separate disciplinary perspectives. He distinguishes this from a “strong” sense of interdisciplinarity, or “transdisciplinarity,” in which distinct disciplinary perspectives on an issue create a new synthesis.
Francis isn’t recommending that theology become more interdisciplinary as part of an academic trend, however. Rather, it serves the goals of the pursuit of truth and working toward the common good. In Veritatis Gaudium, he states that other disciplines can be stimulated by the light of revelation through dialogue with theology (4c). In Ad Theologiam Promovendam, he likewise adds that theology can benefit from dialogue with other disciplines; it should “make use of new categories developed by other forms of knowledge, to penetrate and communicate the truths of faith and transmit the teaching of Jesus in today's languages, with originality and critical awareness” (5). His call for interdisciplinarity is also reminiscent of his lamentation in Laudato Si’ that the “fragmentation of knowledge” hinders us from adequately addressing the environmental crisis (110) and his insistence that an integrated approach requiring dialogue between the sciences, and between science and religion, will be needed (200).
His remarks also remind me of Pope Paul VI’s discussion of the dialogue between theology and the human sciences, or the social sciences, in his 1971 apostolic letter Octogesima Adveniens (which I have mentioned before):
Prompted by the same scientific demands and the desire to know man [sic] better, but at the same time enlightened by their faith, Christians who devote themselves to the human sciences will begin a dialogue between the Church and this new field of discovery, a dialogue which promises to be fruitful. Of course, each individual scientific discipline will be able, in its own particular sphere, to grasp only a partial-yet true-aspect of man; the complete picture and the full meaning will escape it. But within these limits the human sciences give promise of a positive function that the Church willingly recognizes. . . . These sciences are a condition at once indispensable and inadequate for a better discovery of what is human. They are a language which becomes more and more complex, yet one that deepens rather than solves the mystery of the heart of man; nor does it provide the complete and definitive answer to the desire which springs from his innermost being. (40)
Different disciplines help us to grasp a “partial-yet true-aspect” of ourselves and our world, but also deepen our search for the Mystery that is made known to us through revelation.
Pope Francis also suggests that theology should become more “synodal,” or as he puts it in his address to the International Theological Commission, more “collegial.” In the latter, he cites the commission’s own document, “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church,” which proposes how theologians can be more synodal: “Ecclesial synodality therefore needs theologians to do theology in a synodal way, developing their capacity to listen to each other, to dialogue, to discern and to harmonize their many and varied approaches and contributions.”
Here is one area where theologians could learn from the pope’s proposed theological method. Of course, academic theologians participate in an ongoing intellectual conversation, as do scholars in other disciplines, but this conversation often becomes adversarial in tone, or it takes place on a purely intellectual level. Francis suggests that theologians should strive for something more: communion, fraternity (and sorority), and true collegiality.
Of course, many readers who are theologians likely have experienced collegiality, friendship, and even communion through their professional associations and relationships. But we could always do more to embody synodality in our work. Bevans offers some suggestions on how theologians can “do theology in community.” For one, he proposes that theologians should engage in more collaborative research and writing. For example, I have written about my experience co-authoring an essay. Bevans also points to teología en conjunto as practiced by Hispanic/Latinx theologians in the United States, which includes mentoring, collaborative research, a dialogical process for presenting theological work, and other forms of consultation. Finally, he also suggests that more theologians should engage in forms of practical theology, working with church-affiliated groups to articulate their own understanding of their lived faith or their pastoral goals.
The last characteristic of theology recommended by Pope Francis is that it be sapiential. In Francis’s account, this means that theology should bring together intellect and charity, a notion he adopts from the nineteenth-century Italian philosopher Antonio Rosmini. Francis’s description of theology as “sapiential knowledge” or as “intellectual charity” links to two trends in modern theology in fascinating ways.
First, he states that, as sapiential knowledge, theology should be “elaborated on its knees, pregnant with adoration and prayer” (7, my own translation), an obvious reference to Hans Urs von Balthasar’s insistence that theology should be done “on one’s knees” in his essay “Theology and Sanctity,” an idea also associated with Joseph Ratzinger. Balthasar’s point was that theology had been separated from spirituality, but that its continued health requires that the two be integrated.
Francis also states, however, that theology must be “mercifully addressed to the open wounds of humanity and creation and within the folds of human history, to which it prophesies the hope of ultimate fulfillment” (7, my own translation), a nod to liberation theology with its insistence that theology must be linked to action, particularly action on behalf of history’s wounded and guided by eschatological hope.
In an interview with The Pillar, American theologian Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap. criticizes Pope Francis’s proposed theological paradigm for its ambiguity. He states:
The problem is, as is often the case with Francis, there is no mention that theology must be founded upon the traditional interpretation of scripture, the living theological and magisterial tradition, the infallible teaching of the Councils, and be faithful to Catholic doctrine and moral teaching.
As I already noted, however, in Ad Theologiam Promovendam, Pope Francis is drawing on two earlier, somewhat more extensive statements: his address to the International Theological Commission and Veritatis Gaudium, and examining those documents more closely would have addressed Weinandy’s concerns.
I already mentioned, for example, that in his address to the International Theological Commision, Francis notes that one of the responsibilities of a theologian is “creative fidelity to the Tradition.” Francis explains:
[This] means taking on with faith and love, and expressing with rigor and openness, a commitment to exercise the ministry of theology — listening to the Word of God, the sensus fidei of the People of God, the Magisterium and the charisms, as well as discerning the signs of the times — for the progress of the apostolic Tradition, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, as taught by Dei Verbum.
Likewise, the general norms for ecclesiastical institutions laid out in Veritatis Gaudium state: “Those who teach matters touching on faith and morals are to be conscious of their duty to carry out their work in full communion with the authentic Magisterium of the Church, above all, with that of the Roman Pontiff” (Art. 26, § 2). Pope Francis simply takes all of this for granted in Ad Theologiam Promovendam and is more focused on those aspects of theological method that he thinks represent a needed “paradigm shift” away from how theology has been done in the past.
On the other hand, as someone whose theological work often fits under the label of “historical theology,” I would have appreciated an acknowledgement in Francis’s account of contextual and dialogical theology that an important aspect of theological method is engaging in dialogue with historical figures.
Not surprisingly, then, for me, perhaps the most interesting question raised by Ad Theologiam Promovendam is a historical one. In the first half of the twentieth century, the nouvelle theologians like Henri de Lubac, S.J., Yves Congar, O.P., Marie-Dominique Chenu, O.P., and others like Karl Rahner, S.J. and John Courtney Murray, S.J., rebelled against the “Roman theology” of the time, rigid neoscholastic Thomism. The former theologians then became ascendent at Vatican II. After the council, however, theologians—including Latin American liberation theologians, moral theologians like Charlie Curran, and theologians of religions like Jacques Dupuis, S.J.—continued to have a conflicted relationship with the Vatican, despite the fact that the latter was headed by conciliar participants deeply influenced by the mid-century theological ressourcement.
Does Ad Theologiam Promovendam represent a reconciliation of Catholic theologians with “Roman theology”? Or at least a new stage in the relationship between the theological community and the Vatican? Where do those theologians whose thinking is more in the mold of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI but who have certain misgivings about the directions taken by Pope Francis fit? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts in the comments!