Rethinking How to Think
Pope Francis on Theology
Pope Francis offered some reflections on the discipline of theology at an international conference on the future of theology hosted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education last month in the Vatican. The remarks were only slightly briefer than his apostolic letter Ad Theologiam Promovendam, issued at the end of 2023 and intended to update the statutes of the Pontifical Academy of Theology, which I summarized here. Francis’s more recent comments are also less systematic, although in both cases he describes what he sees as the necessary characteristics of Catholic theology today.
Perhaps the most commented upon part of the pope’s more recent address was his insistence that “An all-male theology is an incomplete theology,” and that women should continue to take their rightful place in pursuing the theological endeavor. Francis adds that “There are things that only women understand and theology needs their contribution.” Here he seems to avoid a rigid gender essentialism—he doesn’t claim there is a single, distinctive feminine perspective on theological questions, for example, or that that women bring a unique feminine “genius” to the task—instead proposing that, based on their experience, women bring distinct insights to the theological discipline. As theologian Daniel Horan notes in his own commentary on Francis’s remarks, however, the question of women’s role in the field of theology concerns not just whether or not women participate in the theological task, but also how their theological work is received, particularly by the (all male) hierarchy.
I think Francis’s most important claim in the address, however, is his statement that today’s theology should “help [us] to rethink how to think.” The purpose of theology is to be like a light that helps us to see God’s revelation; theology “works quietly and humbly so that the light of Christ and his Gospel can emerge.” Theology is defined not just by its content, divine revelation, however, but also by the task of shaping how we think.
Francis claims that our way of thinking is inextricably linked with our desires, our emotions, willing, or in other words, our “heart.” He states: “A wide heart is accompanied by a wide-ranging imagination and thinking, whereas a shriveled, closed and mediocre way of thinking is hardly capable of generating creativity and courage.” Although it is not directly cited, I think Francis’s appeal to the heart here is a subtle reference to his recent encyclical Dilexit Nos, on devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. As I noted in my commentary on the document, Francis explains that the term “heart” refers to both the “inmost core” of our person and the person considered as a whole (#15). In his remarks on theology, then, Francis is suggesting that done well, theology transforms us as persons. These remarks have a certain resonance with the work of the Canadian philosopher and theologian Bernard Lonergan, S.J., who likewise insisted that the intellectual task, including theology, involves intellectual, moral, and spiritual conversion.
Francis’s comments on how theology deals with “how we think” also remind me of what I believe is an understudied element of Pope Francis’s thought: the influence of what is usually called “systems thinking,” a comprehensive way of looking at the world in terms of interconnected systems that seeks to avoid reductionism and disciplinary siloing. Back in 2015, I noted Francis’s use of systems thinking in reference to ecology in his then recently released encyclical Laudato Si’, including the use of terminology like “open systems,” complex systems,” and “emergence” throughout the encyclical. I’ve also commented on the influence of systems thinking in his social teaching, both in the conclusion of my book Interrupting Capitalism: Catholic Social Thought and the Economy and more recently in my contribution to the second volume of Social Catholicism for the 21st Century?, published by Pickwick and edited by William F. Murphy.
Although he doesn’t use the word “system” in his more recent remarks on theology, he does use language that evokes the systems thinking approach he has used more explicitly elsewhere. For example, as I already noted, he contrasts theology inspired by a “wide heart,” characterized by creativity and courage, with a “closed” approach to theology. He then makes a parallel distinction between theology that recognizes the complexity of reality and that which engages in what he calls “simplification.” He states, “Simplification . . . mutilates reality; it gives rise to empty and unilateral thinking and it generates polarization and fragmentation.” One might say, then, that the systematic reflection that takes place when doing theology should have the characteristics of open and complex systems, rather than closed and simple ones. In systems thinking, an open system is one that is nourished or transformed by inputs from outside the system, while a complex system is one that holds together diverse elements in unity.
One can see this insistence on openness and complexity in theology in Francis’s call for the greater participation of women in the field of theology, recognizing that theology is enriched by a diversity of voices. But his claim that theology should help widen our hearts likewise suggests that, although tasked with helping us think systematically about the divine, theology should open us up, leading us to go beyond ourselves rather than leading to a closed and rigid way of thinking. I already mentioned Lonergan’s presence in the background of Francis’s remarks, but his way of thinking also subtly reflects the work of the great French philosopher Maurice Blondel, who argued that when philosophy is rigorously pursued, it always pushes beyond itself to the transcendent, opening itself to theology truly understood. Blondel was a fierce opponent of the Catholic neoscholastics early in the twentieth century, and not coincidentally, then, Francis points to the neoscholastic manuals common in the middle of the century as illustrating a closed way of doing theology, “bookish” “museum pieces” that introduce theology “without making you think.” According to Francis, they presented a closed theological system of answers without introducing students to how to think theologically.
On a side note, Francis describes these manuals to his audience as “the manuals of theology we studied,” but perusing the participant list for the conference and given their ages, it’s doubtful that neoscholatic manuals were part of most of the participants’ theological education! As I noted in another article on Ad Theologiam Promovendam, Francis does have a tendency to interpret the state of Catholic theology in terms of the long sweep of modern Catholic theology, reflecting his own theological education.
In Interrupting Capitalism, I discuss the economist Tony Lawson’s concept of “closure conditions,” the tools economists use to simplify their analyses of the economy—or in other words, to make their economic models function more like closed systems—but that end up distorting our understanding of the economy. Perhaps the most well-known closure condition is the microeconomic assumption that people and business firms are “rational actors,” a highly problematic notion. As theologians, we should likewise be wary that the very tools we use to help us in our theological reflections, whether aspects of theological method or theological concepts, can become our own “closure conditions” that close us off to fully grasping the complexity and transcendence of divine love, revealed in Jesus Christ.
Echoing a key point from Ad Theologiam Promovendam, in his more recent remarks Pope Francis explains that one way for theology to maintain a wide heart and remain open to the complexity of reality is through taking an interdisciplinary approach. He notes that dialogue with other disciplines like philosophy, literature, the arts, mathematics, physics, history, law, politics and economics, will lead to “ferment” in our theological reflections. Again, I think this exemplifies the idea that theology is an open system, interconnected with other scientific and humanistic systems for studying reality.
In Ad Theologiam Promovendam, Pope Francis had also called for Catholic theology today to be synodal. Theologians should work together in dialogue, guided by charity, and also, as I just noted, engage in dialogue with practitioners of other disciplines. But a synodal way of theology also means fostering a community among theologians both as scholars and persons. In the opening to his remarks to the conference participants, Francis notes how academic institutions, theological societies, and individual participants had contributed funding to help other participants with less access to financial resources to attend the event, which I think is a good example of what he means by doing theology synodally. American professional societies like the Society of Christian Ethics and the Catholic Theological Society of America have similar practices in place, and I’ve also reflected on how the community of theologians might support theologians working outside of academia.
Perhaps surprisingly, Francis does not discuss the contextual element of theology, a major focus in Ad Theologiam Promovendam and the one that generated controversy, as I noted here. That being said, the conference itself seems to have been designed to reflect the contextual nature of theology as outlined by the pope. In an early session, for example, representatives of the different continents and one representing the Eastern Catholic Churches spoke on their regions as loci for doing theology. In a later session, different representatives from the same regions spoke on the theme of “theology for the Church and the world.” Interestingly, each series of talks was then followed by a period in which all conference participants were called to engage in “conversations in the Spirit,” the method of dialogue used at the recent Synod on Synodality, and indeed throughout the synodal process preceding it.
I don’t want to end without also noting Pope Francis’s call that theological education be made available to middle-aged persons. He points out that, in part because middle age is a period when many people experience both stability and failure, accomplishment and uncertainty, some turn to the study of theology, including through university coursework, as way of finding meaning. Francis proposes that theologians and theological institutions should work to make theological education accessible to all, including those who are middle-aged. Francis may be suggesting that institutions of higher education need to find ways to make graduate education in theology more accessible to people who are well along in their careers and have families, but he also seems to have in mind programs for theological enrichment that are not full-blown graduate degree programs. In the United States, for example, there are now several certificates in theology offered by universities and other Catholic institutions. It’s worth pointing out, however, that there’s a certain tension between the goal of making theology accessible and Francis’s insistence that theology must widen how we think while resisting simplification. What I mean is, while certificate programs can introduce students to the richness of theology, they are likely not going to be able to initiate students into the methods of theological research and scholarship the way graduate degree programs can. Is there a risk of contributing to the simplification of theology that Francis decries elsewhere in the address? Either way, Francis’s remarks do reflect different aspects of the broader challenges of the changing nature of the theological profession and the evolving meaning of the vocation of the theologian, my own experience of which led me to start this newsletter.
Coming Soon…
I have a backlog of topics I’d like to write about for the newsletter. For example, Pope Francis recently appointed Cardinal Robert McElroy, currently the Bishop of San Diego, as the new Archbishop of Washington, DC. I’d like to discuss the meaning of that appointment for the U.S. Catholic Church, particularly in light of my earlier work on what the relationship between the U.S. bishops and the incoming Trump administration might look like.
I have an article coming out in the upcoming issue of the journal Franciscan Studies, which I think should be published by the end of this month. I don’t want to reveal the topic quite yet—it’s a major departure from my previous published work, although readers who’ve been keeping up with Window Light for a while probably won’t be totally surprised. But I want to continue the tradition of giving paid subscribers a sneak peek into what I’ve been working on as a scholar once the article is published.
Last summer, the Vatican produced a major document on papal primacy in a synodal Church, written with ecumenical relations in mind. I promised I would offer some reflections on the document but never had a chance. So, I’d like to revisit that at some point!
And of course I’ll be working on setting up interviews for future episodes of the Window Light podcast, so stay tuned!