Revolution in Theology?

A theological outrage was frothing in the wake of Pope Francis’ November 1, 2023, apostolic letter motu proprio: Ad Theologiam Promovendam (henceforth ATP), which accompanied the approval of new statutes for the Pontifical Academy of Theology.¹ This is partly understandable given that some of the document’s expressions can be read as a criticism of current or previous theological practice.

However, it seems that a few things have been missed or misunderstood. The following text is neither a knee-jerk reaction by a “papal defender,” but nor is it a minute analysis of ATP to respond to each of the document’s critics. Instead of singling out any of the comments made in Catholic media, I hope that the following general observations will serve to diffuse some of the steam and open up a few new perspectives instead.

• It has gone widely unnoticed that ATP is not much more than a rough summary of ideas already expressed in the foreword to the apostolic constitution Veritatis Gaudium (henceforth VG), introducing new norms to ecclesiastical universities and faculties and explicitly referred to in ATP. Since VG was promulgated in 2017, no connection exists between its content and the Synod on Synodality. The fact that ATP to-date is still officially available only in Italian and Latin gives the impression that it was not meant to receive as much attention as it ended up getting.
• VG, a document with much more weight than ATP, dedicates two long first numbers praising the prophetic vision of Vatican II and the valuable contributions of numerous texts by the popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, from which key passages are cited. Thus, this document presents itself strongly within a hermeneutic of continuity.
• Some are commenting that ATP is not explicit about what this new vision of theology should consist of. Consulting VG fills this gap for a good part. Pope Francis speaks already there of an “epochal shift” in our time and calls for “a broad and generous effort at a radical paradigm shift, or rather — dare I say — at a bold cultural revolution” (3), terms borrowed from his still earlier Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’. He applies them to the “cultural level of academic training and scientific study” in general, to which “the worldwide network of ecclesiastical universities and faculties is called to offer the decisive contribution of leaven, salt and light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the living Tradition of the Church, which is ever open to new situations and ideas” (ibid.). What this should mean is said right after: it requires “a spiritual atmosphere of research and certainty based on the truths of reason and of faith. Philosophy and theology permit one to acquire the convictions that structure and strengthen the intelligence and illuminate the will . . . but this is fruitful only if it is done with an open mind and on one’s knees.” This is a useful description of the principle “fides quaerens intellectum.”
• Pope Francis’ “revolution” is not new. He writes in VG (§2) that “one of the main contributions of the Second Vatican Council was precisely seeking a way to overcome this divorce between theology and pastoral care, between faith and life. I dare say that the Council has revolutionized to some extent the status of theology.” He further quotes Pope Benedict XVI saying that “truth, in fact, is logos which creates dia-logos, and hence communication and communion” (Caritas in Veritate 4). It might help recalling Josef Ratzinger’s influential call for a “revolution [sic!] in man’s view of the world: the sole dominion of thinking in terms of substance is ended; relation is discovered as an equally valid primordial mode of reality” (Introduction to Christianity, Ignatius Press 2004 [1968], 184), an idea that he reiterated at multiple occasions. Attention to the interrelatedness in all areas of thought and social life is one of the most important messages in Pope Francis’ pontificate (as he himself stresses in Laudate Deum §19; the concept appears close to 120 times in Laudato Si’ alone), but not as a random way of relating, but in a way that results in harmony, a unity in (legitimate) diversity—another key term that he keeps repeating and reflecting on (cf., e.g., his homilies on Pentecost in 2013 and 2023).
• An example for the truly relational dialogue that Pope Francis is asking from theology consists in passing from a “weak” juxtapositional “multidisciplinarity” to a “cross-disciplinarity” (VG §4c, in the Spanish original: “trans-disciplinariedad”; ATP §5), understood in “situating and stimulating all disciplines against the backdrop of the Light and Life offered by the Wisdom streaming from God’s Revelation” (ibid.).” The idea is clearly not secularizing theology but evangelizing the other disciplines (“This theological, anthropological, existential and epistemic principle [of interdisciplinarity in the light of Revelation] ( . . . ) must also show its effectiveness in relation to the fragmented and often disintegrated panorama of contemporary university studies and to the pluralism—uncertain, conflicting and relativistic—of current beliefs and cultural options,” VG §4c). Anyone familiar with the challenges of overcoming compartmentalization by fostering a more profound interdisciplinarity knows that much ground is to be gained until theological reflection becomes present in the scholarly endeavors of other faculties and departments in the university environment and beyond. A good example for how this can be promoted is the “Expanded Reason Award,” granted annually by the Francisco de Victoria University (Madrid) and the Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI Foundation. This initiative also addresses another criterion for missionary renewal and revival of ecclesiastical studies: “networking” between institutions worldwide (VG §4d).
• Cultural revolution (whether or not the word “paradigm shift” precisely catches the academic side of it is somewhat secondary), is happening in society before our eyes, whether we want it or not. Pope Francis is challenging us about how to respond where conventional means are no longer sufficient. A text by Fr. James Shea, very worth reading and certainly not suspect of heterodoxy, spells out some of these needs with refreshing clarity and urgency (From Christendom to Apostolic Mission: Pastoral Strategies for an Apostolic Age. University of Mary Press, 2020).
• There is no indication in either document that “teologia fundamentalmente contestuale” (a certainly infelicitous term in ATP §4) is advocating a “relativist view of truth” or a “proportionalist moral theology.” Expressions like “culture of encounter ( . . . ) between all the authentic [sic!] and vital cultures” (VG §4b) and the “polyhedron, which reflects the convergence of all its parts, each of which preserves its distinctiveness”(VG §4d) are to be interpreted with qualifications such as the following: “Christianity does not have simply one cultural expression, but rather, ‘remaining completely true to itself, with unswerving fidelity to the proclamation of the Gospel and the tradition of the Church, it will also reflect the different faces of the cultures and peoples in which it is received and takes root’” (VG §4d, citing John Paul II’s Novo Millennio Ineunte); or: “This is not to opt for a kind of syncretism, or for the absorption of one into the other, but rather for a resolution which takes place on a higher plane and preserves what is valid and useful on both sides” (ibid., citing Evangelii Gaudium; the English rendering “valid and useful” represents poorly the Spanish “virtualidades valiosas,” which has nothing to do with “usefulness”).
• Pope Francis writes as a “pastor of the global parish” who wants to “encourage greater openness to the Gospel on the part of all,” facilitated by theological research developing a new, “creative apologetics” (VG §5, citing Evangelii Gaudium). How can we make people to start at least listening again to the Gospel and to the Church? Telling them that they are all in mortal sin is not a way to begin a conversation. Could it be that, instead of shrewdly trying to change Church doctrine via footnotes and personnel appointments, the Holy Father is simply searching for more effective ways of genuine communicating — “incarnating” (cf. VG §5; ATP §4) — the faith, “to articulate and express [it] in a new, challenging and realistic way” (VG §5)? This is not saying that the Church has not done this before; Pope Francis emphatically states: “So it has always been and so shall it ever be! Theology and Christian culture have lived up to their mission whenever they were ready to take risks and remain faithful on the borderline [Spanish: en la frontera]” (VG §5). But the new challenges require a continued adjustment, to which also belongs that the Pope considers theologians not exempt of the task of taking on the “smell of the people and streets and pouring, with their reflections, oil on people’s wounds” (ATP §3, my translation). This is a valid observation if one considers the academic trend to ever more erudite specialization which makes its relevance for the real problems of the world often not easy to detect.
• Whoever, not without good reason, misses nuances in some of Pope Francis’ expressions would do well to take note of nuances where they do exist. ATP §1 does not reject the validity of “expressions and schemas of the past,” but asks to not “limit” oneself to representing these in an abstract form. Again, not that there have not been efforts of this kind before, but the pope, in good Ignatian manner, is asking for “more”: the criterion of a “wide-ranging dialogue, not as a mere tactical approach, but as an intrinsic requirement for experiencing in community the joy of the Truth and appreciating more fully its meaning and practical implications” (VG §4b; cf. ATP §3; emphasis mine). Wherever theologians are already doing what Pope Francis is asking for in this sense, there is no need for hurt feelings then; but it might hurt a bit — and be a valid challenge — to examine ourselves to what degree this is truly the case.
• Finally, and this goes a bit beyond the two documents discussed: Is it possible that the fear of losing doctrinal integrity (understandable, again, if one takes isolated formulations or administrative actions and makes them the hermeneutic key for everything else, like the famous question “who am I to judge?” or the debate whether Fiducia Supplicans is allowing non-liturgical blessings for non-married unions, couples, or individuals)² is hindering us somewhat to seek and understand what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us through Pope Francis’ pontificate? Whoever is familiar, for instance, with Iain McGilchrist’s monumental work on the problems of fragmentation and the loss of integral thinking in Western culture and science (in The Master and His Emissary, Yale University Press, 2019) can discover that the popes Benedict XVI (cf. especially Caritas in Veritate) and Francis are up to something in their insistence on a holistic approach to reality, science, economy, and human relations. Is it not unfortunate that the beautiful catechesis on marriage and family contained in the chapters 4 through 7 in Amoris Laetitia has remained largely ignored and pastorally unused due to the focus on footnote 351 and a few other expressions, which for many meant discarding the whole text?

In short, ATP needs to be read in the light of VG, the foreword to which I cannot sufficiently encourage all to (re-)read carefully and sine ira et studio. Are there doctrinally faithful ways of implementing what Pope Francis is asking here from theologians? If so, we would be well advised to explore this and not let ourselves get caught up in the personal or other limitations that a pontifex and his collaborators may display, but positively and constructively harvest as much as we can from the message that the Holy Spirit is delivering to us through Pope Francis’ pontificate.