Guest
Perspective Message of love gets sidetracked in dogma
By FR. TISSA BALASURIYA
Pope John Paul IIs latest
encyclical, Fides et Ratio, claims that faith can be illuminated by
reason, and reason can be guided by faith. In the abstract, this is valid.
Reason without faith may lack meaning for life; faith without reason may end in
sentimentalism and various forms of fundamentalisms.
We can understand and appreciate, too, the popes concern
about such philosophical positions as scientism, historicism and pragmatism, as
well as his concern for ethical permissiveness and pessimism. These cannot give
ultimate meaning to life.
The encyclical claims for the church and its magisterium the
authority to guide humanity to absolute truth on the meaning of life, on God
and human destiny. Further, the pope states that in engaging great
cultures for the first time, the church cannot abandon what she has gained from
her inculturation in the world of Greco-Latin thought.
To reject this heritage, he wrote, would be to
deny the providential plan of God who guides the church down the paths of time
and history.
There is validity to this, too.
Yet, when the encyclical speaks of the church engaging great
cultures for the first time, how far is this an accurate historical
position?
For its first three centuries, Christianity bore witness to this
universal message of love and concern for all, without being limited to
Greco-Latin categories for explaining its belief. This was a most glorious
period of Christianity -- the age of martyrs.
The teaching of Jesus himself as recorded in the New Testament
cannot be said to be inculturated in Greco-Latin thought. His teaching was
directed at the problems of the day-to-day life in his society and was often
expressed in story, parable and poetic language. His teaching concerning the
love of God and neighbor, as expressed in Matthew 25, was intelligible to all
peoples, of all cultures, with or without any formal education, leaving aside
philosophy.
When Christianity compromised with the Roman Empire and began to
define its doctrines in Greco-Latin terminology and concepts, it tended to
claim for its dogmatic definitions a universal validity for all humankind. ...
But the dogmatic definitions of the church, from 325 onwards, in Greco-Latin
thought patterns were a source of division within the church itself. Official
teachings were often legitimated by the imperial authority and even buttressed
by use of secular power, leading to exile of dissenters. Greco-Latin thought
itself was not of one view concerning the nature of the divinity of Jesus or
concerning the human condition and original sin.
Further, Christianity was more pluralist in its outlook, more open
to different cultures and philosophies, before the dogmatic definitions of the
Augustinian and post-Augustinian era. In fact, the closer we are to the
historical Jesus, the more universal is the teaching of Christianity.
The encyclical seems to begin with the conclusion or presumption
that whatever the church has decided or whatever is thought by the magisterium
is the universal truth and is valid and binding for all times, places and
persons. It does not deal with another important issue: how to develop criteria
for evaluating theological elaborations in different cultural contexts and
thought-forms. Reason is not only philosophy, and faith is not only theology.
When we relate faith and reason, many other factors have to be taken into
account: will and heart, desires and emotions, social and cultural
conditioning, myths and prejudices among peoples.
A problem arises when a teaching of the church is harmful or
dehumanizes a group of human beings. ... Is not the history of Catholic thought
one of long-term condemnation, marginalization and alienation of very large
sectors of humanity ... people viewed as not being children of God, of being
pagans, even of being outside the pale of salvation?
The interpretation of the teaching on original sin has been a
basis for regarding unbaptized persons as pagans. This, in turn, was linked to
the encouragement given by several popes to the imperial powers of Spain and
Portugal to go and conquer other peoples and bring them to the faith.
When Christianitys inculturation in the Greco-Latin world
was harnessed to the imperial power of Rome and, later, of Western Europe, the
result was not gains for the church or humanity. The churchs claims to
absolute truth, to being the only means of salvation, were linked to the
greatest violations of human rights and human dignity that history has known:
the Western European colonial expansion. ...
The dogmatic theology of the church facilitated such conquests.
The moral teaching of the church, explicitly or implicitly, legitimized this
intolerance and violence in the service of truth. At best, some Christians did
charitable and social works that mitigated the damage. If the church had had a
correct moral teaching and bravely witnessed to it, Western civilization would
not have taken such an inhuman form.
It is painful for the colonized when the churchs teaching
authority does not condemn such grave evils. It is worse when the pope speaks
of the providential plan of God who guides his church down the paths of
time and history. It is not to the credit of God to claim such a
providential plan. In fact, it is a dishonor to God, as when people fight wars
claiming God to be on their side. ...
While this papal encyclical has much that is valuable for Western
culture, it would seem that it does not appreciate adequately the presence of
the divine in other cultures and religions. The pope, who taught long in the
University of Lublin in Poland, is a specialist in Western philosophy. He
perhaps has had little opportunity to be in communion with the thought of the
Indian sages and with the liberative life and message of modern Indian thinkers
like Rabindranath Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi. ...
As the Indian sages teach us, the truth is one, but the paths to
truth can be many, as the paths to a mountain top. God is One, but the names of
God are many. This is not a pluralism of gods, or a relativizing of God, but a
plurality of human understandings of the Absolute that is beyond human
reasoning and expressions.
Jesus was not a philosopher or theologian in the academic sense.
The life of Jesus was the living out of the truth that God is love. His life
was his theological reflection and message. It was a praxis, not a dogma. His
concern was orthopraxis, rather than orthodoxy. He did not teach about God in
dogmatic formulations or definitions. He taught that God is love and God is
just.
The central command of Jesus is that we love God and neighbor.
Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me. This is the
central message of Jesus. It is the mystique of the identification of God with
humans, especially those suffering and in need. This message has been
neglected, sidetracked in the dogmatic definitions of the church. ...
The encyclical seems to presume that the only revelation on earth
is the Judeo-Christian revelation, and that the only true faith is the
Christian faith. If, on the other hand, we accept that God could manifest the
divine message in manifold ways to different peoples, there could be several
faiths that are true. The message of love can be taught by God in different
ways. This need not be a permissiveness or a dilution of the truth.
Unfortunately, Christian theology expressed in Greco-Latin thought
deviated from the central message of Jesus and has been intolerant of other
ways of expressing the divine calling, even when in substance the message was
the same. Is it surprising that during the centuries of Christian intolerance
and violence, study of the Bible was neglected, if not discouraged? ...
Unfortunately, the Christian faith has long been interpreted as an
ideological legitimization of powers of Christian domination over others. This
is far from being the providential plan of God for the victims of such power.
Jesus came to serve, and not to be served; to set free the oppressed so that
all may have life, and life in abundance.
May these thoughts help bring further dimensions to the
understanding of the relationship of faith and reason, and a return to the
living of the love command of Jesus in our unjust, male dominated, racist,
capitalistic global society.
Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, founder of the Center for Society and
Religion in Sri Lanka, has been accused by Vatican officials of denying church
teaching on original sin, redemption and the divinity of Christ in his efforts
to justify Christianity to his Asian audience. Balasuriya was excommunicated in
early 1997 on formal charges of heresy. He was reinstated a year later without
admitting error.
National Catholic Reporter, November 6,
1998
|