![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/12\/EcheverriaEduardo.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Eduardo J. Echeverria<\/a> is Professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit. He earned his doctorate in philosophy from the Free University of Amsterdam and his Licentiate in Sacred Theology (S.T.L.) from the University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome. His publications include Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed Questions<\/em><\/a> (2013), Pope Francis: The Legacy of Vatican II<\/em><\/a>, Revised and Expanded Section Edition (2015, 2019), Divine Election: A Catholic Orientation in Dogmatic and Ecumenical Perspective<\/em><\/a> (2016), and Revelation, History, and Truth: A Hermeneutics of Dogma<\/em><\/a> (2018).<\/p>\n I enthusiastically recommended<\/a> the first edition of his book, Pope Francis: The Legacy of Vatican II<\/em><\/a>, but it seems that since that time, he has become quite critical of Pope Francis: largely (?) because of the controversies surrounding Amoris Laetitia<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n I am responding to his article, \u201cPope Francis on Faith\u2019s Knowledge of God, Doctrine, Truth, Ideology, and the Law of Evangelization\u201d<\/a> (December 2019). His words will be in blue<\/span>. The words of Pope Francis will be in green<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Pope Francis has been created in the image of many one-sided receptions of his thought by both liberal and traditional Catholics. Both sides of this reception share the view that Pope Francis\u2019s novelty is best represented by words like break, rupture, and indeed, revolution. Of course they differ in their assessment of his novelty; the former embrace it, and the latter reject it. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he narrative that has taken hold in the mind of many people is, indeed, false . . . it is clear from Francis\u2019s own theological writings that his theological thinking is fully coherent with the teachings of Vatican II and that of his two immediate predecessors.\u00a0<\/span>(pp. xiii, xvi)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In Francis\u2019 concluding homily of the Synod of Bishops dedicated to young people, he states,<\/span> \u201cThe faith that saved Bartimaeus did not have to do with his having clear ideas about God, but in his seeking him and longing to encounter him. Faith has to do with encounter, not theory. In encounter, Jesus passes by; in encounter, the heart of the Church beats. Then, not our preaching, but our witness of life will prove effective.\u201d<\/span> This contrast between \u201cencounter\u201d and \u201ctheory, \u201d between \u201cpreaching\u201d and \u201cwitness\u201d is puzzling.<\/span><\/p>\n Why is this<\/span> \u201cpuzzling<\/span>\u201c? Again,\u00a0Dr.\u00a0Echeverria has unnecessarily created a false dichotomy, when in fact, the pope himself has not<\/em> done so. He misses the forest for the trees and has \u2014 one can only say \u2014 misrepresented the pope\u2019s clear intentions. Did the pope deny<\/em> that doctrine is also important and necessary? No!, for he also<\/em> said in\u00a0<\/span>the same homily<\/a>:<\/p>\n Faith passes through life. When faith is concerned purely with doctrinal formulae<\/strong>, it risks speaking only to the head without touching the heart. And when it is concerned with activity alone<\/strong>, it risks turning into mere moralizing and social work. Faith, instead, is\u00a0life<\/i>: it is living in the love of God who has changed our lives. We cannot choose between\u00a0doctrine\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0activism<\/i><\/strong>. We are called to carry out God\u2019s work in God\u2019s own way: in\u00a0closeness<\/i>, by cleaving to him, in communion with one another, alongside our brothers and sisters. Closeness: that is the secret to communicating the heart of the faith, and not a secondary aspect. [italics in original, bolding my own]<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Is it not quite obvious: the point that the pope is making? He\u2019s not denying in any way, shape, or form,<\/span> \u201cdoctrinal formulae\u201d<\/span> or \u201cdoctrine.\u201d<\/span> Rather, he is denying that the doctrine should be isolated<\/em> from a living, active faith, and conversely, that this sort of faith could or should be separated<\/em> from doctrine. The point is: keep them always together<\/em>\u00a0(orthodoxy and orthopraxy). It\u2019s essentially the famous argument that St. James makes in his epistle (that Luther struggled so much to understand, because it was contrary to his faith alone<\/em> doctrinal novelty):\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n James 2:14, 17-18, 20-26<\/strong> (RSV) What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? . . . [17]\u00a0So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.\u00a0[18]\u00a0But some one will say, \u201cYou have faith and I have works.\u201d Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. . . . [20]\u00a0\u00a0Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?\u00a0[22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,\u00a0[23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, \u201cAbraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness\u201d; and he was called the friend of God.\u00a0[24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.\u00a0[25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?\u00a0[26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n When Pope Francis was commenting upon Bartimaeus, he was merely noting that his particular faith in that specific moment of time, was not doctrinal in nature. Nor did it have<\/em> to be. It says nowhere in the Bible that doctrine and heartfelt faith must always be present at absolutely every instant<\/strong> of time<\/em>: only that both are necessary in the overall picture (i.e., one or the other may manifest itself in particular instances). <\/span><\/p>\n So Bartimaeus cried out: \u201cJesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!\u201d (Mk 10:47). It wasn\u2019t a \u201cdoctrinal\u201d utterance. He didn\u2019t cite John 3:16 (which I was actually asked to do in an early altar call at age 11 or so in a Baptist church that we visited). He simply cried for mercy. This was heart-faith. He could learn the doctrine in due course. That\u2019s why we have catechisms and RCIA classes. It\u2019s why, in the early Church (for many centuries), the deepest truths of the faith were kept from new catechumens until they reached a more advanced level and were about to be baptized. But at first<\/em>, the cry for help is sufficient. And so the pope beautifully comments on this incident:<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus takes his time; he takes time to listen. This is the first step in helping the journey of faith:\u00a0listening<\/i>. It is the apostolate of the ear: listening before speaking. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He gets personally involved with preferential love for every person. By his actions, he already communicates his message. Faith thus flowers in life. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Let us realize that the Lord has dirtied his hands for each one of us. Let us look at the cross, start from there and remember that God became my neighbour in sin and death. He became my neighbour: it all starts from there. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The journey of faith in today\u2019s Gospel ends in a beautiful and surprising way when Jesus says \u201cGo; your faith has made you well\u201d (v. 52). Yet Bartimaeus had made no profession of faith or done any good work; he had only begged for mercy. To feel oneself in need of salvation is the beginning of faith. It is the direct path to encountering Jesus.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Does Pope Francis have a pastoral emphasis? Yes, he does, and I think it\u2019s fabulous and something very much needed in our time. But does he depart from historic orthodoxy or even the prior understanding of evangelism and apologetics. Nope (as<\/span> I have recently documented at length<\/a>) . . .<\/p>\n The latter contrast and the attendant claim made by Pope Francis that \u201cwitness\u201d not \u201cpreaching\u201d will prove effective is rejected with good reason by Pope Paul VI in his 1975 Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi<\/em> \u00a722, \u201cAll Christians are called to this witness, and in this way they can be real evangelizers. \u201d Nevertheless, contra Francis\u2019 position, Paul VI adds, \u201cthis [witness] always remains insufficient<\/em>, because even the finest witness will prove ineffective<\/em> in the long run if it is not explained, justified \u2013 what Peter called always having \u2018your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you all have\u2019 [1 Peter 3:15] \u2013 and made explicit by a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus. The Good News proclaimed by the witness of life sooner or later has to be proclaimed by the word of life. There is no true evangelization if the name, the teaching, the life, the promises, the kingdom and the mystery of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God are not proclaimed.\u201d (emphasis added)<\/span><\/p>\n The problem here is that \u2014 having already drawn a false conclusion from what the pope stated in that homily, Dr.<\/span>\u00a0Echeverria goes on to assert that it contradicts previous teaching. It does no such thing. He did not set witness against preaching at all. He stated exactly what Pope St. Paul VI wrote above. Again, here it is, plain as day:<\/span><\/p>\n When faith is concerned purely with doctrinal formulae<\/strong>, it risks speaking only to the head without touching the heart. And when it is concerned with activity alone<\/strong>, it risks turning into mere moralizing and social work. . . .\u00a0We cannot choose between\u00a0doctrine\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0activism<\/i><\/strong>.\u00a0[italics in original, bolding my own]<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n What is<\/em> truly<\/span> \u201cpuzzling\u201d<\/span> is how a man of\u00a0Dr.<\/span>\u00a0Echeverria\u2019s great abilities and accomplishments can miss the context (one of the cardinal sins of research). We shall see if his further suggested examples in his article, of the pope\u2019s supposed departure from tradition and precedent, succeed any better than this<\/em> one did, for the purpose of proving his thesis.<\/span><\/p>\n Missing from the evangelical encounter in Pope Francis\u2019 thought is Paul VI teaching described above as what I will call \u201cintegral evangelization.\u201d The latter includes explanation and justification of Christian beliefs, with the aim of persuasion, by the power of reason and arguments. It also involves claiming that one asserts, affirms, and holds certain beliefs to be true. Why is this aspect of integral evangelization missing from Francis\u2019 understanding of witness\/evangelization?<\/span><\/p>\n Since this is a blanket claim, and not a specific one about a particular passage in one of the pope\u2019s homilies, other speeches, or writings, I shall answer<\/em> generally. I strongly\u00a0deny<\/em> that this is the case. And I do so because of these<\/em> sorts of statements from Pope Francis:<\/span><\/p>\n Proclaiming the Gospel message to different cultures also involves proclaiming it to professional, scientific and academic circles<\/strong>. This means\u00a0an encounter between faith, reason and the sciences<\/strong> with a view to developing new approaches and arguments<\/strong> on the issue of credibility,\u00a0a creative\u00a0apologetics<\/strong>\u00a0which would encourage greater openness to the Gospel on the part of all. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n A theology \u2013 and not simply a pastoral<\/em> theology<\/strong> \u2013 which is\u00a0in dialogue with other sciences and human experiences\u00a0is most important for our discernment on how best to bring the\u00a0Gospel message\u00a0to different cultural contexts and groups.\u00a0The Church, in her commitment to evangelization, appreciates and encourages the charism of theologians and their scholarly efforts to advance dialogue with the world of cultures and sciences<\/strong>. I call on theologians to carry out this service as part of the Church\u2019s saving mission. In doing so, however, they must always remember that\u00a0the Church and theology exist to\u00a0evangelize<\/strong>, and not be content with a desk-bound theology.\u00a0<\/span>(Apostolic Exhortation\u00a0Evangelii Gaudium<\/i><\/a>, 11-24-13; sections 132-133; my bolding and italics)<\/p>\n Start from your own identity in order to dialogue, but a dialogue is not\u00a0doing\u00a0apologetics<\/strong>, although\u00a0sometimes you must do so, when we are asked questions that require an explanation<\/strong>.<\/span>\u00a0(Meeting with the Clergy<\/a>: Palatine Chapel in the Royal Palace of Caserta, 7-26-14; my bolding)<\/p>\n Do I pray for my brother, for my sister who is in difficulty because they\u00a0confess<\/strong> and\u00a0defend their faith<\/strong>?<\/span> (General Audience, 1-25-13<\/a>; my bolding)<\/p>\n [T]he Apostle \u201cdefended<\/strong>\u00a0the doctrine<\/strong>, he was a great\u00a0defender of the doctrine<\/strong>, and the annoyance came from these people who did not tolerate the doctrine<\/strong>\u201d. Which doctrine<\/strong>? \u201cThe gratuitousness of salvation\u201d. . . .\u00a0This, Pope explained, was \u201cthe struggle that both\u00a0Jesus and Paul\u00a0faced in order to\u00a0defend the doctrine<\/strong>\u201d.<\/span> (Morning Meditation<\/a>, 10-15-15; my bolding)<\/p>\n [See also:<\/p>\n Did Pope Francis just say that evangelization is \u201cnonsense\u201d? 8 things to know and share\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0(Jimmy Akin,\u00a0National Catholic Register<\/i>, 10-1-13)<\/p>\n Did Pope Francis just diss apologists? 9 things to know and share<\/a>\u00a0(Jimmy Akin,\u00a0National Catholic Register<\/i>, 3-9-14) ]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Witness\/Evangelization versus Proselytizing <\/span><\/p>\n The brief answer to this question is that Pope Francis thinks, inexplicably, that explanation and justification of Christian beliefs, with the aim of persuasion, by the power of reason and arguments is proselytizing. As a rule, Francis distinguishes witness\/evangelization from proselytizing. Unfortunately, he never defines what he means by proselytizing. Yes, he insists that it is bad. However, he does not tell us why. Nor does he distinguish between unethical and ethical means of proselytizing.<\/span><\/p>\n This is simply untrue. I provide several examples of the pope clarifying what he means, again and again, in the second half of my paper,\u00a0<\/span>Is Pope Francis Against Apologetics & Defending the Faith?<\/a>\u00a0See also, \u201cPope Francis on \u2018Proselytism\u2019\u00a0<\/a>(Jimmy Akin,\u00a0Catholic Answers<\/em>, 10-21-13).\u00a0Dr.<\/span>\u00a0Echeverria commits a very basic error in argument and rhetoric: the assertion of sweeping negative (\u201che never<\/em><\/strong> defines what he means by proselytizing\u201d). All one has to do is provide a single example<\/em> of the pope doing so, in order to refute such an ambitious claim. I\u2019ve done so (and much more). So has Jimmy Akin. And we have both provided sufficient answer to the other charges above. I\u2019m not going to post all that here. Readers may simply consult the linked articles. I love links . . . it saves one so<\/em> much trouble.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n As a rule, Francis seems to think that it is unethical, indeed, unchristian to try to convince or persuade others in the initial evangelical encounter of the rationality and truth of the Christian faith. He wrongly conflates that aspect of integral evangelization involving rational persuasion with force or pressure.<\/span><\/p>\n This is also untrue. While he exhibits a consistent strong emphasis on the pastoral, initially<\/em><\/strong> non-doctrinal evangelistic encounter, he does not deny the necessity of eventually moving onto doctrine as dialogue progresses. First things first. We do one thing first in the order of time, and then the other. So, for example, Pope Francis teaches:<\/span><\/p>\n The example given by the Pope was from the Apostle Paul in the Areopagus (Acts 17:15-22, 18-1)\u00a0proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ\u00a0among the worshipers of idols. It is the way<\/strong> in which he did this<\/em>, said the Pope, that is so important<\/em>: \u201cHe did not say: Idolaters! You will go to hell\u2026 \u201d. No, he \u201ctried to reach their hearts\u201d; he did not\u00a0condemn<\/strong> from the outset<\/strong>\u00a0but\u00a0sought dialogue<\/strong><\/em>. \u201cPaul is a Pope, a builder of bridges. He did not want to become a builder of walls\u201d.\u00a0Building bridges to proclaim the Gospel, \u201cthis was the Paul\u2019s outlook in Athens:\u00a0build a bridge<\/strong> to their hearts<\/strong>, and then take a step further and proclaim Jesus Christ<\/strong><\/em>\u201d. Paul followed the attitude of Jesus, who spoke to everyone, \u201che heard the Samaritan woman\u2026 ate with the Pharisees, with sinners, with publicans, with doctors of the law.\u00a0Jesus listened<\/strong> to everyone\u00a0and\u00a0when he said a word of condemnation<\/strong>, it was at the end<\/strong><\/em>, when there was nothing left to do\u201d. But Paul, too, was \u201caware that he must\u00a0evangelize, not\u00a0proselytize\u201d. The Church \u201cdoes not grow by\u00a0proselytizing,\u00a0as Benedict XVI has told us, but grows by\u00a0attracting people, by its\u00a0witness, and by its\u00a0preaching\u201d. Ultimately, \u201cPaul acted because he was sure, sure of Jesus Christ. He had no doubt of his Lord\u201d.<\/span> (Morning Meditation<\/a>: \u201cJesus excludes no one\u201d: 5-8-13; my italics and bolding)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Francis cites Revelation 3:20 to make his point : \u201cLook, I am at the door and I am calling; do you want to open the door?\u201d In a gloss on this verse, Francis says,<\/span> \u201cHe does not use force, he does not break the lock, but instead, quite simply, he presses the doorbell, knocks gently on the door and then waits.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, Jesus waits (Rev 3:20: \u201cBehold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.\u201d). He allows \u2014 even encourages \u2014 the factor of human free will in the overall process of salvation. And He does that because He doesn\u2019t want us to be robots. Robot obedience would be meaningless. The pope, in this particular homily in Ecuador (7-7-15)<\/a>, made this point. It backs up what he is contending. It doesn\u2019t logically\u00a0follow<\/em> that he therefore supposedly denies<\/em> all necessity for doctrinal discussion or gospel preaching. It\u2019s absurd<\/em> to draw this unwarranted conclusion from this homily. Simply because someone is emphasizing one thing at a specific point in time, doesn\u2019t mean that they deny<\/em> something else<\/em>. <\/span><\/p>\n It would be like saying, \u201cDave Armstrong is sitting and typing an article in reply to Dr.\u00a0Echeverria on a Saturday afternoon; therefore, he is opposed to playing chess, reading Chesterton by a fire, or listening to Beethoven\u2019s Ninth Symphony.\u201d The two types of activity (typing this paper vs. various enjoyable pastimes) have