Sometime ago,
I criticized the Oak Leaves blog for the suggestion that Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity" threatened the II Vatican Council's
Declaration of Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae). This sort of speculation (characteristic of Goldstein, for instance) is becoming more common among Adventists, forcing me to revisit this gross misrepresentation of Benedict's thought. In fact, in the one of the
most important addresses of the first year of his papacy, Benedict XVI discussed his "hermeneutic" of "continuity" and explicitly applied it to the II Vatican Council's endorsement of religious freedom:
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.
Of note, Benedict classes the
concept of religious liberty
among those "principles" or "undercurrents" "that express the permanent aspect" of Catholic doctrine:
Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.
It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.
The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.
The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all.
At the same time, she assures peoples and their Governments that she does not wish to destroy their identity and culture by doing so, but to give them, on the contrary, a response which, in their innermost depths, they are waiting for - a response with which the multiplicity of cultures is not lost but instead unity between men and women increases and thus also peace between peoples.
The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity.
According to Benedict, the Church's "definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern though" was subject to change,
insofar as those "certain essential elements of modern thought" themselves evolved. The Church was guided in its decision to accept or reject these evolving ideas based on its eternal principles, of which the holy father names two:
- "The human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge"
- "Religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction."
The Church once opposed modernity's embrace of the
"social and historical necessity" of religious freedom because it had been "raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning." This
historically particular vision of religious freedom was inappropriate in the Church's judgment, since it violated the Church's "permanent" "principles." However, the Church later defended another, appropriate conception of religious liberty, which merely protected the free exercise of the human conscience from external forms of coercion. This conception corresponded to an ancient tenet of Christian belief, proposed by "the teaching of Jesus himself." Its "recovery" forced the Church to "correct" "certain historical decisions." Accordingly, in Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity," the principle of religious freedom articulated by Vatican II
defines "continuity," and guides the Church in its relation to historical ideas.
Incredibly, Adventist interpretations of Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity"
never engage the actual speeches and writings of Pope Benedict, relying instead on their uninformed impressions of his words, divorced from their context. Many Adventists, for instance, suggest that, for Benedict, "continuity" involves restoring the persecution of non-Catholics. In fact, the opposite is true. "Continuity" demands that the Church
cease to persecute others:
In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. (Dignitatis Humanae 12)
In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. (Ibid.)
The Oak Leaves
post I criticized asked, "Is it any wonder that people wonder what the implications of that 'hermeneutic of continuity' might be for church and state and religious liberty?" In fact, it
is a wonder, given the fact that Benedict himself has long since spelled out those implications. Will Adventists allow Benedict to interpret himself, or will they continue to propagate convenient misreadings of his views?
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."