Categoria: Política

War der Kollaps seiner Theologie der eigentliche Grund für den Rücktritt Benedikts XVI?

Leonardo Boff5 Comentários

Es birgt immer gewisse Gefahren, einen Theologen zum Papst zu wählen. Dieser könnte seine ihm eigene Theologie zur allgemein gültigen Theologie der Kirche machen und sie der ganzen Welt aufzwängen. Ich vermute, dies war der Fall bei Benedikt XVI, zunächst als Kardinal, der zum Präfekten der Glaubenskongregation (der ehemaligen Inquisition) ernannt und später dann zum Papst gewählt wurde. Dies war illegitim und führte zu ungerechten Verurteilungen. In der Tat verurteilte er mehr als hundert Theologen und Theologinnen, weil diese nicht auf einer Linie mit seiner theologischen Lesart von Kirche und Welt waren.

Gesundheitliche Gründe und das Gefühl der Machtlosigkeit angesichts der Schwere der Krise in der Kirche veranlassten ihn zum Rücktritt. Doch nicht nur dies. In seiner Rücktrittserklärung ist die Rede vom „Rückgang körperlicher und geistiger Vitalität“ und „seinem Unvermögen“, sich den Fragen zu stellen, die die Ausführung seiner Mission so schwierig gestalteten. Hinter diesen Worten, so glaube ich, verbirgt sich ein tieferer Grund für seinen Rücktritt: Ihm wurde bewusst, dass sein theologisches Gebäude einzustürzen drohte und die Errichtung seines Kirchenmodells scheitern würde. Eine absolutistische Monarchie ist nicht so absolut, dass sie die Trägheit der gealterten Strukturen der Kurie überwinden könnte.

Mit den zentralen Thesen seiner Theologie haben die Theologen schon immer ihre Schwierigkeiten gehabt. Drei von diesen Thesen wurden schließlich durch die Fakten widerlegt: das Konzept von Kirche als einer „kleinen versöhnten Welt“; dass die Stadt der Menschen nur kraft der Vermittlung der Stadt Gottes einen Wert erlange; und das berühmte „subsistit“, das besagt: Nur in der katholischen Kirche findet sich die wahre Kirche Christi, keine andere Kirche kann sich als Kirche bezeichnen. Dieses enge Verständnis rührt von einer scharfen Intelligenz, die sich selbst zum Opfer fällt, da es ihr an ausreichender inneren Kraft und der nötigen Zustimmung mangelt, um umgesetzt zu werden. Erkannte Benedikt diesen Kollaps und zog durch seinen Rücktritt die Konsequenz? Es gibt Gründe, die für diese Hypothese sprechen

Der emeritierte Papst hatte im Hl. Augustinus seinen Mentor und seine Quelle für Inspiration gefunden. Augustins war das Thema persönlicher Gespräche mit ihm. Von ihm übernahm er seine grundlegende Sichtweise, beginnend mit dessen drittrangigen Lehre von der Erbsünde (die durch den Zeugungsakt übertragen wird). Dadurch fällt die ganze Menschheit der Verdammung anheim. Doch Gott pflanzte durch Christus inmitten der Menschheit einen rettenden Keim, der durch die Kirche repräsentiert wird. Die Kirche ist eine „kleine versöhnte Welt“, die den verlorenen Rest der Menschheit vertritt. Sie braucht nicht viele Mitglieder zu haben. Ein paar Mitglieder reichen, wenn sie nur rein und heilig sind. Ratzinger verkörperte diese Vision und ergänzte sie durch folgende Überlegung: Die Kirche wurde von Christus und seinen Aposteln gegründet. Daher ist sie apostolisch. Sie besteht nur aus dieser kleinen Gruppe. Dies schließt die Jünger, die Frauen und die Menschenmengen, die Jesus von Nazareth folgten, aus. Sie zählen für Ratzinger nicht. Sie werden von der Vertretung, die die „kleine versöhnte Welt“ übernimmt, erreicht.

Dieses Modell von Theologie und Kirche lässt die weite, globalisierte Welt außen vor. Darum wollte Benedikt aus Europa solch eine „kleine versöhnte Welt“ machen, um nochmals die Menschheit zu erobern. Daran scheiterte er, denn niemand setzte dieses Projekt in die Tat um, und viele fanden es lächerlich.

Auch die zweite These ist von Augustinus und dessen Lesart der Geschichte übernommen: die Konfrontation zwischen der Stadt Gottes und der Stadt der Menschen. In der Stadt Gottes gibt es Gnade, und sie ist der einzige Weg zum Heil. Die Stadt der Menschen wurde von Menschenhand erbaut. Doch da ihr ganzer Humanismus und ihre anderen Werte kontaminiert sind, können die Menschen nicht das Heil erlangen, da sie nicht die Vermittlung der Stadt Gottes (die Kirche) durchlaufen haben. Deshalb macht ihr der Relativismus so zu schaffen. Folglich verurteilte Kardinal Ratzinger scharf die Theologie der Befreiung, denn diese zielt auf die Befreiung der Armen durch sich selbst ab und verhalf ihnen dazu, zu autonomen Akteuren ihrer eigenen Geschichte zu werden. Doch da die Theologie der Befreiung nicht innerhalb der Stadt Gottes und ihrer Keimzelle, der Kirche, errichtet wurde, ist sie unzureichend und sinnlos.

Die dritte These ist eine sehr persönliche Interpretation des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils durch Benedikt über die Kirche Christi. Der erste konziliare Entwurf besagte, die katholische Kirche ist die Kirche Christi. In den um Ökumene ringenden Diskussionen ersetzte man das Wort ist (est) durch subsistiert in (subsistit in), um Raum für andere christliche Kirchen zu schaffen, die auf ihre eigene Weise auch die Kirche Christi verwirklichen. Diese These, die ich in meiner Dissertation unterstützte, erfuhr eine ausdrückliche Verurteilung durch Kardinal Ratzinger in seinem berühmten Schreiben „Dominus Jesus“ (2000), wo er bekräftigt, dass sich das Wort „subsistiert“ von „Subsistenz“ ableitet, sodass es sich nur um eine einzige handeln kann und dass diese in der katholischen Kirche zu finden ist. Die anderen „Kirchen“ verfügen „nur“ über ekklesiastische Elemente. Dieses „nur“ ist ein willkürlicher Zusatz, die er an den offiziellen Konzilstext anhängt. Einige namhafte Theologen wie auch ich haben gezeigt, dass es diese essentialistische Bedeutung im Lateinischen nicht gibt. Die Bedeutung ist stets konkret: „Gestalt annehmen“,  „sich objektiv verwirklichen“. Dies war der „Sensus Patrum“, das was die Konzilsväter im Sinne hatten.

Diese drei zentralen Thesen wurden durch die Fakten widerlegt: Innerhalb der „kleinen versöhnten Welt“ gibt es zu viele Pädophile, selbst unter den Kardinälen, und zu viele Geldräuber in der Vatikan-Bank. Die zweite These, die besagt, dass die Stadt der Menschen über keine heilswirksame Kraft vor Gott verfüge, beruht auf dem Irrtum, den Aktionsradius der Stadt Gottes auf den alleinigen Bereich der Kirche zu begrenzen. Innerhalb der Stadt der Menschen findet sich auch die Stadt Gottes, zwar nicht in Form von religiösem Bewusstsein, sondern in Form von ethischen und humanitären Werten. Das Vatikanum II sagte den irdischen Wirklichkeiten (ein anderer Ausdruck für Säkularisierung) Autonomie zu, die unabhängig von der Kirche über Werte verfügen. Diese gelten auch vor Gott als Werte. Die Stadt Gottes (die Kirche) verwirklicht sich durch den ausdrücklichen Glauben, durch Gottesdienst und Sakramente. Die Stadt der Menschen verwirklicht sich durch Ethik und Politik.

Die dritte These, die katholische Kirche sei die einzige und exklusive Kirche Christi und, mehr noch, außerhalb ihrer gebe es kein Heil, eine mittelalterliche These, von Kardinal Ratzinger wiederbelebt, wurde als Beleidigung der anderen Kirchen einfach ignoriert. Anstelle von „außerhalb der katholischen Kirche kein Heil“ sprachen die Päpste und Theologen nun von der „universellen Heilszusage für alle Menschen und die Welt.“

Ich habe den ernsthaften Verdacht, dass dieses Versagen und der Zusammenbruch seines theologischen Gebäudes ihm die „notwendige körperliche und geistige Vitalität“ so sehr entzogen haben, dass er, wie er bekennt, „sich nicht in der Lage fühlt, sein Amt gut auszuüben“. Als Gefangener seiner eigenen Theologie hatte er keine andere Wahl als ehrenhaft zurückzutreten.

Übersetzt von Bettina Gold-Hartnack

Siehe vom Verfaser Kirche: Charisma und Macht, Düsseldorf, Patmos 1985.

Was the Collapse of this Theology the Main Reason for the Resignation of Benedict XVI?

Leonardo Boff10 Comentários

It is always risky to choose a theologian to be pope. He can turn his particular theology into the universal theology of the Church and impose it on the whole world. I suspect this has been the case with Benedict XVI, first as a Cardinal, appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (ex-Inquisition), and later, chosen as Pope. This was not legitimate and became the source of unjust condemnations. In effect, he condemned more than one hundred men and women theologians, for not being in tune with his theological reading of the Church and of the world.

Reasons of health and feelings of impotence in the face of the gravity of the crisis in the Church led him to resign. But not only that. The text of his resignation speaks of the “diminution of vigor of the body and of the spirit” and of “his incapacity” to confront the questions that made the exercise of his mission difficult. Behind these words, I believe there hides the more profound reason for his resignation: the awareness of the collapse of his theology and of the failure of the model of Church he wanted to implement. An absolutist monarchy is not so absolute that it can overcome the inertia of the aged curial structures.

The central theses of his theology were always problematic for the theological community. Three of them ended up being rebutted by the facts: the concept of the Church as a «small reconciled world»; that the City of Men only acquires value before God by going through the mediation of the City of God, and the famous «subsistit» that means: only in the Catholic Church does the true Church of Christ subsist, no other Churches can be called Churches. This narrow conception comes from a sharp intelligence that is hostage to itself, not having sufficient intrinsic strength or the necessary following to be implemented. Did Benedict recognize this collapse and coherently resign? There are reasons for this hypothesis.

The Pontiff Emeritus found in Saint Augustine his teacher and inspiration. In fact, Augustine was the subject of personal conversations with him. From Saint Augustine he took his basic perspective, starting from his theory of original sin (transmitted by the sexual act of procreation). This causes all of humanity to be a «condemned mass». But inside humanity, God, through Christ, set up a saving cell, represented by the Church. The Church is «a small reconciled world» that carries the representation (Vertretung) of the rest of the lost humanity. It is not necessary for the Church to have many members. A few suffice, so long as they are pure and holy. Ratzinger incorporated this vision. He complemented it with the following reflection: the Church is made up of Christ and the twelve apostles. This is why she is apostolic. She is just this small group. This excludes the disciples, the women, and the masses that followed Jesus of Nazareth. To him, they do not count. They are reached by the representation (Vertretung) that «the small reconciled world» assumes. This eclesiastical model does not take into consideration the vast globalized world. Benedict wanted to make Europe into «the reconciled world» to again conquer humanity. He failed because no-one undertook this project, and it was even ridiculed.

The second thesis is also taken from Saint Augustine and his reading of history: the confrontation between the City of God and the City of Men. In the City of God there is grace and salvation: she is the only path that leads to salvation. The City of Men is built by human effort. But, since it is already contaminated by humanism and her other values, it does not obtain salvation because it has not passed through the mediation of the City of God (the Church). This is why she is plagued by relativism. Consequently Cardinal Ratzinger harshly condemned the Theology of Liberation, because it sought liberation by the poor themselves, and made the poor the autonomous subjects of their own history. But since the Theology of Liberation was not created within the City of God and her cell, the Church, it is insufficient and vain.

The third is a very personal interpretation that Benedict gives to Vatican Council II when talking of the Church of Christ. The first Counciliar draft said that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. The debates searching for ecumenism, changed is to subsists, to make room for other Christian Churches that, in their own way, also realize the Church of Christ. This interpretation, as maintained in my doctoral dissertation, earned an explicit condemnation from Cardinal Ratzinger in his famous document Dominus Jesus, (2000), where he affirms that subsists comes from «subsistence» that there can be only one, and it is found in the Catholic Church. The other «churches» present «solely» ecclesiastic elements. This «solely» is an arbitrary attachment he makes to the official text of the Council. Some notable theologians and I, myself, have shown that this essentialist reading does not exist in Latin. The meaning is always concrete: «to have body», «to objectively realize». This was the «sensus Patrum», the meaning of the Fathers of the Council.

These three central theses have been refuted by the facts: inside the «small reconciled world» there are too many pedophiles, even among the Cardinals, and thieves of money from the Vatican Bank. The second, that the City of Men does not have saving gravity in front of God, is built on the error of limiting the action of the City of God solely to the realm of the Church. Within the City of Men the City of God is also found, not in the form of religious consciousness but in the form of ethics and humanitarian values. Vatican Cuncil II guaranteed autonomy to the terrestrial realities (another name for secularization) that have value independently of the Church. They are of value to God. The City of God (the Church) is realized by the explicit faith, by the celebration and by the sacraments. The City of Men is realized by ethics and politics.

The third, that the Catholic Church is the unique and exclusive Church of Christ and, even worse, that outside of her there is no salvation, a medieval thesis resurrected by Cardinal Ratzinger, was simply ignored as offensive by other Churches. Instead of «outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation», in the discourse of popes and theologians was introduced, «the universal offer of salvation to all human beings and the world».

I have a serious suspicion that this failure and the collapse of his theological structure took away his “necessary vigor of body and spirit” to the point, as he confesses, of “feeling incapable of exercising his ministry”. Captive to his own theology, he had no alternative other than to honestly resign.

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

Un esercizio differente del papato è possibile

Leonardo Boff3 Comentários

La grave crisi morale che attraversa tutto il corpo  istituzionali della Chiesa ha fatto sì che il conclave eleggesse qualcuno che ha autorità e coraggio per fare profonde riforme nella Curia romana e inaugurare una forma di esercizio del potere papale che sia più conforme allo spirito di Gesù e al passo con la coscienza dell’umanità . Francesco è il suo nome.

La figura del papa è forse il più grande simbolo del Sacro nel mondo Occidentale. Le società che attraverso la secolarizzazione hanno esiliato il Sacro, in mancanza di leaders di riferimento e con la nostalgia della figura del padre come colui che orienta, crea fiducia e indica il sentiero, hanno concentrato nella figura del Papa queste ansie ancestrali degli umani che potevano essere lette sulle facce dei fedeli in piazza San Pietro. Per questo è importante analizzare il tipo di esercizio del potere che il Papa Francesco eserciterà. Nella sua prima allocuzione ha detto che lui “presiederà nella carità” e non come quelli del passato che avevano potere giudiziale su tutte le chiese. Per i cristiani è irrinunciabile il ministero di Pietro come colui che deve “confermare i fratelli e le sorelle nella fede” secondo il mandato del Maestro. Roma dove stanno sepolti Pietro e Paolo, è stata fin dai primordi, per le altre chiese,  il riferimento per l’unità, per l’ortodossia e per lo zelo.

Questa prospettiva è accolta pure dalle rimanenti chiese non cattoliche. La questione è tutta su come si esercita la tale funzione. Il papa Leone Magno (440-461), nel vuoto del potere imperiale, dovette assumere la governance di Roma. Prese il titolo di Papa e di Sommo Pontefice che erano dell’imperatore, incorporò lo stile imperiale del potere monarchico assoluto e centralizzato, con i suoi simboli,  paramenti e stile di palazzo. I testi attinenti a Pietro che in Gesù avevano un senso di servizio e di primato di amore furono interpretati come stretto potere giuridico. Tutto culminò con Gregorio VII che con il suo “Dictatus papae” (la dittatura del Papa) si arrogò i due poteri, quello religioso e quello della società civile. Nacque una grande istituzione Totale ostacolo al cammino della libertà dei cristiani e della società. A partire da qui il Papa emerge come un monarca assoluto con la pienezza di tutti poteri come il canone 331 esprime chiaramente. Solleva  la pretesa di subordinare al suo potere tutte le chiese.

Quest’esercizio assolutista è stato sempre messo in questione, specialmente dai Riformatori. Ma non si è mai addolcito. Come riconosceva Giovanni Paolo II, questo stile di esercitare la funzione di Pietro è il maggior ostacolo all’ecumenismo e all’accettazione da parte dei cristiani che vengono dalla cultura moderna dei diritti e della democrazia. Per supplire a questa mancanza, gli ultimi due papi hanno organizzato una spettacolarizzazione della fede, con viaggi e eventi di massa come quello degli giovani da realizzarsi a Rio de Janeiro.

Questa forma monarchica e assolutista rappresenta una deviazione dall’intenzione originaria di Gesù e adesso con Francesco deve essere ripensato alla luce dell’intenzione di Gesù. Sarà un papato pastorale e di servizio alla carità e all’unità e non più un papato del potere giuridico assolutista. Il concilio Vaticano II ha stabilito igli strumenti per una riformulazione nel governo della Chiesa: il sinodo dei vescovi, svuotato e fatto finora strumento consultivo, mentre invece era stato pensato come strumento deliberativo. Nascerebbe un organo esecutivo che con il Papa governerebbe la Chiesa. È stata creata dal concilio la collegialità dei vescovi, vale a dire, le conferenze continentali e nazionali guadagnerebbero più autonomia per permettere un radicamento della fede nelle culture locali sempre in comunione con Roma. Rappresentanti del popolo di Dio, cardinali e vescovi, clero e laici e perfino donne aiuterebbero a eleggere un papa per tutta la cristianità. Si fa urgente una riforma della Curia nella linea del decentramento. Certamente quello che farà Papa Francesco. Perché il Segretariato per le religioni non cristiane non  potrebbe funzionare in Asia? il dicastero dell’unità dei cristiani a Ginevra, vicino al Consiglio Mondiale delle chiese? Quello delle missioni, in qualche città dell’Africa? Quello dei diritti umani e della giustizia in America Latina?

La Chiesa cattolica potrebbe trasformarsi in una istanza non autoritaria di valori universali, della cura per la Terra e per la vita sotto grave minaccia, contro la cultura del consumo, in favore di una sobrietà condivisa, enfatizzando la solidarietà e la cooperazione a partire dagli ultimi contro lo stress della concorrenza. La questione centrale non è più la Chiesa ma l’umanità e la civiltà che possono scomparire. In che modo la Chiesa aiuta nella loro preservazione?Tutto questo è possibile e realizzabile senza rinunciare in nulla alla sostanza del fede cristiana. Importa che il Papa Francesco sia un Giovanni XXIII del terzo mondo, un “Papa buono”. Solo così potrà riscattare la credibilità perduta e essere un faro di spiritualità e di speranza per tutti.

Pope Francis called to restore the Church

Leonardo Boff11 Comentários

In the social network I had predicted that the future Pope would take the name of Francis. And I was right. Why Francis? Because Saint Francis began his conversion upon hearing the Crucifix of the Chapel of San Damiano, telling him: “Francis go and restore my Church, she is in shambles” (Saint Bonaventure, Major Legends II, 1).

Francis took these words to heart, and rebuilt the small church of La Portiuncula, in Assisi, that is still housed in the interior of an immense cathedral. Later on, he understood that restoring the «Church that Christ had rescued with His blood» (ibid.), was a spiritual task. It was then that he started a movement to restore the Church, which at the time was presided over by the most powerful Pope in history, Innocence III. He began to live with lepers, and on the arm of one of them, he would walk the paths, preaching the Gospel in popular language, rather than in Latin.

It is worth knowing that Francis was never a priest, but only a lay person. Only at the end of his life, when the Popes forbade the lay to preach, did Francis agree to become a deacon, on condition that he would not receive any type of remuneration for that position.

Why has Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio chosen the name Francis? I believe it was because he has seen that the Church is in shambles, demoralized by the diverse scandals that affected her most precious resource: morality and credibility.

Francis is not just a name, it is a project of the Church, poor, simple, evangelical and bereft of power. She is a Church that walks with the least among us, that creates the first communities of brothers and sisters who pray the breviary under the trees with the little birds. She is an ecological Church that calls all beings by the sweet words, «brothers and sisters». Francis was obedient to the Church and to the popes, and at the same time he followed his own path with the Gospel of poverty in hand. Then the theologian Joseph Ratzinger wrote: «the “no” of Francis to that type of imperial Church could not be more radical, it is what we could call a prophetic protest» (Zeit Jesu, Herder 1970, 269). Francis does not speak, he simply inaugurates the new.

I believe Pope Francis has in mind a Church removed from the palaces and symbols of power. He showed that when he appeared in public. Normally the Popes, and principally Ratzinger, would place over their shoulders the muceta, that small short cape embroidered in gold, that only the emperors could use. Pope Francis appeared dressed only in white. Three points of great symbolic meaning are worthy of note in his inaugural speech.

The first: Pope Francis said that he wants «to preside in charity», something that has been sought since the Reformation and by the best theologians of ecumenism. The Pope should not preside as an absolutist monarch, invested with sacred power, as provided by canon law. According to Jesus, he should preside in love, and fortify the faith of the brothers and sisters.

The second: the Pope gave centrality to the People of God, as Vatican Council II does, but as was set aside by the two previous popes in favor of hierarchy. Pope Francis humbly asked the people of God to pray for him and for the people to bless him. Only after that did he bless the people of God. This means that he is here to serve, not to be served. He asks for help to build a path together and cries for fraternity for all humanity, as humans do not now recognize themselves as brothers and sisters, but as joined by economic forces.

Lastly, he avoided the spectacle of the figure of the Pope. He did not extend both arms to greet the people. He remained still, serious and somber, I would say almost as if startled. All that was seen was a white figure who lovingly greeted the people. But he radiated peace and trust. He displayed humor, speaking without official rhetoric, as a pastor talks to the faithful.

It is worth mentioning that he is a Pope who comes from El Gran Sur, (The Great South), where the poorest of humanity are and were 60% of Catholics live. With his experience as a pastor, with a new vision of things, from below, he can reform the Curia, decentralize the administration and give a new and credible face to the Church.

Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.