For the remainder of this month, and then again from early-ish September to mid November, I am on study leave, attempting to dig deeper into the topic of "a hermeneutic of mercy", picking up some work long ago begun, much on pause through my time as Bishop of Christchurch.
That is, I am interested in the question of how we interpret the Bible (i.e. "hermeneutic") in a manner which is merciful, with reference, obviously, to some of the challenging questions of our times, questions in which churches have offered various interpretations, often deemed "conservative" or "liberal/progressive", with resulting disputes within those churches and even division and schism breaking up such churches.
In recent years, for instance - and it has been a very public instance - Pope Francis has offered various thoughts ex cathedra [later correction: ok, so not, "ex cathedra" meaning formal statements of infallible dogma, but definitely meaning, "the Pope, the one who sits on the cathedra of the Bishop of Rome, has spoken, so a much bigger deal than your local bishop or parish priest or favoured Catholic philosopher such as Edward Feser speaking") albeit perhaps standing in a plane, chatting to journalists travelling with him, or otherwise "off the cuff" (or, seemingly so ... he was very skillful re how he communicated!) which opened up a "liberal/progressive" yet Catholic view on matters of the day, with consequential reaction from quarters of the global Catholic church described, at least by journalists, as "conservative". Hence a sigh of relief - for many Catholics - that Pope Leo seems to be walking a more delicate line: no off the cuff remarks; no pushing the boundaries of what might be just within the edges of Catholic doctrine (or might not); and yet, a sense of anxiety - for some Catholics - is a more open-minded Franciscan church to be closed in?
Time will tell, and I do not expect Pope Leo to be influenced by whatever I may end up being able to publish!
In mentioning the much played out in world media of Catholic hermeneutical drama in recent years, I am well aware that other churches can be mentioned: in no particular order of (de)merit, and with no attempt to be comprehensive:
- Russian Orthodox church: "pro Putin" v pro peace
- Southern Baptists: women (not) in leadership in the church
- various churches: Christian nationalism v issues such as approaches to immigration ... funding international aid ... collaboration among nations towards peace between nations
- Anglican Communion: continuing dissonance over same-sex relationships (major) and ordination of women (minor) ... noting that both matters are having a role - it would appear - in who might be the next ABC
- back to the Roman Catholic church: recently a priest in the UK refused to give communion to a (Catholic) MP who voted for the recently passed (n the House of Commons) euthanasia law raising multiple questions re "mercy" in respect of life itself, and at the communion rail (when sin is unrepented of).
Naturally I have no particular confidence in my ability to solve all hermeneutical issues currently bubbling away in the meeting places of Christians, let alon the ones which literally are close to actions in which people are being killed.
Neverthless, what greater topic for Christian study than, What is truth? A hermeneutic of mercy is about checking in that we understand the Christian Scriptures correctly, in this time and in these places of controversy.
Fabulous, Peter! This is so needed; so fraught and complex too. And over the course of the study leave your work will shape up into what?...a paper to be published? The possibility of a future book?
ReplyDeleteAlso may I ask, will you pause the weekly blog postings this month--or will they continue?
I wish you all the best as you work on your study and research.
Let's have some accuracy, Peter. Francis NEVER spoke 'ex cathedra', and neither have any popes but two: Pius IX in 1870 (declaring papal infallibility ex cathedra) and Pius XII in 1950 (declaring the dogma of the Immaculate Conception). No Catholic believes that every pronouncement by the Pope is infallible, only those that meet the strict and formal conditions of the 1870 declaration. Catholics always treat papal pronouncements with great respect but not as statements of dogma, which is what "ex cathedra" means. Popes are also clear that they are bound by the Church's sacred Tradition and have no liberty to change it. That is why Pope St John Paul declared it is impossible for the Church to ordain women to the priesthood: because sacred Tradition forbids this. And Francis understood this as well. Popes do make mistakes, as Francis did on the death penalty. The Council of Constantinople in 681 condemned Pope Honorius I for his erroneous views on monotheletism.
ReplyDeletePax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Your inaccuracies, William, highlight the problem with your idea of infallibility.
DeleteLet's have some accuracy, William. It was not the Pope in 1870 who infallibly declared himself infallible (talk about circular!), it was Vatican I (don't mention the loss of the Papal States & the Unification of Italy!!!) Many would count the 1854 Pius IX's declaration of the Immaculate Conception (which you don't count) as infallible! And - no - that didn't happen in 1950, as you declare. There was a papal ex cathedra pronouncement in 1950 (the first after the 1870 definition - the 1854 one is often counted retroactively) of the bodily Assumption (pun not intended!) into heaven of the Blessed Virgin Mary!
Some would count Paul VI's Humanae vitae; some would count John Paul II's Ordinatio sacerdotalis; many/most RCs would regard EVERY papal canonisation as being ex cathedral and infallible... So, yes, Pope Francis did speak ex cathedra, many/most RCs would agree. Often!!! You are in a minority amongst RCs, I posit, in holding that canonisations are not infallibly ex cathedra.
The problem is clear: you, acknowledging yourself as fallible I am sure, thereby fail to give an infallible list of infallible statements. No one, in fact, has an infallible list of infallible statements - we await an infallible papal declaration of such a list ex cathedra!
Blessings
Bosco
Hi Liz
ReplyDeleteStudy leave will determine whether there is a book or an article or some blogposts (or all three kinds).
I plan to keep blogging, even if it is sharing my thoughts from one week to another.
Hi William
I have added an explanation re "ex cathedra".
When Francis spoke he was always speaking as the occupant of the cathedra in Rome.
And you still got it wrong, Peter: a pope speaking 'ex cathedra' does NOT mean '[issuing] formal Papal bulls', of which there have been hundreds in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_papal_bulls), or even encyclicals, it means a solemn declaration of doctrinal infallibility, which has only happened twice (1870 and 1950). All Catholics pay great attention to the Pope's words, but in practice popes *never speak 'ex cathedra'. All popes know they are bound by Sacred Tradition and cannot change Doctrine, unlike Protestants, for whom doctrine (e.g. on marriage, sanctity of life, orders etc) can be changed by a parliamentary vote, like any human law. This is why Catholics find Anglicanism increasingly hard to understand. I once went to the Anglican shrine in Walsingham in England and it seemed to me that numinous Anglican world of the 1930s is now gone for ever.
DeletePax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Sounds very interesting, Peter. And urgent to say the least. Best wishes in your endeavor.
ReplyDeleteIt does put me in mind of Francis, who seemed to return pastoral theology from the "on the ground application" of "theology proper", to a place of much greater centrality in the life of God, Jesus, the Church - and theology.
I think of Francis both speaking of the way Jesus "encountered" the other - with a great deal of spontaneity, presence, and at times, innovation, while always suggesting it? As what all teachers of Israel should know and understand already - and what others said of Francis himself; that he wanted to encounter you, really listen, meet you fully, meet your heart...before speaking. This radical listening didn't dull what he said - he could still speak very impactfully and forthrightly. Like when he said "Catholics don't need to breed like rabbits", "who am I to judge" (if a gay man is ordained a bishop), or even when he compared abortion to hiring a hitman (speaking to children!).
"The Church has no right to change tradition" (William) is only half the truth, of course. Jesus himself knew that those he spoke with could barely hear or understand what he was saying, and, in John, says this very clearly - the Spirit will continue to teach, to unfold the truth, and say things which people can't bear to hear right now.
Is this Spirit who keeps teaching a merciful Spirit?
I knew a woman who was certainly a believer, who gave up reading the Bible because every time she tried, she felt judged. It could be personality or it could be teaching that was without the ‘hermeneutics of mercy’, which is something I have experienced too. That speaks at the personal level rather than the big questions of the church that are current but may have a bearing on how the big questions develop.
ReplyDeleteOk, William, have updated. I look forward to a certain Papal Bull being rescinded … but don’t imagine it will be anytime soon!
ReplyDeleteDo you mean 'Apostolicae Curae' (1896)? Well, that was penned by Leo XIII and the present pope is a fan of his ... OTOH, the Papal Bull of 1054 excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople was rescinded (albeit in 1965), so don't lose hope!
ReplyDeletePax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Never thought that Papal Bulls were top of Jesus' reading list, really.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bloody march through the "warrior" stage of consciousness - God obliterating hundreds of thousands of "enemies" in the Old Testament, Crusades against Muslims and Jews, millions of Christians hacked apart by other Christians in the Long Reformation, thousands of libraries of warring words, condemning each other.
As my children's book says: "We can't go round it, we can't go over it, we have to go through it...", with Jesus always calling us "through it" more quickly that any of us truly can: "You have heard it said love your neighbours and hate your enemies....". We haven't just heard it, God, we often can barely act in any other way, even our churches building altar rails to keep other Christians out. My retired clergy friend says altar rails were originally built to stop dogs from urinating on the altar. They didn't work.
"a hermeneutic of mercy" -- needed ASAP Peter!
ReplyDeleteMark and I have both said above how urgent/needed this is.
Now look at what's happening in the US.....
Have you seen the latest video from the US Department of Homeland Security? You know they've got a windfall of $ from the BBB, right?
I got this video link from a post from Kristin Du Mez.
It goes to the DHS "X" a/c - where the video was shared.
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1942362217795510273
Kristin's post -- Taking the Lord's name in vain:
https://kristindumez.substack.com/p/taking-the-lords-name-in-vain
I don't think I can overstate how chilling this is.
PS to my earlier comment -- National Catholic Reporter has done an excellent article IMHO about specific elements of the Homeland Security video, and also absolutely shredding it from a theology POV.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/opinion/homeland-security-weaponizes-bible-verse-justify-trumps-immigration-tactics
It is always good to have non-Catholics like Dr Peters explain what Catholic doctrine is. I myself have sometimes tried to explain what Anglican doctrine is, but I have quickly come unstuck, and not on esoteric questions but some fairly basic ones:
ReplyDeleteIs God a Trinity (Dr Packer) or is unitarianism true (Bishop Spong etc)?
Is the Virgin Birth a fact of history (Dr Stott) or myth (Prof. Maurice Wiles)?
Did Jesus rise bodily (Dr Michael Green) or not (Archbishop Carnley, Bishop David Jenkins)?
Is abortion a grave sin (Archbishop Williams) or female empowerment (TEC)?
Is marriage between man and woman (Dr Ian Paul) or anyone (Archbishop Stephen Cottrell)? etc etc
You see my problem? Anglican doctrine seems to differ from country to country and within countries, depending on who you ask.
Like Justin Welby, I am 'a bit thick' in understanding how two mutually contradictory propositions can both be true at the same time, but I believe there is a glossary in the appendix of Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' which explains how this is possible.
My own pronouncements here are never 'ex cathedra' - they are usually 'ex lecto' (on my tablet or phone), always 'motu proprio' and occasionally subject to 'lapsus memoriae sive calami' - I can tell you infallibly that I am not infallible.
But I do have fair idea of the Catholic meaning of 'ex cathedra', which was formally determined by Pius IX at Vatican I in 1870:
“We [i.e. 'we, the pope'] teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”
This is a *very narrow definition of 'ex cathedra' and is not to be confused with remarks to a journalist on a plane or to some children at a youth rally in Singapore.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
My reaction to the DHS video was that it must be someone’s spoof put out in the DHS name!
ReplyDeleteI can’t believe it is genuine and to be taken seriously… (I would like to factcheck it but don’t quite know how to.)
PS I googled ‘latest videos from the DHS USA’ and, while there are unpleasant videos about illegal immigrants and deportation, that one doesn’t appear at all. My question remains: is it genuine?
ReplyDeleteIt's real, Moya. The "X" link I gave is the Homeland Security account. You can double-check that - by going to the DHS website - they have a social media page at https://www.dhs.gov/social-media-directory
ReplyDeleteGo down to "DHS on X (Formerly Twitter)". Clicking on that opens up their "X" account - it's exactly the same account as the "X" link I provided. Scroll down to 08-July and there's the video.
I always feel intensely bemused by Catholic prelates, sitting in Roman law courts several centuries after the death of Christ, saying Jesus intended us to have all this wealth and power. Sorry, which planet?
ReplyDeleteHi Liz,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the use of the Bible in that video is perfectly traditional. Most of the Psalms are not about mercy, but smiting one's enemies.
This has been called "warrior consciousness" in human history and in the development of the Judaeo Christian tradition - Israel gets sick of being pushed around, develops a monarchy and military strength, puts the God of the tent inside a temple palace, though some prophets speak against it.
It's a rich larder for people like Netanyahu and - just about anyone who wants to raid it. Trump, but Biden too.
Isn't it horrific.
Thanks Liz - I didn’t find it but take your word for it as it is certainly the DHS site.
ReplyDeleteI am appalled…
Horrific it is, Mark. And wasn't Isaiah calling on his own people to repent from idolatry and return to truth and righteousness, to stop being corrupt and oppressive? (The irony is startling).
ReplyDeleteRe the song used in the video, the NCR article says, "Famously the song is about how no matter how self-righteous one is, sinners cannot hide from the divine justice of God."
NCR, after quoting more of Isaiah, add: "...The blasphemous post is the latest in a series of heretical use of Scripture to christen an agenda that is an affront not just to the Christian faith, but to God himself."
I'm astonished a video expressing such violent sentiment is issued from a Gov Dept in the context of *internal* Gov force, and I'm not sure what its purpose is. Propaganda/fearmongering? signalling loyalty to DT? dog-whistle to far-right? Some call it a recruitment video. Maybe it's a mix of all those. IDK.
About heresy. Kristin Du Mez addresses her readers at the end of the article with, "I’m pretty sure that, in their world, “heretic” comes down to anyone who interferes with their quest for power." ... "That’s me, and that’s most of you."
A high proportion of those taken by ICE are Christian but I don't have the statistic to hand. "Only 7 percent are convicted of violent offenses" according to Christianity Today.
"The Department of Homeland security has said in court filings that it will prioritize deporting even immigrants who have had charges dismissed, and it has ended protections for some Christians facing persecution in their homelands, such as Afghans."
(Those being arrested include Christians from conservative churches where many folk would've voted Rep - I guess - not realising how costly that decision would be for them personally in the near future)
Moya is rightly appalled and I thank you Moya for not looking away. It's hugely important right now that we don't look away.
ReplyDeleteI appeal to you all.. to read this interview with a Catholic Bishop in Florida:
Title: Florida bishop: Alligator Alcatraz ‘not a solution; it’s an evil’
Source: The Pillar (Catholic publication) Date: 08-Jul-25
Intro: "According to a Florida bishop, two Catholic dioceses in the state are struggling to establish pastoral ministry for inmates at the country’s newest immigration detention center — Alligator Alcatraz."
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/florida-bishop-alligator-alcatraz
Sobering insight into some of what's going on - and what's going wrong.
Dickens gave us the satirical character Mrs Jellyby in 'Bleak House' as one to avoid, not emulate: while the good Victorian philanthropist expended all her energy for a faroff African tribe, she somehow managed to neglect looking after her own children. How is it that New Zealand has one of the worst records in the 'developed' world for domestic violence against children? Why is one under 5 being murdered every five weeks in New Zealand? Why is one child a month admitted to Starship Hospital with a serious head injury? What is actually going on in places like Kaikohe? Who will lift a lid on these things? Churches? /cicadas
ReplyDeleteOr is the reality of domestic and child abuse (usually by the current boyfriend) too politically charged to name and confront?
It is useful, anyway, to remember the words of a certain carpenter on specks and beams in the eye.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Yeah nah, William.
ReplyDeleteMrs Jellyby (I'm depending solely on your description) was herself under no threat from a far-off African tribe. So the situation doesn't compare.
The *world* is affected by the actions of the US Administration and their "biblical worldview" which has driven so-called "culture war", polarisation, and demonisation of the other as enemies. This abhorrent political theology appears to facilitate abominations like that appalling "God's gonna cut you down" video.
I'm not a sociologist, won't respond to your Qs, William. I'd simply remind you that prior to my birth I lost two sisters to violence within the family - I'm guessing this wasn't in your mind when you were writing. But it happened in a God-fearing scripture-quoting family with a conservative "biblical worldview" and strict ideas on hierarchy and social order.
When a more powerful entity keeps on relentlessly hammering people and ratcheting up the pressure, something's going to give, and one way or another it'll lead to despair, suffering and death (and in a sense also destroys the oppressor).
One of the many ironies in this situation is, due to there being a quota of arresting 3000 people/day, agents are apparently arresting the easy targets and ignoring actual criminals (much more time/effort is required to get them so to make the quota, actual criminals get ignored). This is how oppression is rolled out.
In the video clip, the background song-verse is a warning that the powerful themselves should heed:
Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand
Workin’ in the dark against your fellow man
But as sure as God made black and white
What’s done in the dark will be brought to the light
I copied those words from an article that discusses the video and has a number of church leaders' responses:
https://churchleaders.com/news/514419-dhs-border-protection-isaiah-blasphemy.html
(Note the article is spread over three pages so click on the numbers at the bottom of the article to see the whole thing)
Mrs Jellyby was under no threat. But her neglected children were. You don't have to be a sociologist to answer my questions, you only have to be a New Zealand citizen living in New Zealand asking NZ authorities what is happening in NZ families to NZ children. The chances of achieving something may be a little higher than the displacement activity of worrying about what is going on in Ukraine, Gaza, Xinjiang, Nigeria, Yemen, Florida etc etc etc.
ReplyDeleteBut the problem of trying to find out what is happening in your own neighbourhood is that it is actually costly because it involves asking your Parliamentary representatives about the failures of Oranga Tamariki and its terrible decisions about children in danger, and the political hot potato of asking what is going on in places like Kaikohe - and that means wading into politics, race, conspiracies of silence and the questionable "narratives" that communities tell about themselves. And that won't make you popular. Easier just to slag off the foreigners.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
ReplyDeleteLife is difficult!
On the one hand (if it were my place to reveal private correspondence here), I could point you to those Kiwis concerned about Gaza/West Bank, who slate the church for "not doing enough" to rouse the PM to (say) lead an NZ boycott of Israeli goods, in order to press Israel's govt to arrive at peace much more quickly than they are doing. I don't think a response to such reasonable requests is to displace the requests by saying we shouldn't do anything until our own house is in order.
OTOH there is the situation in NZ you rightly raise (and, I note, surveying some of our media, others raise), the death rate among children, which simply should not be. However it is not quite clear to me what anyone - church, Oranga Tamariki, etc - can do about the wilful actions of individuals within individual family contexts - short of live in guardians for all families identified as potentially liable to murderous behaviour - which is likely to strike no one as a viable course of action. What we can and should applaud are the efforts - not much reported on in the media - of many people (Oranga Tamariki staff; social workers associated with community/church-based trusts; churches and other organisations doing what they can to support families (e.g. through breakfast clubs, school lunch runs, etc); other organisations, not necessarily overtly Christian but often run on Christian principles of seeking out the last, least and the lost; etc).
You identify a problem - I am not sure you have charted a solution.
"You identify a problem - I am not sure you have charted a solution."
ReplyDeleteOh, I suspect if these child homicides and assaults were happening in Fendalton or Remuera we would have a solution PDQ. It's because they're happening overwhelmingly in the underclass, and especially the Maori underclass, that nobody cares - or at least dares to put their head above the parapet. When you allow child protection and adoption policies to become politicised and racialised, when special interest groups are given powers they should never have, as they increasingly have in recent years, when ketamine and alcohol abuse goes unchallenged, and offenders are not evicted, a veil of silence is drawn over abuses - but the abuse goes on. And it doesn't stop with the under-fives. Look at the terrible youth suicide rates in NZ. Solutions exist, but there isn't the courage or will to implement them.
Confucius said in his 'Analects' that the first duty of a ruler of a just society was 'the rectification of names' - calling things by their proper name and not obfuscating. Christians should agree that's a good start.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
ReplyDeleteYour reply is very close to not being published.
You are demeaning people in our society (“underclass”) and you are offering an “I know exactly what is going on” godlike view of things while claiming “solutions exist” without spelling them out in detail so we could assess whether you actually have solutions or not.
Hi Peter. I find this helpful, an older article shared via a Dunedin Methodist site. Here's their introductory text for the link:
ReplyDelete"An article written by Dr Rawiri Taonui, Head of the School of Maori and Indigenous Studies at Canterbury University. At a time when many commentators and talk-back hosts are laying all the blame on Maori for New Zealand's terrible record of child abuse, Rawiri Taonui offered a more objective and much less emotional assessment in the Sunday Star Times of August 5. We felt his contribution was a necessary correction to the populist view, and reprint it with the author's permission."
https://www.dunedinmethodist.org.nz/archive/mind/zmind.htm