As rumored for a week or so, today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a notification in the case of Fr. Jon Sobrino, S.J.. The Notification:
1. After a preliminary examination of the books Jesucristo liberador. Lectura histórico-teológica de Jesús de Nazaret (Jesus the Liberator) and La fe en Jesucristo. Ensayo desde las víctimas (Christ the Liberator) by Father Jon Sobrino, SJ, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, because of certain imprecisions and errors found in them, decided to proceed to a more thorough study of these works in October 2001. Given the wide distribution of these writings and their use in seminaries and other centers of study, particularly in Latin America, it was decided to employ the "urgent examination" as regulated by articles 23-27 of Agendi Ratio in Doctrinarum Examine.
As a result of this examination, in July 2004 a list of erroneous or dangerous propositions found in the abovementioned books was sent to the Author through the Reverend Father Peter Hans Kolvenbach, SJ, Superior General of the Society of Jesus.
In March of 2005, Father Jon Sobrino sent a Response to the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Congregation. This Response was studied in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation on 23 November 2005. It was determined that, although the author had modified his thought somewhat on several points, the Response did not prove satisfactory since, in substance, the errors already cited in the list of erroneous propositions still remained in this text. Although the preoccupation of the Author for the plight of the poor is admirable, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has the obligation to indicate that the aforementioned works of Father Sobrino contain notable discrepancies with the faith of the Church.
For this reason, it was decided to publish this Notification, in order to offer the faithful a secure criterion, founded upon the doctrine of the Church, by which to judge the affirmations contained in these books or in other publications of the Author. One must note that on some occasions the erroneous propositions are situated within the context of other expressions which would seem to contradict them3, but this is not sufficient to justify these propositions. The Congregation does not intend to judge the subjective intentions of the Author, but rather has the duty to call to attention to certain propositions which are not in conformity with the doctrine of the Church. These propositions regard: 1) the methodological presuppositions on which the Author bases his theological reflection, 2) the Divinity of Jesus Christ, 3) the Incarnation of the Son of God, 4) the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God, 5) the Self-consciousness of Jesus, and 6) the salvific value of his Death.
The rest of the notification goes into detail on those six points.
The rumors were wrong in one respect, though – Sobrino is not banned from teaching or publishing. John Allen reports on Sobrino’s side of the story:
In his letter to Kolvenbach, Sobrino lays out the reasons why he is unable to accept the Vatican’s findings “without reservation.”
In the first place, he says, the two books in question were reviewed extensively by fellow theologians prior to publication. The Portuguese translation of Jesus the Liberator, Sobrino writes, carried the imprimatur of Cardinal Paolo Evaristo Arns of São Paulo, Brazil. For Christ the Liberator, Sobrino cites a number of theologians who he says found the book free of doctrinal error: Frs. J. I. González Faus, J. Vives and X. Alegre of the Monastery of San Cugat, Spain; Fr. Carlo Palacio, of Bello Horizonte, Brazil; Fr. Javier Vitoria of the University of Deusto in Spain; and Fr. Martin Maier, of the German Jesuit publication Stimmen der Zeit.
In addition, Sobrino writes that Maier sent a 2004 critique of Sobrino’s work from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to another Jesuit theologian, Fr. Bernard Sesboué,a former member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission. Sobrino quotes from Sesboué’s response: “I do not want to answer with too much precision the document of the CDF, which appears so exaggerated as to be without value … with such a deliberately suspicious method, I could find many heresies in the encyclicals of John Paul II!”
Sobrino says it would not be honest for him to accept the Vatican’s findings, and that to do so would be to question the judgment of these other theologians.
Second, Sobrino complains to Kolvenbach about harassment from church authorities which he describes as reaching back to 1975, the year in which he first had contact with the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education, and 1976, when he first heard from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He describes the Roman Curia’s methods as “not always honest or very evangelical.”
“An atmosphere against my theology was created in the Vatican, in several diocesan curias and among several bishops,” Sobrino writes, “and in general against the theology of liberation. This atmosphere was created a priori, often with no need to read my writings.”
Sobrino says it would not be ethical for him to “approve or support” such efforts by signing the notification.
“I think that to endorse these procedures would not in any way help the church of Jesus to present the face of God to our world, nor to inspire discipleship of Jesus, nor [to advance] the ‘crucial fight of our time,’ which is for faith and justice,” Sobrino writes.
The whole thing is worth reading – it strikes me as a fine example of how a Christological text should be examined and evaluated with discernment and I’m sure that the critiques applied to Sobrino’s writings could easily be applied to many other contemporary theological authors. It is worth noting that in addition to highlighting those areas where Sobrino explicitly contradicts a magisterial or creedal statement, the orientation of his method is also subjected to criticism:
snip
There’s lots of interesting stuff in the notification – an analysis of it in a classroom would provide a very useful lesson in Christology and theological method. (It would be fascinating to learn who precisely drafted this Notification.) I also find it interesting (although I don’t think the notification says this explicitly) that the condemned position of Sobrino in section VI of the Notification seems to lead to a form of Pelagianiam. The great mysteries of Christianity stand and fall together.
The CNS article has insight from some others:
In a written commentary, Father Lombardi (Vatican Press Office, also a Jesuit) said the Vatican was not questioning Father Sobrino’s good intentions or his observations about situations of dramatic injustice.
Theologians who experience this poverty and injustice firsthand can be led to construct a "Christology from below" that emphasizes Christ’s humanity, Father Lombardi said.
"This was certainly the situation of Father Sobrino, in the characteristic path of Latin American theology, which is so attentive to the journey of human and spiritual liberation of the populations of the continent," Father Lombardi said.
The problem, the Vatican spokesman said, is that this approach can undervalue Christ’s divine nature, placing in question fundamental elements of the faith.
Vatican Radio interviewed Augustinian Father Prosper Grech, a consultor to the doctrinal congregation, who said one big reason for the notification was that Father Sobrino’s books are not only widely read but are used in seminaries.
The books in question are not in any way prohibited, he said, but should be used with caution.
"It is a question of telling the faithful, look, read (Father) Sobrino’s books as much as you like, but remember that these points which we have touched upon are, let us say, dangerous for the faith," Father Grech said.
"We are not speaking here of explicit heresy, of personal excommunication, but of theological statements which endanger the faith of the Catholic Church," he said.
Read Previous Post