Thursday, April 21, 2005 AD
Fatima: the good stuff
My previous post set out extracts from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 2000 paper on The Message of Fatima that I personally found very alarming. I try to steer away from polemical labels, but if the "prayer" set out in that post doesn't qualify as "Mariolatry", then I wonder what would qualify (and I say that as someone whose attitude towards the Blessed Virgin Mary - or the Ever-Virgin Mother of God, as I like to call her ;-) - is not necessarily as reductive as may be the case for some Protestants).
But the reason for posting that was not to engage in "Papist-bashing", but to set the scene for the "Theological Commentary" at the end of that paper, contributed by one Josef, Cardinal Ratzinger. This commentary is very good stuff indeed: quite apart from the content of what he is saying, there is a considerable aesthetic pleasure and privilege in seeing such a brilliant and incisive mind in action. Turning from the preceding pages of the Fatima document to this commentary is like pushing your way through a particularly exuberant procession on a stiflingly-hot August 15th festival somewhere in southern Europe, into the air-conditioned foyer of an international five-star hotel.
From the opening words of the commentary, you know you're dealing with something of a quite different nature from what has gone before. Ratzinger opens:
Ratzinger describes "public Revelation" as follows (bold emphasis added, here as throughout this post):
The crucial distinction between private revelation and public Revelation is the ability to bind consciences:
Ratzinger continues with an "explanation" of what "devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary" means:
Anyway, Ratzinger develops this argument - that whatever the meaning and significant of the message of Fatima, ultimately it boils down to "nothing new to see here; move along, move along" - further in his conclusion:
But then you shake yourself, and like Puddleglum you stamp on the fire to stop its seductive aroma overcoming your senses (and your objections) completely. Much of what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying here was all well and good, but it has a distinct air of "spin" about it. As noted above, the "prayers" quoted in my previous post went way beyond being some kind of metaphor for the need to follow Mary in our own obedience to God and pursuit of salvation. Indeed, they bore every resemblance to something that "leads us away from [Christ]", something that "becomes independent of him or even presents itself as another and better plan of salvation, more important than the Gospel" (just look at how little reference to Christ there was in those "prayers").
So perhaps what this tour de force from Cardinal Ratzinger really demonstrates is one of the dangers, spiritually, of intellectual brilliance like Ratzinger's: its ability to rationalise the wholly irrational, and to justify the wholly unjustifiable. To miss the wood for the trees; to strain out gnats while swallowing the camel.
Ratzinger demonstrates that you can force the wildest extremes of Marian devotion into a more orthodox mould, if you try hard enough, and if you are as clever as, well, as Pope Benedict XVI. But that doesn't mean you should.
But the reason for posting that was not to engage in "Papist-bashing", but to set the scene for the "Theological Commentary" at the end of that paper, contributed by one Josef, Cardinal Ratzinger. This commentary is very good stuff indeed: quite apart from the content of what he is saying, there is a considerable aesthetic pleasure and privilege in seeing such a brilliant and incisive mind in action. Turning from the preceding pages of the Fatima document to this commentary is like pushing your way through a particularly exuberant procession on a stiflingly-hot August 15th festival somewhere in southern Europe, into the air-conditioned foyer of an international five-star hotel.
From the opening words of the commentary, you know you're dealing with something of a quite different nature from what has gone before. Ratzinger opens:
A careful reading of the text of the so-called third "secret" of Fatima ... will probably prove disappointing or surprising after all the speculation it has stirred. No great mystery is revealed; nor is the future unveiled. We see the Church of the martyrs of the century which has just passed represented in a scene described in a language which is symbolic and not easy to decipher.In the first part of his commentary, Ratzinger addresses the distinction between "public Revelation" and "private revelations". His thoughts on this are in many respects barely distinguishable from the likes of John Stott, JI Packer and other conservative evangelicals on the subject of charismatic phenomena: it's not that they flat-out reject such things (as would cessationists), but such phenomena must be made firmly subordinate to the final revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Is this what the Mother of the Lord wished to communicate to Christianity and to humanity at a time of great difficulty and distress? Is it of any help to us at the beginning of the new millennium? Or are these only projections of the inner world of children, brought up in a climate of profound piety but shaken at the same time by the tempests which threatened their own time? How should we understand the vision? What are we to make of it?
Ratzinger describes "public Revelation" as follows (bold emphasis added, here as throughout this post):
In Christ, God has said everything, that is, he has revealed himself completely, and therefore Revelation came to an end with the fulfilment of the mystery of Christ as enunciated in the New Testament.This doesn't mean that theology today consists simply of parroting old formulas. Revelation remains the same, but our understanding of that Revelation deepens and grows over time:
...even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made fully explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.This then provides a context in which we can "understand rightly the concept of 'private revelation', which refers to all the visions and revelations that have taken place since the completion of the New Testament", and of which (Ratzinger argues) the message of Fatima is one example.
The crucial distinction between private revelation and public Revelation is the ability to bind consciences:
The authority of private revelations is essentially different from that of the definitive public Revelation. The latter demands faith; in it in fact God himself speaks to us through human words and the mediation of the living community of the Church ... Private revelation is a help to this faith, and shows its credibility precisely by leading me back to the definitive public Revelation...Thus, private revelation must be assessed by reference to the final and unalterable public Revelation:
Such a message can be a genuine help in understanding the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore it should not be disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is not obliged to use.
The criterion for the truth and value of a private revelation is therefore its orientation to Christ himself. When it leads us away from him, when it becomes independent of him or even presents itself as another and better plan of salvation, more important than the Gospel, then it certainly does not come from the Holy Spirit, who guides us more deeply into the Gospel and not away from it.Following a consideration of some psychological and anthropological issues, Ratzinger then turns to the "secret" of Fatima itself (the "scare-quotes" are his, by the way). And here he makes a very, very revealing statement. Having argued that the essence of the first two parts of the "secret" is concerned with pointing the children to the goal of "the salvation of your souls" (1 Peter 1:9), he goes on to say:
To reach this goal, the way indicated - surprisingly for people from the Anglo-Saxon and German cultural world - is devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about his own personal attitude towards all this? I confess I almost laughed out loud and punched the air in delight when reading this - but managed to restrain myself, for fear of alarming the other people on my train.
Ratzinger continues with an "explanation" of what "devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary" means:
According to Matthew 5:8, the "immaculate heart" is a heart which, with God's grace, has come to perfect interior unity and therefore "sees God". To be "devoted" to the Immaculate Heart of Mary means therefore to embrace this attitude of heart, which makes the fiat - your will be done - the defining centre of one's whole life.Now, if that's what being devoted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary does mean - if really it's all just a metaphor for how we should emulate Mary as an example of faith and obedience - then that's sort of OK, I suppose. But the sort of language being used in the Act of Entrustment described in my previous post went way beyond this. Is Cardinal Ratzinger explaining devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, or explaining it away?
Anyway, Ratzinger develops this argument - that whatever the meaning and significant of the message of Fatima, ultimately it boils down to "nothing new to see here; move along, move along" - further in his conclusion:
What is the meaning of the "secret" of Fatima as a whole (in its three parts)? What does it say to us? ... Those who expected exciting apocalyptic revelations about the end of the world or the future course of history are bound to be disappointed. Fatima does not satisfy our curiosity in this way, just as Christian faith in general cannot be reduced to an object of mere curiosity. What remains was already evident when we began our reflections on the text of the "secret": the exhortation to prayer as the path of "salvation for souls" and, likewise, the summons to penance and conversion.As for the "justly famous" phrase, "my Immaculate Heart will triumph", Ratzinger explains this (away) as follows (bold emphasis added):
The Heart open to God, purified by contemplation of God, is stronger than guns and weapons of every kind. The fiat of Mary, the word of her heart, has changed the history of the world, because it brought the Saviour into the world - because, thanks to her Yes, God could become man in our world and remains so for all time.Taken in itself, much of this commentary is pretty cracking stuff. Not all is how Evangelicals in the Augsburg sense would choose to express it ("prayer as the path of 'salvation for souls'", "penance"); I'm suspicious of the emphasis placed on Mary's human "Yes" as what meant that God "could" become man in our world; and no doubt Ratzinger would take a different view from Evangelicals (whether in the Augsburg, or any other, sense) on what exactly constitutes the "public Revelation" to which he refers. But nevertheless, this is a very impressive document, and almost manages to be persuasive.
The Evil One has power in this world, as we see and experience continually; he has power because our freedom continually lets itself be led away from God. But since God himself took a human heart and has thus steered human freedom towards what is good, the freedom to choose evil no longer has the last word. From that time forth, the word that prevails is this: "In the world you will have tribulation, but take heart; I have overcome the world" (Jn 16:33). The message of Fatima invites us to trust in this promise.
But then you shake yourself, and like Puddleglum you stamp on the fire to stop its seductive aroma overcoming your senses (and your objections) completely. Much of what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying here was all well and good, but it has a distinct air of "spin" about it. As noted above, the "prayers" quoted in my previous post went way beyond being some kind of metaphor for the need to follow Mary in our own obedience to God and pursuit of salvation. Indeed, they bore every resemblance to something that "leads us away from [Christ]", something that "becomes independent of him or even presents itself as another and better plan of salvation, more important than the Gospel" (just look at how little reference to Christ there was in those "prayers").
So perhaps what this tour de force from Cardinal Ratzinger really demonstrates is one of the dangers, spiritually, of intellectual brilliance like Ratzinger's: its ability to rationalise the wholly irrational, and to justify the wholly unjustifiable. To miss the wood for the trees; to strain out gnats while swallowing the camel.
Ratzinger demonstrates that you can force the wildest extremes of Marian devotion into a more orthodox mould, if you try hard enough, and if you are as clever as, well, as Pope Benedict XVI. But that doesn't mean you should.
