The native New Yorker, secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, discusses his new role and the challenges he expects.
In NCR
by Edward Pentin
In a bid to keep talks on course to a possible reconciliation, Pope
Benedict XVI has appointed American Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia as
vice president of the commission charged with helping to bring the
Society of St. Pius X back into full communion with Rome.
The 68-year-old Dominican and Bronx, N.Y., native, until now secretary
of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
Sacraments, becomes vice president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia
Dei. He spoke with Register correspondent Edward Pentin June 27 about
his new position, some of the obstacles involved in bringing the society
back into full communion, and his hopes for a successful resolution.
As Archbishop DiNoia had not yet begun work at the commission, he
preferred not to comment on reports of a leaked letter from the SSPX
that said the society found the doctrinal preamble “clearly
unacceptable.” The document is supposed to form the basis for
reconciliation with Rome.
What was your reaction when you were appointed? Did it come as a surprise?
It was a surprise, but, then, these things are always a surprise. Being
appointed here [as secretary at the Congregation for Divine Worship and
the Discipline of the Sacraments] was a surprise.
What stage has the Vatican reached in its talks with the SSPX?
To be honest, I don’t know. I have a steep learning curve in terms of
the issues as they have developed in the dialogue. When I came here, I
studied the history of the reform and took a close look at the council,
so I’ve learned a lot about the objections that come from that world.
I’ve read books by Romano Amerio and Roberto de Mattei on the [Second
Vatican] Council, and, of course, I’ve been studying the Council for
years; so, in that sense, I have a framework out of which I can talk
with them about their problems.
Another factor of great importance, autobiographically for me, is that I
had lived my entire religious life, until I came here to Rome, in a
Dominican priory, mostly in Washington or in New Haven, Conn. In those
places, the hermeneutic of continuity and reform, if I may put it that
way, was lived. I never experienced the Council as a rupture. It’s
interesting — only as I’ve begun to read this traditionalist literature
and interpretation have I begun to understand that, in a certain sense,
there are problems that are real. But if you cease to believe that the
Holy Spirit is preserving the Church from error, you cut your moorings.
The councils cannot — whatever their interpretations may be by the left
or right, or whatever the intentions of the authors were of the council
documents — be led into error. All of the documents stand. Schism is
not the answer. So I’m sympathetic to the society, but the solution is
not breaking off from the Church.
That being the case, why do you think some Catholics have decided
to stick to “frozen” tradition, as it were, rather than coming into full
communion?
I don’t honestly know; I can only speculate. To say why people are
traditionalist I’d have to say it depends on their experiences. The
[reform of the] liturgy has been a factor; it was a terrible revolution
and shock for people. Many of these people feel abandoned, like the
Church left them at the dock with the ship. So the reasons are very
complicated and vary from one type of traditionalism to another and from
countries, cultures and contexts in which they have arisen.
Another issue is there’s a failure to recognize a simple fact of the
history of the Church: that all theological disagreements need not be
Church-dividing. So, for example, the Jesuits and Dominicans had a
tremendous disagreement in the 16th century about the theology of grace.
In the end, the Pope forbade them to call each other heretics, which
they had been doing. The Pope said, “You may continue to hold your
theological opinion,” but he refused to give a doctrinal determination,
saying the Jesuits or Dominicans were right. Now, this is a very
interesting example, because it shows that Catholicism is broad enough
to include a tremendous amount of theological diversity and debate.
Sometimes the Church will act, but only when it sees people slipping
into heresy and therefore breaking off from communion.
You’ve worked closely with Pope Benedict XVI in the past. How important is this reconciliation for him?
The Pope hopes for reconciliation — that’s the Pope’s job. The ministry
of Peter is above all to preserve the unity of the Church. So, apart
from whatever personal interest Pope Benedict might have, he shares his
concern with John Paul II. As you know, he has been involved in this
from the beginning.
The Pope is bending over backwards to accommodate them, but he’s not
going to give in on the issue of the authenticity of the teaching of
Vatican II as a series of acts of the magisterium.
The Society of St. Pius X stresses the Second Vatican Council
promulgated no infallible and irreformable teaching. It was pastoral and
not dogmatic. If that is so, why is it important that they agree with
it?
There’s enough that’s dogmatic in it. The sacramentality of episcopal
ordination, to take one example, is a development of the teaching of the
episcopacy, so it is doctrinal.
Traditionally, the doctrines were stated as canons with anathemas.
There aren’t any of those, but it’s certainly full of the ordinary
magisterium and a restatement of it. It’s doctrinally rich. But did it
seek to clarify what Trent left open or that Vatican I left open with
regards to Scripture and Tradition?
There are doctrinal developments here and there. And the society
thinks, of course, that the whole teaching on religious liberty is a
departure from the tradition. But some very smart people have tried to
point out it’s a development that is consistent.
What I’ve tried to argue is that all they have to do is to say there’s
nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition and that every
text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in
context of the Council — and read it in light of the Tradition. It seems
to me, despite their difficulties, they should be able to do that.
What do you say to the argument that if the Council documents are
neither infallible nor unchangeable then they are therefore not binding?
To say they are not binding is sophistry. The Council contains swathes of the ordinary magisterium, which is de fide divina [of divine faith].
Now, the pastoral constitution “On the Church in the Modern World” [Gaudium et Spes]
makes comments about the nature of culture which, generally speaking,
everyone now believes was overly optimistic. Well, that’s not de fide divina.
It’s not precise; it’s very imprecise. But the Council’s full of the
ordinary magisterium. When I worked at the [U.S.] bishops’ conference
and I was discussing, say, Veritatis Splendor, people would ask me: “Is it infallible?” I would say, “The more important question is: Is it true?”
What I meant was: The overemphasis is on infallibility. This is why
John Paul II and Benedict XVI decided not to define anything infallibly
anymore because you see what happens is: People say: “I only have to
believe what’s been infallibly defined.” Now, that is very little. So
that’s why there’s a distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary
magisterium. The extraordinary magisterium is what the Church defines,
and it almost always involves settling disagreements that probably have
been defined. The Church would perhaps have never said Mary was the
Mother of God if Nestorius hadn’t denied it. But with the ordinary
magisterium there’s huge amounts of what we believe that’s de fide divina
that’s never been defined. That’s why people have talked about the
ordinary magisterium, trying to get out of this reductionist reading
that says you only have to believe what’s infallible. So, no, the
Council does have binding teaching. The Fathers are writing as bishops
of the Church in union with the Pope; that’s why the Council is so
important.
Yet Cardinal Ratzinger stressed the Council should not be seen as a kind of “superdogma.”
It did not seek to define infallibly any doctrines; that’s what he’s
saying, but he’s not saying it doesn’t contain great amounts of the
ordinary magisterium.
If you take the dogmatic constitutions, they are called dogmatic constitutions — Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], Lumen Gentium, those two surely, but other ones, too.
What would the Society of St. Pius X bring that would positively impact the Church if they reconcile?
The traditionalists that are now in the Church, such as the Priestly
Fraternity of St. Peter, have brought what the Pope has insisted upon:
that in the solemnity of the way in which they celebrate the liturgy,
especially in the area of the liturgy, they are a testimony to the
continuing liveliness of liturgical tradition previous to the Council,
which is the message of Summorum Pontificum. The thing is: They [SSPX] can’t say that the Novus Ordo
is invalid, but their celebration of the 1962 Missal is something that
remains attractive and nourishes faith, even of those who have no
experience of it. So that’s a very important factor.
I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American
Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and
they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of
the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work
about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study
historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it.
However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read
as an institutional living document upon which institutions of a country
are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought,
including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are
parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecumenical council].
Those documents have an independence from all of them. I often say that
what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply
it today that matters. It’s a living document.
Yet it’s the way it has been applied that’s the problem, isn’t it?
What’s very important for theologians, people in charge to understand
is that the Council has been interpreted in wildly destructive and
discontinuous ways. I’m reading a book by Louis Bouyer, who wrote a book
-– in 1968 — called The Decomposition of Catholicism. Then there’s Xavier Rynne, who shaped the Western world’s understanding of the Council by writing those articles in The New Yorker.
The Pope has written brilliantly about this many, many times, but, you
see, in part, the traditionalists are reacting justly against the
outlandish interpretations of the Council by the progressivists.
What else positive can they bring?
If they are accepted by the Church and restored to full communion, they
will be a sort of living witness to the continuity. They can be
perfectly happy being in the Catholic Church, so they would be a living
testimony to show that the continuity before and after the Council is
real.
But that’s only if they comply with the Vatican’s conditions?
It’s more than that. It’s not like an edict — stop on red; go on green —
because membership and full communion involves faith that the Holy
Spirit is preserving the Church from error and that communion with the
See of Peter is part of the reality of being in full communion. It’s not
accidental.
So, if they comply, it has to be with the necessary requirements of
being fully Catholic, not simply what the Pope says or what I say. …
They have to say: “Yes, I do believe the Church is preserved from error
by the Holy Spirit.” Then I can say, “Okay, then; you’re a Catholic.”
The society has been fed by people who use the word “error.” “Error” is
a vague word in the Catholic tradition. There are many different levels
of error. Sometimes it means you’ve fallen into heresy; sometimes it
means that you are rash.
Your new position is as vice president of Ecclesia Dei, but it’s not clear who you are replacing.
There was a vice president for a while, Msgr. Camille Perl. However,
what they’ve done is fill a position which I believe has been empty for
three years. I’m not sure when Msgr. Perl went into pensione.
Some have argued that you have been brought in to help prepare a
canonical structure for the SSPX should they reconcile. Is this based on
the extensive work you did in helping to create the Anglican
ordinariate?
I don’t know; the Pope didn’t tell me why he chose me. I was involved
in the ordinariate from the beginning. I was under secretary of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, involved in discussions that
led to formation of the ordinariate, but I am not a canonist. I didn’t
have a direct role in the composition of the constitution, but, yes, I
have experience, perhaps of dialogue.
The Anglicans who came to Rome seeking full communion would often come
and see me. So I guess I must have some kind of gift that attracts them
to me [laughs].
How much is a perceived weakening of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no
salvation outside the Church) a major part of the problem, as some
traditionalists assert? Has today’s understanding of the dogma
contradicted its earlier teaching?
I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the
emergence of a theological trend that emphasised the possibility of
salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this,
and it has never denied it. … [Karl] Rahner had a disastrous effect on
this with his “anonymous Christianity.” But the Council does not alter
the teaching of the Church.
And yet they argue it does?
This is a very good example of two of the things we’ve mentioned: the
danger of reading this as it’s been read by Rahner, instead of in the
light of the whole Tradition.
They claim that salvation is hardly proclaimed anymore.
Ralph Martin agrees with that. We do have a crisis, because the Church
has been infected with the idea that we don’t have to worry or be
anxious or we don’t sufficiently take the mandate to proclaim Christ
seriously. But it’s not because of Vatican II, but bad theology. That’s
why Dominus Iesus was part of the response to all of that theology of religion. There is no question that the necessity of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
has a long history. But they were talking about heretics, not
nonbelievers. That formula addresses the problems of heresies. It has
its history.
The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and
I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them —
I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.
Some traditionalists say secular humanism frequently wins over
dogmatic assertions in the modern Church. To give an example: The Holy
Father has said he wouldn’t have lifted the excommunication on Bishop
[Richard] Williamson had he known about his anti-Semitism. But while
anti-Semitism is heinous, traditionalists say that such views aren’t a
dogmatic position. And yet Catholic politicians can freely speak against
the dogma and remain in full communion with the Church. What do you say
to such an argument?
That’s a trap. Edward Norman, in his very good book Secularization,
says there’s no question that what he calls internal secularization,
secular humanism, has definitely invaded parts of the Church. They
[SSPX] are probably right about that, and I could give them a longer
list of examples than they could probably make themselves.
However, to try and defend Williamson on this basis is disgusting and
odious. Is a politician the same thing as a bishop? Give me a break.
It’s garbage; it’s sophistry.
Do they want a blanket excommunication of everyone who’s pro-choice?
And yet here is a person, a bishop, who openly proclaims a position
which the Church is desperately trying to suppress in the Church itself,
which is anti-Semitism.
In the CDF statement that accompanied your appointment, it said
your experience “will facilitate the development of certain desired
liturgical provisions” in the celebration of the 1962 Roman Missal,
commonly known as the Tridentine rite. Could you explain this in more
detail?
There are two things: In the calendar, there are a lot of saints they
[SSPX] would like to add, but the Roman Missal is fixed. There’s got to
be a dialogue between them and the Congregation for Divine Worship on
how to incorporate elements of the Roman calendar and how it has
developed over the last 50 years. And then the prefaces: The old Roman
Missal of 1962 has a very limited number of prefaces, and they are also
interested in incorporating some of the prefaces. But because it’s the
1962 edition, who can revise the 1962 edition of the Missal?
In effect the Novus Ordo, the current Roman Missal, is a
revision of the 1962 Roman Missal. So the issue is: How can they do
this? I don’t know, but the job has to be done. We already had two
meetings, between representatives of the congregation and
representatives of Ecclesia Dei, to discuss how that could be done.
Mention was made of your good relations with the Jewish community. How good are those relations?
I’ve had long and warm relationships with various Jewish leaders from
the time I was in the United States, working at the bishops’ conference,
which has continued all along. They have come to see me every year. I
don’t know if they’ve said anything in public, but on the phone they’re
very happy. They know I’m sensitive to their concerns.
Nostra Aetate (a document believed by many to have helped foster better Jewish-Catholic relations) is a problem for the SSPX.
Yes, but remember: If you take the constitution exactly, as a jurist,
there’s the broad and the strict, and that’s a disagreement that can be
held by two justices simultaneously. So again, if they want to take a
stricter reading of those conciliar texts, they’re perfectly free to do
so theologically. But it doesn’t mean they have to be outside the
Church, and they should argue against people based on theology.
If they believe Nostra Aetate is being badly interpreted, then
they have to get into the battle to correctly interpret it. Rather than
walk away from the field, they have to play the game.
Could a reconciliation be timely, given the problems in the Church and culture?
It’s my instinct; remember that until Benedict said in December 2005 in
his address to the Curia, in which he made his famous discourse about
hermeneutic of continuity, you couldn’t even talk about these things. So
Benedict has liberated us for the first time.
You can now criticize [theologians Cardinal Henri-Marie] De Lubac,
[Cardinal Yves] Congar, [Father Marie-Dominique] Chenu. And many young
people are writing dissertations and books that were somehow impossible
before. So I would say that the dominant progressivist reading of the
Council is in retreat. It’s never been in retreat before. But insistence
on continuity — they have to embrace that too.
Traditionalists have to be converted from seeing the Council as rupture and discontinuity.
This is a distinction [historian Roberto] de Mattei makes. The Council
was experienced as a rupture, but doctrinally and theologically it has
to be read in continuity — otherwise you must just as well throw in the
towel.
Do you think SSPX fears their concerns won’t be safeguarded if they reconcile?
How will they not be safeguarded? Who’s telling them what to do? The
only thing I’m telling them is: Vatican II is not a departure from
Tradition.
Are you optimistic or pessimistic about reconciliation?
I’m neither; I just don’t know. I think it will be an act of grace.
In fact, I’m going to ask the Dominicans to start praying. I hope it’ll
happen. The Pope doesn’t want this to continue — another sect, another
division.
Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent. He blogs at NCRegister.com.
