29 feb. 2008

Golpe a la teología feminista

Ciudad del Vaticano, 29 FEB 2008 (VIS).

Se ha publicado hoy la respuesta de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe [latín, español] a dos cuestiones relativas a la validez del Bautismo conferido con fórmulas diversas de la establecida.

La primera es: ¿Es válido el Bautismo conferido con las fórmulas «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier» y «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer»? («Yo te bautizo en el nombre del Creador, y del Redentor y del Santificador»; «Yo te bautizo en el nombre del Creador, del Liberador, del Sostenedor»).

La segunda: ¿Deben ser bautizadas en forma absoluta las personas que han sido bautizadas con estas fórmulas?

Las respuestas son: A la primera: Negativo. A la segunda: Afirmativo.

Benedicto XVI durante la última audiencia concedida al cardenal Joseph Levada, prefecto de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, aprobó esta respuesta decidida en la sesión ordinaria de ese dicasterio y ordenó la publicación. La respuesta lleva la firma del cardenal Levada y del arzobispo Angelo Amato, secretario del mismo dicasterio.

En una nota explicativa, se aclara que la «presente respuesta se refiere a la duda sobre la validez del Bautismo conferido con dos fórmulas en lengua inglesa en el ámbito de la Iglesia católica. [...] La duda, obviamente, no concierne al inglés, sino a la fórmula en sí misma, que podría expresarse en otra lengua».

«El Bautismo conferido en el nombre del Padre, del Hijo y del Espíritu Santo –prosigue la nota– obedece al mandato de Jesús, referido al final del Evangelio según San Mateo» y la «fórmula bautismal debe expresar adecuadamente la fe trinitaria: no valen formas aproximadas».

«Las variaciones de la fórmula bautismal, según designaciones de las Personas Divinas, diversas de las bíblicas, consideradas en las Respuestas, proceden de la llamada teología feminista para evitar decir Padre e Hijo, consideradas palabras masculinas, sustituyéndolas con otros nombres. Pero esas variaciones trastocan la fe en la Trinidad».

«La respuesta de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe constituye una declaración doctrinal auténtica, que tiene efectos canónicos y pastorales muy amplios. La respuesta, efectivamente, afirma implícitamente que las personas que han sido bautizadas o serán bautizadas en el futuro con las fórmulas en cuestión, en realidad no están bautizadas. Por lo tanto deben ser tratadas a todos los efectos canónicos y pastorales con los mismos criterios jurídicos de las personas que el Código de Derecho Canónico considera en la categoría general de “no bautizados”».



28 feb. 2008

Victor Tambone, Bioethics and New Age

Victor Tambone – Department of Anthropology and Applied Ethics at the Rome Biomedical University Campus

Date of pubblication: 28/02/2003


1. Cyclical Vitalism, chemically induced abortion and IVF
2. Cyclical Vitalism like reincarnation and euthanasia
3. Religion, UFOs and Cloning


Victor Tambone, «Bioethics and New Age»

New Age as a cultural phenomenon can now be considered outdated since the prediction involving universal happiness linked to the age of Aquarius did not materialise and does not even appear to be happening. Hence the astrological vision of social transformation has left space for a more sincerely individualistic version known as Next Age and which appears to find an ethical equivalent in «Rational Selfishness» [1] and an indirect reflection in «Global Ethics» [2].

On the other hand in this period of ours the New Age trend is undergoing a hugely fecund moment as far as the induction of types of behaviour and the modulation of ethics at a social level are concerned [3]. This is why the New Age phenomenon is a current trend and also a very interesting one. One of the fields in which this paradigm is active is that of Bioethics, in the form presented as follows which due to the time available is extremely concise [4].

Cyclical Vitalism, chemically induced abortion and IVF

I believe that New Age tends to destroy three of the four transcendents of human beings; first of all the uniqueness in such away that the understanding of human life leaves out the acknowledgement of its personality and individuality: it is reduced to one of the possible forms in which Life, an impersonal elan vitale, manifests a circular dynamic in which its different forms are transformed into each other. This is the Circle of Life that finds in Gaia (the goddess Earth) its real point of reference.

One is affected, reading work by Baulieu (inventor of the abortion pill RU 486) when at a certain point one finds an approach to the concept of Life within the framework that belongs to Cyclic Vitalism [5]. This affects one even more strongly when the same concept is found in work published by Edwards [6] (a pioneer in ETIVF). On this basis, abortion becomes «anti-gestatorial» meaning the modulation of the different forms in which life organises itself and not the suppression of a personal life.

With this anthropological choice the objective is probably the cultural suppression of the culture of abortion and the reduction of the transmission of human life to something that is fundamentally physiological. This is a very serious ideological project, because one is not only limiting the rights of the embryo but one is even laying the foundations for denying individual life itself: this way one goes beyond a racist attitude regards the embryo because one tend to totally ignore it.

All this becomes possible only when Cyclical Vitalism becomes the key for the new interpretation of the Human Life.

In this the New Age vision of Life is active and fecund and ontologically based Personalism represents an inalienable formative resource.

Cyclical Vitalism like reincarnation and euthanasia

This dynamic vision of life reproposes, in a vaguely ecological version, the idea of reincarnation (not what we have until now understood as metempsychosis). Basically death is simply a transformation into some other form of life that is still part of the Life of Gaia.

Furthermore, the destruction of the transcendents truth and goodness leave the category of «beauty» as the only category useful for evaluating existence: I evaluate what I know only on the basis of its emotional perception replacing the rational conscience (judgment using reason regard to the goodness or the evil of a real act) with a pseudo emotional conscience (positive or negative emotional perception of life).

From this point of view a chronic or incurable disease makes no sense at all because one can die to be then transformed in a new positive and pleasant form of life.

Euthanasia appears therefore as a self-modulating step of ones own state of life when the current state of ones existence is no longer a sign of beauty and pleasantness.

Religion, UFOs and Cloning

One of the characteristics of New Age is the so-called «channelling» meaning the presence and the link with guiding spirits in a parallel world. Extraterrestrials (the Elohim) experience this idea in such a manner that one can transfer the role of the rational conscience to their revealed knowledge which will be the source of practical regulating illumination [7].

An example of the destructive potential of this behaviour is the sad experience that the Raelians are proposing at the moment regards to human cloning. Although phenomena of this kind can be considered laughable one must instead grasp that it is a way of preparing a certain category of public opinion to accepting cloning as a positive event, by using emotional, alogical and Gnostic type of approach, which are the characteristics of the New Age phenomenon.


[1] With the words «Rational Selfishness» I mean an ethical definition of the utilitarian school that could by concisely stated in the idea that it is possible to be bad and content. The formulation of this position can be found in Rawls who envisages a state, understood as a human situation, in which rational selfishness becomes the basis for the principles of justice.

Rational Selfishness, concisely, supports the idea that one of the things that should be done so as to be happy, is to free oneself from unselfishness, discovering and accepting the moral rectitude of a rationally selfish life, favourable to the person, that will always be beneficial to ourselves, and all the same useful also to others and to society. Naturally it is not surprising that such a vision develops in a cultural environment linked to libertarian capitalism (see for example Ayn Rand, «The virtue of selfishness as a definition for a new concept of selfishness», La virtù dell’egoismo, come definizione di un nuovo concetto di egoismo).

[2] See Barragán JL., Global Ethics: the new paradigm, Osservatore Romano, January 11th 2003, p. 6.

[3] It is important to take note that behavioural modulation is, in the work of Naomi Klein that we agree with on this specific point, the main motor of the globalisation phenomenon as far as its more specifically commercial and economic aspects are concerned (see. Klein N., No Logo).

[4] Due to the amount of time available we shall not discuss here the relations between New Age and the reappearance of Magic Medicine for which we advise Tambone V., Medicina basata sulle Evidenze e Medicina New Age, MEDIC Voi. 7, N 1, 1999, pp. 36-38.

[5] «However fertilisation is not the unique determining event in the conception of a new human being. (...) Thus the generation of life, and human life specifically, is a continuous process that involves interdependent sequential events and that cannot be attributed uniquely to fertilisation» (Baulieu EE., RU 486 as an anti-progesterone Steroid, JAMA, October 6th 1989, p. 1813.

[6] «Fertilisation does not begin life. Life is a continuous (...)» (Edwards RG., In Vitro Fertilisation and Embryo Transfer, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1985, Voi. 442, p. 565).

[7] One this occasion the reference is to Ufological Cults understood as followers of «contacts» and not the category of UFO specialists who do not have a religious interest in this subject. As is clear in the CESNUR report dated December 4th 2000, there are currently in Italy five organised groups: their name are Religione Raeliana, Unarius (Universa! Articulate Interdimensional Understanding of Science), Associazione Giordano Bruno, Nova Convivia and C.O.O.P.C.O.S.M.O.

[8] The Raelian religion is the largest ufological cult at world level and its member believe that mankind was created in laboratories by extraterrestrials, called the Elohim. These Elohim revealed to Rael that God does not exist, nor does the soul and eternal life, but the deserving will be recreated on their planet.


25 feb. 2008

Los Cantos del Siervo

Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica, 713

«Los rasgos del Mesías se revelan sobre todo en los Cantos del Siervo (cf. Is 42,1-9; Mt 12,18-21; Io 1,32-34; después Is 49,1-6; Mt 3,17; Lc 2,32, y en fin Is 50,4-10 y 52,13-53,12). Estos cantos anuncian el sentido de la Pasión de Jesús, e indican así cómo enviará el Espíritu Santo para vivificar a la multitud: no desde fuera, sino desposándose con nuestra “condición de esclavos” (Phil 2,7). Tomando sobre Sí nuestra muerte, puede comunicarnos Su propio Espíritu de vida».

Primer Canto del Siervo (Is 42,1-9)

«He aquí mi siervo a quien yo sostengo, mi elegido en quien se complace mi alma. He puesto mi espíritu sobre él: dictará ley a las naciones. No vociferará ni alzará el tono, y no hará oír en la calle su voz. Caña quebrada no partirá, y mecha mortecina no apagará. Lealmente hará justicia; no desmayará ni se quebrará hasta implantar en la tierra el derecho, y su instrucción atenderán las islas. Así dice el Dios Yahveh, el que crea los cielos y los extiende, el que hace firme la tierra y lo que en ella brota, el que da aliento al pueblo que hay en ella, y espíritu a los que por ella andan. Yo, Yahveh, te he llamado en justicia, te así de la mano, te formé, y te he destinado a ser alianza del pueblo y luz de las gentes, para abrir los ojos ciegos, para sacar del calabozo al preso, de la cárcel a los que viven en tinieblas. Yo, Yahveh, ese es mi nombre, mi gloria a otro no cedo, ni mi prez a los ídolos. Lo de antes ya ha llegado, y anuncio cosas nuevas; antes que se produzcan os las hago saber».

Segundo Canto del Siervo (Is 49,1-6)

«¡Oídme, islas, atended, pueblos lejanos! Yahveh desde el seno materno me llamó; desde las entrañas de mi madre recordó mi nombre. Hizo mi boca como espada afilada, en la sombra de su mano me escondió; hízome como saeta aguda, en su carcaj me guardó. Me dijo: “Tú eres mi siervo [Israel], en quien me gloriaré”. Pues yo decía: “Por poco me he fatigado, en vano e inútilmente mi vigor he gastado. ¿De veras que Yahveh se ocupa de mi causa, y mi Dios de mi trabajo?”. Ahora, pues, dice Yahveh, el que me plasmó desde el seno materno para siervo suyo, para hacer que Jacob vuelva a él, y que Israel se le una. Mas yo era glorificado a los ojos de Yahveh, mi Dios era mi fuerza. “Poco es que seas mi siervo, en orden a levantar las tribus de Jacob, y de hacer volver los preservados de Israel. Te voy a poner por luz de las gentes, para que mi salvación alcance hasta los confines de la tierra”».

Tercer Canto del Siervo (Is 50,4-10)

«El Señor Yahveh me ha dado lengua de discípulo, para que haga saber al cansado una palabra alentadora. Mañana tras mañana despierta mi oído, para escuchar como los discípulos; el Señor Yahveh me ha abierto el oído. Y yo no me resistí, ni me hice atrás. Ofrecí mis espaldas a los que me golpeaban, mis mejillas a los que mesaban mi barba. Mi rostro no hurté a los insultos y salivazos. Pues que Yahveh habría de ayudarme para que no fuese insultado, por eso puse mi cara como el pedernal, a sabiendas de que no quedaría avergonzado. Cerca está el que me justifica: ¿quién disputará conmigo? Presentémonos juntos: ¿quién es mi demandante? ¡que se llegue a mí! He aquí que el Señor Yahveh me ayuda: ¿quién me condenará? Pues todos ellos como un vestido se gastarán, la polilla se los comerá. El que de entre vosotros tema a Yahveh oiga la voz de su Siervo. El que anda a oscuras y carece de claridad confíe en el nombre de Yahveh y apóyese en su Dios».

Cuarto Canto del Siervo (Is 52,13-53,12)

«He aquí que prosperará mi Siervo, será enaltecido, levantado y ensalzado sobremanera. Así como se asombraron de él muchos −pues tan desfigurado tenía el aspecto que no parecía hombre, ni su apariencia era humana− otro tanto se admirarán muchas naciones; ante él cerrarán los reyes la boca, pues lo que nunca se les contó verán, y lo que nunca oyeron reconocerán. ¿Quién dio crédito a nuestra noticia? Y el brazo de Yahveh ¿a quién se le reveló? Creció como un retoño delante de él, como raíz de tierra árida. No tenía apariencia ni presencia; [le vimos] y no tenía aspecto que pudiésemos estimar. Despreciable y desecho de hombres, varón de dolores y sabedor de dolencias, como uno ante quien se oculta el rostro, despreciable, y no le tuvimos en cuenta. ¡Y con todo eran nuestras dolencias las que él llevaba y nuestros dolores los que soportaba! Nosotros le tuvimos por azotado, herido de Dios y humillado. Él ha sido herido por nuestras rebeldías, molido por nuestras culpas. Él soportó el castigo que nos trae la paz, y con sus cardenales hemos sido curados. Todos nosotros como ovejas erramos, cada uno marchó por su camino, y Yahveh descargó sobre él la culpa de todos nosotros. Fue oprimido, y él se humilló y no abrió la boca. Como un cordero al degüello era llevado, y como oveja que ante los que la trasquilan está muda, tampoco él abrió la boca. Tras arresto y juicio fue arrebatado, y de sus contemporáneos, ¿quién se preocupa? Fue arrancado de la tierra de los vivos; por las rebeldías de su pueblo ha sido herido; y se puso su sepultura entre los malvados y con los ricos su tumba, por más que no hizo atropello ni hubo engaño en su boca. Mas plugo a Yahveh quebrantarle con dolencias. Si se da a sí mismo en expiación, verá descendencia, alargará sus días, y lo que plazca a Yahveh se cumplirá por su mano. Por las fatigas de su alma, verá luz, se saciará. Por su conocimiento justificará mi Siervo a muchos y las culpas de ellos él soportará. Por eso le daré su parte entre los grandes y con poderosos repartirá despojos, ya que indefenso se entregó a la muerte y con los rebeldes fue contado, cuando él llevó el pecado de muchos, e intercedió por los rebeldes».


18 feb. 2008

Catholic answer on the Doctrine of Justification

Diálogo teológico entre la
Iglesia católica y la Federación Luterana Mundial (1998)
Respuesta oficial de la Iglesia católica

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, «Official “reply” of the Catholic Church to the Common declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation» [1998]


The «Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification» represents a significant progress in mutual understanding and in the coming together in dialogue of the parties concerned; it shows that there are many points of convergence between the Catholic position and the Lutheran position on a question that has been for centuries so controversial. It can certainly be affirmed that a high degree of agreement has been reached, as regards both the approach to the question and the judgement it merits (1). It is rightly stated that there is «a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification» (2).

The Catholic Church is, however, of the opinion that we cannot yet speak of a consensus such as would eliminate every difference between Catholics and Lutherans in the understanding of justification. The Joint Declaration itself refers to certain of these differences. On some points the positions are, in fact, still divergent. So, on the basis of the agreement already reached on many aspects, the Catholic Church intends to contribute towards overcoming the divergencies that still exist by suggesting, below, in order of importance, a list of points that constitute still an obstacle to agreement between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on all the fundamental truths concerning justification. The Catholic Church hopes that the following indications may be an encouragement to continue study of these questions in the same fraternal spirit that, in recent times, has characterized the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation.


1. The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in paragraph 4. 4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-1,0). Even taking into account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity. According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God (3). It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptised is not, properly speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula «at the same time righteous and sinner», as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 («Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament ... Looking at themselves ... however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them... »), is not acceptable.

This statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent speaks (4). The expression «Opposition to God» (Gottwidrigkeit) that is used in nn. 28-30 is understood differently by Lutherans and by Catholics, and so becomes, in fact, equivocal. In this same sense, there can be ambiguity for a Catholic in the sentence of n. 22, «... God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love», because man’s interior transformation is not clearly seen. So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on «simul iustus et peccator» is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification.

2. Another difficulty arises in n. 18 of the Joint Declaration, where a clear difference appears in the importance, for Catholics and for Lutherans, of the doctrine of justification as criterion for the life and practice of the Church.

Whereas for Lutherans this doctrine has taken on an altogether particular significance, for the Catholic Church the message of justification, according to Scripture and already from the time of the Fathers, has to be organically integrated into the fundamental criterion of the «regula fidei», that is, the confession of the one God in three persons, christologically centred and rooted in the living Church and its sacramental life.

3. As stated in n. 17 of the Joint Declaration, Lutherans and Catholics share the common conviction that the new life comes from divine mercy and not from any merit of ours. It must, however, be remembered –as stated in 2 Cor 5,17– that this divine mercy brings about a new creation and so makes man capable of responding to God’s gift , of cooperating with grace. In this regard, the Catholic Church notes with satisfaction that n. 21, in conformity with can. 4 of the Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent (DS 1554) states that man can refuse grace; but it must also be affirmed that, with this freedom to refuse, there is also a new capacity to adhere to the divine will, a capacity rightly called «cooperatio». This new capacity given in the new creation, does not allow us to use in this context the expression «mere passive» (n. 21). On the other hand, the fact that this capacity has the character of a gift is well expressed in cap. 5 (DS 1525) of the Tridentine Decree when it says: «ita ut tangente Deo cor hominis per Spiritus Sancti illuminationem, neque homo ipse nihil omnino agat, inspirationem illam recipiens, quippe qui illam et abicere potest, neque tamen sine gratia Dei movere se ad iustitiam coram illo libera sua voluntate possit».

In reality, also on the Lutheran side, there is the affirmation, in n. 21, of a full personal involvement in faith («believers are fully involved personally in their faith»).

A clarification would, however, be necessary as to the compatibility of this involvement with the reception «mere passive» of justification, in order to determine more exactly the degree of consensus with the Catholic doctrine. As for the final sentence of n. 24: «God’s gift of grace in justification remains independent of human cooperation», this must be understood in the sense that the gifts of God’s grace do not depend on the works of man, but not in the sense that justification can take place without human cooperation. The sentence of n. 19 according to which man’s freedom «is no freedom in relation to salvation» must, similarly, be related to the impossibility for man to reach justification by his own efforts.

The Catholic Church maintains, moreover, that the good works of the justified are always the fruit of grace. But at the same time, and without in any way diminishing the totally divine initiative (5), they are also the fruit of man, justified and interiorly transformed. We can therefore say that eternal life is, at one and the same time, grace and the reward given by God for good works and merits (6). This doctrine results from the interior transformation of man to which we referred in n. 1 of this «Note». These clarifications are a help for a right understanding, from the Catholic point of view, of paragraph 4. 7 (nn. 37-39) on the good works of the justified.

4. In pursuing this study further, it will be necessary to treat also the sacrament of penance, which is mentioned in n. 30 of the Joint Declaration. According to the Council of Trent, in fact (7), through this sacrament the sinner can be justified anew (rursus iustificari): this implies the possibility, by means of this sacrament, as distinct from that of baptism, to recover lost justice (8). These aspects are not all sufficiently noted in the above-mentioned n. 30.

5. These remarks are intended as a more precise explanation of the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the points on which complete agreement has not been reached; they are also meant to complete some of the paragraphs explaining Catholic doctrine, in order to bring out more clearly the degree of consensus that has been reached. The level of agreement is high, but it does not yet allow us to affirm that all the differences separating Catholics and Lutherans in the doctrine concerning justification are simply a question of emphasis or language. Some of these differences concern aspects of substance and are therefore not all mutually compatible, as affirmed on the contrary in n. 40.

If, moreover, it is true that in those truths on which a consensus has been reached the condemnations of the Council of Trent non longer apply, the divergencies on other points must, on the contrary, be overcome before we can affirm, as is done generically in n. 41, that these points no longer incur the condemnations of the Council of Trent. That applies in the first place to the doctrine on «simul iustus et peccator» (cf. n. l, above).

6. We need finally to note, from the point of view of their representative quality, the different character of the two signataries of this Joint Declaration. The Catholic Church recognises the great effort made by the Lutheran World Federation in order to arrive, through consultation of the Synods, at a «magnus consensus», and so to give a true ecclesial value to its signature; there remains, however, the question of the real authority of such a synodal consensus, today and also tomorrow, in the life and doctrine of the Lutheran community.


7. The Catholic Church wishes to reiterate its hope that this important step forward towards agreement in doctrine on justification may be followed by further studies that will make possible a satisfactory clarification of the divergencies that still exist. Particularly desirable would be a deeper reflection on the biblical foundation that is the common basis of the doctrine on justification both for Catholics and for Lutherans. This reflection should be extended to the New Testament as a whole and not only to the Pauline writings. If it is true, indeed, that St. Paul is the New Testament author who has had most to say on this subject, and this fact calls for a certain preferential attention, substantial references to this theme are not lacking also in the other New Testament writings. As for the various ways in which Paul describes man’s new condition, as mentioned in the Joint Declaration, we could add the categories of sonship and of heirs. (Gal 4,4-7; Rom 8,14-17). Consideration of all these elements will be a great help for mutual understanding and will make it possible to resolve the divergences that still exist in the doctrine on justification.

8. Finally, it should be a common concern of Lutherans and Catholics to find a language which can make the doctrine on justification more intelligible also for men and women of our day. The fundamental truths of the salvation given by Christ and received in faith, of the primacy of grace over every human initiative, of the gift of the Holy Spirit which makes us capable of living according to our condition as children of God, and so on. These are essential aspects of the Christian message that should be a light for the believers of all times.

(1) Cfr. «Joint Declaration», n. 4: «ein hohes Mass an gemeinsamer Ausrichtung und gemeinsamem Urteil».
(2) Ibid. n. 5: «einen Konsens in Grundwahrheiten der Rechtfertigungslehre» (cf. n. 13; 40; 43).
(3) Cf. Council of Trent, Decree on original sin (DS 1515).
(4) Cf. Council of Trent, Decree on justification, cap. 8: «... iustificatio... quae non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis» (DS 1528); cf. also can. 11 (DS 15619).
(5) Cf. Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, cap. 16 (DS 1546), which quotes Jn 15,5: the vine and the branches.
(6) Cf. ibid. DS 1545; and can. 26 (DS 1576)
(7) Ibid. cap. 14 (cf. DS 1542)
(8) Cf. ibid. can. 29 (DS 1579); Decree on the sacrament of Penance, cap. 2 (DS 1671); can. 2 (DS 1702).

This Note, which constitutes the official Catholic Response to the text of the Joint Declaration, has been prepared by common agreement between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. It is signed by the President of the same Pontifical Council, which is directly responsible for the ecumenical dialogue.


11 feb. 2008

Dios mío, Dios mío, ¿por qué me has abandonado?

JUAN PABLO II, Carta Apostólica Salvifici doloris (11 de febrero de 1984), sobre el sentido cristiano del sufrimiento humano, 18:

«Después de las palabras en Getsemaní vienen las pronunciadas en el Gólgota, que atestiguan esta profundidad —única en la historia del mundo— del mal del sufrimiento que se padece. Cuando Cristo dice: “Dios mío, Dios mío, ¿por qué Me has abandonado?”, Sus palabras no son sólo expresión de aquel abandono que varias veces se hacía sentir en el Antiguo Testamento, especialmente en los Salmos y concretamente en el Salmo 22 [21], del que proceden las palabras citadas (Ps 22 [21],2). Puede decirse que estas palabras sobre el abandono nacen en el terreno de la inseparable unión del Hijo con el Padre, y nacen porque el Padre “cargó sobre Él la iniquidad de todos nosotros” (Is 53,6) y sobre la idea de lo que dirá San Pablo: “A Quien no conoció el pecado, le hizo pecado por nosotros” (2 Cor 5,21). Junto con este horrible peso, midiendo “todo” el mal de dar las espaldas a Dios, contenido en el pecado, Cristo, mediante la profundidad divina de la unión filial con el Padre, percibe de manera humanamente inexplicable este sufrimiento que es la separación, el rechazo del Padre, la ruptura con Dios. Pero precisamente mediante tal sufrimiento Él realiza la Redención, y expirando puede decir: “Todo está acabado” (Io 19,30).

Puede decirse también que se ha cumplido la Escritura, que han sido definitivamente hechas realidad las palabras del citado Poema del Siervo doliente: “Quiso Yavé quebrantarlo con padecimientos” (Is 53,10). El sufrimiento humano ha alcanzado su culmen en la pasión de Cristo. Y a la vez ésta ha entrado en una dimensión completamente nueva y en un orden nuevo: ha sido unida al amor, a aquel amor del que Cristo hablaba a Nicodemo, a aquel amor que crea el bien, sacándolo incluso del mal, sacándolo por medio del sufrimiento, así como el bien supremo de la redención del mundo ha sido sacado de la cruz de Cristo, y de ella toma constantemente su arranque. La cruz de Cristo se ha convertido en una fuente de la que brotan ríos de agua viva (cf. Io 7,37-38). En ella debemos plantearnos también el interrogante sobre el sentido del sufrimiento, y leer hasta el final la respuesta a tal interrogante».