Vatican Newspaper Praises French Protestant John Calvin

[Catholic_Press]

VATICAN CITY (AFP) — The Vatican newspaper Friday praised influential French Protestant John Calvin, a critic of the Roman Catholic Church, hailing him an “extraordinary” figure.

The Osservatore Romano, on the 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birth, said it recognised the theologian as a Christian who had a major impact on European life.

“Considering the strength of arguments against him, we think it necessary to point out that Calvin is a Christian,” the daily paper said of the man who played a major role in the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.

More…

 

[OriginalJS]

I guess the Church has changed its mind over the past few years.

 

[banjo]

I guess the Church has changed its mind over the past few years.

How so?
It is not L’ Osservatore Romano using words and phrases such as ‘hailing him’, ‘praised’ and ‘praising Calvinism’; it’s Google News using these words in their commentary on the article. If you think about it, it’s not hailing Calvinism to say Calvin was ‘extraordinary’ and ‘a Christian’. It isn’t praising Calvinism to refer to it as an ‘ingenious creation’.

 

[Evangel]

This could be a language problem.

The Vatican uses “extraordinary” in the sense of “not ordinary” as in the “extraordinary form of the Mass” whereas English more often tends to use it as “exceptional” or “remarkable” in a superlative sense.

This wouldn’t be the first time the Vatican paper was tone-deaf to language sensibilities.

 

[Catholic29]

Oh great, more ammunition for SSPX and Lefebvre supporters, and those even more radical than them…

 

[JReducation]

Google is taking the article out of context. The article is speaking of Calvin’s social influence in European life along with that of other reformers, not just religious reformers, but political as well, including some philosophers.

There is nothing contrary to Catholicism in admitting that Calvin was a very strong influence in European life. Nor is there anything anti Catholic in admitting that one good thing that Calvin did for his followers was to develop a strong system that helped them avoid the rise of secularism after the French Revolution. His system is ingenious.

These statements make no reference to Calvin’s dogmatic positions. They are speaking about an historical figure of prominence in European society. They are acknowledging that the man did some things right.

But if you read the article itself in the Observatore, there is no mention of his religious reform as being acceptable to the Catholic Church. The only thing that the Catholic Church is saying is that the man is not a demon. He was a Christian, even though he was a heretic. He did not cease to believe in the scriptures and in Christ. We would be simpletons to try to cover that up.

I’m going to guess that what the Vatican Press Office is trying to say is that Calvin is a notable figure in European History and that the Church is not blind to his contribution to European society, for good or for worse. I compare this to an article that once came out of the Vatican on Ghandi. It did not canonize Ghandi, but it acknowledge truths about him that many other Christians, especially Protestants, wanted to ignore, because Ghandi wasn’t Christian, as if only Christians could do some good for society.

This is a similar case. Calving did some good for European society at a time when it was in serious trouble. But the good that the article refers to are social good, not doctrinal.

Of course, there are going to be those voices on the far left who are going to want to canonize Calvin tomorrow, because he did some good things. And there are those on the far right who are going to condemn the Church for daring to acknowledge that even a heretic can do something good.

But as intelligent and well educated Catholics, we have to accept that this is going to happen, but it should not stop us from saying the truth about anyone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rjs1]

And there are those on the far right who are going to condemn the Church for daring to acknowledge that even a heretic can do something good.

I truly believe that anyone who causes people to leave the Church, the Body of Christ, is doing Satan’s work. Calvin helped lead many out of God’s Holy Catholic Church and for that he must be censured.

If the Catholic Church is the Church Our Lord Himself founded, and I absolutely believe it is, then to rebel against that Church, and encourage others to do so, is a sin of the gravest kind.

You don’t solve the problems you think you see in the Church by leaving the Church. You attack those problems by being an even holier Church member, by prayer and by example.

 

[CSN]

I truly believe that anyone who causes people to leave the Church, the Body of Christ, is doing Satan’s work. Calvin helped lead many out of God’s Holy Catholic Church and for that he must be censured.

If the Catholic Church is the Church Our Lord Himself founded, and I absolutely believe it is, then to rebel against that Church, and encourage others to do so, is a sin of the gravest kind.

You don’t solve the problems you think you see in the Church by leaving the Church. You attack those problems by being an even holier Church member, by prayer and by example.

Well said. Sometimes I think Calvin and Luther really meant well, but sometimes I think they were proud and sanctimonious rebels. Can’t decide, but in any event, we should pray for them.

 

[Father_of_9]

It seems that recently there have been several articles or commentaries in the Vatican newspaper that were poorly written which caused them to be open to a variety of interpretations. Whether or not they were intentionally written that way is a matter of debate. But the end result is that they have confused many people, both inside and outside the Catholic Church.

 

[Lujack]

It seems that recently there have been several articles or commentaries in the Vatican newspaper that were poorly written which caused them to be open to a variety of interpretations. Whether or not they were intentionally written that way is a matter of debate. But the end result is that they have confused many people, both inside and outside the Catholic Church.

Poorly written, poorly translated, or poorly reported are all other options. I don’t think the Vatican newspaper can be held at fault when people chop up their articles and make them to say things that they really don’t.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Well said. Sometimes I think Calvin and Luther really meant well, but sometimes I think they were proud and sanctimonious rebels. Can’t decide, but in any event, we should pray for them.

The level of sin and corruption in the Church at the time of Luther is stuff of legend. People around here get upset if the priest skips the gloria, imagine how we’d feel if the priest was living two towns over with his girlfriend and kids, extorting widows, and stealing from the collection?

 

[JReducation]

Neither the Church nor the article are saying that Calvin was not a heretic. The article is not about his faith. The article is a cultural article. Even the Church speaks about culture. The Church is recognizing that he was an influential man in European culture. It’s not making a moral judgement. Why are we making a moral judgement?

Why can’t we just accept a simple fact. John Calvin, heresy aside, was an influential figure in European history and did some good for Europe? He protected people from corruption.

Let’s not look at him with our 21st century eyes. Let us look at him through the eyes of the Church, as a man who influenced his world.

As to doing the work of the devil, that may be a little over the top. Every man is a sinner. Is every sinner an agent of the devil? Our holy Father Benedict XVI and John Paul II have always referred to non Catholics as our brothers and sisters. I don’t think either of them would call the devil, “brother.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rjs1]

As to doing the work of the devil, that may be a little over the top. Every man is a sinner. Is every sinner an agent of the devil?

If what a person does and teaches causes many to leave God's Holy Catholic Church it must ultimately be Satan's work.

Certainly there has been gross corruption in the Church at certain times. But look at how many beautiful saints God raised up to lead people back to holiness, within God’s Church. At one stage in the Church’s history it was almost overtaken by the Arian heresy and even a huge number of bishops were Arian heretics. This was solved, not by anyone leaving the Church and setting up a rival church, but by the saintly ones battling for the truth and with God’s help winning out.

Again I would make the point that ultimately, no matter what good intentions they may have professed to have had, Luther and Calvin, through pride, set up their own churches in opposition to God’s Church and for that they should be censured. If you doubt this just consider the following:
One:- the viciousness of the remarks both Luther and Calvin threw at the Catholic Church
Two: - the absolute dictatorships that each of them set up in their own churches, where they would brook absolutely no opposition or dissenting voice, on pain of death.
Three:- the way each of them gradually “demolished” one Catholic doctrine after another as they invented their own religions.

 

[JReducation]

If what a person does and teaches causes many to leave God’s Holy Catholic Church it must ultimately be Satan’s work.

Certainly there has been gross corruption in the Church at certain times. But look at how many beautiful saints God raised up to lead people back to holiness, within God’s Church. At one stage in the Church’s history it was almost overtaken by the Arian heresy and even a huge number of bishops were Arian heretics. This was solved, not by anyone leaving the Church and setting up a rival church, but by the saintly ones battling for the truth and with God’s help winning out.

Again I would make the point that ultimately, no matter what good intentions they may have professed to have had, Luther and Calvin, through pride, set up their own churches in opposition to God’s Church and for that they should be censured. If you doubt this just consider the following:
One:- the viciousness of the remarks both Luther and Calvin threw at the Catholic Church
Two: - the absolute dictatorships that each of them set up in their own churches, where they would brook absolutely no opposition or dissenting voice, on pain of death.
Three:- the way each of them gradually “demolished” one Catholic doctrine after another as they invented their own religions.

Your point is well made. But the objection to the article is incomprehensible. The article does not sanctify the man. We Catholics have to be open to discussing people, even Calvin, in a historical and social light. It doesn’t always have to be about our differences. This is all that this article does.

I think that people sometimes think that the Vatican Press Office only talks about religion and Catholicism. That’s not true. There are many scholars at the Vatican, including Pope Benedict, with many varied interests. Their ideas are also material for publication. I am reminded that one of Ratzinger’s theses, he wrote two, one was about Theology of History. That’s a very scholarly pursuit. It was neither pastoral nor doctrinal. He was not interested in that at the time that he was working on his degree. He was fascinated by what theology had to say about history.

I’m using this example to help others understand that the Church has many interests and some of them include people who have been less than friendly to the Church. These writings and reflections often get published by the Church herself.

That’s OK. Culture is also part of the Christian life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[imkingdad]

Thank you JR for the well written & reasoned responses to rsj1.
Far too often we let our Love & zeal for our Church blind us to factual reality(ies).
Calvin was clearly no Friend to Catholics and rsj’s points are correct as a statement
against the heretical teachings of Calvin. Unfortunately that was not what the article
was about and thus we have his critique of Calvin the Theologian & Pro-test-ant,
versus the article about cultural aspects of that era that he helped influence for the better. Both of you are correct & offer good knowledge & insights

Thank you both for your commentary.

 

[manualman]

I’m not sure what the fuss is about. Apparently those who wrote the web article are too ignorant to recognize a backhanded compliment when they see one.

In christian theological discussions, calling someone’s life work in theology an “ingenious creation” is a mortal insult indeed. Think about it. It’s a clever way of complimenting the man, but sticking with the catholic principle that Calvin’s theology is simply NOT what was handed down by Jesus and the apostles.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure what the fuss is about. Apparently those who wrote the web article are too ignorant to recognize a backhanded compliment when they see one.

In christian theological discussions, calling someone’s life work in theology an “ingenious creation” is a mortal insult indeed. Think about it. It’s a clever way of complimenting the man, but sticking with the catholic principle that Calvin’s theology is simply NOT what was handed down by Jesus and the apostles.

And it was probably not even intended as an insult. The Vatican Press Office does not reduce itself to insulting others. It’s probably meant as a statement of fact. Translated into American English it probably means that Calvin was a genius, look at what he created and how much influence it had on European culture. It’s not an edorsement of his heresies

It’s like saying that Carl Marx was intelligent. The fact is that he was intelligent. Was he right?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Father_of_9]

You have made several good points about the commentary and its intent to recognize Calvin as an influential person in history. I anxiously await the publication of the English version of the commentary by the Vatican newspaper. However, a commentary can be confusing or misleading not only by what it says, but also by what is not said. It is well and good to acknowledge the positive traits or actions by a person or group, but it must be balanced by stating those areas where there are serious disagreements. Otherwise, people only hear or read the positives and may come away thinking that the negatives either don’t exist or are trivial. The Vatican newspaper caused similar concern a few weeks ago with their coverage of President Obama. While they are correct in pointing out some of his positive attributes and actions, they did not forcefully state how many of his beliefs and actions are contrary to our Catholic faith and have serious implications to all of society. Those who work in Catholic media and in Catholic schools have an obligation to firmly teach and preach the Catholic faith no matter how impolite or “not PC” it might appear.