Another Voice

One of my friends sent me a note saying he hoped I was not becoming a prophet of doom. That is why I call this week’s reflection “The Tenacity of Hope.” I am not a prophet of doom, and my faith and my knowledge of history give me hope and encouragement. Big problems confront us today. But, if people work together in pursuit of Truth and Moral integrity, these problems can be resolved. For some problems, however, like contemporary authoritarianism, I fear it will take some time. Authoritarianism is a dangerous socio-political virus. It restricts civil liberties, undermines democratic institutions, and uses political repression to maintain control.

Thinking about the tenacity of hope, one’s life perspective is important. My first lessons about the tenacity of hope came from my father’s life events. His father, Alonzo William Dick, was a schoolteacher in Indiana. But he died in 1919 during the great influenza epidemic of 1918-1920. Three of his five sons were too sick to attend his funeral. After his death, the local town authorities in Montpelier, Indiana, wanted to put the five boys in foster-care homes. My grandmother, Mary Ellen Dick, said absolutely not. She had a big challenge in front of her, but she said they were her sons and she would care for them. Fortunately, there were neighbors and family members who encouraged and helped her. It was not always easy, but, on her own, she raised the five boys. They all became wonderfully mature, successful, wise, and kind adults. Their mother had often reminded them – and often reminded me as I was growing up – that “bad things do happen, but we cannot allow them to destroy us.”

Yes, my perspective and optimistic vision are historically based. I look at what happened in the past, what is happening today, and what can happen tomorrow. These days, I also find my current Belgian environment and its history helpful when reflecting about tragedies and the tenacity of hope. Although I was born and grew up in SW Michigan, I now live in Leuven, Belgium. Many years ago, I came here to complete a doctorate, at the Catholic University of Leuven. Two days after my doctoral defense, I was offered a job and have been here ever since. But I am still very much a U.S. American.

Historical reminders are all around us. Our house is close to the Norbertine Park Abbey in Leuven, begun in 1129. In the early sixteenth century, Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) lived there for a while, working on his translation of New Testament texts. In the later sixteenth century, however, Park Abbey was occupied by soldiers of the brutal Spanish Duke of Alba (1507-1582). Alba, known as the “Iron Duke” was fiercely anti-protestant and strongly supported by Pope Pius V (1566-1572). Alba was governor of the Spanish Netherlands, which included our part of today’s Belgium, from 1567 to 1573. During those six years, Alba executed more than a thousand people. Not far from our house, Alba’s soldiers had what was called their hanging tree. They used it to frighten citizens of Leuven by executing prominent people suspected of Calvinist sympathies. Nevertheless, Leuven not only survived Alba’s terrorism but flourished, because enough people maintained courage and hope. The area of the long-gone hanging tree – unknown to most contemporary people – is a peaceful area today. Life is stronger than death.

Close to 350 years after the terrorism of the “Iron Duke,” Leuven suffered again in World War I. Starting on August 25, 1914, and over the course of five days, enemy troops burned and looted much of the city and executed hundreds of civilians. Our world-renowned university library with its magnificent collection of ancient manuscripts was burned. This provoked great national and international outrage. Nevertheless, people did not give up, and Leuven was rebuilt. And, starting in 1921, thanks to countless American fundraisers and the personal efforts of Herbert Hoover (1874-1964), chairperson of the Commission for Relief of Belgium, a new library could be built. Then, just about 30 years later, the city was bombed in World War II. Great devastation. Again, people picked up, rebuilt, and moved forward. The tenacity of hope.

Hopeful people pick up and move forward. I am a critic, not a prophet of doom, but I must also acknowledge that I do find it very easy to just point my fingers at and write articles about problematic and negative people. I get annoyed and frustrated. But I know we need to work against polarization, and I do try to reach out to the problematic and negative. It is not easy. I have lost a lot of Facebook friends in the process. From the Apostle Paul, I know that “Love is patient. Love is kind. Love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way. It is not irritable or resentful” (1 Cor. 13:4–5). And I know as well that, in my dealings with negative and often obnoxious people, I do need to be humbly alert to the exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 7 and Luke 6: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

Thinking about strengthening our own tenacity of hope, we greatly need to learn from the example of hope-filled men and women. My old friend Archbishop Jadot, the subject of my previous book Jean Jadot, Paul’s Man in Washington, was for me a supportive teacher. I remember complaining to him about problems in the church and my frustrations with one prominent U.S. archbishop who had tried very hard, but without success, to get me fired from the Catholic University of Leuven. Jadot looked at me, put his hand on my shoulder, and said: “Yes, it is winter now. But spring will return.” We all need people like Jean Jadot in our lives, and we are all called to be prophets of hope and hopeful change. We need to critically examine our own perspectives, however, because they can make us either open or closed.

Right now, I am collecting materials for one of my adult discussion groups that will meet again in the autumn. We will read and discuss articles written by the the 91 years old English anthropologist Jane Goodall. She is a wonderfully prophetic and inspiring person.

In her 1999 book written with Phillip Berman, Reason for Hope, she details her spiritual epiphany and her belief that everyone can find a reason for hope. “Each one of us matters, has a role to play, and makes a difference,” Goodall writes. “It is these undeniable qualities of human love and compassion and self-sacrifice that give me hope for the future. We are, indeed, often cruel and evil. Nobody can deny this. We gang up on each one another, we torture each other, with words as well as deeds, we fight, we kill. But we are also capable of the most noble, generous, and heroic behavior.”

The tenacity of hope. With constructive criticism and collaborative efforts, we can indeed be noble, generous, and heroic in pursuit of truth and moral integrity in church and in civil society.

• Jack

 

This week, thinking about contemporary “Christian” nationalism and “Christian” leaders, I offer a brief historical reflection about Christianity and civil authority.

In the old Roman Republic (c. 509 – 27 BCE), the Pontifex Maximus was the high priest in the state religion. The word pontifex is derived from the Latin words pons (bridge) and facere (to make), literally meaning “bridge-builder.” This title was associated with the chief priest, the Pontifex Maximus: the great bridge builder between the Roman gods and humans.

After the establishment of the Roman Empire, Julius Caesar (100 BCE – 44 BCE) became Emperor and Pontifex Maximus in 63 BCE, making him the “chief high priest” of the Roman state religion. But when Constantine the Great (c. 280 – 337 CE) became the first “Christian” Roman Emperor, in the fourth century CE, the official religion of the Roman Empire began to shift toward Christianity. Constantine called and supervised the First Council of Nicaea in 325, attended by at least 200 bishops. This council was the first of many efforts to reach a consensus in Christian leadership through an assembly standing for all Christendom.

Constantine used Christianity and Christian bishops in his imperial exercise of power but was only baptized on his deathbed in May 337. Today he is still venerated as a saint in Eastern Christianity; but whether Constantine was a “genuine” Christian is a matter of ongoing debate among historians and scholars. While Constantine favored Christianity and played a pivotal role in its rise to prominence in the Roman Empire, his actions and beliefs were complex and not always aligned with traditional Christian belief.

The fourth century, in any case, brought a major change in thinking about Christianity and civil power. The century began with the Roman Pontifex Maximus Galerius, Emperor from 305 – 311, torturing and murdering Christians to please and placate the Roman gods. It ended with Gratian, Emperor from 367 to 383, giving the Bishop of Rome the title Pontifex Maximus in 360 and Theodosius, Emperor from 379 to 395 issuing the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 which established Christianity as the official Roman imperial state religion. Then Christians began torturing and murdering non-Christians to please and placate God by destroying people they considered God’s enemies.

In the fifth century, when the Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476, all civil power and authority moved into papal hands and the popes began to dress and behave like Roman Emperors. Institutional Christianity became a militant religion.

 A high point for Papal Pontifex Maximus power would come with the Crusades, the series of religious wars from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, started, supported, and at times directed by the Pontifex Maximus Pope in Rome.

The last pope to use the title Pontifex Maximus was Pope Benedict XVI, pope from 2005 until his resignation in 2013. Benedict replicated, red shoes and all, the old Roman imperial style and authority in grand style. Benedict was a conservative authoritarian.

Pope Francis, who was pope from 2013 until his death in 2025, greatly downplayed the papal imperial pageantry so greatly loved by Benedict and his illustrious predecessors. And now we wait and see what Pope Leo XIV will do.

Authentic Christianity, however, is not about power and authority OVER people. God is love and Christianity is about reaching out to people, offering forgiveness, calling to growth and conversion. We show our love for God by loving the people around us. Jesus was hardly a power-crazed manipulator of men and women. He did not exercise power over people but empowered people to take responsibility for their lives and those around them.

Questions about Christianity and power and authority, are certainly very much with us today, especially in America, because contemporary “Christian” nationalists seek an America where only a small group of white, ultra-wealthy “Christians” get to enjoy the freedom, civil rights, and safety that everyone deserves.

More about this in a future post…

******

I conclude this week’s reflection with an announcement about my new book.

This is an announcement and not a sales pitch.

 

This book is titled Another Voice: Contemporary Theological & Ethical Reflections. That title comes from T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) whose words in his poem “Little Gidding” capture for me the focus of historical theology: “For last year’s words belong to last year’s language. And next year’s words await another voice.”

As my theological mentor Edward Schillebeeckx so often stressed theological development arises from a critical translation of Christian experience from one historical era to the next.

My blog Another Voice was the inspiration for my new book, which is available as an ebook or a paperback from Amazon.

• Jack

 

 

Thinking about the Fourth of July, in just a couple of days, I re-read the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Adopted on July 4, 1776, by the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, who later became the third president of the United States from 1801 to 1809. Interestingly, Jefferson, born in 1743, died on July 4, 1826, as did the second U.S. president, John Adams, born in 1735. The prominent U.S. lawyer Daniel Webster (1782 – 1852) delivered a two-hour eulogy for Jefferson and Adams on August 2, 1826  in Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall, insisting that the fact both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the nation’s 50th birthday was “proof” from on high that the country, and its benefactors, are under the care of Divine Providence.

The Declaration of Independence stresses the principles on which the U.S. Government and American identity are based. The sixteenth U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865), called it “a rebuke and a stumbling-block to tyranny and oppression.” The July 4^th Declaration proclaims that all people are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and that the people have the right to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of these ends. (Many Americans today should re-read the Declaration of Independence.)

The Declaration of Independence, is not an explicitly Christian document but it does reflect a belief in God and natural rights, influenced by Enlightenment thought. The document’s emphasis on natural rights, derived from the Creator, played a crucial role in shaping the American understanding of religious freedom, and the separation of church and state. Right from the beginning, the United States had a variety of religious traditions: Protestant Christian, Catholic Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and indigenous religious traditions, which emphasized a connection to the spirit world

A couple of days ago, after re-reading my notes about religious practice at the time of the Declaration of Independence, my thoughts turned to contemporary religion in the United States. The non-partisan Pew Research Center, in Washington DC, reports that the Christian share of the U.S. population, after years of decline, has been relatively stable since 2019. And the religiously unaffiliated population, after rising rapidly for decades, has leveled off – at least temporarily.

At present, 62% of U.S. adults describe themselves as Christians: 40% are Protestant, 19% are Catholic, and 3% are other Christians. But 29% are religiously unaffiliated: 5% are atheist, 6% are agnostic, and 19% identify religiously as “nothing in particular.” Additionally, 7% belong to religions other than Christianity: 2% are Jewish, and 1% each are Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu.

As many readers of my blog know, my professional area of research for many years has been “Religion and Values in American Society.” I remain an American observer and researcher. Right now, my observation and that of many colleagues is that there are strong indications that we may see, very soon, significant declines in the religiousness of the American public. Young U.S. adults, even those who once had a highly religious upbringing, are far less religious than older adults. In general, Americans consider religion important but are divided about its role in society. Less than half of all adults now say religion is important in their lives, down from majorities who felt that way in earlier studies. Just 44% in a new poll say they pray daily, also down from majorities in prior polls. While most contemporary Americans continue to say they believe in a God or a universal spirit, the share who say they are certain one exists has dropped from 71% in 2007 to 54% now.

While the overall change in religious views has happened in similar ways across key demographic groups, there are differences in how it is being played out in people’s socio-cultural orientation. Among people who call themselves “liberal,” just 37% now identify as Christian, down from 62% in 2007. But 54% of today’s liberals are more likely to say they have no religion than to consider themselves Christian. Among “conservatives,” by contrast, the share who are Christian has declined just 7 points to 82%.

Americans’ degree of religious engagement is also closely tied to their political identity. The most religiously engaged people are more likely to consider themselves Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, while those with little religious engagement are more likely to be Democrats or Democratic-leaning. As has long been the case, White voters are much more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to associate with the Republican Party. Black voters continue to associate with the Democratic Party, although the extent of the Democratic advantage among this group has fallen off over the last few years. About six-in-ten Latino voters (61%) are Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party. The relationship between partisanship and voters’ religious affiliation continues to be strong – especially when it comes to whether they belong to any organized religion at all. Protestants mostly align with the Republican Party.

The GOP, however, now has a modest advantage among Catholics. About half of Catholic voters identify as Republicans or lean toward the Republican Party, compared with 44% who identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. In the 2024 presidential election, Catholic voters split 56% to 41% in favor of the Republican candidate. Today, among U.S. Catholics to the left of the ideological center, there is optimism that Pope Leo XIV will carry on Pope Francis’ outreach to poor and marginalized people, including migrants, and provide a counterweight to policies of the current presidential administration, which they find distressing. U.S. Catholics on the right, however, hope Pope Leo, like his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI, will strongly uphold traditional Catholic doctrine, by which they mean opposition to abortion, opposition to same-sex marriage, and opposition to women’s ordination.

It is especially noteworthy that today’s incumbent U.S. president is building a strange new far-right religious movement. The old religious right is gone. Members of the U.S. religious right in the 1980s and 1990s were political because of their theology. Members of the current new religious right are working in the opposite direction. They are constructing a new “theology” that fits their far-right politics. Take, for example, the defense by contemporary far-right evangelical leaders of the incumbent president’s sexual transgressions. They say his transgressions are excusable because he is a messianic figure, sent not to save souls but to save America. Their viewpoint makes no coherent religious sense but clearly fits their political sense. Some U.S. Catholic leaders appear to support this perspective as well. In December 2024, for example, New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan said the soon to be back in the White House president-elect “takes his Christian faith seriously.” Cardinal Dolan has been one of the U.S. President’s supporters for a long time and maintains a friendly relationship with him in his private life.

On May 1, 2025, the incumbent U.S. president announced that he was setting up a presidential commission on religious liberty: “The Religious Liberty Commission.” I find it noteworty that five of the members are conservative Catholic bishops: Cardinal Timothy Dolan, of New York; Bishop Robert E. Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota; Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco; Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois; and Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort-Wayne-South Bend, Indiana. According to Melissa Deckman, a political scientist and CEO of Washington DC’s Public Religion Research Institute, the Religious Liberty Commission caters to Christian nationalist groups who “see their loss of dominance as persecution.”

What the new U.S. religious right is building has more in common with the ancient pagan religion of the Roman Imperial Cult than the evangelical revivals of an earlier America. The Roman Imperial Cult stressed that emperors and some members of their families held divinely sanctioned authority. Their focus was on imperial power. Today’s MAGA supporters have declared a religious war, not just against secularism or progressive forms of religion, but against traditional religion that refuses to serve their radical nationalistic power goal to “Make America Great.” They are not advocating a new theocracy, but a new religion of nationalism and national identity disguised in the trappings of a religious movement, that stresses strong loyalty, shared beliefs, and a sense of superior white supremacy based on a judgmental “us vs. them” perspective. In his speech to Americans on June 21, 2025, about the U.S. bombing of sites in Iran, for example, the current U.S. President said: “And I want to just thank everybody and in particular, God, I want to just say we love you, God…”

 

The key socio-political issues we need to look for and think about in the coming weeks are Truth and Moral Integrity.

• Jack

 

PS: After my Another Voice vacation, I am happy to be back online and hope to share meaningful observations. And next week an update on my book!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thinking about Pope Leo XIV, I began thinking as well about the history of church leadership and the papacy.

In my life time so far there have been seven popes: Pius XII (1939 to 1958), John XXIII (1958 to 1963), Paul VI (1963 to 1978), John Paul I (26 August 1978 to 33 days later), John Paul II (1978 to 2005), Benedict XVI (2005 to 2013), and Francis (2013 to 2025).

Now, we are all starting to watch Robert Francis Prevost, born in U.S.A., who has begun a new papal administration as Pope Leo XIV. We do not know yet of course what impact he will have on the Catholic Church. I hope he will move it forward in a non authoritarian style, so important and necessary today, in a world disfigured by powerful but ignorant authoritarianism.

Thinking about early Christianity, the very beginning was in Jerusalem. After the death and Resurrection of Jesus, the first Christian community in Jerusalem, as Paul wrote in Galatians 1:19, was under the leadership of James, the brother of Jesus.

Within ten years after Jesus, Christianity had already begun to spread throughout the Roman Empire, northwards to Antioch, where Peter the Apostle had a leadership role among Hebrew Christians, and on to Ephesus, Corinth and Thessalonica, under the leadership of the Apostle Paul.

Paul, originally known as Saul of Tarsus, was a sophisticated Greek-speaking rabbi who, unlike Jesus’ early disciples, was himself a Roman citizen. Called the “Apostle to the Gentiles,” Paul became an enthusiastic supporter of non-Hebrew Christians. He insisted that the life and death of Jesus not only fulfilled the Hebrew Law and the Prophets but made sense of the world and offered reconciliation and peace with God for the whole human race, not just Hebrews.

The Apostle Peter and his wife certainly belonged to the group of young men and women, most in their late teens or early twenties, who were Jesus’ close disciples. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch, Today’s city of Antakya Turkey lies in its place.

In the early development of Christianity, Antioch played a pivotal role. It was in Antioch that followers of Jesus were first called “Christians”. The city’s significant Hebrew Christian population fostered the growth of a diverse Christian community, attracting missionaries and becoming a major center for early church life

The early Christian community in Rome was governed not by a bishop but a group of elders: what today we would call a steering committee. At some point Peter may have been a member of this committee. Historians really do not know for certain. But neither Peter nor Paul brought Christianity to Rome. Before they arrived, there were already Christian elders and house churches in Rome, with close ties to James and the Jerusalem Christian community. Peter was martyred in Rome during Emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians, which started in 64 CE right after the Great Fire of Rome. Historians put Peter’s death as well as Paul’s death between 64 and 68 CE.

Some contemporary biblical scholars and historians have raised questions about Peter’s leadership in Rome. The American Catholic priests and biblical scholars, Raymond Brown (1928 –1998) and John P. Meier (1942 – 2022), for example, assert in their book Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity, (Paulist Press 1983), that Peter was never a bishop of Rome. They wrote: “There is no serious proof that he (Peter) was the bishop, or local ecclesiastical officer, of the Roman church: a claim not made till the third century.”

Long after Peter’s death, the Christian community in Rome did come under the leadership of a single bishop. The bishops of Rome were strongly supported by Emperor Constantine (c.272-337), who needed Christianity to unify his empire. Thanks to Constantine and the religious devotion of his mother Helena, many legends and suppositions about Peter developed in third and fourth century Rome. Constantine built a church — now called “Old St. Peter’s Basilica” — over what was believed to be a burial site with Peter’s bones. Old St. Peter’s Basilica stood, from the 4th to 16th centuries, where St. Peter’s Basilica stands today in Vatican City.

When the Roman Empire began to clearly fall apart in 376, the Bishop of Rome, called “pope” (from the Latin word for “father” papa) began to exercise more civil authority. Then when the Western Roman Empire finally collapsed in 476, the pope took over the clothing, pomp, and ritual of the Roman Emperors. The papal title became Pontifex Maximus — “Supreme Pontiff” — a title that earlier had been held by the Roman Emperors.

The first great acclamation of “Peter as a pope,” did not come, however, until the fifth century. Pope Leo I, pope from 440 CE until 461 CE and known as “Leo the Great,” had a major impact on the development of the belief that the first pope had been Peter the Apostle. The belief was based on Pope Leo’s personal devotion and beliefs about Peter. But Pope Leo I is best known for his meeting with Attila the Hun in 452 and persuading him to turn back from his invasion of Italy.

Well, there have now been more than two hundred and sixty bishops of Rome. Some were kind and benevolent men of faith. Others were crafty, not so devoutly religious, and self-centered authoritarians.

There are, however, two medieval popes whom I particularly appreciate, because of their connection with my alma mater the Catholic University of Leuven. The first is Pope Martin V (1417 to 1431), who on December 9,1425 founded the Catholic University of Leuven. These days we are still celebrating our university’s six hundredth anniversary.

The other is Pope Adrian VI (1522-1523). Born in the Dutch city of Utrecht on March 2, 1459, as Adriaan Florensz Boeyens, he studied at our Catholic University of Leuven where he was ordained a priest and became, successively, professor of theology, chancellor, and rector of the university. Adrian was chosen pope on January 9, 1522. The only Dutchman to become pope, he was the last non-Italian pope until the Polish John Paul II, 455 years later. Being a reform-minded foreigner, Pope Adrian VI was not well-liked in Rome. His efforts at reform proved fruitless, as they were resisted by most of his contemporaries. Nor did he live long enough to see his efforts through to their conclusion.

After one year, eight months, and six days as pope, Adrian died on September 14, 1523. He had bequeathed his Leuven property to the Catholic University of Leuven. To this day it is known as the Pope’s College. A place I know very well!

And now we observe and watch the first American-born pope. I hope he will be a courageous leader, who not only says wonderful things but does wonderful things. As I wrote a couple weeks ago, I hope Pope Leo XIV will promote women’s ordination, support LGBTQIA+ people, and show a genuine openness to contemporary theological exploration and doctrinal change and development.

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 

PS: As I have often done this time of the year, I will be on R&R until the end of June.

I appreciate the supportive comments from readers over the past months. You keep me going.

This summer, my wife and I celebrate our 55^th wedding anniversary. In June I also hope to make progress on a new book, but more about that later.

Around the globe, contemporary authoritarian regimes have become more effective at circumventing the norms and institutions meant to support basic human liberties. Even in countries with long-established democracies, authoritarian forces are distorting national politics to promote hatred, violence, and unbridled power.

Authoritarianism uses and abuses people. It destroys human freedom to think, to act, and to live. It manipulates people and eliminates the “undesirables.”

The historical Jesus stressed that human greatness is based on compassion and service. His use of authority was to motivate people and to heal, support, and call to conversion. Jesus did not use authority to control people but to empower them.

Contemporary cultural change and human migration make some people anxious and fearful. They feel threatened. They neither hear nor understand the words of the American author Emma Lazarus (1849-1887) inscribed on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Instead, they prefer to build their walls, to protect “us against them.” In ignorance, fear, and anxiety they surrender to the exaggerated rhetoric and growing influence of authoritarian leaders. 

Authoritarianism is becoming a contemporary leadership problem. “Leaders” who should be trusted for wisdom, intelligence, and humanitarian service are becoming hard-nosed autocrats, surrendering to the psychological and mental disorder of authoritarianism.

Honesty and integrity are being replaced by self-promoting deceit and dishonesty. Self-centered authoritarians are self-stroking and self-promoting. Life for them boils down to what one can get and what one can get away with. Life for them, is jungle warfare in a world of lazy and evil “losers.”

Creeping authoritarianism is becoming a destructive and sinister social virus that shows itself in increased racial violence, increased anti-Semitism, extreme political and social polarization, and the rise of militant Neo-Nazi groups.

Authoritarian “leaders” can only succeed because because authoritarian followers applaud and support them. 

Much more so than the average person, authoritarian followers go through life with impaired thinking. Their reasoning is often sloppy and based on prejudiced beliefs and a fierce dogmatism, that rejects evidence and logic. 

Cognitive defects in authoritarian followers enable them to follow any would-be dictator. As Hitler reportedly said, “What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”

So, what does one do?

• Well, we must first acknowledge that authoritarian followers are extremely resistant to change. The more one learns about authoritarianism, the more one realizes how difficult it will be to reach people who are so ferociously aggressive and fiercely defensive. Polarization is now extreme and deeply rooted.
• We need to educate and, starting at home with little children, promote a balanced education: (1) handing on authentic information, (2) teaching people where to find correct information, and (3) giving people the skills to be well-informed critical thinkers.
• Our Christian communities, more than ever, must become, in the Spirit of Christ, compassionate gatherings of multicultural, multi-ethnic, and all-gender, supportive friends.
• We need to courageously speak out and we need to help other people courageously speak out.
• If something is wrong or untrue, people need to strongly and clearly say that it is wrong or untrue. 
• Those who courageously speak out need the support of friends gathered around them. Going alone is increasingly difficult if not impossible in our cyber-linked world.
• We need to be on guard, as well, that we do not become promoters of polarization and vicious partisanship. We need to learn how to work together for the common good. 
• As Jesus said in Matthew (chapter 12): “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 

 

According to SNOPES, the Pope Leo XIV quotation I used yesterday to conclude my Another Voice reflection about the new Pope is FALSE.

Very sorry about this

 

Jack

POPE LEO XIV

Robert Francis Prevost was born on September 14, 1955, at Mercy Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. His mother, Mildred (née Martínez) Prevost, graduated from DePaul University with a bachelor’s degree in library science in 1947, while his father, Louis Marius Prevost, was a United States Navy veteran of World War II and superintendent of Brookwood School District 167 in Glenwood, Illinois.

Robert Prevost has two older brothers, Louis and John. His father was born to immigrants from Italy and France, while his mother was the daughter of the Haitian-born mixed-race landowner Joseph Martínez and the New Orleans-born Louise Baquiet), a mixed-race Black Creole.

Raised in Dolton, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, Prevost grew up in the parish of St. Mary of the Assumption, where he went to elementary school, sang in the choir, and served as an altar boy. He was known as “Bob” or “Rob” in childhood and to friends. He completed his high school education at St. Augustine Seminary High School, a minor seminary in Holland, Michigan, in 1973. He consistently appeared on the honor roll, served as yearbook editor-in-chief, secretary of the student council, and a member of the National Honor Society.

Prevost’s brother John, who lives in the Chicago area, says that Robert aspired to the priesthood from a young age. In September 1977, Robert joined the Order of Saint Augustine as a novice, at Immaculate Conception Church in the Compton Heights neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri. He took his first vows in September 1978 and solemn vows in August 1981.

Prevost earned a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in mathematics from Villanova University, an Augustinian university in Pennsylvania. He obtained a Master of Divinity (MDiv) from Catholic Theological Union in Chicago in 1982, also serving as a physics and math teacher at St. Rita of Cascia High School in Chicago during his studies.

In Rome, on June 19, 1982, Robert Prevost was ordained a priest by my friend Archbishop Jean Jadot, about whom I wrote the book Jean Jadot: Paul’s Man in Washington.

Fr. Prevost then earned a Licentiate of Canon Law in 1984, followed by a Doctor of Canon Law degree in 1987 from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome. Known as the Angelicum, the Dominican university embraces academic freedom, but its traditional Thomistic philosophy has given it a generally conservative orientation. Prevost’s doctoral thesis was titled “The Role of the Local Prior in the Order of Saint Augustine.”

In 1987, after obtaining his doctorate in church law, Robert Prevost was appointed vocation director and missions director for the Augustinian Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel in Olympia Fields, Illinois. Shortly thereafter he went to Peru in 1988.

In Peru Prevost spent a decade heading the Augustinian seminary in Trujillo, Peru, teaching canon law in the diocesan seminary, serving as prefect of studies, acting as a judge in the regional ecclesiastical court, and working in parish ministry in the city’s outskirts.

 On November 3, 2014, Pope Francis appointed Prevost to be the apostolic administrator of the Diocese of Chiclayo, Peru. Then on September 26, 2015, he appointed bishop of Chiclayo. Following a diplomatic treaty, Prevost had to become a naturalized Peruvian citizen before becoming bishop. (U.S. citizens can hold citizenship in other countries without losing their U.S. citizenship.)

Within the Episcopal Conference of Peru, Bishop Prevost served on the conference’s permanent council (2018–2020) and was elected president of its Commission for Education and Culture in 2019. He had a private audience with Pope Francis on March 1, 2021, which created much speculation about a new role for him in Chicago or Rome.

In Peru he criticized the political leadership for supporting inhumane political movements. He backed the 2018 campaign led by the Peruvian bishops against pardoning former terrorists. During his time at Chiclayo, however, Prevost was accused of covering up sexual abuse. In 2022, women who had been victims of abuse in 2007 by two priests, said Prevost had failed to investigate their case. The Diocese of Chiclayo, however, said that Prevost had followed proper procedures. In 2024, the victims stated that no full penal canonical investigation occurred, and an article from América Televisión agreed with them that the church’s investigation was not thorough.

In statements to the newspaper La República, Prevost said: “If you are a victim of sexual abuse by a priest, report it.” Journalist Pedro Salinas, who investigated and exposed crimes committed by members of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae highlighted that Prevost always expressed his support for the victims and was one of the most reliable clerical authorities in Peru. The lay society, founded in the 1971 in Lima, Peru, was suppressed by the Vatican in April 2025, following the scandal of abuse and corruption alleged against some of its leaders.

CARDINAL PREVOST: On September 30, 2023, Bishop Robert Prevost was created a cardinal. He played a critical role in evaluating and recommending episcopal candidates worldwide, increasing his visibility within the Catholic Church. In this role, he recommended that the arch conservative U.S. bishop and strong critic of Pope Francis, Joseph Strickland, be removed from his office as bishop of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, in November 2023.

Before the 2025 papal conclave, Prevost was considered a dark horse compared to more prominent candidates. But he was known to be a friend of Pope Francis and a possible compromise candidate. His American nationality was thought to be a stumbling block to his candidacy. Supporters argued that he represented a “dignified middle of the road” candidate.

At 18:08 Central European Time on May 8, 2025, in the fourth round of voting, on the second day of the conclave, Prevost was elected pope, thereby becoming the first American and first Peruvian pope. The day after his election, on May 9, Pope Leo XIV presided at his first Mass as pope in the Sistine Chapel before the assembled College of Cardinals. During the Mass, he spoke of a Church that would act as a “beacon that illuminates the dark nights of this world.”

Taking the name Leo, the new pope was expressing his esteem for Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903). The earlier Pope Leo, who was pope from 1878 to 1903, was the father of modern Catholic social teaching. He called for the church to address social and economic issues, and emphasized the dignity of individuals, the common good, community, and taking care of marginalized individuals. In the midst of the Gilded Age, when America and much of Europe shifted from an agricultural society to an industrial one, Leo XIII defended the rights of workers and said that the church had not just the duty to speak about justice and fairness, but also the responsibility to make sure they happened. He is best remembered for his famous 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum (“Of New Things”).

But it is also important to remember that Pope Leo XIII was theologically conservative. He emphasized, for example, the authority of the Church and kept very traditional views about the role of women and their place in the Church.

I am happy to see an American-born pope.But we do need to observe and see who he is and what he is doing. As we move ahead, the big questions for me are what Pope Leo XIV will do about women’s ordination, support for LGBTQIA+ people, and a genuine openness to contemporary theological exploration and doctrinal change and development.

In any event, I conclude this week’s reflection with hopeful words from the new Bishop of Rome:

I don’t come to offer you perfect faith.

I come to tell you that faith is a walk with stones, puddles, and unexpected hugs.

I’m not asking you to believe in everything.

I’m asking you not to close the door. Give a chance to the God who waits for you without judgment.

I’m just a priest who saw God in the smile of a woman who lost her son… and yet she cooked for others. That changed me.

So if you’re broken, if you don’t believe, if you’re tired of the lies…

come anyway. With your anger, your doubt, your dirty backpack.

No one here will ask you for a VIP card. Because this Church, as long as I breathe, will be a home for the homeless, and a rest for the weary.”

 

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 

 

 

During my “Easter vacation” I did a lot of thinking about God. Ok, not so unusual for an old theologian. But I re-read an excellent book by my friend William Joseph An Evolutionary Biography of God. The focus of his book is to arrive at a mature and adult understanding of God that can equip us to flourish in the twenty-first century. I strongly recommend it.

Perspectives on God are important. In Genesis, first book of the Hebrew Bible, we read that God created humanity “in God’s own image.” (Genesis 1:27) But periodically over the years, some people have re-made their image of God in their own image and likeness.

I don’t understand God as a vindictive and hard-nosed authoritarian: a God who even had to have his own Son brutally sacrificed. Did God really want and demand that Jesus suffer terrible torture and death on the cross? In the New Testament, such an understanding of God does not resonate with the historical Jesus’ understanding of God, as his loving Father. A loving parent does not demand the torturous suffering and death of a son or daughter.

Unfortunately, some medieval Christian theologians did have distorted authoritarian notions about God, and they passed them on to future generations. Anselm (1033 – 1109) of Canterbury is a good example. He was a theologian and the Archbishop of Canterbury for sixteen years. Unfortunately, Anselm did not have a very benevolent understanding of God. He saw God as a nard-nosed judge and stern taskmaster. 

Anselm believed that human sin and human disobedience to God, going back to the Adam and Eve account, had defrauded God of the honor that God was due. That offense to God’s honor had to be compensated for and repaired. God, Anselm said, could only be satisfied by having a being of infinite greatness, God’s very own Son, acting as a human, repay the debt owed to God and thereby satisfy the injury to God’s honor. In other words, God would only be happy when God’s own Son was tortured and suffered a cruel death. Strange. What an image of God.

Anselm was made a “saint” and unfortunately many later Christians inherited Anselm’s theological distortions about Jesus and about God. Catholic theology called it the “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.”

Anselm’s vision of God was distorted. Jesus and early Christians clearly understood God as loving and kind. That is essential. That is where we begin. As my Nijmegen theological mentor, the Belgian Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 – 2009), often said: “Christianity began with an experience, an encounter with Jesus of Nazareth, which caused people to discover new meaning and to direct their lives in a new direction.” That new meaning and direction was anchored in forgiveness, compassion, mutual support, and collaboration.

Today, unlike “back then,” we are very empirical. Some contemporary people, who should read William Joseph’s book, still suggest that “science and God do not connect.” In fact, however, there have been notable scientists of the 20th century, like Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Max Planck (1858-1947, Max Born (1882-1970, and others, who were very open to an understanding of God in their concepts of life, the universe, and human beings.

The Anglo-American mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) developed a metaphysical creativity framework for his scientific study. He suggested that God’s own process of continually emerging into reality serves as the “divine lure” that guides and sustains everything else in creation. 

The American philosopher Charles Hartshorn (1897 – 2000) and the American  theologians Bernard M. Loomer (1912 – 1985), longtime Dean of the University of Chicago Divinity School, and David Ray Griffin (1939-2022), who co-founded the Center for Process Studies at the Claremont School of Theology, paved the way to what would become know as “process theology.” They understood God as omnipresent and immanent in such a way as to be intricately related to and bound up with a continually evolving creation. Many process thinkers argue that the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881 – 1955) should be included among process theologians. Many contemporary Protestant and Catholic theologians resonate with “process theology.”

Our earth, our universe, and humanity are very much in process: still evolving. I see natural disasters as part of our earth in process but also very much a part of human responsibility or irresponsibility. Climate change, for instance, is our responsibility. Earthquakes and tsunamis are often part of our earth still in process. Although, even with earthquakes, we now know some have had human origins. A database created by geophysicists at Durham and Newcastle Universities in the United Kingdom, has tracked down 730 cases of human-made earthquakes over the last 150 years. The primary causes have been mining, heavy water locked behind reservoir dams, and conventional oil and gas extraction.

So where does prayer fit into this process perspective? The clear message of the Incarnation is that the Divine Presence is here, with us, and with all of creation. God is not simply “out there” in some far-off realm.

Over the centuries, the understanding of prayer has often been somewhat narrow. Too often people have seen prayer as just an action, a behavior, a recitation, or participating in a gathering where God and Jesus are mentioned. In all religious traditions there are indeed people who appear to say lots of prayers and yet live very self-centered lives rooted in hatred, racism, and even terrorism.

Prayer first of all refers to an inner state, a state of consciousness, a loving union with God. I do pray. In good times and bad times. In prayer I express my concern for family members and friends who are going through difficult days. In my prayer I try, as well, to travel faithfully with the loving God, even when I don’t understand the twists and turns in life: in the lives of my friends, and in my own life. And I realize that my understanding of God is very incomplete. My understanding is still in development, in process, even though I know so very well all the classic God doctrines.

The Jesuit philosopher and theologian Karl Rahner (1904 – 1984) stressed that people do not come to know God by solving doctrinal conundrums, proving God’s existence or engaging in an abstruse metaphysical quest. Rahner stressed the importance of Divine mystery as very simply an aspect of our humanity.

Sometimes we must simply live that Mystery, with openness and calm reflection. Sometimes we limit ourselves, relying too much on just rational knowing. That Mystery, which defies description, is God. Religious doctrines can never totally explain or define that Mystery.They are simply symbolic or analogous pointers toward God. When people focus only on the pointers, however, they really miss the point.

Contemporary theologians really do have to ask how we can develop better pointers towards God. We need pointers anchored in all the complex realities and needs of our time, enabling people to believe and deal with human suffering with serenity and courage. Many of us learned about God at about the same time we also learned about the Easter Bunny. As we grew in awareness, our understanding of the Easter Bunny phenomenon evolved and matured. But for many people their religious belief has remained somewhat static and adolescent. 

Divine revelation is not an event that happened once in the past. It is an ongoing and creative process that requires human perception and contemplation. Revelation is a part of reality. We are called to be open, alert, and contemplative. Faith means trust, commitment, and engagement. But too often it is mistakenly understood as an intellectual assent to ecclesiastical propositions.

Today, as science itself says there is so much we still don’t know. It is time perhaps to return to a theology that asserts less and is more open to mystery and calm and reflective exploration. This may not be easy for contemporary people so used to getting instant information with a click on a cellphone or checking their favorite website or social network.

The image of a domineering and controlling God is an archaic image. We journey today with a different and more of a traveling-companion God, even if we struggle with descriptive words about God. “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.” (1 John 4:12) The true and essential work of all religions, but especially Christianity, is to help us recognize the divine image in everyone and everything.

My concluding reflection this week comes from the priest and theologian Ronald Rohlheiser OMI, a friend who also completed his doctorate at the Catholic University of Leuven: “God lies inside us, deep inside, but in a way that’s almost non-existent, almost unfelt, largely unnoticed, and easily ignored. However, while that presence is never overpowering, it has within it a gentle, unremitting imperative, a compulsion towards something higher, which invites us to draw upon it. And, if we do draw upon it, it gushes up in us in an infinite stream that instructs us, nurtures us, and fills us with endless energy.”

• Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 

Just before Easter a friend wrote to wish me a Happy Easter but then added that he hoped I would write something on Another Voice about the “crazy feminists” who think they can be priests because, as he wrote, “…we all know that Jesus only ordained MEN at the Last Supper.” He then reminded me that Pope John Paul II (1920 – 2005) had stressed in his 1994 document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.”

My friend’s comment inspired this week’s reflection. I realize that I have written before about the sacraments but ask your patient understanding, if you are a long-time follower. Perhaps you will have some questions, after reading this somewhat longer reflection. The issue is important and contemporary, especially when it concerns women in church history, women’s ordination, and certainly ecumenical understandings of sacramental life. Christ’s Church is much larger than just the Roman Catholic Church.

FACTS and SUPPOSITIONS: When people really don’t know what happened in the past, they often use their creative imaginations to presume what happened. In the history of the sacraments, we see this as well. The sixteenth century Counter Reformation Council of Trent is a good example. The Catholic bishops met, off and on, in the northern Italy town of Trento (Trent) for twenty-five sessions between December 13, 1545 and December 4, 1563. In 1547, the Council of Trent solemnly declared that there are seven sacraments — Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony — and that all seven were personally instituted by the historical Jesus.

The Protestant Reformation had significantly affected sacramental doctrine, primarily shifting the focus from the Catholic Church’s seven sacraments to a limited number of “means of grace.” Martin Luther (1483 – 1546), John Calvin (1509 – 1564), and other Protestant reformers emphasized the primacy of scripture and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Communion).

HOW MANY SACRAMENTS: The number of sacraments prior to Trent, in fact, was variable and undefined. The Italian Benedictine monk and later cardinal, Peter Damian (c.1007 – 1072) for example, listed twelve including the ordination of kings. Hugh of Saint Victor (c. 1096 – 1141) a theologian and writer on mystical theology, who spent most of his life at the Abbey of Saint Victor in Paris, listed thirty sacraments. But he put Baptism and Holy Communion first with special relevance. Interestingly, Hugh also said the ideal Christian marriage was one of union between husband and wife, but preferably without any sexual intercourse! He focused on the spiritual communion and covenant between the couple as the core of marriage.

CHRIST THE SACRAMENT: Considering the sacraments, what I find most helpful is the theological observation of my former professor and long-time acquaintance, Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 – 2009). In his 1963 book Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, Schillebeeckx emphasized that Jesus Christ is the primary sacrament because he is the visible expression of God’s love. He is the ultimate revelation of God, making God and God’s love present on earth through his person, actions, and words. Schillebeeckx stressed as well that the sacraments are more than one-time-completed rituals. Sacraments are Christian life experiences, and their validity comes from the presence of Christ in the Christian community.

In 1986, Edward Schillebeeckx was reprimanded by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (1927 – 2022) who, at that time, was Prefect of the CDF, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

According to the CDF document from Ratzinger dated September 15, 1986, Schillebeeckx: “continues to conceive and present the apostolicity of the Church in such a way that the apostolic succession through sacramental ordination represents a non-essential element for the exercise of the ministry and thus for the bestowal of the power to consecrate the Eucharist – and this in opposition to the doctrine of the Church.” The Ratzinger document concluded with: “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to conclude that the conception of ministry as put forward by Professor Schillebeeckx remains out of harmony with the teaching of the Church on several important points.” In the end, however, no further action was taken against Schillebeeckx.

A couple years later, I remember talking with Professor Schillebeeckx, when he was visiting Leuven. I asked what a community should do if they did not have a priest for liturgy. He smiled and said: “let the community select its own liturgical presider from within the community.”

 

EARY CHRISTIAN RITUALS: The earliest existing writings about Jesus’ teachings and early Christianity are the letters of Paul the Apostle. They predate the Four Gospels. Not all of the letters attributed to Paul are genuinely Pauline. Scholars do agree that seven of the thirteen “Pauline epistles” (Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) were written by Paul, who was beheaded in Rome, some time between 64 and 68 CE. In his letters, Paul mentions early Christian rituals, most notably the immersion of converts in water (Baptism) and the sharing of a commemorative meal “The Lord’s Supper” (Eucharist).

ORIGIN OF EUCHARIST: The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, written between c. 70 and c. 90 CE, describe Jesus’ Last Supper with Jesus’ disciples, during which Jesus instructs them to continue the bread and wine ritual practice in his memory. It became the model for the early Christian Lord’s Supper, which was part of an agape (“love feast”). It was a communal meal shared among early Christians.

BAPTISM: The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–23) mention the ritual immersion practiced by John the Baptizer in which Jesus himself took part. Matthew 29:18–20 also portrays the risen Lord, in a post-Resurrection narrative, commanding his disciples to baptize using a Trinitarian formula. Biblical scholars suggest that the words most probably did not come from the historic Jesus, but from early church practice around the year 80 CE. 

Acts of Apostles, composed around 80-90 CE, enlarges the scriptural picture of early Christianity with references to the Lord’s Supper and several stories about baptisms. Acts also mentions another ritual action, the laying on of hands, which in this context usually resulted in charismatic activities such as speaking in tongues, described as “receiving the Holy Spirit.” See for instance Acts 2:4: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.”

The laying on of hands was an action mentioned many times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It involved placing one or both hands palms down on the top of another person’s head, usually while saying a prayer or blessing. It was a customary practice used by parents blessing their children. Jacob in the book of Genesis, for instance, blesses his two grandsons by laying his hands on their heads (Genesis 48:14). The laying on of hands was also used to bless someone for service. In Numbers, the people of Israel lay hands on the Levites to dedicate them to the Lord’s service (Numbers 8:9-10). Moses laid hands on Joshua as his successor in leadership (Numbers 27:18-23; Deuteronomy 34:9). 

JESUS AND LAYING ON OF HANDS: Jesus followed the laying on of hands tradition. His most customary practice in healing was touch, often described as “laying his hands on” the one to be healed (Matthew 9:18; Mark 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:22–25; Luke 13:13). Jesus also “lays his hands” on the little children who come to him, to bless them (Matthew 19:13–15; Mark 10:16).

CONFIRMATION:  Confirmation as a separate sacramental ritual in western Christianity did not exist before the 3rd century. But it did not become a regular practice in Europe until after the 5th century. Before the third century it was part of the baptismal ritual.

PENANCE: In the New Testament there is no description of a ritual or ceremony associated with Penance or reconciliation. Even a quick reading of the Gospels, however, shows that Jesus was concerned with the forgiveness of sins and the reconciling of sinners. And Jesus clearly told his followers to forgive sinners. See Matthew 6:14-15, for example.

In Early Christianity, however, Penance was seen as part of Baptism. There was no separate sacrament as we have it today. If a baptized person sinned seriously after Baptism, that person was excluded from the Christian Community. The sacrament of Penance evolved over time, transitioning from public penance to private confession, and was formally recognized and defined in the 13th century as Confession.

MEDIEVAL EUCHARISTIC METAMORPHOSIS: Between the eighth and ninth centuries, the place of the altar and worship space arrangements in church buildings changed. The presider, now called the “celebrant” of Eucharist, no longer faced the people but, with his back to them, faced the eastern end of the church. What was lost, of course, was the sense that the congregation was the Body of Christ.

The purpose of the “Mass” (from the Latin word missa) became to consecrate and preserve the Blessed Sacrament, as the consecrated bread was called. It was also called the “host” from the Lain word hostia meaning “sacrificial victim.” The host, a small wafer, was carried in processions and put on display in a golden display case called a “monstrance” so it could be adored. Monstrance is derived from the Latin “monstrare” (to show). Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was the priority. People rarely if ever received communion. Communion was for the celebrant, away at his altar and often far removed from the congregation.

Unfortunately, the medieval Eucharistic rituals ignored the biblical understanding of the Body of Christ as the community of believers. Recall, for instance, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12:27: “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” And of course we have the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” And we have, for example, the wonderful words of Jesus in John 15:5: “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”

ANOINTING OF THE SICK, LATER CALLED “EXTREME UNCTION”: Up until the eighth century, Anointing of the Sick was a widespread if not uniform practice. It was done by Christian people for their relatives, by men and women with a reputation for healing, and by monks, women religious, and ordained ministers. Especially noteworthy, however, is the fact that anointing of the sick was done primarily by lay people.

In the twelfth century, thanks to Peter Lombard (c.1096 – 1160) theologian and bishop of Paris, Anointing of the Sick , done by priests, was officially named Extreme Unction, and it became an end-of-life sacrament. Then in the early 1970s, following the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965), the official name was changed to Anointing of the Sick.

MARRIAGE: The very first official declaration that marriage is a sacrament was made in 1184 at the Council of Verona. However, it wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1563 that marriage was officially deemed one of the seven sacraments.

HOLY ORDERS: The historical Jesus did not ordain anyone at the Last Supper. Today historical theologians would say that we have no direct evidence of  ordinations until the early third century. In the Apostolic Tradition by Bishop Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 235 CE) we find the first extended evidence of early Christian ordination in which the laying on of hands was understood as a uniquely Christian “ordination ritual.” But when ordination began, it was not understood as a way to pass on “the sacred power to consecrate the Eucharist” but as a form of quality control – a way to assure communities that their leaders were competent and people of genuine and solid faith.

WOMEN: What historical theologians now realize, as well, is that for centuries women had been ordained as deacons and abbesses, and even as presbyters and bishops. This was certainly the case until the 12th century. Gary Macy, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, at Santa Clara University, is very helpful here especially in his book: The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West. What Macy points out is that references to the ordination of women exist in papal, episcopal, and theological documents of the time; and the rites for these ordinations have survived. But as Gary Macy says: “This is a history that has been deliberately forgotten, intentionally marginalized, and, not infrequently, creatively explained away.”

 

So, with open minds we examine and move forward, realizing that educated Christians are essential for Christianity to thrive.

• Jack

 

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 

The very first Easter taught us that life never ends and love never dies.

Jack