 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
May
7, 2007
VOL.
45, NO. 9Oakland,
CA
• Critiquing
limbo: Vatican responds
to changes in theological thought
• Taking a stand against TV violence; how will TV producers respond?
Critiquing
limbo: Vatican responds
to changes in theological thought
VATICAN
CITY (CNS) -- In its recent document on unbaptized children, the Vatican’s
International Theological Commission demonstrated how Church teaching
can be responsive to changes in theological thought, Christian beliefs
and the “signs of the times.”
The document, published April 20, critiqued the traditional understanding
of limbo, arguing instead that there was good reason to hope unbaptized
babies who die go to heaven.
Some people saw that as a reversal of a centuries-old Catholic principle.
But rather than announcing a radical break with the past, the commission
said it was assessing an issue in theological evolution.
The very first sentence of the document signaled an important distinction
when it spoke of the “hierarchy of truths” in Catholic doctrine.
The teaching on limbo was among those never addressed by Scripture and
never defined as dogma and is therefore subject to theological development,
it said.
“When the question of infants who die without baptism was first
taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the
doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood,”
it said.
More specifically, the commission said the theological tradition of the
past, specifically the Augustinian tradition, seems to have a “restricted
conception of the universality of God’s saving will.”
That’s an extremely sensitive issue today, one that goes beyond
the fate of unbaptized babies and has implications for the Church’s
relations with non-Christian religions.
The new document repeats traditional Catholic teaching that all salvation
is through Christ and has a relationship with the Church. But it emphasizes
more than once that God’s saving ways are ultimately mysterious
and that the holiness that resides in the Church can reach people outside
“the visible bounds of the Church.”
The modern theologians cited by the document include the late Jesuit Father
Karl Rahner and the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, both of whom had presented
arguments for abandoning the concept of limbo.
It also cited a collection of Catholic doctrinal documents edited by the
late Jesuit Father Jacques Dupuis, recipient of some criticism by the
Vatican’s doctrinal congregation in the late 1990s when Cardinal
Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was its head.
But the document goes beyond strictly theological opinions. It repeatedly
refers to the “sensus fidelium” -- the sense of the faithful
-- to illustrate how Christians increasingly reject the idea that the
vision of God would be denied to innocent babies.
One reason the Second Vatican Council rejected attempts to strengthen
teaching against the salvation of unbaptized infants was that bishops
felt it was “not the faith of their people,” the document
said.
It referred to an important teaching of Vatican II, which said that the
whole body of the faithful shares in Christ’s prophetic office and
“cannot err in matters of belief.”
To support its conclusions on limbo, the theological commission’s
document also cited the need for the Church to read the “signs of
the times” in order to better understand the Gospel.
In unusual detail, it listed several such signs that support the idea
of hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants: the warfare and turmoil
of the international scene and the Church’s awareness of its mission
as a bearer of hope; greater emphasis on God’s love and mercy in
a world of suffering people; renewed concern for the welfare of infants
in societies that are scandalized by the suffering of children; and increased
dialogue with people of other faiths, which encourages the Church to have
greater appreciation for the “manifold and mysterious ways of God.”
The International Theological Commission, which acts as an advisory body
to the Vatican, has always had a predominantly European membership, but
this document was prepared by a drafting committee made up of nine theologians
from five continents.
Taking a stand against TV violence; how will TV producers respond?
WASHINGTON
(CNS) -- The Federal Communications Commission has joined the battle against
violent content on television. In late April it issued a 39-page report
outlining its concerns about violence in TV programming.
The report said the TV Parental Guidelines ratings system and technology
intended to help parents block offensive programs -- like the V-chip --
had failed to protect children from being regularly exposed to violence.
It said less than half of U.S. families used the ratings, and less than
10 percent the V-chip.
The FCC recommended that Congress act to limit violence on entertainment
programs by giving the FCC the authority to define violence and to be
able to restrict it to late-evening hours.
The report suggested that Congress also pass a law to give consumers the
option to buy cable channels individually so they can reject paying for
channels they do not want, regardless of their content.
The FCC said research on whether violent programming had caused children
to act more aggressively was inconclusive. But it also cited studies,
including one by the surgeon general, that have said exposure to violent
content has been associated with increased aggression or violent behavior
in children, at least in the short term.
Regulating televised violence would be a new step for both Congress and
the FCC. The FCC has had more success in fining radio broadcasters for
indecent content, for which there is a long-standing set of guidelines,
as well as an outright ban for airing such material between 6 a.m. and
10 p.m.
TV broadcasters have more forcefully challenged the FCC on indecent content,
especially in the past three years since the infamous Janet Jackson “wardrobe
malfunction” during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show -- perhaps
because of fines that have ranged from $500,000 to $3 million for violations.
Critics of the Motion Picture Association of America have long complained
that the movie raters weren’t as harsh in judging violence as they
were with sexual content. The FCC is moving to assure the same claim can’t
be made about TV.
“For years broadcasters have placed the responsibility on parents,
claiming that parents have a plethora of tools from which to choose to
block violent programming from entering their homes,” said a Patti
Miller, vice president of Children Now, a children’s advocacy organization
based in Oakland.
“Yet the tools to which they refer, namely the V-chip and cable
and satellite parental controls, depend upon the voluntary television
rating system in order to work effectively. Broadcasters have compromised
the usefulness of these tools by not applying the TV ratings in a consistent
manner.”
Others with a stake in how Congress and the FCC apply the new report cast
a far more wary glance.
