Is the needle moving?

There is an interesting seesaw going on between an Algerian Cardinal and an American Bishop.

First, you may have noted that Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco, the archbishop of Algiers, Algeria, said: “We are the Church of this people. Not a proselytizing Church, not a Church that is there to convert, but a Church that aspires to be one of the components of this people.” He further asserted that “in monotheistic religions, proselytism is poison, because it implies considering the other person’s religion false.” “Do we see ourselves as a besieged fortress? Or do we choose fraternity?” Vesco asked. “For me, it is the only worthwhile option.”

For which he wins not the legendary “Oaf for a Day!” title, but rather the closely associated “Oaf for an Indeterminate Time!” title.

Bishop Robert Barron, who needs no introduction, pushed back saying:

“Last time I checked, the Founder said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.’ Sure sounds like conversion to me,” Barron noted.

“When St. Paul came to Corinth or Athens or Thessalonica, his purpose was not to listen or to form a discussion group but rather to declare an unnerving message: the euangelion (glad tidings) that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.”

“So impassioned is he for this work that he says, ‘I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel’ (1 Cor. 9:22); and ‘If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel’ (1 Cor. 9:16)!”

“Moreover, the entire thrust of the Second Vatican Council was toward bringing the Light of Christ to the peoples of the world (Lumen Gentium),” he continued. “And this missionary élan has given rise in the last few decades to the idea of a ‘new evangelization,’ which is to say, a fresh declaration of the Lordship of Christ.”

“Quite obviously, no one thinks that this work of evangelization should be done in a browbeating, overbearing, or disrespectful manner (proselytization), but for God’s sake, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Barron wrote.

“If I really thought that the Church does not exist to bring people to Christ, then I would resign and get an honest job,” the bishop of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, concluded.

For which Barron has been awarded a Gold Star.

Vasco has returned the volley with more contradictions.

In an October 30 social media post responding to Bishop Barron, Vesco highlighted the actions of recent popes, including John Paul II’s Assisi meetings, Pope Benedict XVI’s building closer ties with Muslims, Pope Francis’ Abu Dhabi declaration, and Pope Leo XIV’s prayers inside a mosque.

Citing these recent interfaith examples, Vesco declared that believers from the three monotheistic religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims) have “better things to do than try to convert one another” and should instead “respect one another.”

This back and forth is perhaps more revelatory than it could seem on the surface.

We have in one corner the (Francis) Cardinal Vesco (Oaf For An Indeterminate Period of Time) and, in the other corner Bp. Barron, malgrè soi, approaches Fidei Defensor. But this is more interesting now because the Oaf responded to Barron. Now we have more than a public disagreement between two hierarchs.  Now we have a public debate, a disputatio. The Leonine and non-Leonine bishops are now coming into the ring and punching and punching back.

This is excellent! And what’s at stake is not parva res, not small stakes. Redemptoris missio of John Paul II is at stake, not to mention the Great Commission.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but although some few like Bp. Schneider have publicly criticized Francis’/Leo’s decisions (e.g., TLM, Synodality – “walking together”), we have not yet had a public debate involving LeoSpeak, wherein two principals have criticized each other so specifically. It could be that this manifests a Struggle against Francis/Leo modernism. It reminds me of Burke v Kasper some years ago, where the “current magisterium” was at issue and even Ratzinger v Kasper.  Remember when Sodano went after Ratzinger on Dominus Iesus and John Paul had to referee it, I think in an Angelus address?

So now what will Leo do or say? His Assisi video was a … meh… not much.   He didn’t mention Christ, if I recall rightly.  Is he going to back Vesco?  No doubt Barron will not be the next archbishop of Chicago, but he wouldn’t have been anyway. Leo can decide not to say anything. So far, the Magisterium of Lacunae seems to be his preference. He could make some minuscule gesture that the pundit class will interpret for him.

The venerable and ancient practice of ecclesiastical disputatio, such as what St. Augustine engaged in, helped to clarify Church teachings (and purge heresies). Under Ming the Merciless/Leo this has been curtailed. Card. Burke criticized the organization of consistories under Leo for this particular missing element. Sitting around tables with the contemporary equivalent of newsprint redolent of seminary formation and clergy conferences is no way to bring sharp, sometimes even intelligent debates to the forefront. Instead decisions and outcomes are hyper-managed by men pulling levers behind the curtain.

If public debates, albeit through social media, are going to become more frequent and vociferous, then the needle is moving.