Christ at the Center: Newness and Pitfalls of This Pontificate’s Debut

(s.m.) “To move asi­de so that Christ may remain, to make one­self small so that he may be kno­wn and glo­ri­fied.” Right from his debut as suc­ces­sor of Peter, Pope Leo has made no secret of pla­cing Christ – and Him alo­ne – at the cen­ter of his mis­sion, his ser­vi­ce, his life.

And he wan­ts the uni­ty of the Church to also be recom­po­sed around Christ, just as in his epi­sco­pal mot­to taken from St. Augustine: “in Illo Uno Unum,” or “in the One Christ we are one.”

The fol­lo­wing is the assess­ment of the fir­st 100 days of Leo XIV’s pon­ti­fi­ca­te that Robert P. Imbelli, a prie­st of the arch­dio­ce­se of New York and a reno­w­ned theo­lo­gian, publi­shed in English on July 17 on “Public Discourse — The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute.”

Imbelli car­ried out his stu­dies in Rome at the Pontifical Gregorian University and in the United States at Yale University. He taught theo­lo­gy at Boston College, and a selec­tion of his wri­tings was recen­tly publi­shed under the title “Christ Brings All Newness: Essays, Reviews, and Reflections.” He con­tri­bu­ted to “L’Osservatore Romano” during the years it was edi­ted by Giovanni Maria Vian.

His turn, with the thanks of Settimo Cielo, which will resu­me publi­ca­tion after a short sum­mer break.

(In the pho­to of July 3, Pope Leo with the chil­dren of the Vatican Summer Center, inclu­ding 300 Ukrainians).

*

Centered in Christ: Reflections on Pope Leo’s First 100 Days

by Robert P. Imbelli

In the­se fir­st mon­ths of Leo XIV’s pon­ti­fi­ca­te, ini­tial impres­sions have often been based on mat­ters of sty­le, mani­fe­st in gar­men­ts and gestu­res. Thus, his fir­st appea­ran­ce on the bal­co­ny of Saint Peter’s Basilica, wea­ring moz­zet­ta and papal sto­le, was rightly taken as a deci­ded con­tra­st to his pre­de­ces­sor, Pope Francis, who shun­ned both. So too, his deci­sions to dwell in the Apostolic Palace and to spend some vaca­tion time in the papal vil­la at Castel Gandolfo mark a distan­cing in sty­le from his pre­de­ces­sor who not only avoi­ded the­se dwel­lings, but stu­diou­sly neglec­ted vaca­tions.

Such “sty­li­stic” depar­tu­res, whi­le not deci­si­ve, are still signi­fi­cant. They sug­ge­st that unli­ke Francis’s pen­chant to bend the offi­ce to his per­son, Leo appears bent on accom­mo­da­ting his per­son to the offi­ce he has assu­med. In many ways this “keno­tic” dispo­si­tion reflec­ts his pled­ge, at the ope­ning Mass with the car­di­nals after his elec­tion, “to move asi­de so that Christ may remain, to make one­self small so that he may be kno­wn and glo­ri­fied.”

Even the choi­ce of name mani­fests, in my view, this desi­re to let his per­son be subor­di­na­ted to the offi­ce. No doubt the choi­ce of “Leo” bespeaks a com­mit­ment to both the social and intel­lec­tual sen­si­bi­li­ties of Leo XIII. But it also impli­ci­tly coun­ters his predecessor’s idio­syn­cra­tic impul­se in selec­ting the never pre­viou­sly employed “Francis.”

Perhaps even more impor­tan­tly, his “sty­le” con­si­sten­tly expres­ses genui­ne appre­cia­tion and gra­ti­tu­de for the con­tri­bu­tions of others. To a frank­ly dispi­ri­ted Roman cler­gy he spo­ke words of encou­ra­ge­ment: “I would like to help you, to walk with you, so that each per­son may regain sere­ni­ty in his own mini­stry.” He com­men­ded the mem­bers of the papal diplo­ma­tic corps, say­ing: “The net­work of Pontifical Representations is always acti­ve and ope­ra­ti­ve. This is for me a cau­se for great appre­cia­tion and gra­ti­tu­de. I say this thin­king cer­tain­ly of the dedi­ca­tion and orga­ni­za­tion, but, even more so, of the moti­va­tions that gui­de you, the pasto­ral sty­le that should cha­rac­te­ri­ze you, the spi­rit of faith that inspi­res us.” And the spon­ta­neous admis­sion made to the diplo­ma­ts seems a fea­tu­re of all his pre­sen­ta­tions: “what I said, I said not at the sug­ge­stion of anyo­ne, but becau­se I dee­ply belie­ve it: your role, your mini­stry, is irre­pla­cea­ble.”

But que­stions of “sty­le” also set a distinc­ti­ve tone to Leo’s homi­lies. A friend has remar­ked that a notewor­thy fea­tu­re is their “unclut­te­red” sty­le. There is a direct­ness to his words, unal­loyed by rhe­to­ri­cal flou­ri­shes and “obi­ter dic­ta.” This very direct­ness makes the cru­cial con­tent of his pre­sen­ta­tions appear with remar­ka­ble cla­ri­ty. So, the sty­le hap­pi­ly sub­ser­ves the con­tent.

And that con­tent is admi­ra­bly Christocentric. The appeal to Christ never appears “pro for­ma,” a rote fea­tu­re of Church-speak. It ser­ves, rather, as the “can­tus fir­mus” upon which the who­le musi­cal com­po­si­tion is based. Pondering Leo’s ser­mons and talks is to hear varia­tions on Paul’s ecsta­tic con­fes­sion: “for me to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:21). And, like Paul, he rejoi­ces in pro­clai­ming and sha­ring the pearl of great pri­ce with others.

Already in his inau­gu­ral homi­ly, pre­a­ched in a pac­ked Saint Peter’s Square, Leo said: “We want to say to the world, with humi­li­ty and joy: Look to Christ! Come clo­ser to him! Welcome his word that enlightens and con­so­les! Listen to his offer of love and beco­me his one fami­ly: In the one Christ, we are one.”

A month later, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, he quo­ted and made his own Vatican II’s tea­ching: that “in the sacra­ment of the Eucharistic bread, the uni­ty of belie­vers, who form one body in Christ, is both expres­sed and achie­ved. All are cal­led to this union with Christ, who is the light of the world, from whom we come, throu­gh whom we live, and towards whom we direct our lives.”

At the many more inti­ma­te encoun­ters of this Jubilee Year, the melo­dy remains the same. So to the semi­na­rians of Northern Italy, Leo urged: “Keep your gaze always fixed on Jesus (Heb 12:2) always nou­ri­shing your rela­tion­ship of friend­ship with him.” And he remin­ded a con­fe­ren­ce on fami­lies: “What dri­ves the Church in her pasto­ral and mis­sio­na­ry outreach is pre­ci­se­ly the desi­re to go out as a ‘fisher’ of huma­ni­ty, in order to save it from the waters of evil and death throu­gh an encoun­ter with Christ.” And to a group of stu­den­ts and tea­chers from various European coun­tries Leo said that, in a cul­tu­re too often inun­da­ted with sounds, they should stri­ve to listen with their hearts, “allo­wing God’s gra­ce to streng­then your faith in Jesus (cf. Col 2:7), so that you might more rea­di­ly share that gift with others.”

The stri­king impres­sion con­veyed in the­se and Pope Leo’s other exhor­ta­tions is that of a renewed Christological con­cen­tra­tion that is well sum­med up in his epi­sco­pal mot­to: “in Illo Uno Unum,” or “in the One Christ we are one.” Like so much of his theo­lo­gi­cal and spi­ri­tual sen­si­bi­li­ty, the motto’s sour­ce is the great Augustine of Hippo, patron of his own Augustinian Order. And the pro­mi­se going for­ward is a recen­te­ring of the Church upon its Lord in a man­ner that is not per­func­to­ry and mere­ly notio­nal, but con­si­stent, com­pre­hen­si­ve, and pas­sio­na­te: “in Illo Uno.”

It may appear stran­ge to sug­ge­st that the pro­mi­se is to recen­ter the Church upon its Lord. Has that not been the case? Sadly, many indi­ca­tions point to what I have cal­led a “Christological amne­sia” in too many quar­ters of con­tem­po­ra­ry Catholicism.

The for­mer pre­a­cher of the papal hou­se­hold, Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa, has, over the years, lamen­ted that in North Atlantic Catholicism one often recei­ves the impres­sion “that Christ is not a rea­li­ty:” “etsi Christus non dare­tur.” And just a few mon­ths ago the well-known Brazilian prie­st and theo­lo­gian Clodovis Boff issued a heart­felt appeal to the Bishops of the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council (CELAM). He wro­te, in a tren­chant cri­ti­ci­sm of their recent mes­sa­ge, “One can’t help but con­clu­de that the Church’s pri­ma­ry con­cern on our con­ti­nent is not the cau­se of Christ and the sal­va­tion he has won for us, but rather social issues like justi­ce, pea­ce, and ecology—which you repeat in your mes­sa­ge like a worn-out refrain.”

He then issued a stri­king call to renewal: “It is, the­re­fo­re, time—long past time—to bring Christ out of the sha­do­ws and into the light. It’s time to resto­re his abso­lu­te pri­ma­cy, both in the Church ‘ad intra’ —in per­so­nal con­scien­ces, spi­ri­tua­li­ty, and theo­lo­gy — and ‘ad extra’—in evan­ge­li­za­tion, ethics, and poli­tics. Our Church in Latin America urgen­tly needs to return to her true cen­ter, to her ‘fir­st love’ (Rev. 2:4).” Boff is by no means advo­ca­ting a with­dra­wal of the Church from “the world,” but that the Church assu­me its true mis­sion to be a tran­sfor­ma­ti­ve for­ce foun­ded on its defi­ning Christological natu­re and iden­ti­ty. Boff calls for “a broad and tran­sfor­ma­ti­ve Christocentrism that lea­vens and renews eve­ry­thing: eve­ry per­son, the who­le Church, and socie­ty at lar­ge.”

Does Pope Leo sen­se the cri­sis outli­ned here? Does he have the per­so­nal and theo­lo­gi­cal resour­ces not only to cri­ti­que this Christological defi­cit in the Church, but to gui­de and inspi­re a true Christological renewal? On this 1700th anni­ver­sa­ry of the Council of Nicaea, no que­stions are more pres­sing for the Christian wit­ness in the world.

There are, indeed, pro­mi­sing signs. In a Mass, cele­bra­ted at Castel Gandolfo, for “the Care of Creation,” Leo pur­po­se­ly cho­se to pre­ach on the Gospel account of the disci­ples, awe-struck at Jesus’s cal­ming of the sea. And he lif­ts up the Christological que­stion they pose: “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” (Mt. 8:27). He poin­ted­ly insists: “We too should be asking our­sel­ves” this Christological que­stion of him who­se “power does not break down, but builds up. It does not destroy, but calls into being and besto­ws new life.”

Leo finds in the Christological hymn of the Letter to the Colossians the tradition’s full-throated respon­se. He says: “So, we can ask our­sel­ves once more: “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” (Mt. 8:27). The hymn from the Letter to the Colossians that we have heard seems to answer this very que­stion: ‘He is the ima­ge of the invi­si­ble God, the first-born of all crea­tion; for in him all things were crea­ted’ (Col. 1:15–16).”

Moreover, in his mes­sa­ge for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation to be held on September 1, Leo again stres­ses the distinc­ti­ve Christological basis of the Christian com­mit­ment to envi­ron­men­tal justi­ce. “For belie­vers it is also a duty born of faith, sin­ce the uni­ver­se reflec­ts the face of Jesus Christ, in whom all things were crea­ted and redee­med.” Invoking two of the more con­tro­ver­sial ency­cli­cals of Pope Francis, Laudato si’ and Fratelli Tutti, he both con­firms them and pro­vi­des their com­mon Christological foun­da­tion.

One awai­ts, of cour­se, Leo’s fir­st major docu­ment, whe­ther an apo­sto­lic exhor­ta­tion or even an ency­cli­cal to gau­ge more ful­ly his theo­lo­gi­cal and pasto­ral vision, and to indi­ca­te the direc­tion in which he hopes to gui­de the Church. However, it is only rea­li­stic to ack­no­w­led­ge a pos­si­ble con­straint pla­ced on him in the­se fir­st mon­ths of his papa­cy. It is the “glo­bal syno­dal pro­cess” laun­ched by his pre­de­ces­sor and now taking on fur­ther impe­tus due to a docu­ment signed by Pope Francis during his last hospi­ta­li­za­tion. That docu­ment pro­vi­des for an elon­ga­ted three-year pro­cess, begin­ning this past June and sla­ted to cul­mi­na­te in a lit­tle defi­ned “eccle­sial assem­bly” to be held at the Vatican in October 2028.

There are two poten­tial pit­falls here: one regards gover­nan­ce, the other theo­lo­gy. As to the fir­st, the dan­ger is that a semi-autonomous bureau­cra­cy, the General Secretariat of the Synod alrea­dy in pla­ce and func­tio­ning, risks acting, in effect, as an alter­na­ti­ve magi­ste­rium. As to the second, both the pro­cess and the docu­men­ts thus far pro­du­ced by the synods mani­fe­stly lack that robu­st Christocentrism so evi­dent in Leo’s homi­lies and pre­sen­ta­tions. Absent from the syno­dal vision is the urgen­cy of the exhor­ta­tion of Saint Cyprian, dear to Pope Leo: “Prefer nothing wha­te­ver to Christ!”

Let me fra­me the theo­lo­gi­cal issue in a way that I hope is both suc­cinct and sug­ge­sti­ve. The cru­cial que­stion con­fron­ting the Church in the­se con­fu­sed and pola­ri­zed times of a post-postmodernity is whe­ther the Spirit is to be under­stood in func­tion of Christ or Christ under­stood in func­tion of the Spirit.

The lat­ter is the option of a theo­lo­gi­cal libe­ra­li­sm that impli­ci­tly or expli­ci­tly seeks to “go beyond” Christ to meet the sup­po­sed exi­gen­cies of the pre­sent and futu­re. The for­mer, with Nicaea, sees in Christ the “novis­si­mus,” his unsur­pas­sa­ble new­ness: God’s incar­na­tion and full reve­la­tion to huma­ni­ty. For the ortho­dox tra­di­tion we do not go beyond Jesus Christ, but stri­ve to “catch up” to him, to beco­me more ful­ly incor­po­ra­ted into him so that “Christ may be all in all” (Col. 3:11).

All we have seen and heard indi­ca­tes that the cru­ci­fied and risen Christ who sends the Spirit is the very heart of Leo’s spi­ri­tua­li­ty and theo­lo­gy. Saint Augustine’s spi­ri­tua­li­ty and theo­lo­gy have clear­ly for­med and con­ti­nue to nur­tu­re him. Yet, in a mid-June cate­che­sis in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Leo invo­ked ano­ther nota­ble figu­re, the­re­by rein­for­cing his Christocentric view. He spo­ke appre­cia­ti­ve­ly of the second-century father of the Church, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons. Irenaeus famou­sly oppo­sed the feve­rish gno­stic here­sies of his age, with their reduc­ti­ve Christology and disdain for the flesh, the “caro.” Irenaeus famou­sly arti­cu­la­ted the “regu­la fidei,” the rule of faith that ser­ves as authen­tic inter­pre­ta­tion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the incar­na­te Son of the Father.

Leo has cal­led Irenaeus “one of the grea­te­st of Christian theo­lo­gians,” who in his per­son bore wit­ness to the com­mon faith of the undi­vi­ded Church both East and West. And Leo under­sco­red Irenaeus’s rele­van­ce to us. He said: “in a frag­men­ted world Irenaeus lear­ned how to think bet­ter, brin­ging his atten­tion ever more dee­ply to Jesus. Irenaeus beca­me a can­tor of his per­son, indeed of his flesh [un can­to­re del­la sua per­so­na, anzi del­la sua car­ne]. Indeed, he reco­gni­zed that in Jesus Christ, what seems to con­flict is recon­ci­led in uni­ty. Jesus is not a wall that sepa­ra­tes, but a door that uni­tes us. We must remain in him and distin­guish rea­li­ty from ideo­lo­gies.” And Leo con­clu­ded: “Irenaeus, tea­cher of uni­ty, tea­ches us not to oppo­se, but to con­nect. There is intel­li­gen­ce not whe­re the­re is sepa­ra­tion, but whe­re the­re is con­nec­tion. To distin­guish is use­ful, but to divi­de, never. Jesus is the eter­nal life in our mid­st: he brings oppo­si­tes toge­ther and makes com­mu­nion pos­si­ble.”

And the Spirit of com­mu­nion, of “koi­no­nia,” is no ano­ny­mous spi­rit, but the Spirit of the “one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father befo­re all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begot­ten not made, con­sub­stan­tial with the Father; throu­gh him all things were made.” So, the Fathers of Nicaea. So, Leo.

————

Sandro Magister is past “vati­ca­ni­sta” of the Italian wee­kly L’Espresso.
The late­st arti­cles in English of his blog Settimo Cielo are on this page.
But the full archi­ve of Settimo Cielo in English, from 2017 to today, is acces­si­ble.
As is the com­ple­te index of the blog www.chiesa, which pre­ce­ded it.