How did the Chilean Church react to the cardinal appointment of the Archbishop of Santiago, Monsignor Fernando Natalio Chomalí? How do you evaluate this appointment?
The Chilean Church is pleased with Fernando Chomalí’s appointment. It is inevitable to note that his predecessors were criticized by Catholics, either for their handling of clergy sexual abuse accusations and cover-ups or for their lack of public representation. In the Church, authorities play a representative role for the People of God. Many Catholics, including priests, have felt abandoned for years.
Fernando Chomalí, in contrast, has stepped into the public arena, filling a significant void. People were expecting a voice from the Church. The new cardinal of Santiago does not shy away from any issue. Moreover, he introduces new topics into public debate that interest both Christians and non-Christians. He is open to criticism, and there will undoubtedly be reasons to object to some of his ideas. Nonetheless, and precisely because of this, his friendly and dialogical approach to society is appreciated.
How are the Chilean Church and the Society of Jesus in Chile addressing the crisis of sexual abuse today?
The clergy sexual abuse crisis in Chile has had catastrophic effects on the Chilean Church. It has also impacted non-Catholics who once held a positive view of the Church.
The cases of abuse are numerous and have involved high-profile individuals. It is a sad paradox that we, as priests—representatives of “faith”—have become people who are “unworthy of trust.”
Even so, the Chilean Church and the Society of Jesus, for better or worse, have undergone an arduous process of learning to investigate, punish, and offer reparations to victims of abuse. Protocols for safeguarding have been established in schools and other Church organizations; scientific studies and publications have been produced; efforts have been made to learn from comparative experiences and to submit to international oversight.
On a personal note, it pains me deeply to know that colleagues and friends of mine have been accused and punished. On the other hand, I am very glad that those who knocked on the Church’s door seeking justice have been heard and not dismissed, as was the case in the past.
There is something that few people have likely grasped. The abuses of conscience, sometimes linked to sexual abuse and other times not, have opened our eyes to the sacrament of confession. There are two reasons to reconsider the viability of auricular confession. One is old: those of us who have been confessors often encounter people who return to confession thirty years—give or take—after a traumatic experience with a priest who mistreated them. The second reason is new: we are now aware that the disclosure of intimate matters cannot be forced, encouraged, or suggested. Intimacy is sacred. It can only be shared freely and in an environment of utmost trust.
The problem is not about good or bad priests and the need to improve their formation. The very institution of auricular confession is abusive, as it expects or exposes Catholics to an inhuman experience.
How would you assess the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on Synodality so far? Could you highlight three positive aspects and three challenges of the Synod?
I do not have enough information. I do not feel capable of evaluating the entire process because, as I understand it, some of the proposals concern issues already present in canon law but not implemented in practice, while others involve doctrinal changes that will likely not materialize, such as the ordination of women priests or deaconesses. Perhaps the ordination of viri probati might be authorized—I don’t know.
I don’t foresee that, at the end of the process, the Pope will repeal the Humanae Vitae encyclical, which has blocked the possibility of offering new generations truly guiding moral and sexual teachings. The prohibition of the contraceptive pill in 1968 was not accepted by the People of God—no one abides by it anymore. Yet for years, it condemned women to confess regularly to receive Communion. They had to confess a “sin” that, in reality, was an act of responsibility toward their families. The damage has been immense.
Another issue: accountability needs improvement. Mechanisms for accountability and checks on the exercise of power must be established. The Church cannot have a clerical class that self-selects and allows the rest of the People of God very little participation in its governance. Why don’t Catholics elect their authorities? Their bishops? It is unacceptable that communities have to endure despotic parish priests for years.
Canonical changes are needed. But these will not suffice if the clergy refuses to abide by the rules. Let’s face it: the clergy is the number one obstacle to synodality. They do not want to lose power.
The clergy have not been trained to interact with the laity. The Vatican II reform of clerical formation has failed. The Church has returned to the Tridentine seminary: seminarians trained behind four walls, representatives of the sacred, liturgically commemorating the sacrifice of an innocent victim, separated from other Christians and supposedly superior in dignity and holiness. The Church will never be synodal while governed by the “sacred man.”
What are the three most urgent topics that need to be discussed in the Church today?
This last issue is crucial. Trent, in its time, correctly addressed the dire state of the priesthood. Clerical formation was minimal, and the results were disastrous. However, what was valid 500 years ago is no longer suitable as it stands.
Vatican II, in the 20th century, returned to the origins: the identity of presbyters is distinct but inseparable from that of the laity, as what matters most is being “Christian,” being baptized. The sole purpose of ordained ministry is to serve the common priesthood of the faithful and guide their communities.
Another topic: the participation of women. Much has been said about this. I won’t elaborate. However, one key point stands out: if the teaching of the Gospel ultimately depends on the spiritual experience of Christians, the day the Christian experience of women is taken into account, we will have a better, more human Church.
A third or fourth topic is the development of a Catholic Church with diverse regional versions. In antiquity, there were major patriarchates: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Rome. Could something similar not be possible in the 21st century?
In a 2022 article in Religión Digital, you stated, “The main problem in the Church is not clericalism but the priestly version of Catholicism.” Later, you added, “The Catholic Church does not need to solve the problem of clericalism. First, it needs to de-sacralize itself.” Can you explain this idea? What does “de-sacralizing” mean? What theological basis do you have for this position? What practical and spiritual consequences do you foresee for the Church with this proposal?
I do not expect women to be ordained as priests. We risk duplicating the problem. It would be even worse if women sought priesthood as a matter of entitlement and joined the caste of those with a “vocation.”
Not long ago, I wrote an article in Seminarios magazine titled “De-sacralizing the Presbyteral Ministry: A Horizon for Seminarian Formation” (2022). My initial idea was that, over the centuries, the leadership ministry within communities had become sacralized in ways contrary to the simplicity Jesus envisioned for those serving in such roles. As I delved into the research, I realized I was far from original on the subject. Many theologians had already written about the need to de-sacralize, desacralize, or de-clericalize the ministry.
Vatican II, in the decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, aimed to set things right. It prioritized the ministry of proclaiming the Gospel. To this end, it re-ordered the tria munera (three ministerial roles) as follows: prophet (Word), priest (sacraments), and king (leadership or governance). Furthermore, it proposed that ministers be called “presbyters,” as in antiquity, rather than “priests” (a term never used in the New Testament for ministers and one that leaves the door open to a revival of the Old Testament priesthood, which the Letter to the Hebrews asserts Jesus abolished).
Within a few years of its promulgation, this significant reform was discarded. The first important document on clerical formation in 1970, just five years after Presbyterorum Ordinis, was titled Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis. National rationes have followed this model to this day.
In just a few years, we reverted to the “sacred man” who inspires sacred fear, distances himself from the world and people, dresses differently, and carries within himself a split between the perfection he must represent and the imperfection he hides.
In 2018, you wrote in an article for Religión Digital that the Pope “should encourage the autonomous development of the Latin American Church.” What does this mean in practice? What do you understand by “autonomous development,” and could you provide some examples?
The theologian Karl Rahner, in an article titled Fundamental Interpretation of the Council (1980), argued that it is possible to envision a third major “theological” stage, beginning with Vatican II, which he identifies as the era of a “world Church.” The first stage, he says, was Judeo-Christianity, which Saint Paul ultimately transcended. The Apostle of the Gentiles convinced the apostles in Jerusalem that one did not need to become Jewish to be Christian. From then until now, the Greek, Latin, and Western Church we know has prevailed everywhere. Our local churches are essentially exports of this Church. We are colonies.
The third stage, the “world Church,” could resemble those five ancient patriarchates. For example, the African Church might express Catholic dogma in new categories, develop a moral framework suited to its own issues, celebrate the Eucharist with elements as meaningful to them as bread and wine are to us, and draft its own canon law. Why not?
This is what I mean when I say the Pope should encourage the autonomous development of the Latin American Church. I envision regional churches gathering Catholics who share similar cultural characteristics.
The tension is mounting. In the Synod’s discussions, we see significant friction among ecclesial sectors that differ culturally, not only between conservatives and progressives. At the end of the Synod on the Family, the Pope noted a wide diversity of views on important issues among the participants.
This is the kind of autonomy I mean. It would require a major ecclesial restructuring to organize relations between the Roman Church and other churches. Rome is responsible for maintaining the unity of the Church, while other churches have the duty to help the Pope fulfill this role. It is no simple task.
In the same article, you stated, “The Chilean Church urgently needs the Pope to introduce key changes in the doctrine, structure, and governance of the universal Church.” What needs to change in the doctrine, and why would such changes be positive? Regarding the Church’s structure and governance, what changes do you suggest and for what reasons?
What I said about the Chilean Church applies to the Church in other regions. I refer to matters I have already mentioned.
In Chile, however, there is a specific issue deserving attention, though it is also present in other Latin American countries. In Chile, it is accelerating. The transmission of faith has stalled.
The reasons may be many. One significant reason is cultural. In addition to the long-standing process of secularization, we now face the new ways in which young people are being “formatted.” New generations seem to believe they can edit themselves. It appears they think it is possible to start anew, as if no one preceded them. They feel no need for parents, teachers, priests, or nuns. How, then, would they need a millennial religious tradition? They shrug it off. While they don’t start from zero, it seems they act as though the world begins with them.
If this is indeed the case, Christianity will be entirely different or will disappear—not only because catechists will have no students but also because, before long, there won’t be any catechists either.
In Chile, seminaries are closing. In the largest seminary, only one to five seminarians enroll each year. They enter and then leave. In 2024, the Jesuits in Chile had no novices, and in previous years, there were almost none. Women’s religious life is also in decline. If this trend continues, in fifty years, we will have a completely different Church.
It would be tragic to lose a millennial tradition of wisdom in such confusing times. However, it is also true that this opens the possibility of a de-sacralized Christianity. But who truly knows what will happen?
What challenges and opportunities for theological work in Latin America arise from Pope Francis’s provocations in the Apostolic Letter Ad Theologiam Promovendam for a theological reflection “that is fundamentally contextual, capable of reading and interpreting the Gospel in the conditions in which men and women live daily…” (§4)?
I did not expect this question. It touches on something very new that has gone largely unnoticed.
The text continues with an even stronger statement: “For this reason, it is necessary to prioritize the knowledge of people’s common sense, which is, in fact, the theological place where many images of God are found, often not corresponding to the Christian face of God, who is only and always love.”
This motu proprio acknowledges what already happens in Latin American Christian communities, especially in Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs). In these settings, theological authority is given to the faith experiences of Christians.
Up to now, it has been common to think that the sources of revelation are primarily Scripture and the Church’s Tradition. This text acknowledges and calls for making room among the “proper theological loci” for the lives of people and historical events.
The Vatican II constitution Gaudium et Spes inaugurated this way of doing theology at the magisterial level. In essence, it was invented by Joseph Cardijn, the creator of the see-judge-act method (I recommend Agenor Brighenti’s excellent book on this method).
At Vatican II, the greatest theologians debated this method. They found it difficult to accept a theological method that included an inductive moment. Hesitantly, they spoke of the “signs of the times,” a theological category used to structure the constitution and establish a dialogue between the Church and the contemporary world.
In any case, I am not aware of another magisterial document as clear as Ad Theologiam Promovendam in affirming that God speaks today—not only in the Bible. This simple text—whether it has been translated into Portuguese or Spanish, I do not know—signals a revolution in theological history. Future treatises on fundamental theology will be divided between those giving Ad Theologiam Promovendam the importance it deserves, those treating it as an interesting reference, and those simply ignoring it.
What intuitions from the Vatican II constitutions can inspire pastoral renewal and a more synodal Church?
The most important step is to follow John XXIII’s conviction to make Vatican II a pastoral council. According to the Good Pope, the Church needed an aggiornamento to proclaim the Gospel in a way that contemporaries could truly see as Good News.
A key element was presenting the Church as a community where its members have fraternal relationships. Chapter II of Lumen Gentium holds significant relevance: the Church is the People of God. Baptism levels the playing field. Before any organization or authority we create, we are brothers and sisters because we have been baptized into Christ.
If the Church’s mission is to announce the possibility of a fraternal world, it must live out that fraternity. Synodality involves walking this path together, as those who have been made siblings by Christ, the elder brother. Or, as Pedro Trigo would say, the “Universal Brother.”
How do you view the theological landscape in Latin America?
The most significant development comes from the work of Leonardo Boff.
The great sign of the times is the growing awareness of the ecological and environmental catastrophe. In line with Ad Theologiam Promovendam, I believe we need to develop a theology that starts from the spiritual experience of all people who are sensitive to the “cry of the earth and the cry of the poor,” as Francis states in Laudato Si’.
But the planet’s future is uncertain. An atomic war could end all “theological places” and with them both progressive and conservative theologians. The recent uncertainty surrounding artificial intelligence shows that the planet could slip from our grasp at any moment.
What are the challenges in building a civilization of gratitude, recognition, and thankfulness?
The theological challenge outlined above offers a unique opportunity to contribute to the emergence of a new civilization. The capitalist civilization that pitted everyone against one another in a race for survival, put a price on all creatures (including people), and left us bankrupt must end.
The experience of creation demands acknowledgment that no one owes their existence to themselves. There was always Someone—or something, as even atheists must admit—that preceded us. Perhaps we had a bad father or a bad mother. But recognizing this precedence is precisely the foundation of a better world. Gratitude, even as an ideal, opens the door to mutual appreciation.
And this is what we were created for. God’s glory lies in sharing ourselves with one another—among creatures, both living and non-living.
