Close-up
Walking with the Pope

The Protest
of the Pure Hardliners
In the history of Christianity, there have been many dark moments, like in the 4th century when the Bishop Donatus wanted to break with a Church made up (also) of sinners. For Fr. Nello Cipriani, a theologian at the Augustinianum University in Rome, this is an incident from which we can learn a lot.

by Giuseppe Bolis

The Church has always had to deal with the problem of “dirt,” right from the time of Peter and Judas. At the same time, she has always, and above all, experienced the victory of mercy. There have been moments when this dynamic has manifested itself more dramatically than others. One of these was in North Africa in the 4th century, a place of flourishing Christian communities, rich with witnesses (the more important martyrs of the early centuries gave their lives there) and the theater of one of the most violent and dangerous clashes that ever happened: the Donatist schism.
We discuss this with Fr. Nello Cipriani, Professor of Theology at the Augustinianum University in Rome, and an expert on St. Augustine.

First, we cannot take for granted that our readers know about Donatism and about Augustine’s work to combat it.
It was a schismatic movement that divided the Church in northwestern Africa, in the 4th and 5th centuries. Donatism takes its name from Donatus, who was not the one who started it, but was its most influential figure at the start.

What were the terms of this challenge and what did the other Christians object to about it?
It had to do with a purist and traditionalist conception of the Church. It all began after the last great persecution by Diocletian (303–304), which caused many defections from the Church. Once Christian freedom had been reestablished, with the Edict of Milan, many traditores (those who had handed over–Latin: tradere–the holy books during the persecution) asked the Church to receive them back. Those who had remained faithful wanted the penitents to be re-baptized, but the Church, convinced that baptism marks the believer forever, despite moral incoherence, did not demand this.

Partly because, at one point, the discussion took on a political relevance…
The Donatist cause had become a banner for a group of ruffians called circumcellioni. These took advantage of the divisions in the Church to foster revolts of a social nature, with unheard of violence.

In such a dramatic context, how did Augustine act?
First of all, he sought dialogue, convinced that the use of reason could overcome all divisions. Then he realized, to his disappointment, that it was impossible to heal the schism.He tackled the Donatists with decision, showing their error from the point of view of the contents of their teaching and from the point of view of Christian method. He remained open to accepting them, though, above all after the Conference of Carthage in 411, when they were condemned and therefore excluded.

In the face of sin, there is always the temptation to separate bad from good drastically. What was Augustine’s attitude?
The Donatists had separated themselves from the Church because they said that the good cannot live alongside sinners. St. Augustine was always against this schismatic logic. In light of the Gospel, he sees the Church as a field in which the owner has sown good seed, but in which the enemy has sown weeds, tares. The workers would like to weed out the tares, but the owner is against this because there is the risk of pulling up the good grain. Instead, he prefers to leave them both to grow together until the harvest, when the definitive separation will take place. The metaphor teaches that the Church is the field in which God has sown good seed, but that the devil sows evil in the Church, and sinners grow there. Well, God is patient with everyone; He does not want the death of sinners, but wants them to be converted and live. So, St. Augustine invited the faithful to be tolerant and patient, and to pray for their conversion, sure that “the good will not be harmed by the bad, who are either unknown or tolerated for the love of peace, waiting for Christ to come and separate the tares from the wheat.”

The core of the controversy is about the nature of the Church. Where is the true Church? Can only the moral coherence of her members make her an authoritative protagonist in history?
The true Church is where the Risen Christ is present with His Spirit. He has promised: “I shall be with you until the end of the world.” To Peter, who had confessed his faith in Him, He said, “On you I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” We cannot understand the Church if we don’t take into account this presence–invisible, but quite real–of Christ in her. In past centuries, the Church has passed through even darker moments than the present one, but she always rises again, because Christ never abandons her, but renews her with His Spirit. St. Augustine had this unswerving faith. Moreover, for those who sincerely love the truth, it is not difficult to see that in the Church, even today, alongside the bad Christians there are just as many, if not more, who are good and holy.

The accusation of the Donatists was aimed at the morality of priests, too. Can only those who are pure and sinless validly celebrate the sacraments?
The Donatists believed that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on the holiness of the ministers. They said that if the minister does not have the Holy Spirit, because he is a sinner, he cannot sanctify others, because no one can give what he has not. For St. Augustine, instead, in the sacraments, it is Christ Himself who is working and sanctifying, even though He makes use of a minister: “The Holy Spirit is so actively present in the ministry of the Church that, even if he is a hypocrite, the Spirit works through him both eternal salvation and rebirth and the edification of those who are consecrated and evangelized.” Commenting on the Gospel of John, he expresses himself very clearly: “Does Peter baptize? It is Christ who baptizes. Does Paul baptize? It is Christ who baptizes. Does even Judas baptize? It is Christ who is baptizing.”

The Donatists attacked Augustine, even by throwing his sinful past in his face, but he confounded them. It is a sorrowful Augustine that we see, one who does not minimize the evil, but at the same time is at peace, certain of the victory of Christ in him. We seem to be seeing Benedict XVI in our own time.
It is very painful to see the Pope insulted today and being accused because of the priests who have abused children. He has suffered, and has condemned these crimes like no one else. St. Augustine’s position, however, was different. He was accused by the Donatists for his sinful past because of his commitment against the schism. “Who are you,” they questioned, “to accuse us of so many things?” Augustine had no difficulty in acknowledging his past sins, for he had already condemned them publicly in his Confessions, and so he was able to reply, “I am more severe than you against my sins: what you have blamed, I have condemned. Heaven grant that you might imitate me, that your error may finally become something of the past.” The Pope, instead, is accused of crimes that he did not commit, and against which he has fought. It is a more painful situation, which cannot but cause him great sorrow. It is the public condemnation of an innocent!