|
Written by Father Rolheiser, the dramatization of Luther’s fictional meeting with Pope Leo X was actually the third act in a full-length play he wrote 20 years ago while teaching at Newman Theological College in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. He served at that time on an archdiocesan commission for Lutheran-Catholic dialogue and for the annual Lutheran-Catholic Day of Dialogue, decided, “We need to shake this up!”
Instead of the usual speakers, he created a play, drawing on a course taught at Newman in Christian anthropology which delved into the question of original sin and covered the philosophies of St. Augustine, Martin Luther and the like. Calling the play A Dialogue that Never Took Place that Should Have Taken Place, Father Rolheiser tried in this script to be fair to both sides, knowing his audience would be evenly composed of both Lutherans and Catholics.
Looking at Rome’s and Luther’s real issues, it was not as simplistic as the selling of indulgences for which Luther chastised the church. “No, indulgences are a little symptom of something much, much bigger,” noted Father Rolheiser in a pre-show interview.
The first two acts of his full-length play in Edmonton featured earlier precursors of the Luther/Pope Leo debate — first, between Paul and James in biblical times and, 300 years later, by Augustine and Pelagius, with his denial of original sin. “You can kind of draw a line from Paul to Augustine to Luther, James to Pelagius to the pope,” noted Father Rolheiser, pointing out that Luther had been an Augustinian monk at one time. “Not that the church is Pelagian,” he quickly added, but that is what Luther accuses the church of being.
In the play, Luther tells the pope the church dogmatically condemned Pelagius as a heretic but has “never stopped living his teaching.” “Of course you can add in brackets,” said Father Rolheiser, “neither have the Protestants,” noting there is something innate in humans about “merit,” feeling good about ourselves and better with God when we do good, charitable things. “And yet,” he related, “we can’t earn heaven.”
He pointed out the main Protestant criticism was not so much a protest against indulgences and their abuse or against Rome, as a “protesting for God, God’s freedom,” and not using God as “a puppet on a string,” as Luther charges the church in the dramatization.
The Catholic argument, found in Pope Leo’s lines in the play, is that Protestantism is an idealistic purity that eventually “starves” you. As background, Father Rolheiser referred to the Renaissance, supported by the church and bringing to it an incredible richness, but which allowed in human impurities as well.
In the play, Luther rails against art in churches, noting some artists used their mistresses as models for the Madonna, and calls the Renaissance the “spirit of paganism.” The pope points out “the birth of God to flesh” is itself a compromise and Luther’s puritanical version of Christianity would have isolated Jesus himself from “prostitutes and tax collectors.”
Of course, had the church shunned art, there would been none of the incredibly inspiring works of Michelangelo. It boils down to the question of risking “contamination” and embracing Catholicism or choosing the “antiseptically” pure doctrine of Protestantism, notes Father Rolheiser, and this is the archetypal argument and struggle played out in Luther’s Protest.
Striving to be fair, Father Rolheiser’s Luther has lines that show Protestantism at its best and his Pope Leo has the opportunity to speak about Catholicism at its best. These opposing views, he observes, continue to play out in secular culture’s swings between excessive Puritanism and excessive liberalism.
Ultimately, noted Father Rolheiser, the issue is whether you emphasize God as transcendent, being wholly “other” (the Protestant motif), or eminent (the Catholic view), meaning incarnational — “in the flesh and in the earth.” That is the archetypal “catch,” and it is the crux of the play.
“Protestantism is a protest for God’s transcendence,” he said. “Catholicism is always a protest for God’s eminence.” In Luther’s Protest the twain may not meet, but the two sides of the argument can be viewed for what they are.
Adding a unique twist to the OST production was the choice of actors for the lead roles. Playing the fiery Martin Luther was Andrew deVoogd, a Lutheran and son of Lutheran missionaries. Portraying the aristocratic Medici pope, Leo X, was Father Leo Perez, OMI, who teaches moral theology at OST and who was also responsible for the set.
Rounding out the cast were Brother Bart Zavaletta, OMI, as the Swiss Guard and Brother Ray Cook, OMI, as the Papal Aide, both OST seminarians, as was Brother Ricky Lopez, OMI, who was responsible for the period costumes and props. Diane Malone of the Church Bistro & Theatre was the play’s director, with Rick Malone providing lighting and sound.
The U.S. premiere of Luther’s Protest was as warmly received by OST benefit attendees as Father Rolheiser’s original production was in Edmonton by its Lutheran and Catholic audience. (The same held true for a performance at an Episcopalian church in Brussels for a predominantly Protestant audience when Father Rolheiser was studying at the University of Louvain in Belgium.)
In the mid ’90s the play was revived for a taping using professional actors and aired several times on Vision TV, the Canadian Catholic television network.
There is the possibility that, if the occasion or invitation arises, Luther’s Protest will have the opportunity to be seen elsewhere in San Antonio. Prior to the Sept. 19 production, Father Rolheiser speculated that, if successful at this year’s benefit, perhaps a different play might be staged next year, again with a religion-based theme.
Queried if he had any ideas for future theological dramatizations, he thought back to something that had crossed his mind while on sabbatical in 1990 and reading St. Thérèse of Lisieux. Carrie Fisher was a popular author at the time and he had toyed with the idea of bringing the two together in a play, but never had the time to fully develop this.
Noting Fisher is not as well-known these days, Father Rolheiser mused that perhaps a witty sparring partner for the Carmelite saint today might be late night television host Jay Leno — or David Letterman. “You’d have to be fair,” he said. “It wouldn’t be a hatchet job. So Thérèse gets to speak her best lines, and yet somebody speaks good lines for the secular world.”
Bringing together articulate spokespersons for the spiritual and secular worlds would lay out what people unconsciously face in daily life, he noted, where they go to church on Sunday and hear the Gospel, yet also sit down at night and watch Letterman. They compartmentalize these experiences into two separate worlds.
“It’s, ‘How do you bring those worlds together?’” Father Rolheiser said thoughtfully.
With the interest generated by Luther’s Protest, one can only imagine what a draw that might be for next year’s benefit! |