NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
The perils of a 'part-time pope'
Marco Politi, to be sure, has a point of view. A veteran Italian journalist and commentator, mostly for the leftist La Repubblica, Politi's sympathies clearly run to the Catholic church's progressive wing. It thus may be tempting to see his critical new book on Benedict XVI, titled Joseph Ratzinger: Crisis of a Papacy, as the predictable grumbling of someone who just doesn't like what this pope stands for.
However understandable, that would be a mistake.
I've known Politi for two decades, covering Vatican happenings with him and reading his stuff. Whatever one makes of his big-picture perspective, he's an astute observer, and there's always something to learn from what he has to say. (Proof that Politi is taken seriously in the Vatican is that Gian Maria Vian, editor of L'Osservatore Romano, was among the panelists at a Nov. 16 presentation of the book in Rome -- even though Vian said he came as a "devil's advocate" to argue that the book "shouldn't be canonized.")
Politi's core thesis is expressed in the provocative assertion that Benedict XVI is a "part-time pope."
As Politi sees it, Benedict dips in to running the church or acting as a global leader only when circumstances require it. His passion, however, is focused on his private theological studies and his own writings.
"Joseph Ratzinger has revealed himself to be a fragile leader," Politi writes, "uncomfortable in the art of government, hesitant to confront the internal problems of the church, more sensitive to theology than geopolitics."
The result, according to Politi, is a "gap in governance".
Benedict, in Politi's eyes, has not articulated a clear vision for confronting the church's big-ticket challenges, such as the global priest shortage. So far, Politi asserts, the two most consequential reforms on Benedict's watch -- tighter norms on sex abuse and more transparent money management -- were "imposed by circumstances."
Perhaps most damaging, according to Politi, is that the geopolitical relevance of the Catholic church accumulated under John Paul II is in free-fall. For instance, he asserts that Benedict has had little incisive to say about the Arab Spring, arguably the most significant mutation of the global order since the collapse of Communism.
In the Vatican, Politi reports, there's a sense of frustration. He quotes a Vatican official who says that in the absence of monthly meetings of department heads, "everyone is running their own shop, without any reference to a common direction or a shared vision."
As a result, Politi writes, even after six and a half years of Benedict's papacy, "A priest, a journalist or a church historian can still be approached during a conversation and confronted with an apparently bizarre question: 'What's this pope like?'"
To be sure, there's much in Politi's analysis open to debate.
For one thing, he provides a speculative reconstruction of the conclave of April 2005, putting a great deal of weight on a supposed cabal of pro-Ratzinger conservatives in the Roman curia, led by several Spanish-speakers. He repeats a dubious thesis he has floated before, which is that rule changes introduced by John Paul II, providing for election by simple majority rather than the traditional two-thirds in the event of a lengthy deadlock, forced the opposition to Ratzinger to capitulate, because they knew a 50-percent-plus-one bloc could hold out for several days and get their man.
Politi concludes that this pro-Ratzinger lobby had no long-term project for the future of the church, but was instead driven by a "reflex of fear" and an "obsessive need for identity."
Surveying the almost seven years of Benedict's reign, Politi faults the pope for not moving forward on the reform program of many progressives, including decentralization of power away from Rome. He also laments Benedict's decisions to grant wider permission for the old Latin Mass, and to lift the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops.
Needless to say, all that will draw sharp rebuttals in some quarters.
Yet in his claim of a "gap in governance," Politi is on reasonably objective ground. Scores of other observers have reached the same conclusion, including his Italian colleagues Andrea Tornielli and Paolo Rodari in the 2010 book Attacco a Ratzinger -- both of whom are inclined to much greater sympathy for Benedict's theology and politics.
The governance gap occasionally erupts in in the form of a public meltdown, such as the cause célèbre over a Holocaust-denying bishop, or explosive public commentary from some Vatican officials on the sex abuse crisis. More routinely, the gap registers in a quiet lack of direction and disengagement from the issues of the day. Declining media interest in the Vatican and the papacy over the last six years reflects this reality; in effect, the Vatican has become largely a Catholic insider story, a stark contrast with the John Paul years.
Another veteran Italian writer, Luigi Accattoli, recently devoted a 2,000-word blog to responding to Politi's book. In defense of the pope, Accattoli insists that Politi ignores the wisdom of Benedict's emphasis on personal conversion rather than structural reform and undervalues the steps he's taken to combat sexual abuse or to reach out to secular culture.
Yet when Politi writes that the "greatest sin of this pontificate is that in the Vatican, they talk very little about the strategic choices that need to be made," Accattoli adds an amen: "I couldn't have said it better myself."
The key lies in grasping that Benedict XVI sees himself as a teaching pope, not (at least, not primarily) a governing pope.
Benedict believes deeply in the power of ideas, and Politi provides a terrific anecdote illustrating the point. Shortly after Benedict's election, Politi reports, the Vatican spokesperson asked the new pontiff how we wanted his official portrait to look. When Benedict expressed disinterest, the spokesperson reminded the pope that "a picture is worth a thousand words."
Benedict offered this lapidary response: "Yes, but a concept is worth a thousand pictures."
As Politi notes, this conviction runs through Benedict's papacy, even down to his personal style. When Benedict reads his speeches, he rarely makes eye contact and rarely varies his tempo or intonation -- apparently convinced that good argument requires no artifice.
It may well be that 200 years from now, Benedict XVI will be remembered as one of the great teaching popes. His three encyclicals have played to positive reviews, and his books on Jesus have drawn interest well outside the church. His speeches on his foreign trips generally come off as thoughtful and constructive, perhaps especially what is now a four-volume reflection on faith, reason and democracy, formed by addresses in Regensburg in 2006, the Collège des Bernardins in Paris in 2008, Westminster Hall in 2010 and the Bundestag in Germany this year.
All this, however, comes at a price.
By choice and by temperament, Benedict is disinclined to wield the tools of statecraft to try to shape events in the here-and-now, either in the church or on the global stage. That's a prescription for a papacy, and a Vatican, a bit more withdrawn, less politically engaged, and less "relevant" by the usual standards -- not to mention occasionally disorganized and caught off-guard by unforeseen developments.
Depending on who's doing the looking, this preference for reflection over realpolitik is either Benedict's charm or his Achilles' heel. But, as the saying goes, it is what it is.
* * *
Politi admired John Paul II for the way he was able to exercise the "soft power" of the papacy to shape the history of his time, from the collapse of Communism to the emergence of the developing world. One of the most insightful passages of Crisis of a Papacy comes when Politi identifies the four great roles the papacy plays on the global stage, well outside the boundaries of the church.
At the end of John Paul's reign, Politi writes, the papacy was widely understood to play these unique roles:
- "Respected interlocutor of the religions of the world, beginning with the other two great monotheisms: Judaism and Islam."
- "Spokesperson for human rights, beyond geographic, political, religious and cultural frontiers."
- A bully pulpit "capable of authoritatively addressing questions of war and peace," such as the war in Iraq.
- A religious authority capable of critically challenging the "errors and horrors" of distorted forms of religion, such as violence, intolerance, fundamentalism, and excessive entanglement with power.
"This is the legacy, beyond the coherence of its own creed and the witness to its own values, upon which the greater or lesser presence and influence of the Catholic church in the planetary arena depends," Politi writes.
One could certainly argue that Politi undervalues Benedict's contributions on those fronts. For instance, the four papal speeches listed above offered compelling challenges to the "errors and horrors" of faith detached from reason. Benedict's vision of an "alliance of civilizations" between Christianity and Islam has laid a foundation for cooperation on a wide range of fronts, and the Religion Newswriters Association recently considered naming the pope "Person of the Year" for his efforts to improve relations with Judaism.
One might also argue that Politi left at least one key role off his list: The papacy as spokesperson for religion's right of citizenship in a highly secular age, insisting that religious institutions and individuals can be constructive partners in secular societies while still remaining true to themselves. That's the essence of Benedict's vision of Christianity as a "creative minority."
Nonetheless, Politi is probably right that the four roles he identified represent key elements of John Paul's legacy which, to greater or lesser extents, have been attenuated during Benedict's teaching papacy. How to revive them, and who's best equipped to do so, may well be among the questions facing the next conclave.
* * *
Like any book by a good reporter, Crisis of a Papacy offers several nuggets of insight and factoids along the way. The following are two such nuggets from Politi's book worth pulling out.
One concerns the role of women. Politi notes that in a meeting with the clergy of Rome in 2006, Benedict said, "It is right to ask whether in ministerial service ... it might be possible to make more room, to give more offices of responsibility to women."
Yet five years after those remarks, Politi observes, the situation in the Vatican -- which is, after all, the ministerial environment over which a pope has the most direct control -- is largely unchanged. Here's what he reports:
- There are only two women at the level of "superiors," meaning decision-making roles: Salesian Sr. Enrica Rosanna, under-secretary of the Congregation for Religious, and Flaminia Giovanelli, under-secretary of the Council for Justice and Peace, a lay member of Focolare.
- In the first section of the Secretariat of State, which handles internal church business, no woman holds the role of a "head of office," and there's just one sister working at the lower administrative level. In the second section, responsible for foreign relations, it's the same -- just one woman at the basic administrative level.
- In the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, there's no female theologian among the consulters, and there's no woman on the commission responsible for matrimonial cases. On the International Theological Commission, which advises the congregation on doctrinal issues, there are two women among the 29 members.
Another nugget comes on the priest shortage.
Politi notes that some in the Vatican have taken consolation in a slight uptick in the global number of priests from 2004 to 2009. Worldwide, the number of priests grew from 405,891 to 410,593 over that period, plus an additional 15,000 seminarians. As Politi notes, that growth came in Africa and Asia; the number of priests in North America declined by 4,000, and the drop-off in Europe was 8,000.
Yet as Politi also observes, the world's total Catholic population also grew by 15 million in one year alone, 2008-2009, so the numerical disproportion between priests and people has expanded dramatically.
What this points to is an underappreciated fact of Catholic life: Rapid growth in the Catholic population in a given part of the world usually makes priest shortages worse, not better, because the church can baptize people more rapidly than it can ordain them.
The paradox, as Politi notes, is that the church in the West is becoming increasingly dependent on priests from parts of the world where shortages are actually far more acute. He cites statistics from 2003 that in four Italian regions (Abruzzo, Molise, Toscana and Umbria), foreign priests represented more than 10 percent of all diocesan clergy. In Lazio -- the region that includes Rome -- fully 20 percent of all priests involved in direct pastoral ministry come from abroad.
At some point, the question has to be asked: Does a situation in which two-thirds of the Catholic people live in the southern hemisphere, but two-thirds of priests in the northern hemisphere, make any sense? That, perhaps, is another strategic choice the Vatican eventually will have to confront.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR's senior correspondent. His email address is jallen@ncronline.org.]






It is so easy to criticize
It is so easy to criticize someone for not being who we want him to be. Here's the big question - is he Peter? The answer whether you like him or not is yes. I find it interesting that the people who gripe about the pope always grabbing power and stepping on people's rights are the same ones who gripe he should exercise more power.
No, he is NOT Peter. He is,
No, he is NOT Peter. He is, at best, the Vicar of Peter. Big difference.
He is Peter; the Vicar of
He is Peter; the Vicar of Christ.
He is not Simon of Bethsaida, little difference.
I'm not sure whether that
I'm not sure whether that changes anything regarding Pope Benedict.
Agreed! B16 will have a lot
Agreed!
B16 will have a lot of explaining to do when he finally confronts his predecessor, the first bishop of Rome, at the proverbial pearly gates.
I find the politics that propelled Ratzinger to the papacy revealing: It would seem that JP2 pre-fixed the outcome by outmaneuvering any contravailing candidacies. JP2, always thinking about his own legacy, wanted his dutiful acolyte Ratzinger to be in a position to solidify his narcissistically inflated place in history - Remember, the triumphal "Santo Subito!" signs in the piazza.
[It seems that the discredited Legionnaires of Christ, at the direction of their depraved founder Marcel Marciel, were responsible for planting these signs in the crowd at the papal funeral. Wonder how much dirty money that cost?]
Finding solace in dubious reports of increases in ordinations and seminarians in Africa and Asia is no winning strategy for either B16 or the Catholic Church in the 21st century. [How much is the "increase" in the overall number of Christians a function of just the worldwide increase in human population mainly in the southern hemisphere?]
When the Celts are abandoning the church in droves, you know what the handwriting on the wall means.
None of this will change the "facts," as John Allen quotes B16, that both JP2 and B16 have presided over the Great Modern Catholic Diaspora.
Both JP2 and B16 presided over the systemic rape and sodomy of children by priests and bishops, the single greatest calamity to assault the church since the crusades and the Inquisition, and did nothing to stop it.
And the jury is still out whether the millions of Catholics around the world who have walked away will ever decide to walk back. It may not be in the power of the hierarchs to ever affect this historic evolutionary wave in Christianity.
Popes and cardinals will not be able to stem this tide. Only if Catholics take matters into their own hands will the Gospel survive, let alone prevail.
"He is Peter" Well said by
"He is Peter"
Well said by you, Tongue-in-Cheek!
(Whew!) For just a minute there, you had me going until I became sure that you can't be serious...
For the record, "Peter is
For the record, "Peter is Dead!" Also, if Peter had ever been head of the CDF, I don't think that St. Peter would have let thousands of Pedophile priests remain in the ministry after allegations of abuse came forward. Benedict has a lot to be held accountable for, and I bet St. Peter is going to be present at the White Throne Judgment when all of the allegations of Priest Pedophilia, which were reviewed by Cardinal Ratzinger are revealed before ALL of Christianity!
What did Jesus ask Peter? Do
What did Jesus ask Peter? Do you love me. When Peter said he did, Jesus said to feed his lambs and his sheep. Yet Catholics around the world are without the Eucharist because Benedict will not approve the ordination of married men, or allow priests to marry, nor will he even allow the discussion of the ordination of women. If Benedict is the successor of Peter, why will he not obey the command of Jesus?
Of course he's Peter, in the
Of course he's Peter, in the sense of being Simon bar Jonah's successor. But that doesn't mean he's doing a great job or that we can't wish he would do some things differently. We do a diservice to the Church by overstating the nature of the papacy just as we do by understating it.
JP II was Peter and yet was taken in by Marcel Macial and even held the criminal up as "an efficacious guide for youth". I look to the pope as Peter, but I also remember that Simon Peter needed, and benefited from, a good dressing down by Paul.
Servorum servei Dei is the
Servorum servei Dei is the only title that this pope or any pope needs. Vicar of this or that is ego enhancement by image managers. The work of fawning, obsequious, bureaucrats eager to please.
Tu es Petrus
Tu es Petrus
"He is Peter, the Vicar of
"He is Peter, the Vicar of Christ."
Wrong.
Historically.
The earliest monarchical bishops of Rome saw themselves as vicars of Peter, not as vicars of Christ. They often had little influence outside of the Roman diocese and environs. Indeed, it was not unusual for bishops outside the area to tell a bishop of Rome to mind his own damn business, not to meddle in the affairs of a non-Roman diocese.
This "vicar of Christ" phraseology was a historical development.
Please, "Anonymous", do not confuse doctrine with history. Not the same.
As a future pope wrote more than forty years ago, "[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010).
History trumps doctrine, including this "vicar of Christ" stuff.
Always.
funny story about socrates, i
funny story about socrates, i think it was. he wanted to learn hebrew. the first word they taught him was aba (father). he looked at the first letter and said what is that. it's an alef (a), they said. then he looked at the last letter and said what's that?. it's an alef, they said again. is this alef the same as that alef, he asked astonished. yes, they said. and it's in 2 places at the same time? yes. your language is illogical, socrates concluded and refused to spend another day at the jewish agency ulpan in afula.
Your source, Mr. DeSade?
Your source, Mr. DeSade?
Alpha as you know is the first letter of the Greek alphabet.
Did Socrates, who famously taught or not through relentless questioning, have the same apparent learning disability with πατέρας containing two alpha's,
or was he just asking?
Ehm... he is the SUCCESSOR of
Ehm... he is the SUCCESSOR of Peter, actig as vicar of Christ.
A "Vicar" is someone who acts in stead of an authority while this authority is not physically present.
The Authority in this case is CHRIST (who is spiritually present), not Peter.
Not that I'd expect the average NCR reader to understand anything about the Church of the Papacy... so I guess you are sort of excused... right...
It is very unfortunate that
It is very unfortunate that you decided to insult the NCR reader and their intelligence. It is very apparent that most NCR readers are very up-to-date with Catholic theology and church history-- many having Masters Degrees or more in these areas. Just because they choose to view the church and the world with a different perspective, does not diminish their education and understanding of church affairs-- both past and present. Your vocabulary lesson is condescending, and your expectations of bloggers on this site is below par. Regardless, I hope your heart grows during this very holy season when miraculous events occur!
The writer was clarifying
The writer was clarifying definitions terms. Didn't seem condescending. But the hopelessly hippy always seems to feel condescended to when presented with facts. Sorry the facts are inconvenient. The establishment isn't all bad.
Well, Anonymous, in the REAL
Well, Anonymous, in the REAL World, he is Joseph Ratzinger! It is even easier to live in a made-up world where you can shut down your brain and refuse to think rationally. Just because someone thinks and declares that he is Peter, doesn't make it so; however, it does make him delusional from a Real World point of view. However, you are free to think what you want. I would encourage you to engage your brain and look at and study the history of the concept of the 'Papacy'. Do some original thinking based on the facts, and don't just parrot back what you have been fed in your Catholic upbringing. It will be an exciting and refreshing adventure!
It's a shame that you have
It's a shame that you have chosen to discard and disregard faith. The "exciting and refreshing adventure" is living a life of faith in Jesus Christ. He IS the "Real World" you talk about.
He speaks to us today through His Holy Church.
At what point, CWG, do we
At what point, CWG, do we need to take a rational stand in opposition to DELUSION masquerading as FAITH? Faith should never contradict reason; it may complement reason but true faith will never contradict reason. The Jesuits have always taught that Faith builds on Reason. It was Augustine who taught that unexamined faith is no Faith at all. Jesus never taught to put aside your intellect and blindly follow what others tell you. To do so would be to abandon one of the greatest attributes of mankind: the ability to analyze. The adventure and exhilaration comes from the creative thinking process and not just remaining still and absorbing what others tell you. May the Spirit set you ablaze as the Incarnation set the world ablaze in this season of that event!
And Jesus, speaking to us
And Jesus, speaking to us today, tells us to grant Posada and shelter and sanctuary to Jose and Maria in desperate exile, the alien in our midst, to feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked, love the enemy, remember the forgotten, liberate the prisoner, embrace the abandoned, bring Peace on Earth.
Where does Rome Watcher (in
Where does Rome Watcher (in your words, Mr. Green), "discard and disregard faith"???
You appear, indeed, to be engaging in *eisegesis*, i.e., reading something into a text that is simply not present.
He is neither Peter, nor a
He is neither Peter, nor a Vicar of anyone. This pope and all popes since the 11th century ceased to function as Peter was expected to function by Christ and the early Church. After 1054, the papacy was negated and rendered a series of empty, meaningless titles with political power only. The pope as suzerain and tool of emperors is what we got. The original modalities in which Peter and his successors guided the universal Church, as members of the Pentarchy teaching and supporting the universal apostolic college, were lost.
To Anonymous about the
To Anonymous about the present Pope: Why, if you are so pro-Benedict, do you go under "anonymous"?
Please try to infuse a bit of
Please try to infuse a bit of balance here. The article paid considerable attention to Benedict's "good points" - his strengths - while also providing a critique of areas perceived as weaknesses in the book Mr. Allen is referring to. What is wrong with any of that? The idea that Peter's successor is beyond human nature and limitations is ridiculous and not a product of mature thought. Papacies are as varied and as human as any other prominent office. Just read the history of Catholic popes if you doubt me.
Dear Mr. Allen, my
Dear Mr. Allen, my congratulations!
This is true good reporting!
Here we go again. Remember
Here we go again. Remember when JPII was getting older and all the calls for
him to step down. Here is another attempt to get what you want by having a pope step down. Same old cry baby stuff even though you attempt to cover your
motives. The liberals always use any means to achieve their goals, even if they must deceive. Same play old play book.
Excuse me, Anonymous. My
Excuse me, Anonymous.
My congratulations were directed to Mr. Allen because he gave us an example of true good reporting. Wich means: not relying only in an oficial source, being able to acomodate different, even contraditory points of view, and reaching a conclusion that agrees with his search/informations as a reporter. This is not called liberalism, just plain journalism. Something that is becoming very rare.
Anonymous on Dec. 16,
Anonymous on Dec. 16, 2011.
You stated:
"Here we go again. Remember when JPII was getting older and all the calls for
him to step down. Here is another attempt to get what you want by having a pope step down. Same old cry baby stuff even though you attempt to cover your
motives. The liberals always use any means to achieve their goals, even if they must deceive. Same play old play book."
-------------------------------------------
Well, there is no deception here. The Pope, born April 16, 1928, will be 85 years old this coming April. He does not have the energy he had when he first came to the Vatican to work (hired by JP II).
Benedict cannot endure the continuous strain of his duties for very long. He rallies when he makes trips abroad (even in the heat of Africa). He is planning to go to Cuba and to Brizil in 2013. But to do the daily administrative work that he needs to do daily (meet with bishops individually during Ad Liminia visits, walk any distances etc. other daily tasks)tires him out.
It was Benedict who stated that a bishop should retire when he cannot carry out his daily duties. As the Bishop of Rome, Benedict should follow his own advice {and that would be a remarkable feat in itself---because this Pope states one thing and does another}.
The piece seems to me to be
The piece seems to me to be veiled praise, as in letting another voice tell some truths that John Allen himself cannot report. Interesting in that regard.
Of the papacy, Benedict's reign is going down as one of the most mediocre in history.
Excuse me, but I thinks its
Excuse me, but I thinks its not.
The informations I have, show a totally disfunctional system. And that doesn't serve anybody.
I really wonder sometimes if
I really wonder sometimes if the people most critical of Pope Benedict ever actually hear or read anything he says. In fact, I know quite a few people (myself included) who have found or deepened their faith through exposure to his prolific writings and gestures. His efforts are quite extraordinary in my opinion. Sadly, so much of what I read here (not by J. Allen) suggests that the critics hardly know the man. It is a pity, because I feel confident that, though they may not agree with all of his ideas, they would be profoundly impressed and illuminated by this brilliant and holy man.
Treat yourselves to reading some of his homilies and off-the-cuff conversations with priests, youth, lay people, children and most recently, prisoners. Please try it...I think that your hearts will be touched.
It is what he has said to the
It is what he has said to the world that has been often unmoving.
When the Roman Empire
When the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, and the Eastern emperors lost interest, the papacy stepped in to partially fill the power vacuum. In that way, much of the history of western Europe was set on its course for a thousand years or more. We are now living with the results of that history, both good and not so good. Since the Renaissance, and particularly during the past century or so, that history (and the advances of communications technology) has driven an ever-more-centralizing tendency in the Catholic Church. Now, that model has become not just dysfunctional, but destructive.
According to Pope John XXIII, the purpose of Vatican II was to "let in a little fresh air" and to bring the Church up to date -- aggiornamento. He wanted the Church to ENGAGE the modern world, not just confront it constantly in a negative manner. He was deeply committed to ecumenism, because of his own practical experience, especially in Turkey and in France. He understood the Eastern Churches, and knew that decentralization was one key to successful ecumenism. He also had a deep committment to missions, and knew that acculturation was essential, especially in today's world, for successful missions. Most of all, he understood that ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE CONNECTED.
In that sense, having a "part time pope" may not be such a bad thing. It marks a partial return to the model of the papacy which existed before the major split between East and West.
On the other hand, since the Vatican insists upon micromanaging the Church -- ultimately, an impossible task -- Benedict's part-time status has its problems. The fact that the still-powerful "dicasteries" of the Vatican have become personal fiefdoms is especially tragic. It means, for one thing, that multiple messages are emanating from a still-powerful and dominating center. This would not be so destructive in a more decentralized Church, and might even be indicative of some productive intellectual ferment.
Instead, in today's Church, the behavior of the various dicasteries causes outside observers to see the Church as hypocritical. How can a Church be believed or trusted which (for example) talks a good game of ecumenism, but rudely "stiffs" its existing ecumenical partners by unilaterally disavowing the Common Texts for the liturgy which Rome itself fostered? How can anyone believe that Rome is serious about intellectual engagement with secular thinkers when it routinely and unjustly punishes its own seminal thinkers? How can such a Church be taken seriously when it talks about the need for the rule of law, or justice for workers, when the Church itself has no credible rule of law and often treats its workers unjustly?
Make no mistake: A decentralized Church will be a messy Church. But it may be less messy, less hypocritical, than the one we now have. A part-time pope may be a fine thing, but ONLY if the role of the Vatican shrinks to match. I, for one, fervently hope that the shrinking begins very soon.
You misinterpret what John
You misinterpret what John said. But lets not argue...just read the speech he actually gave at the opening of the council. Its primary purpose was to DEFEND and TRANSMIT the traditional doctrine of the church contained in the deposit of faith. Now maybe this idea is abhorrent to you and thats fine but please dont make Pope John into someone he isnt.Which is something I read alot here.
gerard on Dec. 16, 2011. You
gerard on Dec. 16, 2011.
You stated:
"You misinterpret what John said. But lets not argue...just read the speech he actually gave at the opening of the council. Its primary purpose was to DEFEND and TRANSMIT the traditional doctrine of the church contained in the deposit of faith. Now maybe this idea is abhorrent to you and thats fine but please dont make Pope John into someone he isnt.Which is something I read alot here"
----------------------------------------------
You may have read what John stated in the very beginning of his speech. But if you went on further, John was talking about engaging the world in dialogue. His past had led him to understand very well that the Catholic world needed to do more than stay behind the Vatican walls that Trent and the Pius IX (Vatican I) had hidden behind.
And if you read the speeches that were given by the confidents of John XXIII during the discussions/debates of Vatican II---John's thrust was beyond the staid position of Church Past. John was looking at Church Present and Church Future (to appropriate names from the Spirits of the 'Christmas Carol').
Hello Gerard, your
Hello Gerard, your observations of Pope John XXIII don't match his experience, language or understanding building up to the council and then leading the council for the first session. He deliberately moved the council away from the insiders to the larger church. I'd enjoy your references that suggest a regressive instead of a progressive attitude on Pope John XXIII's part.
Like his autobiography where
Like his autobiography where he writes that St Pius X is his model for being pope or his approval of the monitum against Teillard de Cardin or his apostolic constitution reaffirming the use of Latin in the church or his encyclical on Leo the Great that defended papal infallibility. Or his address at the close of the first session of the council where he expressed his hope that the council would conclude one year later on the anniversary of Trent. I could go on....
I'm sure you could go on, but
I'm sure you could go on, but let's stick with, for the moment, what you have written here. I am a bit confused by the point you are trying to make (i.e., that John XXIII was far more traditionalist that many think he was) as what you write includes nothing about his decicion to call VII, to establish the principle of collegiality firmly once again, to never himself teach ex cathedra as he believed the early church was right in its authority of the synod of bishops, to open the Vatican and its operations to many groups previously excluded,to promote decentralization of the structure of the Church, and so on. So, what I perceive as your attempt to portray Bl. John XXIII as a true conservative doesn't match up with his quite progressive life as Pope. My sense of him was that he was a complex and wonderful combination of truth and openness that we have not seen since.
Its primary purpose was to
Its primary purpose was to DEFEND and TRANSMIT the traditional doctrine of the church contained in the deposit of faith.
---------------------------------------------
That is carefully constructed legal language for defining and limiting what is or is not the Faith, put together by canonists and not theologians. It is the entire Church, not just the pope, who provides an explication of the deposit of faith, contributes to the interpretation of the deposit, and expressed the collective wisdom of the Church in ascertaining orthodoxy.
Instead of what we have now, an office of glorified papal clerks speaking as "the magisterium". While the bishop of Rome is busy writing the next volume of his history of Jesus, preparing a homily for his next Wednesday audience, or playing Mozart at his piano.
You are correct and John
You are correct and John XXIII was also going on the idea that the Council would revolve around the original schematas brought and written based on the important Roman Synod of 1960 with its intent to return Catholicism and the Priesthood to its' foundations. A complete restoration of ecclesiastical life which included traditional seminary formation and a clear delineation of clergy and laity and their unique roles. Following the Roman Synod the foundation was laid with Veterum Sapientia, an Apostolic Constitution which was signed with such solemnnity in St Peter's in witness of many Cardinals, the likes of which had not been seen in 100 years. So "opening up the windows" might have had a slightly different "aire" than what is has come to symbolize. Anyone interested should review the Roman Synod of 1960 and see where the direction of Vat II was originally supposed to go. There will be some surprises. Had John XXIII survived, Vat II would most likely not be what it is today. For the better or for the worse can be seen in its' fruits. I will leave that debate to those most qualified.
Engage the modern world, yes,
Engage the modern world, yes, with its' identity intact. John XXIII was the issued Veterum Sapientia. So in keeping with "fresh air" understand how he wanted to do so. I often wonder if he could see how the Council that started in his name, would ignore the way he wanted it guided and throw out and ignore his Apostolic Constitutions precluding the Council, would he have opened those "windows" anyway? There is quite a bit of doubt there.
Thank you for your astute
Thank you for your astute analysis of the Church of Rome today. I'll let you and others debate/discuss John XXIII's conciliar intentions, but you have, nonetheless, given us a very accurate picture of the church. As long as Roman Catholics behave like "sheople", the Vatican will continue to exert its dysfunctional control over local churches.
FUNDING (via collection plate) = ENABLING
STOP GIVING MONEY TO THE CHURCH
STOP ENABLING ECCLESIAL DYSFUNCTION
As all mature adults know,
As all mature adults know, doing less but acting in critical areas or methods is sometimes more effective than doing more when using inappropriate methods or trying to "force" events to proceed in a particular direction or time frame. B16 seems, to my mind, to be accentuating the correct understanding of the Church's foundational beliefs and promoting authentic Catholicism from which efforts a more-faithful Church population will result along with, in time, more faithful clergy, religious, and lay members. Praise God Who makes all things new!
If God makes all things new
If God makes all things new he had better hurry because we are running out of priests.
Fine reporting with good
Fine reporting with good questions and insights. I personally like Pope Benedict, but he is philosophizing while the Titanic is sinking.
Isn't the problem that the
Isn't the problem that the current Pope is Peter. The Peter who denied Christ to protect himself?
This Pope is a male, political choice to take the church back to pre-Vatican II clericalism and corruption.
We need a Pope who reinstates Vatican II and fully drives through the reform that were the promise of the council.
Dominic, your problem is
Dominic, your problem is either that you have never taken the time to actually read the documents of the Second Vatican Council without any preassumptions, or you don't have the accumen to recognize was actually said by the Council Fathers!
I suspect Mr. Federle that
I suspect Mr. Federle that your action is from one who has bought the revisionist history that Vatican II did not change anything. I have read the documents, lived in the time, and know full well that the church is moving away from Vatican II very rapidly. In revisionist history of Benedict one reads formal language of the time in its clauses and phrases and misses the forest because of the trees.
I suggest you read historian
I suggest you read historian John O'Malley's "The Style of Vatican II" at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2812.
I should add that the primary theme of Vatican II was renewal, i.e., to make the church new again.
B16, instead, has pushed an essentially "traditionalist" agenda by trying to revive use of the Tridentine mass, behaving toward other religious bodies (Christian and otherwise) from a "triumphalist" stance, and imposing an English liturgical translation contrary to the provisions of Vatican II's liturgical constitution.
B16's performance has been mediocre at best in steering the Barque of Peter (and I'm being overly generous in my assessment).
Rob Federle on Dec. 16,
Rob Federle on Dec. 16, 2011.
You stated:
"Dominic, your problem is either that you have never taken the time to actually read the documents of the Second Vatican Council without any preassumptions, or you don't have the accumen to recognize was actually said by the Council Fathers!"
------------------------------------------
Your problem is:
1) You don't know what was actually debated on the Council Floor day by day.
2) Much of the business of how things were to be worked out---occurred at the
Bars (Coffee, of course, which were set up by Pope John XXIII---Bar Jonah
and Barrabas)
3) You don't know how the Roman Curia began to tamper with the documents the
even before the Council closed. For example, (and this is just ONE
example of many) on October 12, 1964--
the "October Crisis" threatened the Council. In an effort to bury the
document on the Jews and the one on religious liberty, the conservative
Archbishop Felici, attempted to derail the two documents.
He sent a letter to Cardinal Bea, head of the secretariat responsible for
their preparation, requiring that he submit these documents to the
conservatively oriented Theological Commission for revision. In his
letter, Felici suggests that he is speaking for the pope (Paul VI).
Despite the well-known efforts of the conservative minority to control
the outcome of the council, this bold demand stuns everyone. The leaders
of the majority met to respond. In firm and conscise language, they
draft an appeal to the pope, asking him for clarification. The pope, in
turn, assured them that these two documents will indeed remain under
Cardinal Bea's jurisdiction.
4) There was more going on at Vatican Council II than what just appeared in
the documents. The Council Fathers were NOT walking around smiling at
each other all day and whispering as though in prayer. There were some
pitched verbal battles that went on. And I'm afraid that you are totally
oblivious as to what went on before, during, and after those documents
were voted upon.
Benedict XVI may well realize
Benedict XVI may well realize he's president of a crumbling and a much divided community of believers. Unfortunately, he's turned over the day to day affairs of the Church to others who are mediocrities. We will see more of this occurring as he ages. Or is he a clever old fox who wants you to believe he's out of control and just likes to write books?
All the more reason to step down, continue his writing, and permit another cardinal more in tune with the crises occurring around the pope to grasp the reins of reform and begin to implement them. Unfortunately, at the rate we're going, Benedict will be succeeded by a Richelieu or a Wolsey with reform being the one thing farthest from his mind.
Good analysis of the book. I
Good analysis of the book. I think "teaching Pope" is right on the money. Pope Benedict sees his main role as introducing or reintroducing people to the person of Jesus Christ. He believes that is what is needed most, especially right now. He is solidly in line with the real Vatican II. I think he is correct and just the Pope we need at this moment in history.
Oui, oui, monsieur! It is
Oui, oui, monsieur!
It is clear that His Holiness is a very holy man who is ultimately concerned with bringing Christ to a darkening world. He is an intellectual, a professor, a teacher - and as Pope, the principal teacher of the Truth on the planet. The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, and He has given us this wonderful pope to preach the Lord's Gospel to all people. That is what is needed most right now, and which Pope Benedict clearly recognizes.
so why did he silence all
so why did he silence all those who most profoundly announced the Gospel to the Poor in the eighties and onwards?
"Just following orders?"
Charles, do you mean the
Charles, do you mean the people who supported Marxists? The same Marxists who persecute the Church?
"...solidly in line with the
"...solidly in line with the real Vatican II" -- What?
I wonder what the counter-distinction might be. "Virtual Vatican II"? Wasn't that the name of an episode of The Twilight Zone?
I agree that Benedict is a
I agree that Benedict is a teaching Pope. I disagree that he is reintroducing people to the person of Jesus Christ. He is pontificating on his beliefs about Jesus Christ the Catholic god. Those beliefs about Catholic Jesus eventually propelled him to the apex of Catholic identity. In that respect it's understandable that he would teach as he does, but it's not how Christ, our Prime Teacher, taught.
Jesus taught from the basement of society, but He also demonstrated the ability of authentic spiritual action to impact and transcend material reality. Our Popes have this dynamic backwards. They have used their ecclesiastical authority to subvert and control the authentic spiritual action bequeathed to them by the original Apostles. In other words popes talk the talk, but won't or can't walk the walk. Easier to say Mass I guess, than actually heal a blind person.
Jesus Christ is God and the
Jesus Christ is God and the Pope preaching Catholicism should not be a surprise. I doubt you have done any miracles of healing, so I guess you don't walk the walk. It would be a miracle to heal someone as spiritually blind as yourself though.
You would be wrong Fr J, I do
You would be wrong Fr J, I do and have walked that walk. My issue was never spiritual blindness as much as it was spirituality blinded and deafened by religious belief.
Jesus frequently ended his teachings with the words, "eyes to see or ears to hear". It took me a long time to understand what He meant by that.
This is exactly the kind of
This is exactly the kind of progressive spin that one would expect to find in a Fishwrap article. Benedict was dreaded by the left the minute he was announced to the crowd in St. Peter's Square. While most TV cameras showed people rejoicing, a few media outlets focused on tortured faces twisted in ghastly visages of abject fear. Now, the spin is trying to suggest that B XVI is a sleepy, unassuming little scholar who doesn't have the energy to accomplish much, so we should now lower our expectations. I would suggest that perhaps this Pope's greatest legacy is to leave the Church (when his time comes) with a much more traditional/orthodox/conservative College of Bishops and Cardinals. This fact alone will keep the Church from sliding down the slippery slope that the radical, leftist, liberal, protestant wannabes have been praying for... Sorry, but there will be no singing "a new church into being", thankfully. The majority of Catholics around the world are very happy with the one we already have, thank you very much!
Is Mr. Allen really putting a
Is Mr. Allen really putting a liberal spin on things? I don't think the tenor of the book should be confused as the writer's opinions. That said, aside from some of your more uncharitable language towards our "progressive" brothers and sisters, I have to agree with the confusing analysis. B16 seemed to be feared as some kind of malicious inquisitor, bent on moving the Church backwards from his seat in Rome. Now he is being scolded for being too passive. If the Pope, or any other figure in authority in the Church, is nose down in the books, you think the progressive lot would be very happy they are finally not being "told what to do." And yes, most of us (especially us younger folks) like the Church just as it is, for better or worse :)
Hello Sarah, your
Hello Sarah, your observations are interesting. If Pope Benedict XVI is buried in the books than the governance of the church is left to others instead of him. This kind of Pope would be concerning for any church, since he was elected to lead the church. Writing, it would seem, would be secondary to leading and shaping the Church that he struggled with as the prefect of the congregation of the faith. Remember the conversion of Archbishop Oscar Romero from books to prophetic justice that eventually took his life.
Maybe if you clarified what you liked now about the church? Liturgy? Restoration for more frequent use of the Revised Liturgy of Trent in Latin on every Sunday? Missed compassion for those abused by some clergy? Miss handling of pedophiliac clergy? Return of lace albs, surplices and the like? Miss management of funds or investments of the Holy See? Growing numbers of habited religious? Continued commitment to social justice and ministries throughout the world? Remarkable educational and health care systems throughout the world? others?
Robert Federle, You should
Robert Federle, You should learn to do your own thinking and not simply parrot the usual claptrap one hears from the followers of Father Z. Like a woman's slip, your paranoia is showing. It demeans your case in that you had to adopt a string of conspiracy theories with no basis in fact. Furthermore, your comments illustrate you completely missed the point of the article.
If it simply because you need a refresher course in remedial reading, then you are excused.
Absolutely on the money! I
Absolutely on the money! I hope and pray that Benedict XVI Lives to be 100+ so that he will be there till I am gone home. I cannot abide all these mini-popes that surround and infect our church with their trendy lefty modernist tendencies. Lets get down to the real business of VII and ditch the spirit of VII crowd.
"The majority of Catholics
"The majority of Catholics around the world..."
And to which Catholics are you referring?
I can't speak to "Catholics around the world", but we know from the Pew research organization that, but for the Hispanic influx, the U.S. Catholic Church would be witnessing a reduction in numbers.
And Hispanic Catholics, furthermore, are not necessarily remaining in the Roman Catholic fold according to recent reports. They are increasingly going somewhere or nowhere.
We also know from researchers James Davidson and Dean Hoge that while the newer Roman Catholic clergy have been attracted to their ministry by the example of JPII, we are also witnessing a real divide between them, on the one hand, and the Catholic laity, both old *and* young, on the other hand. Indeed, these sociologists of religion have predicted that, in a decade or so, we can expect to see the greatest "expectation gap" between a clergy who believe they are "ontologically" superior to the laity --- and a laity, better educated and informed, who will not tolerate such clerical crap ("Mind the gap: the return of the lay-clerical divide", available *free* at the "findarticles.com" website).
I, too, am a Catholic and, like numerous others, am not at all pleased with a reactionary pontiff trying to take the Church of Rome back to pre-Vatican II times in dress and behavior.
Aside from the points that
Aside from the points that you have written about that could be discussed, it does not excuse your less than charitable way of presenting your points. Is it too much to ask you - and others - to be careful in how you state things? Try to keep in mind that we are all talking to - for the most part - other Christians, other Catholics, other believers, other brothers and sisters: the very people Jesus commands us to love.
"For instance, the four papal
"For instance, the four papal speeches listed above offered compelling challenges to the "errors and horrors" of faith detached from reason."
Yes, but in Benedict's case he is not addressing the Catholic Church's flaws in this area. To illustrate my point; scholars have now come to the conclusion that Juan Diego who saw "Our Lady of Guadalupe" is a fictional person. If he is fiction, what does that say about the entire visitation? How does the church respond? They elevate the visitation to a solemnity. I submit that this is not a "reasonable" thing to do.
By promulgating these events, the church plays with fire. To so completely disregard fact, they leave the faithful to wonder what other teachings are based in reality and what are based on devotional whims. In this case, the end does not justify the means.
Our faith, in its pure simplicity, has a beauty and a truth that gets lost in all this other "STUFF." We need people who will follow the teachings of Jesus and not just be dazzled by hocus pocus. And lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am not referring to our ritual and our liturgy or our virtue, habit and practice. Our Catholic identity has to be based on truth or we just wind up looking unreasonable.
anonymous above makes a very
anonymous above makes a very good point . both JP2 and Benedict , whom i very much respect , scholarship is weak in history .
Benedict's scholarship is stronger in intellectual history
. why is he associating himself with expressions of popular piety with questionable historical foundations. perhaps he sees these popular narratives as expressing catholic sentiment in certain cultures in ways that strengthen the catholic imagination.
for german catholic legends of saints still capture enough attention that they are a category in the german version of jeopardy , many towns and regions have heir own special saints each with a special story . the stories are part of local cultures . no doubt many of those joining the regional saints day processions are hard headed historians .
all this is hard for my american mind to deal with in a sympathetic way . but there it is
Actually, there is much truth
Actually, there is much truth one never hears from the pulpit on Sunday.
After getting a better education, I have learned that many truths that church historians and theologians know are never related to the Catholic people by parish priests.
Post new comment