Queen and pope: Like in-laws meeting for the first time

The most striking part of the papal visit to Britain was not its regal splendor but its human poignancy. It was more touching than overwhelming to watch these still spry eighty-somethings, Queen Elizabeth II and Pope Benedict XVI, greet each other with the kind of affectionate wariness on display when, after extensive family discussions about if and when and who will sit where, prospective in-laws finally meet -- shielding their doubts about what will come of it with the practiced grace of good manners.

Here, after all, we had not only two heads of state but two heads of churches who, like on guard in-laws, remember the 500-year-old blood feud that broke the family of Roman Catholicism apart and left feelings whose bitterness has been reduced but not entirely eliminated.

Every moment and movement reflected the everybody-on-their-best-behavior tension of patriarchal encounters that are a necessary step in family mergers. Parents know, as the pope and the queen surely did, that the success of the matter in question -- marriage or ecumenical unity -- depends less on them standing in the center of the picture than on those outside the range of the camera.

The stakes are not small and the good will has been large among the theologians who have made such progress in opening Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism up to each other. It was moving to watch the stiffly on duty queen shake hands, howsoever tentatively, with the shy and still self-conscious pope. It was moving because both of them, much like about-to-be in-laws, brought the sorrows of their own families to the encounter.

For the queen, who once publicly admitted to having an annus horribilis -- a really bad year -- has seen the traditions of the royal family disrupted by more problems with love, estrangement, and loss than Shakespeare ever piled into a play. It is difficult for the queen to be a symbol of stability when she knows that her 'sceptred isle' may on any given day ripple with the aftershocks of royal misbehavior.

Right after the meeting, ABC News reported that Prince Charles has been eavesdropping on tourists visiting his Gloucester Castle home and that he talks to the trees in his garden to keep himself sane. Despite the crowds waving miniature Union Jacks at the queen’s motorcade, a great many of her subjects are ready to dump the monarchy altogether -- just when she was getting good at it. Little that the queen does beyond the ceremonial seems to make much difference. She may ask herself: Does anybody really pay any attention to me?

Subscribe to NCR

Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.

Subscribe now!

Benedict’s stature is slightly bent -- less from leaning on a classroom rostrum for half a century than from the burden of the sex scandals that he has not been able to shift off his shoulders in his half a decade as Pope. He knows a little about aftershocks from clerical misbehavior himself. They have occurred recently in Belgium and Germany and while in Britain he received a bulletin that the Vatican Bank is being investigated for money laundering.

It’s no wonder that the pope looks up anxiously from his text as if ready to duck another blow as he confesses the church’s failure to deal with the sex scandal in a sweet singsong accent and everywhere he goes he expresses sorrow, revises protocols, meets with victims, and, yet, beyond these undoubtedly sincere actions, nothing seems to make much difference. While Catholics are not campaigning to dump the papacy -- and the pope’s visit to Great Britain illustrates why the Anglican Communion could really use a pontiff -- the pope may ask himself: Does anybody really pay any attention to me?

In the pictures of their meeting, the white cassocked pope looks diffidently up at the queen as he might have at the nun who taught him in the first grade. The queen reacts with a sweetness that takes the edge off her regal restraint. Famous for her hats, she wears one that has a precipitously slanted crown -- not unlike the roof of a house that is toppling slowly into the floodwaters.

The queen’s hat symbolizes better than anything else the situation in which these last, so to speak, crowned heads of Europe find themselves. The ‘Age of Monarchy’ is over and yet both pope and queen are gamely trying to keep their hierarchical systems functioning. Its days are really over in Britain where the great rooms and castles that served as a background for the meeting of the pope and queen are familiar -- less as a sign of the monarchy’s vigor than as sets for the television program Masterpiece Theater.

The pope, on the other hand, is driving hard to revive hierarchy as the framework of the church. That is why Benedict defends celibacy as if it were an article of the creed rather than a way of controlling the clergy, and beatifies holy people, such as Cardinal Newman: to keep the hierarchical seating arrangement -- from least holy to most holy -- intact.

The queen and the pope can tell us all about how uneasy lie the heads that wear the crowns. Their meeting was humanly touching because, in their separate ways, their struggles are humanly touching. They arose from the previous century and are trying to preserve forms that arose in centuries long before that. They may have felt like prospective in-laws to each other, unsure of whether, each family having troubles enough of its own, joining together will strengthen or burden them further.

The queen and the pope are valiant keepers of a flame of hierarchy that is flickering low. No matter what they do, they cannot seem to set that flame blazing.

[Eugene Cullen Kennedy is emeritus professor of psychology at Loyola University, Chicago.]

Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Kennedy's column, Bulletins from the Human Side," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add Kennedy to your list.

There is one major point

There is one major point missed in the article: The papacy and authority of the Holy Father was founded by Christ. The monarchy of England was not.

"beatifies holy people, such as Cardinal Newman: to keep the hierarchical seating arrangement"
- Yes, because the fact that Cardinal Newman was saintly didn't really have anything to do with it. It was a purely political move... *rolls eyes*

"The queen and the pope are valiant keepers of a flame of hierarchy that is flickering low. No matter what they do, they cannot seem to set that flame blazing."
- I think the more amazing thing is that, despite the full blast fire hoses wielded by people like the NCR, the flame of the Holy Father's authority has not, and will never go out. The Holy Father also has REAL authority. The Queen? Not so much...

God bless our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. May he sit on the Chair of Peter for MANY more years.

Wasn't it (the papacy and

Wasn't it (the papacy and authority (and Monarchy) of the "Holy" Father) founded by Constantine & the Roman Empire?

No, Dan Brown, it wasn't.

No, Dan Brown, it wasn't.

was to have you not read yet

was to
have you not read yet Constantine´s Sword, also out in video for us visual learners?

Pete the greek on Sep. 24,

Pete the greek on Sep. 24, 2010.

You stated:

"No, Dan Brown, it wasn't."
----------------------------------------
Actually, Pete, you are right. The papal monarchy (and that which supported it) was founded upon a much more sinister foundation than anything Constantine actually did. They were supported by forgeries. "The Donation of Constantine" was a forgery and so is the "Isidorean Decretals"---which stated that the Popes could trace their line all the way back to St. Peter. And both of these are high-class forgeries---exposed in the 16th century.

But as I have stated a number of times---make a lie big enough and repeat it without diviation over and over again---and it becomes an article of faith. For more than 10 centuries, the People of God have looked to the pope as the vicar of Christ (really should be the vicar of Peter).

During Vatican II, the best theologians kept insisting that the papacy was never meant to be a monarchy. The whole concept is a violation of the message that Jesus tried to get across to the Apostles. Jesus taught that the Apostles' mission is to SERVE. And the people who are served have a right to a voice. In our understanding they have a right to a vote---and not just an advisory vote.

"The Donation of Constantine"

"The Donation of Constantine" was a forgery and so is the "Isidorean Decretals"
- Oh good heavens. You know how to tell your argument is 'old and busted', LittleBear? When not even professional anti-Catholics use it anymore.

History of the 'Donation of Constantine'

History of the False Decretals

The authority of the Holy Father is not based on EITHER of these. But that is a MAGNIFICENT, although very old, strawman you've built.

"kept insisting that the papacy was never meant to be a monarchy"
- If by that you mean that the Papacy does not have as its object the ruling of a secular country, ie monarchy in the classical sense, you are correct.

What does the 2nd Vatican Council actually say?

"To bishops, as successors of the Apostles, in the dioceses entrusted to them, there belongs per se all the ordinary, proper, and immediate authority which is required for the exercise of their pastoral office. But this never in any way infringes upon the power which the Roman pontiff has, by virtue of his office, of reserving cases to himself or to some other authority.

...

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors."
- CHRISTUS DOMINUS

These are just two brief selections from ONE document of the council. There are many, many more. Now LittleBear, if you want to step out with the SSPXers and claim that VII was the 'smoke of Satan' or something, feel free. But you should know that your position is untenable.

You can defend Pope Benedict

You can defend Pope Benedict but don't be picking on the Queen now! I hope they both live to be 100 yrs old still ruling!

Actually, I don't have any

Actually, I don't have any gripe with the Her Majesty. Not sure what gave you the idea that I did. :-)

Hmmmm...Pete the Greek, I

Hmmmm...Pete the Greek, I thought the authority of the Catholic church came from God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. If it comes from this Pope or the last one we are in trouble. Blessings of God to you...

Jesus Christ IS the Head of

Jesus Christ IS the Head of the Church. I think you might have a misunderstanding of what the Papacy IS. Here is a good description.

Amen, Peter. Secularist

Amen, Peter. Secularist Catholics like Eugene Kennedy really have given up on the faith. Faith has merely become the worshipping of the self. A strange emotionalism that focuses on pleasing people rather than preaching the truth. The truth is now what people want to hear. The Catholic Church MUST get with the times and do whatever it takes to conform itself. People who have mentalities like this, such as Eugene Cullen Kennedy, don't realize that the Church was created by Christ. We do God's will... not the spirit of the age.

Pete - I truly believe this

Pete -

I truly believe this is the NCR's version of the Colbert report. Nobody can honestly take this guy seriously. Then again, reading the comments I often wonder...

I do. Jocoseriously It's an

I do. Jocoseriously
It's an Irish thang; you beetle browed might not understand . . .

it takes being viciously oppressed for centuries by the British to achieve

"The papacy and authority of

"The papacy and authority of the Holy Father was founded by Christ."

Not true.

"[T]he flame of the Holy Father's authority has not, and will never go out."

Authority without credibility ain't worth the paper on which it's written.

The authority of the Pope was

The authority of the Pope was established by Christ.

Here is a good break down of it.

The Church's proof is in Scripture, Tradition, all of the Church Fathers and history. Where's yours?

The authority of the pope was

The authority of the pope was established by --- future popes!

The earliest bishops of Rome --- monoepiscopal bishops of Rome, that is --- could find themselves "invited out" of disputes by fellow bishops in distant sees. In other words, it was not unusual for bishops of distant sees to tell their counterparts in Rome to mind their own business. The monoepiscopal Roman bishopric was a historical development. The earliest "popes" saw themselves as vicars of Peter, not as vicars of Christ.

Jesus and his disciples knew only the Jewish faith and its priesthood. Christianity as a separate religion would gradually develop as Christian Jews were kicked out of the synagogues for being regarded as troublemakers and were thus treated as non-Jews by Roman authorities (Jews had certain rights under Roman rule; Christians did not).

Where do I get my "proof"?

History.

"History." - Based on what I

"History."
- Based on what I can distill from your ideology, your proof is selected modern texts that flatter your personal prejudices.

"In other words, it was not unusual for bishops of distant sees to tell their counterparts in Rome to mind their own business."
- So? The Church had a hard time breaking away from the eastern emperors too for while. None of that invalidates the teachings of the Church from the beginning. All Church history disagrees with you. Christ set Peter, the first pontiff, as the head of the Church on earth.

Perhaps your error is in not understanding what the Papacy truly is, as you mainly seem to be arguing against a caricature of it.

Jesus did not see Peter as

Jesus did not see Peter as "the first pontiff".

Please, remove your Roman rose-colored glasses and see history for what it is, not what the Vatican would have us believe it is.

As Ratzinger even acknowledged, "[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine."

Don't confuse belief/doctrine with actual history.

Not the same.

"As Ratzinger even

"As Ratzinger even acknowledged, "[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine."
- And guess what? Ratzinger agrees with me, not you.

Had you read the Church Fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, etc, you would see that the authority of the Holy Father is assumed by them.

My information is based

My information is based primarily on McBrien's LIVES OF THE POPES and, to a lesser extent, on Sullivan's FROM APOSTLES TO BISHOPS.

No doubt both men are well familiar with the history of the primitive churches and historical developments therefrom.

Mr. Pete the Greek: I used to

Mr. Pete the Greek: I used to think this way, too, when I had nothing but a Catholic grade school education.

And it is a shame that you

And it is a shame that you appear to have lost even that.

Pete the greek on Sep. 24,

Pete the greek on Sep. 24, 2010.

You stated:

"And it is a shame that you appear to have lost even that."
-----------------------------------------

And it is a shame that you mix the teachings of the Church with its actual history---and don't know the difference.

nor Catholic theology

nor Catholic theology

Dear Pete, as usual you seem

Dear Pete, as usual you seem to reduce Catholicism to an intellectualized "us vs. them" ideology whereas our faith goes much deeper. I urge you to read the great Catholic mystics, especially those who are contemporary, like Bernadette Roberts, Thomas Keating, David Stendahl-Rast, Beatrice Bruteau, Fr. Rohr, and the recently deceased Wayne Teasdale, Raimon Panikkar, Bede Griffiths, Thomas Berry and Thomas Merton. Catholicism is not an ideology, a mere head trip that opposes other ideologies like secularism, communism, liberalism and various other isms. It deals with ultimate questions of meaning, not ephemeral political questions. Blessings.

Whatever one may think of

Whatever one may think of Kennedy's perspectives on this or that, and I, for one, do generally like them, you have to give him this: his writing is exquisitely literate!

Hear, Hear! Well stated.

Hear, Hear! Well stated. Kennedy's insights and writings are outstanding.

Personally, I've always liked

Personally, I've always liked Queen Elizabeth II & I hope that the monarchy lasts. But I must admit I just loved the Carol Burnett take-offs on her! I didn't care for QEI though & I agree with the Pope of that time who had a few choice words for her! But that's ancient history now.

It's interesting to note from the Catholic angle that St Thomas Aquinas felt that a constitutional monarchy was the best form of government. I wonder if Pope Benedict told her that? That could have been an ice breaker in their conversation. It was interesting to see them meet but it must have been a little awkward after the dispensation created for Anglicans to cross the Tiber. Although she may have told him that she agrees with paulte on the issue of priestesses!

I think Pope Benedict is the best of all the post Vatican II pontiffs but even he has to take a back seat to Pope Pius XII.

Benedict is not quite as

Benedict is not quite as timid as you make him out to be. Humble...certainly, gracious and polite...few are more so. On the flight to the UK when asked about protests and anti-Catholicism he responded "I go with courage and with joy".
God bless him!

thanks, Mr. Kennedy foe yet

thanks, Mr. Kennedy foe yet another enlightening article.
Poor "Pete the Greek" believes in blueprint ecclesiology, that Jesus set up the papacy is pure fiction. But no one will convince people like Pete.
Hope he becomes an adult believer one day.

This beautifully written

This beautifully written insight echoes much of what I myself think. It is not being hateful to say of either of these venerable people that they are not very effective any more. Even the most ardent Christian may feel that his or her faith does not depend on the actions or reactions of either the Queen or the Pope. All the politics, the posturing, the petty dealings within both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England seem like just that compared to the genuine desire by most followers of Christ to be good stewards of the earth and loving neighbors to each other. This motivation comes from the heart, not the throne.

I usually enjoy and agree

I usually enjoy and agree with Kennedy's writings, but his commentary on the Pope meeting Queen Elizabeth was a little too sarcastic and mean-spirited even for me!

The queen is a model of

The queen is a model of civility. She has carried out her duties with grace, over decades of world change, change that took Britain from a world power which controlled one quarter of the world’s land mass to what it is today. Great Britain has maintained healthy diplomatic relations with the commonwealth of nations. The Vatican has the same struggle each time it loses footing. May the pope always uphold Christ’s teachings. As the queen has exemplified, this can be done with honor, rather than a “circle the wagons” mentality.

I always liked the Queen. I

I always liked the Queen. I hope the monarchy will remain in England as well as in the other European countries which still have it. Granted today the monarchs don't have political power but they do function as heads of state which is an important role in itself. Queen Elizabeth II excels at this role. The Pope himself is a monarch & a monarchy is the best form of government for the Church since we can assume that the Pope will be beneficent in his role. Granted there have been a few lemons in the papacy, particularly in the De Medici era, but in the main they have been beneficent rulers.

It is interesting to note that St Thomas Aquinas advanced the notion of a constitutional monarchy as the best form of government. This presupposes that a monarchy has been in place. I agree with St Thomas. For those European nations which still have a monarchy, I would favor a veto power for the monarch over any legislation which can be seen as threatening the realm.

On the religious side of the house, of course we as Catholics don't accept that a monarch can be head of a national Church but in terms of the Reformation this concept is better than the inevitable leveling which the Protestant mentality brings about. So Anglicanism is a better sort of religion than the Protestant sects.

Having said that we do see the inevitable decay which the Reformation has wrought. And we can rest assured that Pope Leo XIII was correct in his assessment that the orders of the Anglican Church are invalid since they have devolved down to the nonsense of the priestess which is essentially a pagan concept.

"I would favor a veto power

"I would favor a veto power for the monarch over any legislation which can be seen as threatening the realm." Like when JP2 vetoed the 1998 version of the missal sent to Rome by the ICEL?

The Soviets tried your idea (although Stalin wasn't called a king or a czar, but he sure acted as one) and it failed miserably. "Threatening the realm" is a loop hole any dictator/king would grab onto in a heartbeat.

Excuse me but I didn't

Excuse me but I didn't realize the ICEL which advanced political translations from the Latin into English was above the Pope! What cheek of him! You must really be frustrated with Benedict who for all practical purposes put the ICEL out of commission!

In secular terms, the monarch's veto could be used to frustrate things like "gay marriage" & excessive taxation. However the notion of what actually threatened the realm would have to be constitutionally defined.

You and I place a different

You and I place a different emphasis on the importance of subsidiarity between the pontiff and councils of fellow bishops.

How exactly does gay marriage threaten the realm? Are the Canadian, Argentinian, Belgium, Icelandic, Dutch, Norwegian, Portuguese, South African, Spanish, and Swedish realms currently threatened by their acceptance of gay marriage as we write?

And what is political about

And what is political about this?

http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/1998missal.htm

What I see in the 1998 version is a translation that is more faithful to the original Latin than the current missal, but does not strain the sense of understanding that the new "improved" missal does on an almost line by line basis.

like national security . . .

like
national security . . .

After the soldiers grow old

After the soldiers grow old what is it that they do? They greet one and another and wonder if the younger crowd now in charge will get it right so that there will be no need for this wonderment of old soldiers. They will be left with peace and perhaps contentment.

Post new comment

NCR Comment code:

  1. Be respectful. Do not attack the writer. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Use appropriate language. Avoid vulgarities and slurs.
  3. Keep to the point. Deliberate digressions don't aid the discussion.

For more detailed guidelines, visit our User Guidelines page.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
(if you have one; if not, leave this blank)
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <font> <swf> <swf list>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This is to prove you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.