The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionNew book confirms: Benedict XVI is his own best spokesperson
by John L Allen Jr on Mar. 10, 2011
ANALYSIS
One keen irony about the papacy of Benedict XVI is that while the Vatican regime over which he presides has sometimes come off as ham-fisted in terms of public relations, the pope himself is almost universally acknowledged as a gifted communicator.
A veteran theologian and teacher, Benedict can express complex theological ideas in crystalline sentences that don’t require a Ph.D. to grasp, and he has a knack for phrasing the Christian message in positive terms -- what I’ve called his “Affirmative Orthodoxy.”
In the old days, a pope would say or do something controversial, and then his aides would smooth things over. More recently, it’s actually been the pope who gets the Vatican back “on message” after someone else has put his foot in his mouth. (This, by the way, should not be taken as a criticism of Benedict’s official spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, who does a heroic job under the circumstances.)
We’ve had another example of that dynamic in recent days with the release of volume two of Benedict’s book Jesus of Nazareth (published in the United States by Ignatius Press.)
Excerpts released last week earned Benedict XVI positive ink for his acknowledgment that “the Jews” are not responsible for the death of Christ. As of today, the full text of Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week is available, and it’s likely to cement the impression that Benedict XVI is his own best spokesperson.
In terms of news value, perhaps the biggest flash is another papal olive branch to Judaism: Not only should Christians not blame Jews for the death of Jesus, Benedict says, but Christians also shouldn’t be trying to convert them.
The book is drawing positive reviews not just from Catholics, but Protestants and Jews as well.
In a conference call with reporters organized by Ignatius Press, Protestant Biblical scholar Craig Evans called the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth “a remarkable achievement” and “the best book on Jesus I’ve read in many years.”
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a prolific Jewish writer who’s engaged in scholarly exchange with the pope over a quarter-century, said Benedict has “accomplished something no one else has achieved in the modern study of scripture” -- demonstrating how the results of historical and scientific study can be blended with deep faith.
In that sense, Neusner said, the method underlying Jesus of Nazareth could be of use to Jews and Muslims in the way they approach their own scriptures and sacred figures, such as Moses and Muhammad, “transcending the limits that modern historical study places on theological affirmation.”
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.
Biblical scholars will have to parse the fine points of Benedict's exegesis, and no doubt there will be some debate. Benjamin Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary, for example, has already noted that Benedict's references tend to be a bit dated -- he engages writers from the first half of the 20th century more than from the last thirty years. (Though as Witherington said, "I realize he's been a little busy for the last thirty years.")
Beyond the pope’s comments on Judaism, the following represent a sampling of other interesting points from Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week.
Ecumenism
Commenting on Jesus’ prayer in the Gospel of John that “they may all be one,” Benedict XVI insists on continuing the quest for “visible unity” among the divided branches of the Christian family.
“The struggle for the visible unity of the disciples of Jesus Christ remains an urgent task for Christians of all times and places,” Benedict writes.
“The invisible unity of the ‘community’ is not sufficient,” he writes. “Unity must be visible, it must be recognizable as something that does not exist elsewhere in the world; as something that is inexplicable on the basis of mankind’s own efforts and that therefore makes visible the workings of a higher power.”
There are at least two ways to read those lines, one of which could be seen as a challenge to other Christians, and the other as a plea not to give up ecumenical hope.
Benedict’s emphasis on the essentially “visible” character of Christian unity could be seen as an indirect rebuke to some Protestant understandings of the church, which tend to downplay institutions -- perhaps especially the hierarchical structures associated with Roman Catholicism.
Jesuit Fr. Joseph Fessio, a former student of Benedict XVI and the head of Ignatius Press, said that’s how he read the text, suggesting that Benedict is “using a scalpel that’s very sharp” in the way he subtly suggests that structures and institutions are essential.
On the other hand, Benedict’s words also could be read more simply, as an invitation not to throw in the towel on overcoming the various schisms and fractures which have marked Christian history. In a time of what many refer to as an ecumenical “winter,” in which hopes for structural unity seem to have dimmed, that kind of papal ferverino has value.
In addition, some Protestants say the pope’s keen interest in the Bible, and the way he approaches it, itself represents a promising ecumenical opening.
“I was astonished at how Protestant and Evangelical he sounds,” Evan said. “I wouldn’t hesitate to give this book to my students, and if it didn’t say ‘Pope Benedict’ on the cover, they might not even know it’s not a Protestant book.”
For Many/For All
Few questions of liturgical translation have been as contentious in recent years as the best way to render the Latin phrase pro multis in the words of consecration during the Mass. It occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, and in the present English translation, it’s translated as follows: “It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.”
Critics have long insisted that not only does multis in Latin clearly mean “many,” not “all,” but translating it as “many” is also theologically inaccurate, conveying the impression that everybody is saved regardless of their relationship with Christ and the church. Defenders insist that rendering it as “many” rather than “all” artificially truncates the scope of Christ’s mission, which is universal.
Because the critics often tend to be theologically conservative, and the defenders more liberal, the pro multis controversy easily gets swept up into the broader left/right tensions in the church. (It doesn’t help that the standard authority for the “all” position was a Lutheran scholar, Joachim Jeremias.)
The new English translation of the Missal uses “for many,” in accord with a 2006 Vatican directive.
In his book, Benedict briefly sketches the history of the debate during the 20th century, which has often pivoted on what the word “many” meant in the Old Testament, especially in the prophet Isaiah. He concludes that from a purely linguistic point of view, the modern word “many” is the correct translation.
Yet Benedict also suggests that decision has to be distinguished from the theological significance Christians attach to death of Jesus on the Cross.
“If Isaiah used the word ‘many’ to refer essentially to the totality of Israel,” he writes, “then as the church responds in faith to Jesus’ new use of the word, it becomes increasingly clear that he did indeed die for all.”
In other words, Benedict XVI effectively offers a “both/and” solution to the longstanding pro multis debate – “many” is the right translation, but “all” is a legitimate theological interpretation.
Church and State
Although Catholicism long upheld a tight union between throne and altar, the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) broke that mold in its declaration on religious freedom. Benedict XVI has become a great apostle of what he calls “healthy secularism,” borrowing the term from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, meaning a form of church/state separation that implies freedom for, not freedom from, religion.
Benedict indirectly returns to that theme in Jesus of Nazareth, arguing that the “essence” of the new path proposed by Jesus was “a separation of the religious from the political.”
That idea, Benedict said, “changed the world.”
“In his teaching and his whole ministry, Jesus had inaugurated a non-political Messianic kingdom and had begun to detach these two hitherto inseparable realities from one another.” Part of the core of Jesus’ message, Benedict writes, was the separation of “politics from faith, of God’s people from politics.”
Though those broad principles obviously leave tremendous scope for fleshing out the proper relationship between church and state, they at least confirm that Benedict’s broad support for “healthy secularism” remains undimmed. It’s an especially critical point for Catholics in the Middle East today, who are trying to help their Muslim neighbors see that a civil state can be both democratic and respectful of religion.
Women in the Church
Benedict makes a distinction toward the end of the book between two different ways in the New Testament of talking about the resurrection of Jesus and its significance, what he calls the “confessional tradition” and the “narrative tradition.” The former refers to short creedal formula, such as those found in the letters of Paul, while the latter are expressed in the post-resurrection stories in the synoptic gospels.
One interesting difference between the two, Benedict notes, is that all the witnesses cited in the confessional tradition are men, but in the narrative accounts women take precedence.
By way of explanation, Benedict says the narrative accounts do not feel bound by the “juridical structure” of the Jewish tradition, in which only men could testify in court, but instead “communicate the whole breadth of the resurrection experience.”
The pope applies that distinction to today’s church.
“The church’s juridical structure is founded on Peter and the Eleven,” he writes, “but in the day-to-day life of the Church it is the women who are constantly opening the door to the Lord and accompanying him to the Cross, and so it is they who come to experience the risen one.”
The practical translation of that point into church politics likely amounts to the following: No change on ordination, but a commitment to promoting women in all the roles within Catholicism that don’t require a Roman collar.
| For more analysis of Pope Benedict's newest book, see John Allen's story: Church should not pursue conversion of Jews, pope says |
B16 decides to leave the Jews
B16 decides to leave the Jews alone. Yawn...this tawdry little spectacle is going to come to an end sooner hopefully rather than later. I for one do not make room for his words in my heart! He has nothing to say that I want or need to hear except perhaps...I resign.As for Frederico Lombardi? He's no hero John Allen. Sounds to me like you're kissing the collective Vatican back side.A secret society, criminal cabal. Just give it a little shake, and watch the schisms appear and rupture. Save the artwork and make admission free to the Vatican museum. The women have left, they have chosen not to hold the door for the poseur who calls himself 'holy'.Quite a narrative alright.
There is a theological
There is a theological difference between redemption and salvation. All are redeemed in and by the Paschal Mystery. Not all are or will be saved by it.
I keep getting confused over
I keep getting confused over this translation debate. The phrase "pro moltis" is Latin. But if we are really concerned about what Isaiah said why are we even bringing the Latin into the debate? If I have my time lines remotely correct, he never heard or uttered one work of Latin in his life. The only answer I can come up with is that the debate is not really one of translation scholarship trying to do a "better" job but of politics. The conservatives want the mass said in Latin and short of that they want it Latinized as much as possible. Personally, I think a more logical, reasonable and educated approach would be to focus on getting the best translation of the original texts that modern scholarship can provide. And if Isaiah is the key text and if in his day and the context he was used it in his Hebrew word "many" really meant "all" then our best understanding of what he meant would lead us to use the English word "all". If the Latin translation says “many” then the Latin doesn’t provide a good translation of what Isaiah meant.
As I understand it, St.
As I understand it, St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in the fourth century A.D., and so was much closer to the original texts than today. Jerome had studied Greek and Hebrew in Antioch and Constantinople, among other places. Plus, Jerome was an unpopular curmudgeon, translating out of obedience to the pope before returning to the monastic life he preferred, so there's no evidence of him trying to slant anything in order to gain favor. I guess the point is if we're looking for the most accurate translation, he's our best bet.
Shouldn't the second 'many'
Shouldn't the second 'many' be 'all' in the following paragraph?
"Critics have long insisted that not only does multis in Latin clearly mean “many,” not “all,” but translating it as “many” [all?]is also theologically inaccurate, conveying the impression that everybody is saved regardless of their relationship with Christ and the church. Defenders insist that rendering it as “many” rather than “all” artificially truncates the scope of Christ’s mission, which is universal."
A GIFT TO THE WORLD This
A GIFT TO THE WORLD
This humble man, Pope Benedict, is a gift to the Church and to the world. For years I have read every word this eloquent scholar speaks or writes, because I feel his words are suffused with the Spirit of God. They bring light to my mind, joy to my heart, and strength for the journey. They are my "viaticum" - my food for the journey. I look forward to reading his book, "Jesus of Nazareth."
Here's the situation as I
Here's the situation as I currently see it. The same fellow that wrote the books you've found salutary is none other than Cardinal Ratzinger. The 'rat catcher' who sat in the CDF for some twnety three years 'processing' a tonne of documentation on the criminal activities of Roman catholic priests, bishops and Cardinals involved in the physical, sexual and spiritual torture of innocents,
Humble man! This is the narrative created by the character himself. Goebbels was a master also! Read all the politically correct theology that you want, Benedict 16 needs to provide the Church and the world with a 'breakthrough'. There is a lot at stake.Before I return to receive my 'viaticum' I want to see someone deal with the source of the stench in the sacristy.
I provide the "breakthrough"
I provide the "breakthrough" you are looking for in my novel, The Michelangelo Deception. Will it happen? Not likely, but it makes for entertaining reading. "Pope Immanuel"--an African-American--is a riveting juxtaposition to our current pope.
it ever amazes me how loyal
it ever amazes me how loyal Allen is to the pope, even when he (Allen) has to contradict himself to do it.
First we are told by Allen how cyrstal clear Benedict is in his communication, and in the next paragraph, begins to outline how there are so many (contradictory) interpretations on what Benedict has written. You can't have it both ways.
Ignatius Press would never publish anything that wasn't conservative (Fessio is not know for his open-mindedness!) so I think I will skip this one and wait for Marcus Borg to once again come out with something worth reading.
Thanks for this review. You
Thanks for this review. You have tweeked my interest in acquiring a copy. I came to an entirely different conclusion about the following passage: "Benedict’s emphasis on the essentially “visible” character of Christian unity could be seen as an indirect rebuke to some Protestant understandings of the church, which tend to downplay institutions -- perhaps especially the hierarchical structures associated with Roman Catholicism." I was applying it to my local bishop and his chancellor - who refused to allow a Caholic Nun recognized internationally for her work in spiritual direction and formation and other areas of spirituality - to have an article or paid ad placed in the diocesan paper about an upcoming day of retreat she would be giving for spiritual directors and ministers (of all faiths). The Chancellor said her understanding of ecumenism was not in conformance with Rome's understanding. The Bishop backed him up on his interpretation. I suggest many Bishops are afraid of ecumenism for they are keeping a close guard on who they allow to speak on Catholic parish or retreat grounds. How can we be "visibly ecumenical" when we are given no freedom to interact in prayerful ways with people of all faiths on "our" parish grounds and "our" retreat centers that we respect and support with our presence and our pocketbooks.
Only if it is initiated from the diocesan office are such ecumenical gatherings made known to the Catholic public through our diocesan newspapers.
On the last paragraph - I am
On the last paragraph - I am sure they mean all roles except voice roles within Catholicism. We are the slaves who run the ship - never permitted to rise through the ranks to help steer the ship to safe waters. The ship seems to be floundering in troubled waters without the presence of women to help stabalize it - becoming topheavy and liable to topple over. Why not invite us to be equal partners in the running of the ship, instead of keeping us only in subserviant roles. Christ called men to servanthood - but they TOOK ON the position of being masters and call it God's will.
Following the Pope's
Following the Pope's discussion of confessional and narrative tradition from the way the author of the article describes what he writes it seems apparent that we only ordain men due to what many may well contend is an antique alligence to ancient Jewish practice, practice that many Jewish communities have left behind. Is that what this is really all about?
The problem is that all the
The problem is that all the important decisio-making roles in the Catholic Church are reserved to the ordained!
B16's cheer leader rises to
B16's cheer leader rises to rouse us again. Yea John.
Read about Philadelphia lately?
Awesome!
Awesome!
These books are not written
These books are not written by the pope as such, they are written by the man who is pope as a private theologian. The distinction might seem subtle, but it isn't, if for no other reason that when the man who is pope is acting as a private theologian he can fall into heresy like any other theologian. In other words, when the man who is pope speaks or writes as a private theologian his words do not have magisterium-status.
I wonder if the pope is aware of the confusion that this is likely to cause? For when his private theological utterances are reported by the media they're invariably - incorrectly - presented as "Pope says".
Yes, the women can contnue to
Yes, the women can contnue to was the altar cloths, change the colors on the altar, lay out the vestments for the priest, water the plants, clean the floors, dust the church, work in the chancery office for "peanuts" and in the various offices of parishes for "more peanuts." They can continue to put huge sums of money in the collection baskets and write checks for the bishops' funds.
They can also continue defending the priests who abuse children and adults.
My God, why are women so stupid. They can change the whole CHURCH if they stop doing all of the above.
More Vatican spin; what he
More Vatican spin; what he (like JP II) writes and what he does are world's apart.
I see a Pope Benedict with
I see a Pope Benedict with two faces. When he is involved with tradition and defending his male, power hungry hierarchy, he wears the face of Mr. Hyde. When he immerses himself in the words of Jesus of Nazareth, he wears the face of Dr. Jekyll. Unless Allen has manufactured the image Benedict shows in the article, I feel a twinge of hope for the future. One of the things I think Benedict shows is that deep down, he is a realist. If he can shake his coat tails, or "robe tails," from the clutches of the hierarchy, just maybe... Perhaps an encyclical that demands that all cardinals and bishops immerse themselves in the words of Jesus might just turn things around.
3/10/11 If only Benedict
3/10/11
If only Benedict could take the next logical step, which is the ordination of
women, or promote women to all roles within Catholicism, even that which
requires a Roman collar.
John P. Lynch
North Smithfield, Rhode Island
Dear John, Perhaps not even
Dear John,
Perhaps not even the promotion of women into the clergy is really enough. Yes, if we are to ordain men then we must ordain women, but why not just stick with the priesthood of baptism and reverse so many years of clerical abuse of children and doctrine?
An encouraging insight into
An encouraging insight into the mind of our Pope. I am greatly heartened by the desire to unify, the release of conversion of Jews, the rise in women's roles and the heavy focus on the Bible. Bravo.
I found the first volume of
I found the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth interesting, and the more personal passages beautiful. Like Benjamin Witherington's comments on this second volume, I noticed how dated the bibliography of the first volume was. In terms of scholarship the volume could have been written while Ratzinger was in Regensburg.
Also, of the 89 books and articles in the bibliography, just one was originally written in Italian, two are patristic sources (often quoted or referred to), nine were in French, another nine in English while 68 original references were in German.
There was not a single reference to biblical scholarship from Latin America, Africa or Asia, precisely where Catholic and Protestant biblical studies are at the cutting edge. Of the 89 references, I found only one by a woman - Sr. Benediktin - a German hermit who wrote on symbols in John's Gospel.
Unlike biblical scholars, Ratzinger does not move from the apostolic age to the fourth century, but in the other direction. The New Testament is read through the dogmatic prism of the fourth century councils - as interpreted by western scholars.
Jesus of Nazareth is a fine scholarly reflection from a mid-European classical scholar. A good read, but that's not where Catholic scholarship is today.
It's simply not true that
It's simply not true that Latin America, Africa and Asia 'are precisely where Catholic and Protestant biblical studies are at the cutting edge.' I teach theology at a major Asian theological institution, and I find such a comment to be flattering, perhaps, but not at all credible.
Perhaps you could supply names and titles on the cutting edge that you have in mind.
And some of today's Catholic
And some of today's Catholic scholarship is so very interesting and relevant coming from all over the world, not just Europe. I am also wondering how dated the bibliography is for the church's teaching on all those issues pertaining to human sexuality and the role of women in the church ? That concerns me even more.
" Take the fire , leave the
" Take the fire , leave the ashes " . Were the Roman collar to go along with the all and only male priesthood the essence of sacramental ordination will remain faithful to Jesus . I like Benedict and the way he has of reminding us of the Second Vatican Council . Perhaps we'll look at those Documents now instead of searching for signers for the Manhattan Declaration .
It will only be a matter of
It will only be a matter of minute, before the loons on here read anything positive about Benedict and reiterate their tired complaints that Allen is in the tank for the pope. We can just sit and wait for their bitter commments about Cardinal Law, sex abuse, female priests, blah blah blah.
So what English-speaking
So what English-speaking Catholics will continue to hear, given our sense of our own language, is that "Christ died for many but not all," even though, in Benedict's words, "it becomes increasingly clear that he did indeed die for all." That begs the question of why our liturgy will not be teaching our best theology.
Another obvious question, about women: Why shouldn't those (again in Benedict's words) "who are constantly opening the door to the Lord and accompanying him to the Cross, and so it is they who come to experience the risen one" be the most obvious ones to speak to and for the church? Will women ever have a real voice in the church, when all liturgy and all jurisdiction is in the hands of male priests? Maybe the church would be more credible if it didn't spend so much time and effort on maintaining its male-only "juridical structure."
Pope Benedict a gifted
Pope Benedict a gifted communicator??????? He has been talking with both feet in his mouth since long before he became pope. He has often been "misunderstood" and given offense all over the globe, and had to explain again and again what he really meant to say. When did this change? Perhaps he is clearer when he writes than when he speaks?
'No change on ordination, but
'No change on ordination, but a commitment to promoting women in all the roles within Catholicism that don’t require a Roman collar.'
I'm not at all sure that the quotation above captures the point. Benedict seems to be contrasting the juridical and what one might roughly call the cultural-spiritual. Allen's reading seems to apply it so as to give women a limited role in the structure of the Church -- 'all roles that don't require a Roman collar.' It thus becomes a statement of a truncated egalitarian ethic.
I would think it more likely that Benedict means something more positive: Women have roles of their own within the Church, often roles the spiritual impact of which are underestimated. After all, who taught you more about the faith, your mother or your bishop or your parish priest? Who has touched more people spiritually, Mother Theresa or the bishops of Calcutta who were in office during her lifetime?
Until we in the contemporary Church broaden and deepen our understanding of the significance of the divine wisdom in creating 'them male and female,' we will continue to cast woman as a 'misbegotten male,' qualified for 'almost all' roles, but disqualified from what we think must be the really important ones. Benedict may well be trying to break that whole mentality.
Most roles within Catholicism
Most roles within Catholicism don't require a Roman collar. That includes cardinals, bishops and priests, also heads of congregations. Omly the biships and priests require ordination and as Ambrose shows that is not a pre-condition for bishop.
Cardinals don't necessarily
Cardinals don't necessarily have to wear a Roman collar. There have been many lay Cardinals, and the requirement that a Cardinal be an archbishop is a mere church law. I see no reason why a woman could not be created a Cardinal. Do you?
You've got a typo in the pro
You've got a typo in the pro multis paragraph. The line about being theologically difficult only makes sense if "All" is written, but "Many" is present.
"Christians also shouldn’t be
"Christians also shouldn’t be trying to convert them" So why did they restore the 'conversion of the Jews' to the prayers during Triduum liturgy?
"but in the day-to-day life of the Church it is the women who are constantly opening the door to the Lord and accompanying him to the Cross, and so it is they who come to experience the risen one.”
And women cannot be ordained because....?
When I read this article, I
When I read this article, I felt like I had a front row seat at a theater where the farce being played out on-stage involved someone trying to make sense of verbalized flotsam.
An entire section focused on something akin to the meaning of “is”; that is, whether the words uttered during mass are for “the many or the all.” The comical solution offered by His Holiness, is that words don’t mean anything: “Benedict XVI effectively offers a “both/and” solution to the longstanding pro multis debate – “many” is the right translation, but “all” is a legitimate theological interpretation.”
The section on ecumenism begins with a quote from the pope’ new book: “The struggle for the visible unity of the disciples of Jesus Christ remains an urgent task for Christians of all times and places,” And it ends with high admiration for a pope who isn’t willing to throw in the towel in frustration over the monumental task of uniting the fractured Christian family under one gigantic mythical, but visible tent. (Of course, what goes unsaid is that the “tent” would be the “Holy See”.) No mention is made of the fact that there are well over a thousand Christian denominations and sects, nor that the most important and only legitimate one that existed at the founding of “Christianity” was Gnosticism. When theologians discuss these issues, without taking into account recent revelations in the Gnostic gospels which show what Jesus was really saying and advocating, their words are about as valuable as flotsam floating on the water above a sunken ship.
The discussion on “church and state” seems disingenuous at best, since the Roman Catholic Church IS a sovereign state (some say illegitimate) with political ties to countries all over the globe.
The conclusion continues with verbal gymnastics about the status of women in the Church; men have their lofty positions by virtue of the juridical structure of the Church, “but in the day-to-day life of the Church it is the women who are constantly opening the door to the Lord and accompanying him to the Cross, and so it is they who come to experience the risen one.” What, exactly, do those words mean? Don’t the “hallowed” men also experience “the risen one? John comes to the pope’s rescue on this issue by clarifying what the pope was REALLY saying in so many convoluted words: that ordination of women is out of the question.
Well, anyway, it was an entertaining night at the theater of the absurd.
Okay, then let's have women
Okay, then let's have women cardinals. Cardinals don't have to be priests. I've been making that argument for years, but so far, it's fallen on deaf ears.
Okay, then let's have women
Okay, then let's have women cardinals. Cardinals don't have to be priests. I've been making that argument for years, but so far, it's fallen on deaf ears.
yeah, sure, like, you know,
yeah, sure, like, you know, res ipse loquitur, dude, but his martyring the best minds of our Church as head of the Holy Office tells us all we need to know. His destruction and utter desecration of our Church under wojtyla screams "OMG nuf sed!"
Years ago I wrote a well
Years ago I wrote a well known Catholic publisher regarding a topic they had covered dealing with the continuing opposition voiced by the Roman Curia in implementing the changes brought forward by Vatican II. I asked the editor, privately, if his paper agreed with the backward direction of the Church. The editor responded “well it’s my bread and butter, so we have to tow the line”. That registered as one of the most sincere responses I had encountered from a recognized Catholic Institution. John Allen Jr. appears to be caught in a similar situation.
Pope Benedict XVI is a champion of “Orthodoxy” and may be a gifted communicator able to explain complexities of l Christian theology in simple terms but that does not help to explain his archaic and outdated position on a variety of central issues facing the Church. And what exactly was new about the following:
“Christians shouldn’t be trying to convert Jews” Evangelization is not about converting anyone to a particular religion – it is about imitating Jesus and that requires a conversion of the heart.
“Jesus had inaugurated a non-political Messianic kingdom” Then why and how did we end up with a religious institution claiming more power than kings or rulers and able to operate outside international law?
“The struggle for the visible unity of the disciples of Jesus Christ remains an urgent task for Christians of all times and places,” This is a quote from the author of ‘Dominus Jesus’ and one who still supports “No salvation outside the Catholic Church” ?
“a commitment to promoting women in all the roles within Catholicism that don’t require a Roman collar.” As long as a Roman collar calls the shots, women will know their place!
“The new English translation of the Missal uses “for many”. The perfect platform from which to proclaim ‘who is in and who is out!
Yes, Benedict is indeed his own best spokesman – but who is listening anymore?
I think there was a typo.
I think there was a typo. John, I think you meant to say "all" rather than "many" the 2nd line of the 2nd paragraph of that section. That would make sense of the paragraph.
Church juridicial structure
Church juridicial structure has only men writes BXVI.... what has that to do with Jesus or authentic Gospel? Jesus made women his apostles too.
Legalism and shutting out women is not of Jesus.
All roles in the RCC church of BXVI do require a "Roman collar" so that is nonsense what the pope writes about the role of women in the church. He shuts women out and shuts women up. He is no good for RCC.
What a crass spineless lackey of BXVI John Allen Jr is to write this cloying uncritical 'report'.
Jesus died for all, came for all. BXVI hopping around with his notions of many and all are meaningless and wishy-washy as he upholds his idolatry of Latin. Jesus never spoke Latin. Medieval times idolatry is wrong too and BXVI harms the church idolizing Latin and medieval monarchy style.
Church juridicial structure
Church juridicial structure has only men writes BXVI.... what has that to do with Jesus or authentic Gospel? Jesus made women his apostles too.
Legalism and shutting out women is not of Jesus.
All roles in the RCC church of BXVI do require a "Roman collar" so that is nonsense what the pope writes about the role of women in the church. He shuts women out and shuts women up. He is no good for RCC.
What a crass spineless lackey of BXVI John Allen Jr is to write this cloying uncritical 'report'.
Jesus died for all, came for all. BXVI hopping around with his notions of many and all are meaningless and wishy-washy as he upholds his idolatry of Latin. Jesus never spoke Latin. Medieval times idolatry is wrong too and BXVI harms the church idolizing Latin and medieval monarchy style.
Benedict 16 writes '
Benedict 16 writes ' Confessional accounts men, narrative account women?' These are false distinctions to keep women 'in their place,' out of ordination. These are all narrative accounts. All the story of Jesus.
What theologian would come up with such defective junk all to stop women from being ordained? Benedict 16. Woman hater. He is no theologian.
Why is Benedict 16 separating men and women? Seems he just wants to uphold his misogynist shunning of women. He is a man with a distaste for women and he wants to avoid women, ignore women.
Just like JPII ordered women out of his meetings, sent away nuns. Had nuns do his laundry and housekeeping.
What role does not require a
What role does not require a roman collar? The pope keeps on plotting to keep woman away from the altar. He keeps blocking women from any decision making, any real community or real participation in the church.
It is the male clergy who are 'power' mad in the ways they think up ways to shut out women.
Sounds like alot of confused
Sounds like alot of confused liberal rubbish coming from Rome again. There will be a day when Rome finds the Faith again and when she does she will find a remnant of true Catholics remaining.
If you're only going to feed
If you're only going to feed women the leftovers, why do you expect that they will continue coming to the dinner? Why do you expect that they will continue bringing their children? When the women leave, the church is just an empty shell.
Benedict makes more excuses for his denial of the early history of the church, which included women deacons (not deaconesses, that position was different and came much later), woman priests, women bishops, and women archbishops. People forget that there was a female Irish archbishop in the Middle Ages. People forget that, during the religious repression of the USSR, there were secret ordinations of both women and men to the priesthood. Who in their right mind would think that this was done without the tacit permission of the Vatican? Since we have female priests for a couple of millennium, how can it be impossible to ordain them now?
John Allen seems like such a
John Allen seems like such a papal/Vatican apologist to me. For example, he suggests at the end of this piece that Benedict "promotes" the role of women in the church. Of course, he offers no evidence to support this conclusion, and I don't know of any to show. Benedict seems oblivious, disinterested or both regarding the need to officially include, recognize, and value women in the official 'juridical' structures of the church. And, I'm no better because I am not doing anything about this issue either. I want the official church to recognize women's abilities as more than only child-bearing nurturers, though that is a vital, fulfilling, and crucial role. I like the idea of the American Catholic Conference coming up in Detroit this coming Pentecost weekend in June whose goal is to democratize church governance. Most American Catholics today are educated, thinking adults who can and should have a say in how we practice our faith and in how we govern ourselves as church. Why can't we have a say in who our bishops are--as was the practice until 100 years ago or so. Why can't women be deacons as they were in the early church.
When I read this article, I
When I read this article, I felt like I had a front row seat at a theater where the farce being played out on-stage involved someone trying to make sense of verbalized flotsam.
An entire section focused on something akin to the meaning of “is”; that is, whether the words uttered during mass are for “the many or the all.” The comical solution offered by His Holiness, is that words don’t mean anything: “Benedict XVI effectively offers a “both/and” solution to the longstanding pro multis debate – “many” is the right translation, but “all” is a legitimate theological interpretation.”
The section on ecumenism begins with a quote from the pope’ new book: “The struggle for the visible unity of the disciples of Jesus Christ remains an urgent task for Christians of all times and places,” And it ends with high admiration for a pope who isn’t willing to throw in the towel in frustration over the monumental task of uniting the fractured Christian family under one gigantic mythical, but visible tent. (Of course, what goes unsaid is that the “tent” would be the “Holy See”.) No mention is made of the fact that there are well over a thousand Christian denominations and sects, nor that the most important and only legitimate one that existed at the founding of “Christianity” was Gnosticism. When theologians discuss these issues, without taking into account recent revelations in the Gnostic gospels which show what Jesus was really saying and advocating, their words are about as valuable as flotsam floating on the water above a sunken ship.
The discussion on “church and state” seems disingenuous at best, since the Roman Catholic Church IS a sovereign state (some say illegitimate) with political ties to countries all over the globe.
The conclusion continues with verbal gymnastics about the status of women in the Church; men have their lofty positions by virtue of the juridical structure of the Church, “but in the day-to-day life of the Church it is the women who are constantly opening the door to the Lord and accompanying him to the Cross, and so it is they who come to experience the risen one.” What, exactly, do those words mean? Don’t the “hallowed” men also experience “the risen one? John comes to the pope’s rescue on this issue by clarifying what the pope was REALLY saying in so many convoluted words: that ordination of women is out of the question.
Well, anyway, it was an entertaining night at the theater of the absurd.
another example of: Nero
another example of: Nero fiddles while Rome burns.
Post new comment