|
 |
|
|
|
|
COMMENTARY:
The Election of Benedict XVI
April 22, 2005 Episode no. 834
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diarmaid MacCulloch is professor of the history of the church at Oxford University and author of THE REFORMATION: A HISTORY (Viking Books):
The choice of Josef Ratzinger was so predictable as to be surprising, and it is also deeply depressing. It is a vote for no change in more senses than one: no move away from the effort to defend the indefensible with the most ingenious arguments that theologians can devise; no move away from an inexorable concentration of power without precedent in the history of the Western Church; no move to understand or sympathize with the agonies of Catholics who want to love their Church and are presented not with bread but with a stone. As an outside observer, my sympathies go out to them. The likelihood is that a Ratzinger papacy will face the nemesis of all rigid structures under intolerable strain: they break suddenly into pieces.
Geoffrey Wainwright is professor of Christian theology at Duke University and co-president of the International Commission for Dialogue between the World Methodist Council and the Roman Catholic Church:
As an ecumenically engaged Methodist Christian, I am delighted by the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Bishop of Rome. Intellectually, he is a first-rate theologian, with a subtle and penetrating mind. I have found it very easy to enter into technical and friendly conversation in German with Cardinal Ratzinger -- as theologian to theologian -- during my meetings with him over the years, when I have kept him up to date on our international Methodist-Catholic dialogue. He is committed to the cause of Christian unity in the truth of the Gospel. Doctrinally, he holds to the Christian faith in a classic form. Pastorally, he showed great grace and sensitivity during his conduct of the funeral Mass for Pope John Paul II and in his homily on that occasion.
Jay P. Dolan is professor of history emeritus at the University of Notre Dame and author of IN SEARCH OF AN AMERICAN CATHOLICISM (Oxford University Press):
I was surprised at the outcome of the election. I did not think that the College of Cardinals would elect Cardinal Ratzinger. He has become such a lightning rod and such a controversial figure. What this says to me is that the Cardinals, most of whom were appointed by Pope John Paul II, did not have the courage or the votes to elect someone who was more a healer than a divider. The election of Cardinal Ratzinger is very disappointing. Simply put it is a disaster for the Catholic Church, in my opinion. I would love to be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. Pope John XXIII spoke of using the medicine of mercy rather than severity. Cardinal Ratzinger was a man who relished severity rather than mercy. May he learn to be a healer and not a divider.
Peter Casarella is associate professor of systematic theology at the Catholic University of America:
The election of Pope Benedict XVI is indeed significant for the Church and its future direction. There is, of course, the sense of continuity with Pope John Paul II's implementation of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. But there are also other dimensions to the new pope's personality and way of thinking that are likely to become apparent over time.
There are, for example, the distinctive gifts that the theologian Joseph Ratzinger will bring to the office. Much is being made of the new pope's role as a "watchdog" of Catholic orthodoxy as he served as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This is true and shows how this particular ecclesial office changed the man. I think that his new role as Bishop of Rome and leader of the universal Church could also allow a new side of Joseph Ratzinger to become visible to the world, namely, that of the good shepherd.
It is impossible to predict in the first few days of his pontificate what themes the new pope will emphasize and what initiatives he will undertake. But I take great consolation in the choice of Benedict as his new name. Pope Benedict XVI sees himself, he said, as a lowly worker in the vineyard of the Lord. These words of introduction point to the genuine sense of feeling "benedictus" or "blessed" that he undoubtedly felt when the final act of the conclave was announced to him. Second, his deep spirituality and life of prayer bear much in common with the father of Western monasticism, St. Benedict. Pope Benedict XVI's greatest theological heroes are probably St. Augustine and St. Bonaventure. They both adopted a kind of monastic spirituality and applied this outlook to their own circumstances in the fourth and thirteenth centuries, respectively. Pope Benedict XVI will probably do the same as he now faces the empty pews of European Catholicism for the first time from the vantage point of the see of St. Peter.
But there is also a wild card in all of this. The last Pope Benedict admonished the European powers to end the First World War and introduced a moderate tone into the Church during the ongoing crisis of modernism. Most of the world's political leaders regarded with disdain Benedict XV's words of peace; Woodrow Wilson at least declined politely.
It is difficult to imagine that the former Cardinal Ratzinger could ever silence his many critics; however, if he adopts the mantle of the idealistic peacemaker Benedict XV, then his critics may at least have to pause in order to reflect upon the manifold and evolving achievements of this complex man.
Fr. Patrick LaBelle, O.P. is director of the Catholic chaplaincy at Stanford University:
I was not overjoyed at the news of the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope, but I have had some time to think about it and have a more positive perspective now. On the occasions I have had to speak with him and hear his lectures, I have realized the brilliance of his intellect and the skill with which he sees issues and addresses them. There is no substitute for intelligence, and he has it.
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he has had to articulate the faith as he understands it and as he saw Pope John Paul II understand it. Now he is a universal pastor. I believe that he will shift gears and, with his usual keen intellect, see things as a pastor and come at issues from a different direction, with an intelligence tempered with heart -- the heart that turned him away from the wickedness of Nazi SS advances on his youthful freedom.
|
|
|
|
Pope John Paul II came to the papacy as an outsider who did not fully understand either the Vatican or the career "civil servants" of the Holy See who were firmly in place and who were able to continue doing what they had always done, escaping John Paul's pastoral vision. He was not terribly interested in much of what went on within the little kingdom of the papacy, and so many things undertaken in his name were hurtful and against his spirit. But because he didn't fully understand the complicated Vatican structure and, frankly, didn't care much about it, things were allowed to continue as usual. By the time he was incapacitated by illness, the structure was a mess. It desperately needs to be cleaned up and out. I believe that Pope Benedict knows the Vatican well and will address these much needed reforms. Until the Vatican house is in order, it is incapable of being an effective moral leader in the world.
Finally, the name Benedict reflects the last Pope Benedict -- a moderate who came after a fairly hard-line predecessor. I believe that this older man sees himself in that light. Deciding to move away from the temptation to become Pope John Paul III was a wonderful move to end the "cult" of the late pope, who will finally be allowed to rest in peace.
Edward Vacek, S.J. is professor of moral theology at the Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, Massachusetts:
In his homily before the conclave, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger insisted that the unchanging truth of the Catholic Church must kick against the contemporary world. The Church, he demanded, must reject "aggressive secularism" and the "dictatorship of relativism." Those are fighting words.
While I have often found Cardinal Ratzinger's writings in his role as secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to be somewhat insensitive or harsh, I have long joined him in my writing and in my classrooms in the fight against a mindless relativism and against what I see as a sort of secularism in the Church.
Recently, someone reminded Cardinal Ratzinger that an earlier Pope Benedict, this one Benedict IX who lived in the eleventh century, was the 145th, 147th and 149th pope. The father of Benedict IX bribed people to make his son pope, but Benedict was then deposed. After the next pope, he again was elected, and this time he voluntarily resigned in exchange for the promise of a large sum of money and a wife. That did not work out, and once again he was elected pope. He was deposed one last time by the Council of Sutri. After that, he repented and lived a life of asceticism and virtue. Cardinal Ratzinger reflected for a minute on this triple papacy of Benedict IX. With reason guided by hope, he pointed out that this case shows the Church does not depend on the competence of its pope. Rather, it depends on God, who is bigger than the papacy.
Similarly, the cardinal once told the story of Napoleon who declared that he would destroy the Church. On hearing that, one of the cardinals at that time replied: "Not even we have managed that." Our Benedict retold such a story in a spirit of hope, the hope that God works with imperfect instruments. This spirit of hope enabled the young theologian Ratzinger to describe the Holy Office as thoroughly corrupt in the way it treated people, yet then as Cardinal Ratzinger to accept the pope's request that he become the head of that same office. His hope was and is that God will prevail. In his first remarks as Benedict XVI he repeated that sentiment, saying God knows how to work with inadequate instruments.
All of us need that kind of hope. Pope Benedict XVI has that hope, and so should we. Is he conservative or progressive? An avuncular gentleman or a dogmatic "enforcer"? A complicated aristocrat or a "simple, humble worker"? There is some truth in each of these descriptions. One of Cardinal Ratzinger's more striking maxims is: If you don't have dualism, you have totalitarianism. I think that means we need "both/and." Thus, for him, if you don't have the Church's prophetic opposition, you get what he calls the dictatorship of relativism. His chosen role is to oppose various elements of the contemporary world in roughly the same way he and his family opposed Nazism.
The word "dualism" is infelicitous, but we can use it to say there was a sort of dualism or emphasis on "both/and" at the Second Vatican Council. On the one hand, there is the strand that Cardinal Ratzinger most emphasizes: "ressourcement" -- that we must go back to the Church's origins, to the early teachings, to the foundations. Hence this movement is not ashamed to think of itself, in contrast to contemporary sensibilities, as "foundationalist" or even "fundamentalist." Those like Cardinal Ratzinger who emphasize this strand do not mean going back to the traditions of our grandparents, but rather to the traditions of the early Church of the first few centuries. They find life there.
On the other hand, in the Second Vatican Council there was also an emphasis on John XXIII's "aggiornamento," openness to all that is good in the present world. Everyone who emphasizes this strand gets a thrill when hearing the opening lines of Pope Paul VI's 1965 pastoral constitution "The Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes), namely that "the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of this age" are "the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the followers of Christ." Open wide the windows, and let the contemporary fresh air in.
It remains to be seen which of these two emphases Benedict XVI will embrace. In the view of Cardinal Ratzinger, however, not all the air that Vatican II let in was fresh. Rather, a lot of it was polluted. In his Good Friday prayer this year, he went so far as to say that there was "filth" in the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger has emphasized the return to origins, even to the point of saying that a reduction in numbers would be fine if the Church would go back to the basics.
What are we to make of all this? First, it is important to recognize that no single description will define this papacy, just as no single description described the tornado that was John Paul II. Second, we cannot predict the future, but hope is not about predictions. After all, who would have guessed that the young Joseph Ratzinger, who seemed to emphasize a readiness to go forward and whose dissertation was rejected for being too subjective and relativistic, would turn out to be Cardinal Ratzinger, a fierce opponent of subjectivism and relativism? Third, this Church is our home, and we are already where we belong. And fourth, we can join Benedict XVI in saying that ultimately we place our trust in God and not in princes, no matter how perfect or imperfect the prince is. Because that is so, we can gladly gather around the earthly table and sing songs of gratitude to our God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
