Wednesday, April 27, 2005

John Allen Jr.'s Turnabout

A stirring edition of "Word from Rome" by the National Catholic Reporter's John Allen, Jr., contains his reflections on the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the funeral of Pope John Paul II, as well as the following personal confession:

Six years ago, I wrote a biography of the man who is now pope titled Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith. In the intervening period, I have learned a few things about the universal Catholic church and how things look from different perspectives. If I were to write the book again today, I'm sure it would be more balanced, better informed, and less prone to veer off into judgment ahead of sober analysis.

This, I want to stress, is not a Johnny-come-lately conclusion motivated by the fact that the subject of the book has now become the pope. In a lecture delivered at the Catholic University of America as part of the Common Ground series, on June 25, 2004, I said the following about the book:

    "My 'conversion' to dialogue originated in a sort of 'bottoming out.' It came with the publication of my biography of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issued by Continuum in 2000 and titled The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith. The first major review appeared in Commonweal, authored by another of my distinguished predecessors in this lecture series, Fr. Joseph Komonchak. It was not, let me be candid, a positive review. Fr. Komonchak pointed out a number of shortcomings and a few errors, but the line that truly stung came when he accused me of "Manichean journalism." He meant that I was locked in a dualistic mentality in which Ratzinger was consistently wrong and his critics consistently right. I was initially crushed, then furious. I re-read the book with Fr. Komonchak's criticism in mind, however, and reached the sobering conclusion that he was correct. The book - which I modestly believe is not without its merits - is nevertheless too often written in a "good guys and bad guys" style that vilifies the cardinal. It took Fr. Komonchak pointing this out, publicly and bluntly, for me to ask myself, 'Is this the kind of journalist I want to be'? My answer was no, and I hope that in the years since I have come to appreciate more of those shades of gray that Fr. Komonchak rightly insists are always part of the story.

After Ratzinger's election as Benedict XVI was announced, I had hoped to have the opportunity to write a new preface for the book contextualizing some of the views it expresses. Unfortunately, the publisher in the United States, for reasons that I suppose are fairly obvious, had already begun reprinting the book without consulting me. Hence it is probably already appearing in bookstores, without any new material from me.

I can't do anything about that, although the British publishers were kind enough to ask me to write a new preface, which I have already done, so at least the damage will be limited in the U.K.

What is under my control, however, is a new book for Doubleday (a Random House imprint), which I hope will be a more balanced and mature account of both Ratzinger's views and the politics that made him pope. It has been in the works for some time and I hope it will be worthy of the enormity of the story, and the trust of those who elect to read it.

I was among those to recieve a copy of John Allen Jr.'s biography, in exchange for the opportunity to try my hand at writing a book review. Despite it's obvious liberal bias (which I took for granted, given his working for the National Catholic (Dis)torter), I was rather gentle in my response. In retrospect, I think the reason I didn't come down so hard was that, even in his introduction, I could detect a change of tone in the author, a softening towards the Cardinal that would take his more liberal readers by suprise:

Allen's judgements about Ratzinger's character are not what one would expect coming from a 'progressive' Catholic journalist for the National Catholic Reporter: Allen believes Ratzinger "is not the vengeful, power-obsessed old man who lurks like a bogyman in the imaginations of the Catholic left". On the several occasions Allen has met Ratzinger, he has found him to be "charming, with a shy personal style and an active wit", possessing "a calm, peaceful spirit and the remarkable ability to listen". With regard to Ratzinger's thought, Allen finds that his "arguments are more than ex post facto rationalizations for exercises of authority" and speaks of "a deep, logical consistency to [his] vision". Indeed, Allen is so impressed with Ratzinger that he exclaims "in the unlikely event I ever had access to Ratzinger as a personal confesser, I would not hesitate to open my heart to him, so convinced I am of the clarity of his insight, his integrity, and his commitment to the priesthood" -- sentiments which might be denounced as treasonous or dismissed as insane by some on the Catholic left. . . .

And so the man comes around.

I'm very pleased to hear this, as I am sure many of his readers. I look forward to reading his new book on our Holy Father.

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Pope Benedict XVI and the Jews

With great affection I also greet all those who have been reborn in the sacrament of Baptism but are not yet in full communion with us; and you, my brothers and sisters of the Jewish people, to whom we are joined by a great shared spiritual heritage, one rooted in God's irrevocable promises.

Pope Benedict XVI, Inaugural Mass Homily April 24, 2005.

* * *
While the harpies of the press and disgruntled remnants of heterodox factions are doing their best to fan the flames of controversy over the Cardinal's brief stint in the Hitler Youth -- rather a non-issue after a careful review of the facts -- a few people have actually raised the genuine inquiry: what does Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, actually think about the Jewish people?

Over the course of his life, as a Catholic theologian as well as in his formal capacity as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Holy Father has written on the Church's relationship to the Jewish people. Following is, to the best of my memory, an overview of the 'highlights'. (To those for whom much of this is a recap of earlier discussions, my apologies).

'Interreligious Dialogue and Jewish-Christian Relations' (1998)

Interreligious Dialogue and Jewish-Christian Relations Communio 25, no. 1 (1998): 29-41. [.pdf format]; HTML Version. Produced for a session of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, Paris, this essay was published in Communio and was republished in Many Religions, One Covenant. The piece is chiefly devoted to the matter of interreligious dialogue and various approaches to the world's religions -- such as the sublimination of theistic religions into a transcendental, mystical model; the pragmatic approach, which prioritizes orthopracy over dogma and "interminable wrangling over truth" -- pointing out their strengths and deficiencies. In the latter part of the essay, Cardinal Ratzinger notes that beyond the superficial opposition of the "Old" to "New" Testament, "the primal fact is that through Christ Israel's Bible came to the non-Jews and became their Bible," bringing Jews and Gentiles together. Furthermore:

"Even if Israel cannot join Christians in seeing Jesus as the Son of God,it is not altogether impossible for Israel to recognize him as the servant of God who brings the light of his God to the nations." The converse is also true: even if Christians wish that Israel might one day recognize Christ as the Son of God and that the fissure that still divides them might thereby be closed, they ought to acknowledge the decree of God, who has obviously entrusted Israel with a distinctive mission in the "time of the Gentiles." The Fathers define this mission in the following way: the Jews must remain as the first proprietors of Holy Scripture with respect to us, in order to establish a testimony to the world. But what is the tenor of this testimony? . . . I think we could say that two things are essential to Israel's faith. The first is the Torah, commitment to God's will, and thus the establishment of his dominion, his kingdom, in this world. The second is the prospect of hope, the expectation of the Messiah -- the expectation, indeed, the certainty, that God himself will enter into this history and create justice, which we can only approximate very imperfectly. The three dimensions of time are thus connected: obedience to God's will bears on an already spoken word that now exists in history and at each new moment has to be made present again in obedience. This obedience, which makes present a bit of God's justice in time, is oriented toward a future when God will gather up the fragments of time and usher them as a whole into his justice.

Christianity does not give up this basic configuration. The trinity of faith, hope, and love corresponds in a certain respect to the three dimensions of time: the obedience of faith takes the word that comes from eternity and is spoken in history and transforms it into love, into presence, and in this way opens the door to hope. It is characteristic of the Christian faith that all three dimensions are contained and sustained in the figure of Christ, who also introduces them into eternity. In him, time and eternity exist together, and the infinite gulf between God and man is bridged. For Christ is the one who came to us without therefore ceasing to be with the Father; he is present in the believing community, and yet at the same time is still the one who is coming. The Church too awaits the Messiah. She already knows him, yet he has still to reveal his glory. Obedience and promise belong together for the Christian faith, too. For Christians, Christ is the present Sinai, the living Torah that lays its obligations on us, that bindingly commands us, but that in so doing draws us into the broad space of love and its inexhaustible possibilities. In this way, Christ guarantees hope in the God who does not let history sink into a meaningless past, but rather sustains it and brings it to its goal. It likewise follows from this that the figure of Christ simultaneously unites and divides Israel and the Church: it is not in our power to overcome this division, but it keeps us together on the way to what is coming and for this reason must not become an enmity.

"Reconciling Gospel & Torah: The Catechism" (1994)

"Reconciling Gospel & Torah: The Catechism". This essay was originally written for a Jewish-Christian encounter in Jerusalem in February 1994 and was republished in various forms, including the first section of Many Religions, One Covenant. Ratzinger asks the question: "Can Christian faith, left in its inner power and dignity, not only tolerate Judaism but accept it in its historic mission? Or can it not? Can there be true reconciliation without abandoning the faith, or is reconciliation tied to such abandonment?" -- framing his answer in light of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches:

The mission of Jesus consists in leading the histories of the nations in the community of the history of Abraham, in the history of Israel. His mission is unification, reconciliation, as the Letter to the Ephesians (2:18-22) will then present it. The history of Israel should become the history of all, Abraham's sonship become extended to the 'many.' This course of events has two aspects to it: The nations can enter into the community of the promises of Israel in entering into the community of the one God who now becomes and must become the way of all because there is only one God and because his will is therefore truth for all. Conversely, this means that all nations, without the abolishment of the special mission of Israel, become brothers and receivers of the promises of the chosen people; they become people of God with Israel through adherence to the will of God and through acceptance of the Davidic kingdom.

During the course of this essay Ratzinger takes a stand against the "superficial polemics" of anti-Jewish biblical hermeneutics, objecting to "crass contrasts [which] have become a cliché in modern and liberal descriptions where Pharisees and priests are portrayed as the representatives of a hardened legalism, as representatives of the eternal law of the establishment presided over by religious and political authorities who hinder freedom and live from the oppression of others."

"Where the conflict between Jesus and the Judaism of his time is presented in a superficial, polemical way," says Ratzinger, "a concept of liberation is derived which can understand the Torah only as a slavery to external rites and observances." Such an antinomian portrayal of Jesus are in no way part of the Catechism, whose presentation of Judaism is derived from St. Matthew and presents "a deep unity between the good news of Jesus and the message of Sinai."

Citing paragraph # 1968 of the Catechism, Ratzinger goes on to say:

his view of a deep unity between the good news of Jesus and the message of Sinai is again summarized in the reference to a statement of the New Testament which is not only common to the synoptic tradition but also has a central character in the Johannine and Pauline writings: The whole law, including the prophets, depends on the twofold yet one commandment of love of God and love of neighbor (Catechism, 1970; Mt. 7:20; 22:34-40; Mk. 12:38-43; Lk. 10:25-28; Jn. 13:34; Rom. 13:8-10). For the nations, being assumed into the children of Abraham is concretely realized in entering into the will of God, in which moral commandment and profession of the oneness of God are indivisible, as this becomes clear especially in St. Mark's version of this tradition in which the double commandment is expressly linked to the "Sch'ma Israel," to the yes to the one and only God. Man's way is prescribed for him he is to measure himself according to the standard of God and according to his own human perfection. At the same time, the ontological depth of these statements comes to the fore. By saying yes to the double commandment man lives up to the call of his nature to be the image of God that was willed by the Creator and is realized as such in loving with the love of God.

In the third part of this essay, Cardinal Ratzinger discusses Jesus' encounter with the Jewish authorities, exploring the mysterious way in which he fundamentally reinterprets and transforms the Torah, opening up the covenant to the Gentiles in a process which culminated in his crucifixion and resurrection from the dead. I won't go into further details, but suffice to say it's a good read. According to the Cardinal, Jesus' death on the cross

cannot simply be viewed as an accident which actually could have been avoided nor as the sin of Israel with which Israel becomes eternally stained in contrast to the pagans for whom the cross signifies redemption. In the New Testament there are not two effects of the cross: a damning one and a saving one, but only a single effect, which is saving and reconciling.

I expect that Christian and Jewish readers will be sharply divided in their reactions to this portion -- the former intrigued by Ratzinger's line of thought; the latter finding themselves in disagreement. Nevertheless, it is my hope that Jewish readers will at the very least appreciate the Cardinal's rebuke of anti-Judaism and his reminder that: "Jesus did not act as a liberal reformer recommending and himself presenting a more understanding interpretation of the law. In Jesus' exchange with the Jewish authorities of his time, we are not dealing with a confrontation between a liberal reformer and an ossified traditionalist hierarchy. Such a view, though common, fundamentally misunderstands the conflict of the New Testament and does justice neither to Jesus nor to Israel."

The Cardinal closes with a reiteration of the Catechism's rejection of the charge of deicide and collective Jewish guilt, teaching that "Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's plan" (599) and that "All sinners were the authors of Christ's passion."

. . . the blood of Jesus speaks another - a better and stronger - language than the blood of Abel, than the blood of all those killed unjustly in the world. It does not cry for punishment but is itself atonement, reconciliation. Already as a child - even though I naturally knew nothing of all things the catechism summarizes - I could not understand how some people wanted to derive a condemnation of Jews from the death of Jesus because the following thought had penetrated my soul as something profoundly consoling: Jesus' blood raises no calls for retaliation but calls all to reconciliation. It has become, as the "Letter to the Hebrews" shows, itself a permanent Day of Atonement of God.

'Reconciling Gospel & Torah' is an interesting essay -- one which I found to be conciliatory in spirit and refreshing in its rebuke of "superficial polemics" against the Jews and caricatures of the Jewish law which are found in liberal theology as well as some traditionalist camps.

Dominus Iesus (August, 2000)

Dominus Iesus, or "Declaration on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" was chiefly intended as a corrective measure to theological excesses and erroneous positions adopted in the course of ecumenical/interreligious dialogue, as well as were found in theologies of "religious pluralism." As such, it was not really intended to address the issue of the Church's relationship with the Jewish people. Nevertheless, some Jews did take offense at its reiteration of standard Christian doctrine concerning the centrality of Christ and his Church in the salvation of mankind, their protests bolstered in part by the press, enough to warrant commentary by Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, who offered both an apology for any misunderstanding that might have occured as well as a defense of Cardinal Ratzinger and the intent of the document:

Some Jewish readers tend to think that the Church's attitude towards Jews and Judaism is a sub-category of its attitude towards world religions in general. Yet, such a presumption is a mistake, and so is the presumption that [Dominus Iesus] represents "a backward step in a concerted attempt to overturn the [in this case Catholic-Jewish] dialogue of recent decades" . . .

[Dominus Iesus] does not affect Catholic-Jewish relations in a negative way. Because of its purpose, it does not deal with the question of the theology of Catholic-Jewish relations, proclaimed by Nostra Aetate, and of subsequent Church teaching. What the document tries to "correct" is another category, namely the attempts by some Christian theologians to find a kind of "universal theology" of interreligious relations, which, in some cases, has led to indifferentism, relativism and syncretism. Against such theories we, as Jews and Christians, are on the same side, sitting in the same boat; we have to fight, to argue and to bear witness together. Our common self-understanding is at stake.

Rabbi David Berger of the Rabbinical Council for America, on the other hand, took issue with Cardinal Kasper's interpretation that Jews "are entirely excluded from the purview of its controversial assertions," and offered his own qualified support of the "supercessionism" of Cardinal Ratzinger (On Dominus Iesus and the Jews May 1, 2001 -- further commentary: "To Evangelize - Or Not to Evangelize?" Against the Grain March 21, 2005).

The Heritage of Abraham: The Gift of Christmas (December, 2000)

The Heritage of Abraham: The Gift of Christmas, published in L'Osservatore Romano December 29, 2000, is one of my favorite writings by our Holy Father on the Jewish people -- in that it clearly demonstrates his alignment with the thought of his close friend and predecessor, Pope John Paul II, and the Second Vatican Council, in speaking of a "new vision of Jewish-Christian relations":

We know that every act of giving birth is difficult. Certainly, from the very beginning, relations between the infant Church and Israel were often marked by conflict. The Church was considered by her own mother to be a degenerate daughter, while Christians considered their mother to be blind and obstinate. Down through the history of Christianity, already-strained relations deteriorated further, even giving birth in many cases to anti-Jewish attitudes, which throughout history have led to deplorable acts of violence. Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians.

Perhaps it is precisely because of this latest tragedy that a new vision of the relationship between the Church and Israel has been born: a sincere willingness to overcome every kind of anti-Judaism, and to initiate a constructive dialogue based on knowledge of each other, and on reconciliation. If such a dialogue is to be fruitful, it must begin with a prayer to our God, first of all that he might grant to us Christians a greater esteem and love for that people, the people of Israel, to whom belong "the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs are the patriarchs, and from them comes Christ according to the flesh, he who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen" (Romans 9:4-5), and this not only in the past, but still today, "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). In the same way, let us pray that he may grant also to the children of Israel a deeper knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, who is their son, and the gift they have made to us. Since we are both awaiting the final redemption, let us pray that the paths we follow may converge.

The Jewish People & Their Sacred Scriptures (May, 2001)

The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible was published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on May 4, 2001. In the wake of the Shoah, it dealt with the pertient questions of whether Christians "can still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible . . . and propose a Christian interpretation of the Bible," also addressing the issue of scriptural passages in the New Testament deemed "anti-semitic". Although the document reaffirmed the unity of the Old & New Testaments and Christian reading of the Jewish scriptures, it did include a positive treatment of the Jews, as indicated in Cardinal Ratzinger's proposal that:

what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. First it declares that "the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion" (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of Christian consciousness.

Likewise, the document caused something of a stir in the Jewish press by its recognition that:

What has already been accomplished in Christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. The definitive fulfilment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us. (paragraph 5.)

See also:

* * *

This will not be last we have heard from Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, on the subject of our elder brothers and sisters in the faith. We can rest assured that, contrary to the fear-mongering accusations of some critics, as well as honest concerns of others, our Holy Father will carry on the friendship between the Church and Israel that was maintained to such an excellent degree by Pope John Paul II.

Further reading:

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Getting to know Pope Benedict XVI . . .

  • "Groundswell Swept Ratzinger Into Office", by Sebastian Rotella, et al. Los Angeles Times April 21, 2005.

    "When the majority of 77 or 78 was reached, there was a gasp," Murphy-O'Connor said. "Everyone clapped. He had his head down. He must have said a prayer. I didn't see his face. He must have been aware this could happen, but when it does, it is a very special moment."

    After the traditional burning of ballots and the pope's triumphant balcony appearance Tuesday, Benedict XVI invited the cardinals back to a hasty celebratory dinner. Caught off-guard, 20 nuns at the cardinals' Vatican residence improvised a repast of soup, beans, cold cuts, ice cream and Champagne.

  • Surprise! New Pope takes a walk through Rome CWNews. April 20, 2005:

    The newly elected Pope, clothed completely in the distinctive white vestments of the papacy, caught onlookers by surprise when he chose to travel on foot, walking the few hundred yards to the apartment in the Citta Leonina where he had lived for years. When the news spread that the Pontiff was walking through the city, hundreds of people quickly gathered, and he spent some time in front of the apartment building, greeting the people and blessing young children. Italian police and Vatican security officials did their best to control the crowd, preserving some breathing room for the Pontiff.

  • Pope Benedict & Judaism, a survey of two articles in the Jewish Press by Domenico Bettinelli confirms that the election of Joseph Ratzinger to the throne does, in fact, bode well for the people of Israel.

    Light in a New Dark Age: Pope Benedict XVI -- The Man and the Mission, by George Weigel. Wall Street Journal April 21, 2005:

    As with the program, so with the man: He is a Benedict in the depths of his interior life and in his intellectual accomplishment. Benedict XVI has an encyclopedic knowledge of two millennia of theology, and indeed of the cultural history of the West. He is more the shy, monastic scholar than the ebullient public personality of his predecessor; yet he has shown an impressive capacity for a different type of public "presence" in his brilliantly simple homily at John Paul II's funeral and in his first appearance as pope. He has known hardship: He knows the modern temptations of totalitarianism (paganism wedded to technology) from inside the Third Reich; he has been betrayed by former students (like the splenetic Brazilian liberation theologian Leonardo Boff) and former colleagues (like Hans Kung, a man of far less scholarly accomplishment and infinitely less charity). His critics say he is dour and pessimistic. Yet I take it as an iron law of human personality that a man is known by his musical preferences; and Benedict XVI is a Mozart man, who knows that Mozart is what the angels play when they perform for the sheer joy of it. Indeed, and notwithstanding the cartoon Joseph Ratzinger, the new pope is a man of Christian happiness who has long asked why, in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, summoned to be a "new Pentecost" for the Catholic Church, so much of the joy has gone out of Catholicism. Over some 17 years of conversation with him, I have come to know him as a man who likes to laugh, and who can laugh because he is convinced that the human drama is, in the final analysis, a divine comedy.

  • Annuntio Vobis Gaudium Magnum - the author of the blog Mystery Achievement registers his impressions of the Holy Father:

    He is a man of sincere and profound Christian holiness who both demands it from himself, and will demand it from us, the Catholic faithful. The interview footage in which he acknowledged the sins of Catholics, and the "mea culpas" of the past Good Friday's Stations of the Cross drove this home to me. And in the section of his pre-election homily to the College of Cardinals where he both contrasted doctrinal steadfastness with relativism, and enumerated some of the bitter fruits of the latter, he subtly but clearly said, in effect, that doctrinal faithfulness and holiness are of a piece.

  • Rome's Radical Conservative, by Michael Novak. New York Times April 20, 2005:

    One of Cardinal Ratzinger's central, and most misunderstood, notions is his conception of liberty, and he is very jealous in thinking deeply about it, pointing often to Tocqueville. He is a strong foe of socialism, statism and authoritarianism, but he also worries that democracy, despite its great promise, is exceedingly vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority, to "the new soft despotism" of the all-mothering state, and to the common belief that liberty means doing whatever you please. Following Lord Acton and James Madison, Cardinal Ratzinger has written of the need of humans to practice self-government over their passions in private life.

    He also fears that Europe, especially, is abandoning the search for objective truth and sliding into pure subjectivism. That is how the Nazis arose, he believes, and the Leninists. When all opinions are considered subjective, no moral ground remains for protesting against lies and injustices.

  • The Acton Institute's Robert Sirico on the True Liberalism of Benedict XVI:

    We have already heard a thousand times or more that the new Pope is a conservative. As counterintuitive as this may sound, I believe that insofar as the new papacy has implications for economics and politics, it is in the direction of a humane and unifying liberalism. I speak not of liberalism as we know it now, which is bound up with state management and democratic relativism, but liberalism of an older variety that placed it hopes in society, faith, and freedom.

    Also from the Acton Institute: Alejandro Chaufen on Benedict XVI and Freedom": "Given Ratzinger’s sharp focus on doctrine, many have seen only one side of this man: the protector of the faith, the leader of a new “inquisition.” Few have focused on his rich analyses of freedom. . . ."

  • The Real Ratzinger: The Lover of Lovers, by Anthony & Marta Valle. Inside the Vatican: " To the world he is many things; to us he is th priest who celebrated our wedding Mass in St. Peter’ Basilica on June 24, 2004, a short 10 months before h became Pope Benedict XVI . . ."

  • Not a transitional pope: Benedict may surprise, by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter April 29, 2005.

  • In German town, Benedict XVI known for love of cats, conversation by Matthew Schofield, Knight Ridder Newspapers. April 21, 2005. A great profile of the Pope with comments from his brother, George. As a fellow cat-lover, I am heartily pleased to learn of our new Pope's preferences for feline companions:

    "I went with him once," said Konrad Baumgartner, the head of the theology department at Regensburg University. "Afterwards, he went into the old cemetery behind the church.

    "It was full of cats, and when he went out, they all ran to him. They knew him and loved him. He stood there, petting some and talking to them, for quite a long time. He visited the cats whenever he visited the church. His love for cats is quite famous."

  • Oswald Sobrino on The Importance of the name Benedict in light of his conversations with Peter Seewald in God and the World.

  • 'A Beautiful Personality': The Pontificate of Benedict XVI Begins Interview with Father Augustine Di Noia. National Catholic Register May 1-8, 2005:

    He has a beautiful personality and when that begins to shine through and becomes evident, people will love him. One hundred percent of the staff in the office — including the ushers — are absolutely ecstatic.

    He is a kind, extremely humble and extraordinary human being. He’s also a fun man with a good sense of humor — we’ll miss him. He’s the whole package — he’s holy and knows how the Church works and how to run the Church.

    And on a similar note: ‘People Will Love Him', Newsweek interviews Fr. Di Noia. April 19, 2005.

  • The Real Benedict XVI: Reports Reveal Warmth and Openness. Zenit.org. April 23, 2005:

    When he first came to Rome in 1981 to take up his post as prefect of the congregation he did not even take possession of the apartment that would normally be his by right, as it was occupied by an elderly cardinal, whom he did not wish to disturb. The apartment in which Cardinal Ratzinger has remained in all these years in Rome, is not one as large or well-appointed as would normally correspond to his post, and is adorned with secondhand furniture. It is also located on the other side of St. Peter's Square from his office, instead of being in the same building. . . .

    In the afternoons the future Pope would often go out for a walk along the streets near his apartment and would stop to greet the shopkeepers along the Borgo Pio. Mario, a fruit-seller, recalled how once the cardinal asked him which apples to buy to best prepare a strudel. And electrician Angelo Mosca spoke of the time he had gone to the cardinal’s apartment to fix a problem, and how he had remained in a relaxed conversation with him for an hour, "just as if we were old friends."

For decades, the world has only known Cardinal Ratzinger through his capacity as the 'doctrinal enforcer' -- an difficult, thankless but unfortunately necessary assignment, which he accepted from Pope John Paul II and fulfilled to the best of his abilities.

Suffice to say not many in the world have actually encountered Joseph Ratzinger the pastor, the teacher, the theologian, save for those who have encountered him through his writings or had the opportunity to meet the man himself and work with him.

Now that he is has been installed, we will be blessed to know Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI of the Catholic Church.

With reference to the grumblings of dissent, a parting thought from Disputations ("First Fruits can be Sour"): "Why the hate and venom for a pope who, as pope, hasn't actually done anything yet?" and concludes:

If people hate Pope Benedict XVI because they hate where he draws his lines, and if he draws his lines around the Catholic faith, then they hate the Pope because he is Catholic. In other words, they hate the Catholic faith.

I regard this as a good fruit of Pope Benedict's papacy -- or, if you like, of the cardinal electors making the safe and easy choice. The masks are coming off, the indirection and equivocation are slipping away. People will continue out of habit to speak of "the Vatican" as the focus of their hatred and derision, but I expect it to become increasingly apparent to everyone that it is the Church herself -- note, herself, the Bride of Christ, not itself, the old foreign men in dresses -- that people hate and deride.

Saturday, April 23, 2005

Pope Benedict XVI Roundup!

The elated . . .

  • Fr. Sibley relays an eyewitness account of the announcement from a friend from Rome:
    It was great being with people my age (in our 20's) who were so fired up about the "Hammer of Heresy". That was another great thing - the crowd was so young. We tried making new cheers for Benedict XVI. When it was dark, my group of friends sang the Salve Regina together. Immediately afterwards we spotted two men with black coats and hats trying to walk casually through the square. But bits of red were poking out. Most of the girls kissed their hands and thanked them. Their faces were beaming as they in turn patted the young people's faces. Part of their joy I think was seeing the young people so happy and supportive. They were humble cardinals from Zagreb and Sarajevo. One of them granted our request for a blessing. So we knelt to receive it in Latin. Not long after, we went out for German beer, shouting "Viva il Papa!" along the way.

  • Carl Olson posts another Seminarian's View from St. Peter's Square . . . (InsightScoop April 19, 2005).

  • All your base are belong to Ratz., by Meredith (Basia Me Catholic Sum). Hilarious (put down your coffee before you read).

  • The Curt Jester:
    Right now I am so full of adrenaline I think I could explode. . . . Probably one of the quietest place on earth was the offices of the National Catholic Reporter. For myself I was jumping up and down and screaming with excitement when his name was announced.

  • Axios! He is Worthy!, from Teófilo at Vivificat:
    What his election portends for the Church is continuity and consolidation of the work of Pope John Paul the Great. We can expect continued, strong doctrinal clarity, leadership, and discipline, as well as the continued authentic interpretation of Vatican II. All-in-all, steady as she goes for the Ship of Peter.

  • Padregio @ "Not So Quiet Catholic Corner" posts photographs from his diaconate ordination in 1999 at St. Peter's Basilica. Recognize the Cardinal?

  • Dr. Philip Blosser, aka "The Pertinacious Papist", issues a pro lepos in iocando mea (or "A Defense of My Sense of Humor") -- after he was prominently featured by CNN and the international press for having prominently displayed Robert Duvall's words I love the smell of napalm in the morning ... it smelled like victory ..." in Apocalypse Now as a foil for introducing reflections on the election of Pope Benedict XVI. You know, Blossers do have a strange sense of humor. =)

  • The Old Oligarch:
    Men I work with who haven't smiled in a month were as giddy as children. It was very hard to give a coherent lecture with all the thoughts of the coming pontificate. I am sure at the other educational establishment I frequent they have to keep a suicide watch over certain members of the theology department. . . .

  • According to Patrick Henry Reardon, the election of Cardinal Ratzinger was a big hit among the staff at ecumenical Christian magazine Touchstone.

  • JMiller @ Fiat reports on the mood from a Benedictine seminary.

  • From Anthony @ Jumping without a Chute:
    Joseph Ratzinger is not the cruel, heartless, Dark Lord of the Sith turned Theologian that many attempt to portray him as. He is a man of his time and of his place. a man with an artists soul and worldview. He is a man whose intelligence can be measured by his humility. His numerous debates with friends and foes demonstrate this. He is a man who was given one of the hardest jobs in the Church. The Head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has a thankless job. It is his responsibility to ensure that the eternal truths of our faith are maintained. This is especially hard in the world of today where somehow we have come to believe that every idea has equal importance and relevance. Just as a child resents a parent telling him "No.", many theologians resented being told that their ideas and theories could possibly be flawed or in fact wrong.

    For the past quarter century we've only seen one side of Benedict XVI. While that side is very important to understanding him, we need to learn more about the other sides of him that we haven't seen. This Pope will be more complex than most people realize or expect. He is a man who lives in a world that demands everything in as great a quantity as possible in as short a time as possible. Quantity over quality. Action without consideration. Activity without meaning. The world that believes a song should only last three minutes will be confronted by a man who understands the beauty of symphonies.

  • "The Cafeteria is Closed", by Mark Shea:
    You know, one of the funny things about the media hysteria about Benedict is the faux fear that "sincere believers" from other traditions are going to somehow feel deeply threatened if the Pope, like, you know, believes that the Catholic faith is, you know, like, true.

    In reality, one of the things that serious Protestants (like serious Jews and serious Muslims) *respect* is the fact that Benedict actually believes there are truths which are revealed by God and not simply the product of whoever happens to have won the raffle for Power in the great historical process of warfare between race, class and gender. The one and only alternative to Truth is Might Makes Right.

  • Chris Burgwald @ Veritas: "I couldn't be happier! This man is a towering intellect, one of the greatest theologians of our time... and I've got a book of his he signed for me!" -- Lucky guy! =)

  • Dave Armstrong shares his thoughts on the Current "Mind of the Church". A very good post, including the prediction:
    . . . Pope Benedict XVI will probably be one of the most persecuted and even hated men in the world (the most hated since President Ronald Reagan). The liberals and secularists already take a very dim view of the man, because he is strongly orthodox and stands up for the truth. There is a place for this. All the early popes were martyrs. There is also a martyrdom of sorts which comes through slander and lying and severe opposition from the waves and currents of the presently fashionable zeitgeist. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is precisely the sort of man, I think, who is willing to suffer in that way, in order to strongly assert doctrinal, theological truth. It is good to be loved by the world, as Pope John Paul II was, if it is for the right reasons. The world saw the goodness and holiness in John Paul II. But it is also good to be willing to be persecuted for His name's sake, and to draw clear lines and boundaries.

    Judging by the present hate-fest that's going on in the press, the persecution has already begun.

  • Fr. Tucker @ Dappled Things:
    So, I'm thrilled at the election of Benedict XVI. I don't think he will be divisive at all, any more than the Gospel itself is divisive. Certainly, some will not be happy when he hands on the Tradition that he himself has received. But, really, what does anyone expect? A Pope does not invent new things, but simply hands on the Deposit of Faith intact. . . . People who simply want to try to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ under the guidance of Holy Mother Church, though, have every reason to rejoice and support our new Pontiff with their prayers.

  • The stereotype-defying "gay, Catholic and conservative" Australian John Heard, aka. Dreadnought:
    Watch out limpid European religion, especially ailing German Catholicism! Watch out moral relativists! Watch out heretics! More importantly, however, watch the world fall in love with this magnificent man who has for too long been the straw man of anti-Catholics of every description.

    For decades the Vatican enforcer of doctrine, a scintillating intellect focused on rooting out heresy, Benedict XVI served as the bad cop to John Paul's good cop. Any serious Vatican-watcher, however, knows that there is no such thing as a bad cop in the Church. The Pope served at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith out of love.

From the mildly disappointed to absolutely horrified . . .

  • Liberal Catholic JCecil3 "gets something off his chest":
    The election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI while George W. Bush is in the White House feels like the world is collapsing.

    It feels as though Adolf Hitler is in the White House in control of the world's sole superpower, and Benito Mussolini is in the Papal Palace in charge of the largest religious institution on earth.

    It feels as though a dark cloud has settled over the whole earth as we prepare for the final confrontation between good and evil.

    Paging the authors of Left Behind, we have all the makings of a new novel. Disputations responds. (I must add in all fairness that JCecil's simply venting and his 'Bush = Hitler' / "Ratzinger = Mussolini" comparison is not necessarily indicative of the tone of his blog).

  • Calling for necessary restraint, Nathan Nelson pens "an open letter to Progressive Catholics" in response to the election of Joseph Ratzinger," (responding to some nefarious tactics by Call to Action "to pit victims of sexual abuse and their advocates against the newly-elected Universal Pastor"), and urges a cease-fire in light of Hans Küng's reaction: "Küng says that we should give Pope Benedict XVI at least a hundred days before we initiate the firestorm of condemnations and Progressive anathemas, and I agree with him."

  • Barbara Nicolosi @ Church of the Masses had difficulty finding a celebratory mass:
    I called four parishes in L.A. this afternoon trying to find a celebratory Mass in the archdiocese. At the gay parish in West Hollywood, the secretary sniffed and was almost shocked at the inquiry, "Oh no," she said. "We don't have anything planned." At the North Hollywood parish which has the newly installed homo-erotic Jesus staue in the sanctuary, the secretary defined desultory. "No. Father has no plans to do anything yet. Check back in a few days." The Jesuit parish phone answerer just said, "NO."

  • We are One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and damn it . . . European!. The omnicient Ono Ekeh sees into the hearts and souls of the Cardinals:
    The election of Pope Benedict XVI affirms one thing. The Church is primarily about one region and "race." The Catholic church is about Europe. The cardinals of the Catholic Church unanimously gave one big "F__ you" to all of Africa, all of Latin America and all of Asia. . . .

    I'm not bitter, angry or anything (My shaking fingers on my keypad indicate unfilter blissfulness and joy). I decided to give all this more time to sink in but the more time passes, the more unpleasant the whole experience is. There really isn't much of a bright spot.

  • Andrew Sullivan:
    And what is the creed of the Church? That is for the Grand Inquisitor to decide. Everything else - especially faithful attempts to question and understand the faith itself - is "human trickery." It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct. And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning.

  • Disgruntled ex-Dominican Matthew Fox has "22 Questions for Cardinal Ratzinger and the Silver Lining in the Election of this first Grand Inquisitor as Pope." (And you thought Rev. Fox's fulminations against Pope John Paul II were bad . . .)

  • Anti-Benedict Comments - Fr. Sibley is leaving space for compilation of "links to sites or quotes from other sites that bemoan the election of Ratzinger as the new Pope. It should provide a large amount of amusement." Indeed. =)

  • Rabbi Michael Lerner at Tikkun thinks The New Pope is a Disaster for the World and for the Jews. Not all Jews agree. Yitzchok Adlerstein shares his thoughts about Benedict XVI and Me:
    ". . . unwilling to let go of what he believed to be G-d given truth merely because social mores had changed. He nonetheless made a career of interpreting old teaching in a manner that upheld the religious dignity of others – Jews in particular. Even as guardian of the old, he could not give up his feeling and understanding that G-d cared deeply for others.

    If we had to pick a passion to share, I can’t think of a better one.

And . . .

  • Town deems pope worthy of beer, by Christine Spolar. Chicago Tribune April 21, 2005.

  • More reactions to election of Pope Benedict XVI . . . from Monsignor Peter J. Elliott, Sandra Miesel, and Joseph Pearce. InsightScoop. April 20, 2005.

  • Not one, but two roundups of posts on Pope Benedict from John Betts (Just Your Average Catholic Guy).

  • Pundits React to Papal Election, another roundup by Earl E. Appleby @ Times Against Humanity.

  • Three Unimportant Thoughts on the election from Jimmy Akin.

  • The New Pope, special feature of PBS' weekly "Religion & Ethics". April 22, 2005, with Fr. Fessio from Germany:
    But I was waiting, saying, "I wonder, I wonder. Could it be, could it be?" And I saw the curtains open. Once I heard "Ratzinger" I just burst into tears. It was so amazing to see someone that I've known, someone that I've talked to, someone that I've been with there, dressed up like the pope -- because he was the pope. And the joy for me is knowing what a gift this is for the Church.

    More comments from Fr. Fessio here, along with two great photographs of joyful Catholics celebrating the election.

  • Catholic Reaction: Let's Study - Expagan provides two examples of Catholic Women. Example #1 Those who want Women's Ordination . . . and Example #2 Those who are excited with Pope Benedict XVI. (Me? I wanna hang out with the latter).

  • No Honeymoon for Benedict XVI, a well-deserved tongue-lashing by the Anchoress:
    "It seems a shame, really. The man hadn't been pope for two hours when the lefty blogs went (literally) profane and disgraceful (and - of course - adolescent) and the press was hardlining their memes and caricatures of him.

    Benedict XVI, it seems, is a relentless and remorseless hard-ass who takes-no-prisoners and wields a clumsy and undiplomatic sword, cutting a path of hard-hearted destruction no matter where he goes, and he will be a disaster for the church, and oppressor of women, gays, people of girth, people of mirth, people with brains, and people without, little puppies, small furry rodents and children he doesn't like.

    Or, something like that.

    I have one thing to say to all of this - to all of the breathless ranting from the left and the grim, woe-is-us prognostications of SOME members of the press. It is this:

    Fer cryin' out loud, CHILL OUT.

  • Miscellaneous Morning Notes on the Conclave and the Selection of a New Pope, by I. Shawn McElhinney (Rerum Novarum). [audiopost].

  • Bill Cork shares his favorite Ratzinger quote from his volume, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life.

  • The Psycho Left reacts to a new Pope LogicMonkey has a great roundup of hysterical reactions from the virtual wellspring of hysterical reactions, 'The Democratic Underground.'

  • What's in a Name? Part 1 and Part 2 - interesting speculations by Arthur Chrenkoff on the historical meaning and selection of Pope Benedict XVI's name.

  • Note: To Amy Welborn, the only reason I haven't included her above is because I've yet to finish wading through all of her posts, of which there are plenty good. So perhaps a general link to Open Book should suffice with the recommendation to read her posts from 4/19 through the present for extensive commentary on the election, and coverage of the coverage.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

For bloggers, Pope Benedict XVI 'rocks'!

For bloggers, Pope Benedict XVI 'rocks'

by Albion Land in Vatican City. Wednesday, 20 April, 2005, 09:32:

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning . . . The smell -- you know, that gasoline smell -- the whole hill -- it smelled like . . . victory."

Quoting actor Robert Duvall in the Vietnam war film "Apocalypse Now," that is how Philip Blosser, a conservative Roman Catholic professor in the United States, greeted the election of Pope Benedict XVI on his weblog, "Musings of a Pertinacious Papist".

Blosser, like thousands of other people across the world, has created a place to share his thoughts by blogging, among a number of Catholics who are using the net to share their faith and to talk about what is right and wrong with it.

Reacting to Tuesday's election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as pope, Blosser explains that "when John Kerry lost the last (US) presidential election, nobody thought the world could witness a more disappointed constituency than the Democrat 'blue state' partisans" who saw George W. Bush win re-election."

"I then predicted that the disappointment and gnashing of teeth among Democrats was nothing compared to what the world would see in the disappointment of liberal, dissident Catholics . . . at the outcome of the next conclave."

"Well, I never could have been more right in a prediction. The liberal cafeteria Catholic's worst nightmare has come true: the Panzerkardinal, the Grand Inquisitor himself, has come to the papal throne."

"The Lord in His mercy and grace has sent us a Pope who loves truth, every bit as much as the late John Paul II did."

The Blosser household is a big fan of Ratzinger. The professor's son, Christopher, maintains a website called the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club, and Blosser muses about whether he is now going to have to change the name of it.

In fact, www.ratzingerfanclub.com crashed amid a sudden flood of interest after the election.

The site, featuring biographical information, speeches and glowing praise, could not be opened.

It offers T-shirts emblazoned with quotes from the new pope, including one with the words: "The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club. Putting the Smackdown on Heresy since 1981!"

Father Al Kimel is an Episcopal priest in the United States who runs a blog called "Pontifications", dedicated to discussing the relative attractions of Catholicism and eastern Orthodoxy.

His first posting following the election of Benedict XVI was much more spiritual than Blosser's. He ran the text of the Te Deum, an ancient hymn of praise.

One of the first comments was from a man who said: "Im not a Catholic, but when I heard that a new pope had been chosen, I prayed that it might be Cardinal Ratzinger. Are retrospective prayers valid!"

Another, apparently also not a Catholic, quipped: "It aint none of my business, but they made the right choice. God grant him many years!"

And a third said: "Gloria in excelsis Deo!! Pope Benedict XVI ROCKS!!! Putting the smack-down on heresy since 1981."

Over at "Titusonenine", conservative Episcopal theologian Canon Kendall Harmon filed no initial comment, but a couple of news reports on the election.

That sparked off a heated exchange of notes on how Ratzinger had written on behalf of John Paul II two years ago to encourage a new conservative Anglican organisation formed to combat what it believes is the departure of the Episcopal church from its orthodox roots.

Jimmy Akin, at JimmyAkin.org says: "How proud John Paul II would be if only he'd lived to see the election of Benedict XVI. (Oh wait. He already knows.)"

One poster replied: "I hope we start to see some real changes, real reform, in the Church, not just in a few isolated pockets like under John Paul the Great's papacy. I hope we finally have a Pope who will enforce Vatican directives and Church teachings, and do so without ambiguity."

Mark Shea, on his blog "Catholic and Enjoying It", was apparently eating his words over his prediction of who the new pope would be: "Never was I happier to be wrong! Long live Pope Benedict XVI!"

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Viva Papa!

On behalf of the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club, I'd like to extend my heartiest congratulations and appreciation to our new Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI.

Expect a roundup of various posts and commentary this weekend.

Oh, yes, and if you have difficulty accessing the website, a lot of curious people around the world are doing the same, so please be patient. I'm really hoping things will return to normal in due time . . .

Viva Papa!

The Pope Benedict XVI / Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club -- In the Press

Monday, April 18, 2005

Ratzinger Roundup!

  • Homily of the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, at the Mass for the Election of the Roman Pontiff. April 18, 2005. Via Heart, Mind & Strength weblog.

  • Cardinal Ratzinger 'odious' News24.com. April 18, 2005:
    Sao Paulo - German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, considered a high possibility to become the next pope of the Roman Catholic Church, was branded "odious" on Sunday by Brazilian leftist theologist Leonardo Boff, who predicted Ratzinger would never become pope. . . .

    "Ratzinger is one of the (Catholic) church's most odious cardinals because of his rigidity, and because he humiliated the bishops' conferences and fellow cardinals in an authoritarian manner on questions of faith," Boff wrote in the newspaper O Estado.

    A former priest who was condemned to silence by Pope John Paul II in 1985 for supporting radical liberation theology, Boff said Ratzinger "will never be pope, because it would be excessive, something the intelligence of the cardinals would not permit".

    First Hans Kung and Matthew Fox, now Leonardo Boff . . . the media speculation over the papability of Cardinal Ratzinger presents an opportunity for every heterodox theologian "silenced" by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to reassert themselves and grab their 15 minutes of fame.

  • Ratzinger a Nazi? Don't believe it, by Sam Ser. Jerusalem Post April 18, 2005. A Jewish newspaper promptly dismisses the scurrilous charges of Ratzinger's 'Hitler Youth': "not even Yad Vashem has considered it worthy of further investigation. Why should we?" -- While we can't Don't expect the rabid wolves of the press to roll over and give up that easily, let's thank the Jerusalem Post for their display of common sense.

  • "Pope's 'enforcer' heads field as election begins", The Independent April 18, 2005. Peter Popham in Rome comes out swinging with some memorable labels:
    The favourite to win is Joseph Ratzinger, 78, the late Pope's personal theologian, the massively orthodox heir to the Inquisition and "enforcer of the faith" who has been fighting to rid the church of all the "heretics" let in by the liberalism of the Vatican's Second Council.

    "Massively orthodox"? -- As opposed to what? Skinny and malnourished?

Ratzinger and Ecumenism - Some quick thoughts

  • "Progressive cardinals try to block Ratzinger", reports Richard Owen, writing for the UK's Times, reports:
    Galvanised by reports that Cardinal Ratzinger may already have as many as 50 of the 77 votes needed to become the next Pope, liberal cardinals held talks under the guidance of Cardinal Achille Silvestrini of Italy. They hope to thwart the appointment of Cardinal Ratzinger, the late Pope’s long-serving hardline doctrinal "enforcer", fearing that he would be a divisive force in the Roman Catholic Church.

    Cardinal Silvestrini, who is over 80 and therefore unable to vote, has vigorously promoted the progressive agenda: collegiality, or Church democracy, ecumenism, global poverty, dialogue with Islam and a more open debate on celibacy and the role of women.

    Which leads the reader to conclude that Ratzinger must, of course, be against all those things. Each of these topics can be discussed in greater detail, but a note on "Ratzinger and ecumenism" based on a discussion with a fellow blogger regarding the Cardinal's dispute with Kasper over Dominus Iesus (often cited as the chief evidence of Ratzinger's opposition to ecumenism):

    Of course, we can argue about tact -- and it does make sense that Kasper would disagree. As President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, he and Ratzinger are at "opposite ends of the spectrum" in terms of their respective jobs, the former emphasizing what binds Christians together; the latter emphasizing the very real, very genuine differences that still separate us, and the hard truth that there exists a "historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: "This is the single Church of Christ which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care," subsisting in the Catholic Church -- as reasserted in Vatican II.

    Naturally, this claim is a hard thing for Protestants to accept, and many wish for the Roman Church to relenquish such claims of about itself in the interest of unity. The reassertion of such a claim, however legitimate, prompted Cardinal Kasper to wish "for a different tone and different language," given he was the one dealing with the Protestant reaction. . . .

    [R]egarding Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, according to John Allen, Jr., it was Cardinal Ratzinger of all people who is credited as personally resolving a 'roadblock' in ecumenical relations between the two (Ratzinger credited with saving Lutheran pact National Catholic Reporter Sept. 10, 1999.

    Also, being one with a Swiss Mennonite background on my father's side, I was pleased to note that Ratzinger 'made ecumenical history' in a 1995 meeting with the Bruderhof, an Anabaptist community*: "Discovering Mennonite-Catholic Dialogue" (blogpost to Against the Grain Feb. 11, 2004).

    Point being: much as one could portray Cardinal Ratzinger as a bitter opponent or obstacle to ecumenical relations in light of the Kasper-Ratzinger scuffle over Dominus Iesus, a closer look reveals that this is not necessarily the case.

    Given the nature of his job, Ratzinger is a stickler for "doctrinal precision", but he's not necessarily opposed to ecumenical relations or seeking out unity where it is possible.

    * The Bruderhof was founded by Eberhard Arnold in the 1920's, and associated with the 16th century Hutterites. The Bruderhof has the distinction of being the first Anabaptist-origin community to enter into formal dialogue with the Catholic Church at the institutional level. According to Ivan J. Kaufmann, "Although this dialogue does not involve Mennonites directly, it has an important impact on Mennonites because of the theological positions they share with the Bruderhof." ("Mennonite-Catholic Conversations in North America: History, Convergences and Opportunities" Mennonite Quarterly Review, January 1999.

    So, I'm inclined to think that a Ratzinger papacy would not necessarily be seen as bringing a sudden end to ecumenism by some Protestant denominations.

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Happy Birthday, Cardinal Ratzinger

On April 16, 1927, Holy Saturday in Marktl am Inn, and is baptized the same day. Reflecting on this experience in his memoirs, he says:
To be the first person baptized with the new water was seen as a significant act of Providence. I have always been filled with thanksgiving for having had my life immersed in this way in the Easter Mystery . . . the more I reflect on it, the more this seems fitting for the nature of our human life: we are still waiting for Easter; we are not yet standing in the full light but walking toward it full of trust.
[p. 8, Milestones: Memoirs 1927 - 1977]

Friday, April 15, 2005

Ratzinger Roundup!

Cardinal Ratzinger in the News:

  • Opponents rail at Ratzinger, by Denis Barnett in Vatican City. (Herald Sun April 14, 2005) -- a rather provocative headline for a somewhat muted article, according to which "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – nicknamed 'God's Rottweiler' during a long tenure as the late pope's guardian of Catholic doctrine – is a polarising influence on the pre-conclave negotiations," with opposition to the CDF Prefect forming around "the scholarly Carlo Maria Martini", a former archbishop of Milan.

    Fr. Greeley cashes in on the speculation with a look at the very different views of the "papal contenders," expressing his personal preferance for Martini.

  • "Pope's hard-nosed enforcer in lead: Conservative cardinal hit Beatles, opposed women as priests" screams hysterical Charles W. Bell and Corky Seimazsko of the New York Daily News. Honestly, I don't think the Cardinal has ever met a Beatle in person, much less laid a hand on him. Perhaps he took offense at Lennon's "more popular than Jesus' remark?"

    The Daily News echoes Hans Kung's charges of subversive manipulation, attributing a role to 'Ratzinger's [unidentified] surrogates' in "creating a buzz" around Rome: "allies of the German cardinal who ordered the other 'red hats' to clam up about who might succeed Pope John Paul II are actively campaigning to make him the next pontiff."

  • Opposition Mounting to Ratzinger as Pope Deutsche-Welle April 14, 2005
    La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera, both respected Italian dailies with close contacts with the Vatican, say two powerful German cardinals, Karl Lehmann of Mainz and Walter Kasper, who is based in Rome, have lined up against their fellow German who has been the Catholic Church's controversial doctrinal watchdog.

  • Handicapping the conclave. "Italian newspapers, like nature, abhor a vacuum, and hence in reaction to the press blackout imposed this week by the College of Cardinals, all manner of speculation and rumor has been appearing in the local press," says John Allen Jr, who dismisses much of the rumors as "little more than guesswork," spotting "'trends on the basis of two or three chance encounters." However,
    "The push for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger . . . is for real. There is a strong basis of support for Ratzinger in the college, and his performance in the period following the death of the pope, especially his eloquent homily at the funeral Mass, seems to have further cemented that support. One Vatican official who has worked with Ratzinger over the years said on April 13, “I am absolutely sure that Ratzinger will be the next pope.”

    On the other hand, several cardinals have said privately that they’re uncomfortable with the prospect of a Ratzinger papacy. It’s not just that some don’t believe his strong emphasis on the protection of Christian identity in a secular world ought to be the guiding light of the next papacy, but there’s also a real-world concern about the election of a figure with his “baggage.” Fairly or unfairly, Ratzinger is to some extent a lightning rod for Catholic opinion, and in a church that’s already divided, some cardinals worry about exacerbating those divisions. One said April 12: “I’m not sure how I would explain this back home.”

    More discussion of John Allen's article at Amy Welborn's Open Book.

  • Also from John Allen, Jr. - speculations as to what a Ratzinger papacy might look like. (National Catholic Reporter April 14, 2005):
    In the main, it would likely take shape along predictable lines. Ratzinger would mount a strenuous defense of Catholic identity, resisting enticements from secular culture to water down church teaching and practice; he would stress “Culture of Life” issues, doing battle against gay marriage, euthanasia and stem cell research; he would ensure that theological speculation is contained within narrow limits. He would likely travel less, and project a more ethereal style reminiscent of Pius XII. Ratzinger’s governing metaphor for the church of the future is the mustard seed – it may have to be smaller to be faithful, what he calls a “creative minority.”

    One can also, however, anticipate elements of a Ratzinger pontificate that would come as a surprise, and that would mark a departure from the policies of John Paul II. . . . READ MORE

  • Papal contender's calls for European return to Christian roots April 15, 2004.CBC News reports on Cardinal Ratzinger's new book, Values in a Time of Upheaval, published this past Wednesday.:
    Europe needs a new - certainly skeptical and humble - acceptance of itself, if it wants to survive," the German-born Ratzinger wrote in excepts published in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.

    "The ever more passionately demanded multiculturalism is often above all a renunciation of what is one's own, a fleeing from what is one's own."

    He said people can respect the faith and culture of others only when they remain true to their own, "only when what is holy, God, is not alien to us ourselves."

    European integration as represented by the European Union has become a mostly economic project, he wrote, "with far-reaching exclusion of the spiritual foundations of such a society."

  • Analysis: At 78, Ratzinger a rising star, by Uwe Siemon-Netto (UPI). The Washington Times offers a defense of the Cardinal from a Protestant theologian, howbeit anonymously:
    . . . Ironically, the strongest resistance against Ratzinger's elevation seems to hail from his fellow German cardinals, most of who rank among the most liberal church leaders. In all, there are six German prelates of that rank. But Vatican insiders report that Ratzinger also has many opponents among the 11 U.S. cardinals who consider him too doctrinaire.

    In truth, though, this soft-spoken Bavarian, who was consecrated priest at age 24, "is not so much doctrinaire as he is committed to the truth and sound doctrine," a leading Protestant theologian told United Press International Friday.

    "He is arguably the Catholic Church's finest theologian, in addition to being a very humble and deeply religious man.

    "If he is to be the next pontiff, we may expect extraordinary surprises of him," said this scholar who knows Ratzinger well but asked to remain anonymous.

  • Papal hopeful is a former Hitler Youth, screams the UK's Sunday Times, April 17, 2005. As if this were a sudden revelation, a magnificent triumph of investigative journalism . . . guess again, folks. From our Ratzinger FAQ: :

    Was Cardinal Ratzinger a Nazi?

    The story that Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth is true. It's a biographical fact that seems to have circulated on many a mailing list, and seems to surface at precisely opportune times when the Prefect finds himself in the media's spotlight. From the way it has been presented, one might assume this is one of those skeletons the Cardinal keeps tucked away in his closet (next to his executioner's axe and the token heads of Hans Kung, Matthew Fox, Leonardo Boff & Charles Curran).

    The truth is that as Ratzinger mentions himself in Milestones: Memoirs: 1927 - 1977, he and his brother George were both enrolled in the Hitler Youth (at a time when membership was compulsory), and discusses family life under the Third Reich in chapters 2-4 of his autobiography.

    Likewise, John Allen Jr., journalist for the National Catholic Reporter and author of 2002's biography of the Cardinal The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith, supplies the historical details sorely lacking in other reports:

    As a seminarian, he was briefly enrolled in the Hitler Youth in the early 1940s, though he was never a member of the Nazi party. In 1943 he was conscripted into an antiaircraft unit guarding a BMW plant outside Munich. Later Ratzinger was sent to Austria's border with Hungary to erect tank traps. After being shipped back to Bavaria, he deserted. When the war ended, he was an American prisoner of war.

    Under Hitler, Ratzinger says he watched the Nazis twist and distort the truth. Their lies about Jews, about genetics, were more than academic exercises. People died by the millions because of them. The church's service to society, Ratzinger concluded, is to stand for absolute truths that function as boundary markers: Move about within these limits, but outside them lies disaster.

    Later reflection on the Nazi experience also left Ratzinger with a conviction that theology must either bind itself to the church, with its creed and teaching authority, or it becomes the plaything of outside forces -- the state in a totalitarian system or secular culture in Western liberal democracies. In a widely noted 1986 lecture in Toronto, Ratzinger put it this way: "A church without theology impoverishes and blinds, while a churchless theology melts away into caprice." *

    For more details of the Cardinal's life, click here.


    * "The Vatican's Enforcer", National Catholic Reporter, April 16, 1999.

The Fan Club for "God's Rottweiler"

Cardinal Ratzinger's Fan Club In the News

Concurrent with the popularity of our PanzerKardinal, a few members of the press have taken notice that this "enforcer of doctrinal orthodoxy" actually has admirers among the laity. Of course, many find the existence of such an organization -- even one as loose-knit as this -- offensive to their enlightened liberal sensibilities. Here's a brief roundup:

  • "Where Catholic bishops are virtually at home" Agence France Presse. April 13, 2005. Featuring "troublesome, left-wing" Bishop Jacques Gaillot, who after being exiled by the Vatican to "the abandoned see of Partenia, buried under the sands of the Sahara desert," makes use of his time by overseeing (www.partenia.org, the virtual "diocese without frontiers." Oh, and the latter half is dedicated to the fan club for "God's Rottweiler."

  • Potential popes meet faithful in cyberspace Reuters. April 6, 2005. Takes a look at a number of websites for papal candidates, lumping the Ratzinger Fan Club in with the rest (although we've been around for FIVE YEARS now?).

    A piece of trivia: the "Bible quote [defending] Ratzinger's strict line: 'Preach the word ... convince, rebuke and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching . . .' (St. Paul, 2 Tim 4:2)" is one of the Cardinal's personal favorites, about which the Cardinal stated in Salt of the Earth: "I don't want to overreach myself, but I would say that this expresses the essence of what I consider to be my standard at this time." (p. 114).

  • Which qualities Cardinals will look for in the next Pope, by Sophie Arie. Christian Science Monitor, mentions that "Ratzinger is an icon for conservative Catholics, who have set up a website (ratzingerfanclub.com) and distributed Ratzinger keyrings, speeches, and stickers." Ms. Arie betrays her ignorance, because we've never had keyrings. Likewise, she fails to mention the RFC was "set up" nearly five years ago, and with no intention for campaigning on behalf of the Cardinal. We've stated as much in our FAQ.

  • Konklave - Daumendrücken für Cardinale Ratty [Google translation] veröffentlicht: April 13, 2005. Pretty straightfoward reporting on the RFC. No real suprises here.

  • Was für einen Papst hätten Sie denn gern? [Google Translation], by Franc Patalong. Spiegel Online. April 13, 2005, according to whom "the enthusiasm of the "generation JP2" for the deceased Pope Karol Wojtyla surprised also the catholic church." Not to menton a rather jealous Hans Kung and Matthew Fox. The Spiegel ponders over the nature of the RFC's website: is it satire or genuine?, mentioning that another German television station has already concluded that our enthusiasm for the Cardinal is (gasp! shock! horror!) authentic.

  • "La popularidad del cardenal Ratzinger" [Google Translation], by Mirra Banchón. DW-World.DE Deutsche Welle. April 11, 2005. The author sounds somewhat upset by the existence of the club, and its expression of "absolute solidarity." Hmmmmmmm. Rather we be lukewarm?

Time to Revisit the 'Ratzinger-Kasper' Debate?

The Pontificator emailed me this article from the Geoffrey Kirk, Vicar of St Stephen's, Lewisham in the Anglican Diocese of Southwark: "The Way We Live Now, A Tale of Two Cardinals" (New Directions July 2001) -- a look at the public theological debate of 2001 between Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kasper from the perspective of a member of the "anglo-catholic" organization Forward in Faith:

What is at stake in this dispute?

Kasper, it appears, grounds his view, to some extent at least, on his own pastoral experience as a bishop. As the chief pastor of an increasingly secularised diocese in one of the most secularised areas of Europe, he found that both priests and people tended to resent and ignore Vatican directives on faith and especially morals. He saw the necessity, in other words, of asserting the priority and authority of the local bishop, who could then, wisely and pastorally, adapt general regulations and prohibitions to the situation of his own flock.

Ratzinger, on the other hand, constantly fears that such an approach will condemn the authority of the Church (a world-wide communion responsible to its own history and the Lord of that history) to the death of a thousand diocesan moderations and qualifications.

The dispute looks like the age old one between Aristotelian realism and Platonic idealism, except that Ratzinger bases his arguments less on Platonic philosophy than on scripture and tradition. For him the Universal Church is not simply the expansion of an initially local community. It is the 'Jerusalem above' which Paul describes as 'the mother of us all' (Galatians 4.26).

Kasper, it appears, does not deny the pre-existence of the Church; he merely asserts that pre-existence belongs not only to the Church Universal, but also to concrete historical churches, which are likewise grounded in God's eternal mystery. . . .

Rev. Kirk comes down rather hard in his critique of Cardinal Kasper, believing the consequences of his argument are reflected in the sorry state of the Episcopal Church:

It is not entirely clear how much authority Cardinal Kasper would like to see exercised by the bishop of a particular Church. But members of Forward in Faith will already, in this brief description of the arguments, have read the runes and taken sides.

Kasper is arguing, in the midst of a world-wide crisis of authority and credibility in Anglicanism, for an Anglicization of the Roman Church. The Anglican disease is the disease of wilful autonomy. Ours is a polity which tolerates (thus far at least) any and every local 'adaptation of doctrine'. It has, at the centre, no regulating structure or legislative authority. . . .

Traditional Anglicans in some provinces, who are hounded and persecuted for holding opinions which, in other provinces are mainstream and unexceptionable, cannot but admit that Ratzinger has a point. There is clearly a sense in which a Church which has no central authority and no means of reaching a common mind has ceased to be a Church. It has degenerated into an arena of competing ideologies.

Traditional Anglicans in some provinces, who are hounded and persecuted for holding opinions which, in other provinces are mainstream and unexceptionable, cannot but admit that Ratzinger has a point. There is clearly a sense in which a Church which has no central authority and no means of reaching a common mind has ceased to be a Church. It has degenerated into an arena of competing ideologies.

* * *

As the Cardinals decide on the future of the next pope, among the topics of discussion will be the proper distribution of ecclesial authority -- about which there will be much discussion by the press and pundits (for instance, in the criticism of "centralization of power in the papacy" and the advocacy of freedom on a local, diocesian level). Perhaps now would be a beneficial time to examine once more the issues of this great debate.

As Russel Shaw noted ("Authority reconsidered: Who's in charge here?," Our Sunday Visitor August 12, 2001):

Theoretical as all this is, it has important practical implications involving, in Cardinal Kasper's words,"ethical issues, sacramental discipline- and ecumenical practices.'

The meaning of that is clearer when it is borne in mind that as bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart from 1989 to 1999, Cardinal Kasper joined two other German bishops in proposing that some divorced and remarried Catholics be allowed to receive the sacraments without a declaration of nullity - a judgment by the Church that their first unions were invalid. The Vatican vetoed the idea.

Such clashes between local Church authorities and Rome have had numerous counterparts in the United States over the years.

One such counterpart, weighing heavily in not a few minds, is the scandal of defiantly "pro-choice Catholic" legislators (and presidential candidates) openly receiving communion at their parishes in the United States (more commentary on that fiasco here).

On one hand, you had for the better part of the presidential race a drawn-out discussion of the USCCB on the "complexities" of the matter, and how to resolve it in sensitive and pastoral manner without "causing a commotion" at the alter rail (or communion line, rather, since alter rails are a thing of the past).

On the other hand, you might recall Cardinal Ratzinger weighing in "from Rome" on the subject, and speaking rather clearly and explicitly on the necessity of refusing commmunion to those guilty of "an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin" (see p. 4, 5 of Worthiness to Receive Communion: General Principles June 2004).

The scandal is ongoing, with very few bishops actually heeding Cardinal Ratzinger's instructions. After nearly half a year of studying the issue, Cardinal McCarrick's task force weighed the various options with no satisfactory results but a two-and-a-half-page report that concluded "there will be continuing consultation on the complex theological and canonical aspects of these matters within our Conference and with the Holy See." Fr. Neuhaus' appraised the situation in his Feb. 2005 column of "The Public Square"):

According to Cardinal McCarrick's report, everything was handled just right. "Bishops, pastors, and parishioners across the country have been wrestling with how our faith should shape our decisions in public life. This has been a very good thing." Yes, there were problems. "The media or partisan forces sometimes tried to pit one bishop against another." Oh dear, the media and partisan forces are at it again. Especially those partisan forces that are obsessed by the "one issue politics" of abortion. Never mind that some bishops very publicly stated that support for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research gravely compromised a politician's communio with the Church, while others just as publicly said they saw no problem and happily invited such politicians to receive Communion. "We do not believe," says the McCarrick report, "that our commitment to human life and dignity and our pursuit of justice and peace are competing causes." But nobody said they were competing causes, except possibly Cardinal McCarrick and other bishops who seem to think the Democratic Party has a monopoly on the pursuit of justice and peace. At the November meeting, there was neither opportunity nor stomach for discussing McCarrick's report. Which may be just as well. The bishops were simply grateful that they had escaped the prospect of having a radically pro-abortion Catholic in the White House. Except, of course, for those bishops committed to the pursuit of justice and peace.

So, Catholics in the United States continue to live with the scandal of "pro-choice" politicians coming under censure by their bishop in one diocese, and happily receiving communion in another, all the while blatantly living in a state of open rebellion against the Church.

Perhaps the Rev. Geoffrey Kirk is right: are we witnessing the 'Anglicanizing' of the Catholic Church in America?

Resources on the 'Ratzinger-Kasper' Debate:

Key Articles:

Supplementary Articles:

* * *

Update: Regarding Russel Shaw's example of Cardinal Kasper proposing "divorced and remarried Catholics be allowed to receive the sacraments without a declaration of nullity," a reader reminds me that Cardinal Ratzinger mentions a similar proposal in Salt of the Earth (Ignatius, 1997), p. 207:

". . . The principles have been decided, but factual questions, individual questions, are of course always possible. For example, perhaps in the future there could also be an extrajudicial determination that the first marriage did not exist. This could perhaps be ascertained locally by experienced pastors. Such juridical developments, which can make things less complicated, are conceivable."

I thank the reader for bringing this up. Given the volume of content on my website as well as Ratzinger's works, my memory certainly fails at times. However, we should note that the cited passage is immediately followed by the Cardinal's qualification:

But the principle that marriage is indissoluble and that someone who has left the valid marriage of his life, the sacrament, and entered into another marriage cannot communicate does in fact hold definitively.

Furthermore, the entire question is situated in a section in which Ratzinger stresses the necessity and significance of abstaining from communion by the faithful in such circumstances.

Unfortunately, Ratzinger does not elaborate further in the interview what he means by "extrajudicial determination . . . ascertained locally" -- but I suspect that given his role as Prefect in the October 1994 decision "Concerning reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Persons"), whatever he meant in the passage cited could in no way be equated with the joint-proposal by Daneels, Kasper and Saier as described in John Allen Jr.'s article "Reopening the divorce question" National Catholic Reporter Oct. 29, 1999).

Lastly, as Cardinal Dulles comments on the matter (Zenit, May 28, 2001):

"Good arguments can be made both for and against allowing Holy Communion to be given in certain problematic cases," Cardinal Dulles writes. "But in the context of Kasper's article the essential question is whether the solutions should be worked out by particular churches on their own authority. Is the situation in the diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart so peculiar that it should be allowed to go its own way on these two questions?

"From reading Kasper's text I do not see why the problems in Rottenburg or Stuttgart differ significantly from those in Munich, Johannesburg, or New York. Whatever policy is permitted in Rottenburg-Stuttgart does not concern that diocese alone; it will inevitably have repercussions all over the world."