4/20/2005
RECEIVE THE BENEDICTION
If you’ve been reading this blog long enough, you know I’m Lutheran, and you would correctly deduce that therefore the election of a new pope is not a tremendously significant event in my life. Like many commentators, I’ve been more amused than bemused at the number of people who seem genuinely shocked that Benedict XVI comes to the papacy with a reputation as a doctrinal conservative, one given to the defense of traditional faith.
Just how, exactly, do you think you get to be pope, anyway? By promising to spit in the holy water? Or by trying to sell the actual Virgin Mary to GoldenPalace.com?
Equally amazing is this breathless missive, in which some surprise is expressed that a 78-year-old man with a history of stroke believes that his life expectancy may be measured in years, not decades. I dunno, seems pretty reasonable to me.
Cardinal Ratzinger may not have been the preferred choice of the punditocracy, and he certainly wasn’t the choice of many American Catholics, because, as one Catholic theology professor put it, ‘Ratzinger is the one who “basically said no” to further discussion of hot-button issues such as the ordination of women, priestly celibacy, birth control and homosexuality.’ There is, of course, no greater sin in the secular/ecumenical world than refusing to discuss these issues, preferrably until one reaches the correct opinions. But even non-ecumenical American Catholics are not thrilled with Ratzinger’s elevation. Heck, almost a decade ago, Andrew Greeley’s novel White Smoke ended with the hateful, putrid Ratzinger caricature losing out to a youngish, progressive Latino cardinal . . . whom I believe chose the name Benedict, though I may be wrong. So it really wasn’t supposed to be like this; with the end of John Paul II’s papacy, the Roman church was supposed to enter a new, more progressive era.
Right concept, wrong direction, and wrong end of the papacy.
In fact, I think John Paul II’s papacy gave tremendous credibility to the notion that Christianity itself is growing more conservative as the distance from both Vatican II and the tremendous societal upheaval of the 1960s increases. JPII’s papacy wasn’t the end of an era, but rather the beginning of one–one in which the Roman church would care less and less about the world’s approval. This change made strange bedfellows of the Roman church and conservative American protestants, as the two groups found they had more in common with each other than either group had with the great mushy middle of American Protestantism and the last twitching remnants of European Christianity. Consequently, it’s fair to say that the social-justice-based ecumenical movement, which has been with us for about fifty years, got completely overshadowed by an ad hoc coalition of disparate religious factions. The Catholics and evangelicals have created more true church unity than the World Council of Churches could ever dream of–this despite the fact that the Catholic/evangelical alliance hasn’t produced any formalized agreements like we mainline Protestants are fond of.
Benedict XVI may, by his own admission, be a transitional pope, a placeholder who keeps the throne of the fisherman warm while the next pope passes through the refiner’s fire. But we need only look to his election, and John Paul II’s papacy, as signs that modernism and postmodernism are both dead within the church. Global Christianity is not behind the times, but rather ahead of them. What is needed now in church leadership is theological clarity, but not merely that; as we are increasingly able to accept that the ages have not been wrong about everything, the quality of continuity becomes more useful. It will not do to question authority just for the purpose of questioning authority. Today’s world has demonstrated that the only people who still say “don’t follow leaders” are the ones who want to lead you themselves.
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’ve found myself wondering why as a Protestant US Christian I should be concerned at all about the new Pope. And the context I keep framing is this: John Paul II made me think of the Catholic Church as a church rather than an organization. That may seem trite, but the exposure I’d had to Catholicism growing up was limited to what seemed to be a very formal, but unfeeling, ritual of adherence on the part of the few Catholics I knew, combined with an aunt who had converted to Catholicism when she married and then, after the death of my uncle, immersed herself in her local parish until a priest approached her with earthly pleasures on his mind. But the Pope is the most visible Christian in this world, and John Paul II seemed to genuinely try to proclaim and live an honest version of the Christian life. Did I agree theologically with him on everything? Obviously not - I don’t accept what seems to be the basic premise of Catholocism, that I must approach God through a priest. But he made Catholicism, and thereby Christianity, a living presence in the world. And that means that my hope for Pope Benedict XVI is that he can continue this vibrancy.
Comment by Harry — 4/21/2005 @ 9:34 am
John Paul II transformed both the office of the papacy and the worldwide expectations of what a pope should do, where he should go, and how he should act. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle anytime soon. Yes, John Paul II’s papacy was the beginning of a new era, but he had the strong pastoral impulse to make his policies work. From what I can tell, Ratzinger doesn’t. To perhaps oversimplify, Ratzinger is an administrator, not a globe-trotter. (I look forward to watching his reception at the previously scheduled World Youth Day in Cologne.)
After John Paul II, the Pope (whoever he may be) is not just the head of an organization (and a Church, Harry); he’s a de facto world leader, on a par with (but with more oomph than) presidents, prime ministers, and kings. And in that light, I was very surprised that the cardinals elected someone with no discernible trace of warmth or compassion to go along with his hard-line message.
I am also very disappointed that they chose the person who seems to have been in charge of the movement to deny Communion to John Kerry. (But that’s another blog post, if I may self-link.)
Comment by Vidiot — 4/21/2005 @ 9:54 am
I commented on this myself.
http://clientandserver.com/archives/001030.html
I’m still amazed people thought there would be this pope who would be up for “discussing” all these “issues.” Non-Catholics, especially the non-religious, just don’t understand the concept of time in the Catholic Church.
Comment by dw — 4/21/2005 @ 11:00 am
A More Conservative Christianity
Mark Hasty is not a instant pundit (as opposed to an instapundit) but his take on Pope Benedict XVI is…
Trackback by The American Mind — 4/21/2005 @ 8:36 pm
I think both you and Dylan have underestimated one thing in particular, at least for American Catholics, of whom I am more of one than you and at least as much of one as Dylan:
The child abuse scandal. Ratzinger was the primary force behind the PR effort to paint this as a media hack-job rather than an atual problem. That goes beyond conservative and into the realm of actual EVIL.
Comment by M1EK — 4/22/2005 @ 8:04 am
I admit I’m not familiar with Ratzinger’s role in that scandal, and I do believe that the Vatican has underestimated the ill will priestly child abuse has created. It is entirely possible that they don’t realize the low regard many Americans–even many American Christians–have for the Vatican’s (in)actions in dealing with the scandal.
For what it’s worth, the reason I never wear a clerical collar (in fact, I don’t even own one) is that, frankly, I don’t want people to think I’m a Catholic priest. So I’ll leave you readers to guess what I think about how the sex abuse scandal has been dealt with.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 4/22/2005 @ 8:29 am
I’ll say this, then spend the next 100 words qualifying it: Ratzinger was 10% right about the media. Many journalists have a bias against organized religion, and they used the scandal to pile on not only the Catholic Church but Christianity in general.
Now, the qualifications: I am not excusing anyone in the Catholic hierarchy. Their inaction, denial, silence, obfusctaion, and indifference to the scandals, as well as their hardened and arrogant attitude towards the laity embodied by the micromanagement of diocese affairs by the Curia, is inexcusable. The beatdown they got from the Boston Globe was well-deserved, and it’s disappointing (I mean that like a father’s disappointment) they have failed to show they’ve learned a lick from the scandals.
B16 has an opportunity now, as Pope, to rebuild the American church by mending fences and using his ex cathedra power to clean up the mess. It would be a miracle-category event if he did this, though, since he’s had the same opportunities half a hundred times over the years to do something about the anger in the Church. And trust me, they are feeling the failure right now, what with all the checks they’re writing to lawyers and the meager collection plate takings.
Comment by dw — 4/22/2005 @ 10:47 pm