An interesting take by Brisbane Archbishop Mark Coleridge
At the end of a long life, Benedict XVI, like Elizabeth II, seemed almost the relic of a bygone age – a link with the Second World War, the embodiment of values and styles morphing or passing even in their lifetime, the end of an era, leaving us thinking that we shall never see their like again.
He was also a hugely authoritative figure in the Curia who could make even the grandest of the Curialists tremble, in part because they knew he was so trusted by the Pope. Yet at the same time, like Wojtyla himself, Ratzinger was a Curial outsider with no interest in the intrigues of the papal court. That too gave him a peculiar freedom.
THE VATICAN TODAY PUBLISHED THE SPIRITUAL TESTAMENT OF POPE BENEDICT.
Interesting are his thoughts at death: his family, his country, and the relativity of both theological and human sciences!!! On closer look these are his thoughts as of August 29, 2006!!! In some ways that makes them even more interesting.
Since it appears that these are the last days of Benedict's life, it is interesting how the media is treating all this.
They have headlines like "unprecedented situation" and "tough decisions" about the funeral. The reality is that since Benedict is no longer Pope none of the ritual prescribed for the death of a pope apply to him. The Vatican has probably long made all the decisions about his funeral arrangements. They just have not published them since he is still alive.
America's Vatican Correspondent gives a more reasonable viewpoint
The Vatican has not yet released any details regarding eventual funeral arrangements, though sources say these have been in place for some years. Because Benedict’s resignation from the papacy in 2013 was unprecedented in modern times, no public protocol exists for the funeral Mass of a former pope. Sources suggest that this ceremony will be a solemn one, less formal than for a pope who dies in office but more stately than for a cardinal who dies. The Requiem Mass and final benediction is expected to take place in St. Peter’s Basilica and be presided over by Pope Francis, roughly within a week of Benedict’s death.
Prior to that, it is likely that the former pope will lie in state in the basilica for some days, to allow the faithful to pay their last respects to the emeritus bishop of Rome. Many cardinals are expected to attend the funeral, as well as some heads of state, such as the German and Italian presidents, and the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See.
It will be interesting to see how the media evaluate his pontificate.
1. Benedict's decision to resign, thereby making that a real possibility for future popes will likely have a long-lasting effect upon the Church, more than anything that Pope Paul VI, or John Paul II did, but not as strong as the decision of John XXIII to call Vatican II or the decisions of Pius X to lower the age of first communion and advocate frequent even weekly and daily communion
2. How will the media evaluate his handling of the sexual abuse issue? Certainly, he did better than John Paul II. I think he did better than Francis during his early years. Benedict did have cases of sexual abuse transferred to the CDF when he was prefect. He tried unsuccessfully to deal with the head of the Legionnaires as prefect and promptly resumed the case when he became Pope. In my opinion it took several years for Francis to come up to Benedict's speed on this issue although he eventually went further (as I suspect Benedict would have had he remained Pope). So, I think we need to be suspicious of media who make Benedict out to be the bad guy on sexual abuse.
3. The Extraordinary Form. This was certainly the big blunder of his pontificate. It is easy to see why he wanted to bring the schismatic bishops back into the fold. I can see offering them their own personal prelature (non-territorial diocese) and ability to nominate its bishops and allowing them to use and promote the old Latin Mass. However, allowing any priest who wants to celebrate the Old Mass to do so without needing the permission of his bishop (indeed essentially telling the bishops not to interfere) set the stage for making things worse not better. The whole idea of two Forms for the Mass was bound to promote schism rather than integrate the Church.
I would rate Benedict an A+ for making resignation possible, B+ on sexual abuse, but give him F for the Extraordinary Form. I would have to do a lengthy review of his encyclicals to rate them. I would give him a C for his appointments of bishops. Not bad, but not excellent or outstanding. I might give him a B- for bishops appoints but only in contrast to JP2 whom I would give a C- or D. Remember we got the likes of McCarrick under JP2.
I think the Extraordinary Form thing could have been handled better. It could have been similar to other rites which are allowed, such as the Syro-Malabar, Ukrainian Catholic, and other non-Latin rites. Also the Anglican ordinariate, which was allowed to carry some of their liturgy into the church. But Benedict shouldn't have given those who wanted the EF carte blanche to do whatever they want without permission and input of their bishop.
ReplyDeleteAnd I definitely agree with you that we should give Benedict credit for at least addressing the sex scandals better than his predecessor.
Anyway I join in prayers for him for a peaceful death, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph be with him in his last suffering.
I guess the media will make a big deal about how a pope emeritus is buried. Things have quieted somewhat on the British monarchy front so the MSM needs some filler. I am satisfied that this Christian will receive a Christian burial. And with Katherine, I pray he receives God's comfort in his final hours.
ReplyDeleteOff topic but in the news. A guy has been arrested and arraigned for extradition in our county courthouse for the murder of the Idaho college students. Lived thirty minutes west of me.
ReplyDeleteAs was the case with virtually all bishops of his generation, Benedict didn't handle abusers effectively at first - I am thinking of cases in his own diocese when he was a bishop. But he deserves some credit for learning and growing. That can't be said for all his contemporaries.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree that his extraordinary-form initiative was bad policy. I don't think it is as important as his work on abuse, simply because it wasn't as universal. I do understand it may have been a problem for those parishes with a priest who took advantage of the relaxed permission.
ReplyDeleteBut beyond the Latin Mass permissions, I think he owns some responsibility for the "worship wars", including all that led to the translation we use now.
Jack and Jim, why do both of you give Benedict high marks on the sex abuse stuff? He was a tragedy - he knew of so much abuse, including that of Maciel, long before he became pope. But, like a good little papal loyalist, he kept his mouth shut. JPII definitely didn’t want these crimes made public. These men swear loyalty oaths to other men. They replaced God with human beings and an institution. They did this because they took oaths of secrecy to protect the institution and other clerics. They did this because they believed the lie they had swallowed their whole careers - that they were ontologically superior to others. That they, human beings, could literally turn bread and wine into God.
ReplyDeleteI think it was a generation or era thing. When we've lived through a paradigm shift we can't always see the forest for the trees (let's see, can I drag out any more cliches?). For what it's worth the secular world didn't do any better with sex abuse. Even the definition of what that is has changed. What constitutes consent has changed, as well as what is a power differential. There was no "me, too" for most of the 20th century, certainly not previous to it.
DeleteAnother thing is that sex abuse was previously considered a sin, a matter for the confessional. Now it is rightly recognized as a crime, to be dealt with as such, through the civil authorities. Of course it's still a sin, but it's recognized that repentance isn't going to erase the crime.
DeleteIOW, Katherine , the men who claim ontological superiority, who claim to lead “ the one, true church”, who claim, literally, to be in persona Christi, are none of the things they claim. They have no more understanding of “truth” than anyone else. And they are just as inclined to cover their own a**es as anyone else . And yet a billion people are supposed to trust what they say?
DeleteSexual abuse has been around for a long time, both in church and in society.
DeleteIn the church it was considered a sin along with other sexual sins, but probably not worse than most sexual sins.
An understanding of psychological effects of the sexual abuse of children was a long time in coming. Many psychiatrists and psychologists, including Freud, dismissed memories of childhood sexual abuse. Most did not understand how difficult it is to rehabilitate abusers. When bishops began sending priests and religious for psychological treatment, the treatment personnel often seconded the bishop’s hopes that the abuse was just an error of judgement, a momentary weakness upon the part of the priest. Since most did not involve girls or women, bishops did not have to worry about pregnancies.
At the time that I went to graduate school in the late sixties, it was not thought illegal, immoral or unethical for psychology professors to sleep with their graduate students. It took more than a decade, and several commissions and studies for the American Psychological Association to decide that this was a bad thing, an ethical violation that merited expulsion from the national Association and state associations of licensed psychologists, and state laws to see all that would happen.
As sinful behavior it fell into the lot of other bad behaviors, e.g., drinking, embezzling. Priests were not encouraged to expose these but rather to avoid gossiping about them since that would dis-edify the faithful.
At the time Ratzinger became an archbishop, he probably had little understanding of the problem. He had been an academic all his life. It was his distaste for German state universities after the student riots in 1968, that led him to change universities, then accept an episcopal appointment.
DeleteWhen he became the cardinal prefect of the CDF, he would still have been isolated from the problem since it was dealt with by the congregation for Priests. Ratzinger agreed that the CDF should handle these cases. JP2 probably though that was a good way to keep them quiet. Ratzinger probably decided that was the only way to get some bad priests out of the church. JP2 was very opposed to granting priests requests for laicization in order to get married. He made it very difficult for the priests and their bishops. Ratzinger probably realized it was necessary to create a different process under the CDF to get rid of bad priests.
When the American bishops under the Dallas charter created a National Review Board to assist them in dealing with the problem, the Review Board went to Ratzinger because they though many of the American bishops were giving them the run around. They did not ask the bishops for permission to approach Ratzinger. They were astounded that he was willing to talk to them. He very graciously received them as prefect of the CDF.
The Review Board thought he understood the problem better than the American bishops, probably because every Friday he read the files of priests whom the CDF was planning to dismiss. He was nauseated by the process, called it his Friday penance. But he had to justify each expulsion to JP2.
So, he was ahead of the curve in recognizing the problem but knew he did not have the power to prevent it being swept under the rug when JP2 saw accusations against priests as a Communist plot (which they often were in Poland) and allowing men to easily leave the priesthood for marriage as a great betrayal of their vocations.
Leaving the priesthood under JP2 was a very demeaning process. The men had to allege something like marriage was the only way to prevent them from being gay. They had to agree to move away from their diocese, marry quietly, and not become involved in parish life. That is. they agree to disappear.
That narrative is simply further evidence of the distorted understanding of sex and sexuality that seems endemic in the celibate, hierarchical structure of the RCC. Among many other cases of failure to act against priests known to abuse children Ratzinger refused to do anything about the priest who mokested dozens of children in the boarding school for the deaf - even when asked to do so by the bishops- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/25/pope-us-priest-children-abuse
DeleteIt really makes you wonder what Pavone really did to get laïcised against his will.
Ratzinger, JPII - the entire hierarchy all put clerical careers ahead of children. Ahead of truth.Ahead of doing the right thing. The rotten fruit of clericalism. Such a benign word that describes a sickness that is so deep in the RCC that good people still try to excuse them. They didn’t know how harmful the sexual abuse of kids could be. And at least they didn’t have to worry about pregnancy as a result of these rapes. Let the poor priest live out his days in peace
From what I read, JPIIs coverups while bishop of Krakow are n t up on the news even though the Polish church is working overtime to suppress - or excuse- the stories.
JPII was forged in the struggle with totalitarian communism. It was one institution grappling with another. He was well adapted for that struggle but it warped his judgement with respect to the rest of the Church and the world. Thus Romero's treatment.
DeleteThe collapse of communism in the Soviet Union yielded no peace dividend. As much as Reagan and JPII were credited with that collapse, what good came of it?
Anne - I didn't give Benedict high marks. I didn't grade him at all. But I do think his handling of the cases was better than JPII's. And I agree with Jack that Benedict was more attuned to the problems than Francis was, early on in Francis's pontificate.
DeleteBenedict's record isn't perfect, and those cases he didn't get right are fair game for criticism. I am not sure there is a bishop yet who has gotten every case right. But Benedict did get some cases right, including some that his predecessor got wrong, and if we are going to criticize him for his failings, then it's only fair that we give him credit for getting some things right. But of course, presenting a person as anything other than all bad is not the contemporary habit. Count me out of any attempt to cancel Benedict.
His record wasn’t perfect? But better than JPII? Isn’t that setting the bar rather low for men who literally claim to speak for God? I suspect that Jesus would have been overturning a few tables in the temple, not saying « Put a lid on it ».
DeleteJim, Benedict as pope did the right thing with Maciel. However, I don’t see that as Ratzinger he did anything that was «right » in the moral and ethical senses. He knew what was happening in many places. His boss wanted it all kept quiet, ignored even. Ratzinger didn’t have the moral courage to go up against his boss. He was an academic who was scared out of his wits by the students in 1968. He had been a bit of a progressive thinker until then according to what I have read. The student protests turned him into a reactionary - literally. His reaction to the protests was to swing in the opposite direction and hide in an ecclesiastical -academic ivory tower, with his music and cats where he could think great thoughts and shut out the real world of real people. I don’t think he was a bad man. He was simply a weak man. Like most of us. Few of us are possessed of great courage. But few of us have influence over the lives of a billion people. He did. And he much preferred the company of male celibates to messy people like ordinary men, and especially not women and children. It’s all part of the cancer that goes by the rather mild name of clericalism. So people fuss endlessly about the liturgy, and the music, and the art and architecture of churches while putting Jesus and his teachings on the back burner, to be ignored until all the life giving water has evaporated . Some ordinary Catholics, made in the mold of little Benedicts, stay on guard to report any priest or deacon who strays from the GIRM, as if that is what matters. But they are first in line when confession day rolls around. The JPII worship and rush to canonize were actually a bit sickening to observe.At least Benedict wasn’t all about his personal ego. Unfortunately his intellectual ego tripped him up. Anyway, I hope he rests in peace, now completely safe from bumping into the real world.
Just imagine what he could have done as the Pope’s Rottweiler had he gone after bishops who protected pedophile priests? Instead he went after theologians, and even priests and nuns whose ideas he didn’t like. Dozens of them. He was not open to seeking truth, but only to justifying his own narrow and conventionally orthodox views.
DeleteBenedict became pope after JPII's long decline and incapacitation. The curia needed reform, but Benedict either didn't see it or was unwilling (and/or unable) to undertake it. I think he wanted to be a sort of philosopher king, but what the moment really called for was a broom (or even a shovel).
ReplyDeleteThe cardinals who elected him likewise failed to see or grasp the moment. Benedict was elected amid cries of Santo subito! for his predecessor. I think Benedict and the men who elected him thought the program was to be, More of the same.
Regarding the media's reporting of Benedict during his post-papal era, they don't really have a ready-made template for a living former pope, so their default template is, Power Struggle. They imagine Benedict to be like Trump or Netanyahu, pining for lost position and prestige, and seeking to undermine the successor. Apparently there are people in Benedict's camp who are fine with Francis getting undermined. But I don't see any evidence that Benedict himself wants to play that game.
ReplyDeleteJim, I didn't see any evidence of that either. I think Benedict resigned when he didn't feel up to the job and didn't want to do it any more. From any accounts I have read, he and Francis treated each other with courtesy, and Francis visited him and consulted him from time to time. No Trump-like behavior on either of their parts.
DeleteBenedict has passed away. May he be with God now, as he surely has longed.
ReplyDeleteHere is David Gibson's retrospective (and obit, I guess?) at the America site:
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/12/31/pope-benedict-xvi-death-obituary-225610?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2928&pnespid=v6NuViNObaIHy_ne.T_yTJSUsRO8RcsuN__izfRopQBmaxRljddxCG597V2fOjUlIPIK11oe
May perpetual light shine upon him.
DeleteA fine piece by Gibson that begins to tackle the complexities of evaluating his pontificate.
DeleteI liked that he ended with the quote from Benedict “I am the person who happens to have been chosen—the cardinals are also to blame for that—and I do what I can.”
It is interesting that he reports that Ratzinger himself warned the cardinals that he was not a good administrator. They did not listen to him.
There is also a good piece on Benedict by Fr. Robert Imbelli on the America site,
DeleteWhen JP II died, it must have been on a Friday or Saturday, because I was scheduled to preach that Saturday evening. I tore up whatever homily I had written and dashed off a new one about JP II. I thought that was warranted because he was a significant figure, both in the church and, to some extent, the world. In addition, our parish has a large population of Polish immigrants. One of them was a cousin of the pope; when he came to Chicago back in the late 70s or early 80s, they visited. (I picture him coming to her home and sitting at her dining room table while she served him golabki and kolaczki, although I doubt it actually worked out that way.)
ReplyDeleteAnd beyond all that, JP II had touched a lot of people's hearts and captured their imaginations.
This weekend, I am not scheduled to preach. If I was, and without meaning any disrespect at all to Benedict, I wouldn't be inclined to tear up the homily and talk only about him. I might see if there is a way I can allude to him. I don't think he was the kind of pope who touched heart and imagination among our parishioners. There are American Catholics in whose lives he loomed large (such as Latin Mass adherents), but there aren't really very many of those at our parish.
Whenever it's Francis's time to go to heaven, I'd probably be inclined to tear up the homily again. I think Francis has been that kind of pope.
With Katherine, I pray that perpetual light shines upon him. My opinion of his career aligns strongly with Anne's. When some prominent Catholics die, I feel a personal loss and a loss for the Church. Sadly, I don't feel that in this case. More like pity for all the tragic shortcomings.
ReplyDeleteI actually ended up liking Benedict better than I did John Paul II, if one can talk about "liking" someone one never met. It seemed like too many problems we are still dealing with in the church today got their start in the pontificate of JPII, even though I'm sure he was a holy man. We're all human, even saints.
ReplyDeleteOne memory that I have of the day St. John Paul II died was that our parish tolled its bell for each of his 84 years. And problems developed with the 100 year old support mechanism of the bells, and we had to redo things and also have the bells re-plated (which would have been needed anyway). The parish did not toll the bells 95 times this morning, we can't afford another re-do.
DeleteI hâve tried to think of anything Ratzinger/Benedict did that was good for the church - for the one billion ordinary people who are the church. I haven’t come up with a single thing. His “brilliant” theological musings don’t touch the lives of the billion. I was not happy with JPII either, but he did do a couple of good things - he made genuine attempts towards ecumenism. His invitation to the world’s religious leaders to gather in Assisi was a very good thing. Note that Benedict apparently did not agree. He also went to the Great Synogogue in Rome to speak - a truly historic step. Only a baby step in the right direction but a step. Benedict restored the anti- Jewish language in the Good Friday liturgy. Three steps backwards. Finally, JPII was open to permitting non-European cultural elemants be part of the liturgy. Benedict was scandalized by anything that didn’t reflect pure Western European culture.
ReplyDeleteFrancis fumbled the sex abuse stuff at first, particularly because he refused initially to pay attention to the protests against his choice of bishop in Chile. But he eventually realized that he needed to pay attention. He has also dropped the ball completely when it comes to women. He is a product of the macho cultures of both Chile and Argentina of his formative years, and still an insider who finds it hard to buck the clericalism of the church that formed him also. He puts women on a pedestal, still romanticizing and idealizing a shallow definition of “femininity” that reduces women to being merely support systems for men. But - he has also emphasized the gospels rather than esoteric theology. He has embraced a greater simplicity in papal symbolism, a breath of fresh air after Benedict’s fondness for lace and silk and gaudy jewelry - all the materialistic trappings of secular rulers, turning away from the poverty of Jesus and his followers. Francis has truly shown a preferential option for the poor rather than merely emulating his predecessors’ platitudes. So he is hated by the conservative American Catholics, including the bishops, for whom protecting and growing their own wealth and power are the paramount objectives.
Thomas Reese has an interesting summary of his personal experiences with the censorship machinery of JPII and Ratzinger/Benedict at NCR today. I was aware of it when he got pushed out at America but had not been aware of the history that preceded it. America went downhill in quality after Reese was pushed out. A search for truth was not among their priorities.
I thought it was sad the way Thomas Reese was treated by the PTB and pushed out of his position at America. I knew some details but not the whole story that he recounted in the NCR article.
DeleteI have only been a subscriber to America for a couple of years, there are some things I like and some I don't like. Which I guess is par for the course. I do like that they try to be a little diverse with their articles, you don't just get the liberal or conservative points of view.
I was a subscriber before, during and following Reese’s tenure. America was a really interesting and thought provoking journal when he was editor. Not so afterwards. Malone quashed certain topics in spite of making a big deal about their proactive push to include different POVs. For example he allowed nothing that wasn’t purely orthodox on contraception or womens ordination, and deleted comments that pointed this out. But there was a great article by a theologian on why the arguments against womens ordination don’t stand up to scrutiny when Reese was editor - in the same issue as an article by an orthodox theologian. Reese has another article at the NCR site
DeleteAs a young theologian, Ratzinger advised German bishops promoting reform at the Second Vatican Council. He ghostwrote a speech severely criticizing the Holy Office. .. He called its methods of silencing prominent theologians …"a source of scandal to the world."
In these early days, Ratzinger was friends with liberal theologian Hans Küng, who helped him get a professorship at the University of Tübingen ..Student demonstrations there in 1968 soured Ratzinger on the progressive movement…In 1969, Ratzinger abandoned Tübingen for the more conservative University of Regensburg. Ratzinger preferred docile students to those who challenged him. He avoided the rough and tumble of academic debate. You would not see Ratzinger at academic conferences where he could be challenged by his peers….
He treated theologians to the kind of correction he used to apply to his students. If they did not follow his view of orthodoxy, he "flunked" them, taking away their authority to teach and publish. He would also stop the appointment of any bishop he considered suspect…… He was especially critical of moral theologians in the United States, liberation theologians in Latin America and interreligious theologians in Asia. Also carefully watched were writings on priestly ministry, especially any thoughts on women's ordination or optional celibacy. Any criticism of church authority was suppressed.
The suppression of theological debate under the papacies of John Paul and Benedict was disastrous for the church. The creative rethinking of church teaching begun at Vatican II was squashed… the church repeated formulas many found meaningless.
These papacies also attracted to the priesthood a cadre of young men whose clerical style would be off-putting to many, especially women.
Francis is the product of the macho cultures of both Italy and Argentina during his formative years. Not Chile. Sigh.
ReplyDeleteUnlike JP2 and Francis, Benedict was not interested in Vatican diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteWhen he became Pope, he appointed his #2 man at the CDF as Vatican Secretary of State even though he had no experience as a diplomat. Unlike JP2 and Francis, Benedict did not meet with apostolic delegates when they make their period visits to the Secretariat of State.
Why? I guess because he saw diplomacy as administration and did not like administration.
Also, because he had probably had some deep conflicts with the political operatives that surrounded JP2; he had probably competed with them in making episcopal appointments and issues like Marciel.
That was probably the reason why he put his own person in charge as Secretary of State and stood by him even when the going got tough.
Francis quickly changed all that as Pope. He sees the Vatican Diplomatic Service as a very valuable asset, appointed a career diplomate as his Secretary of State, and has worked to upgrade the training and career development of the Vatican diplomatic service.
"I hâve tried to think of anything Ratzinger/Benedict did that was good for the church - for the one billion ordinary people who are the church."
ReplyDeleteI understand that many - hundreds - of abusive priests were removed from ministry because of his policies and interventions.
Yes, it have read that. Good that he removed them from ministry. Not so good that he failed to report them to the police. Or did he? I haven’t read that he did.
DeleteAnne - I doubt he reported them to the police. But even under Francis's beefed-up rules, the Holy See is not the entity responsible for reporting incidents to the police; that is the diocese's responsibility. (And of course, victims may, and should, report abusers to the police as well.)
DeleteSo, the pope is off the hook because the bishops didn’t do it? Did he ever tell them that they should? Or was it to be business as usual - “ protect” Mother Church from scandal? I suspect it was the latter. I believe that he once sent a letter to the Irish bishops explicitly binding them to secrecy while he was running the show at the CDF. And apparently he also turned a blind eye to sexual abuse of kids when he was a bishop in Germany.after all, it was SOP. Years ago when I was very involved at my parish there was an extremely unpleasant man who was in charge of the spirituality programs. I never understood it as he was rude - often downright nasty - brusque, dismissive of those who were actually involved in the main form of spirituality in the parish - CP. I could never understand why he had that job. His personality was the antithesis of most people who lead spirituality programs. A couple of years later, after I had moved on, I ran into a CP friend who mentioned that this man, Robert, was gone. He had been fired. She wouldn’t tell me why. I had some suspicions so I googled his name. He had once been a priest in the Baltimore diocese. He had been laïciséd, apparently without requesting it. I learned that he was on a list of former priests in Maryland who had been credidibly charged with molesting kids. He had finally been arrested, which is why he left his job at my former parish.. But the church/bishop in Baltimore had never reported him to the police. My parish cosponsored an elementary school. While on the staff at my parish, he had been appointed to the Board of Directors of the school in the other parish. Giving him a good reason to hang out there, around the kids. Passing the buck to bishops is not the kind of «leadership» a pope should exert. Obviously Benedict was all too willing to pass the buck, and, like Pilate, wash his hands of responsibility.
Delete"Benedict restored the anti- Jewish language in the Good Friday liturgy. "
ReplyDeleteThat isn't really accurate. There is no anti-Jewish intercession in the Good Friday liturgy that is used at our parish and other parishes worldwide. We use the Good Friday liturgy in the Roman Missal, which of course was revised following Vatican II.
Here is what you may be thinking of: Benedict loosened restrictions on using the Tridentine missal. That missal's Good Friday liturgy was pre-Vatican II (pre-Nostrae aetate). In an attempt to avoid any problems in Catholic-Jewish relations, Benedict directed that a new intercession be composed for the prayer for Jewish people (to be used by the comparatively tiny number of parishes that would use the Tridentine missal on Good Friday). I believe the new composition satisfied some people, and didn't satisfy some others. The entire controversy, such as it was, was irrelevant to 99%+ of Catholic parishes, which don't use the Tridentine version.
And now Francis has reintroduced further restrictions on using that edition of the missal.
Perfidious Jews. Pray for the conversion of the Jews . He did backtrack once it hit the media. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/world/europe/06pope.html
DeleteDoes it matter that the wording was irrelevant to most parishes? Isn’t the fact that it was approved at all of great concern?
"Does it matter that the wording was irrelevant to most parishes?"
DeleteYes and no. Your original statement implied that he had reinserted "perfidious Jews" for all Catholics worldwide. That is very far from the case.
In addition, if I'm not mistaken, he didn't actually approve the use of that prayer, even for Latin Mass communities. I believe that problematic phrase had been removed from the Good Friday liturgy sometime in the 1950s, during Pius XII's days. That timeline is important because what Benedict authorized was the 1962 edition of the Tridentine missal, which wouldn't have had that phrase. Benedict still thought it was important to insert a new version of the prayer. Of course, all this would depend on those Latin Mass communities being obedient and actually using the 1962 edition; I am told that at least some of them were (and perhaps still are) using earlier editions.
But you are right, too: Benedict was the pope, not just of the Latin Mass adherents, but of all Catholics. One can't expect "outsiders", even those of good will, to make and understand the distinctions I'm making here between "regular Catholics" and Latin Mass adherents.
And I agree with you that his decision to authorize greater use of the Latin Mass opened up this vein of criticism and controversy. It was, as they say in tennis, an unforced error, and not the only one during his pontificate. And apart from the topic of problematic language about Jews, there are other good reasons to think that Benedict's Latin Mass policy was misbegotten. Many of us realized that it would do the opposite of bringing about the unity which he desired.
Did you read the NYT article? The “ correction” to the language apparently didn’t happen on Benedict’s initiative UNTIL there were complaints from the Jewish community.
DeleteI have an old missal, copyright date 1962. I looked up the Good Friday service, the solemn collects. It's the kind that has the Latin on one side of the page, and the English on the other. It doesn't say anything about the perfidious Jews. This is what it says under the sub-heading, For the conversion of the Jews: "Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ."
DeleteBenedict is being widely lauded for resigning. But for those of you with NY Times access, Ross Douthat makes a somewhat contrarian point: Benedict's resignation enabled the "other party" to come to power; and Benedict lived to see some of his accomplishments undone, and some of his friends sidelined, by his successor. Douthat suggests that lesson won't be lost on Francis and other, future popes.
ReplyDeleteSorry, here is the link to Douthat's article: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/01/opinion/pope-benedict-xvi-catholic-church.html
DeleteI'm paywalled out of the NYT article, but am already pretty much aware of Douthat's view (he thinks Vatican II was a bad idea).
DeletePope Francis has already let it be known that he has written a resignation letter to be published in the event he becomes incapacitated. The chips have a habit of falling where they may, that one's successor is likely to have different priorities.
I think it is worse for the church if a pope stays in office through a long slow decline such as John Paul II went through.
Don’t worry Katherine. I couldn’t even get through the whole article. Douthat is seldom worth reading.
DeleteI don't know that Douthat thinks VII was a mistake. But he thinks the church has failed to realize the Council's aims and hopes.
Delete"I think it is worse for the church if a pope stays in office through a long slow decline such as John Paul II went through."
DeleteYes, medical science makes the long twilight more likely than sudden nightfall. But, in a sense, it's not a question of what is best for the church. It is a question of what a pope is motivated to do: resign or remain. Douthat suggests that Benedict's experience will motivate his successors to stay in office to try to complete or secure their programs. Francis may be living that reality today.
Douthat’s real disagreement is with the Holy Spirit!
ReplyDelete“that the operation of the Holy Spirit means that the biggest decisions in the church — like the election of a new pope, or presumably a papal resignation — are all straightforward expressions of God’s will”
Obvious he does not understand how SHE could inspire John XXIII and Paul VI to “update” the teaching and practices of the Church to meet the challenges of the modern world, then inspire JP2 and B16 to consolidate things as a “reform within continuity” and then have Francis challenge the Church to go to the peripheries when it comes to the world economy, climate change, migration!
Douthat is locked into a very male elitist way of thinking. He wants “intellectual inspiration” appealing mainly to converts “seeking a synthesis of reason and supernatural religion” rather than the daily bread of humanity.
Jim, you are an amazing apologist for the institution and its officialdom. You could even read tte NYT article and still not see the problem ?
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone can consider me an apologist for Benedict. I've said, several times now, that I think he made significant mistakes as pope.
DeleteI simply offered a correction to your statement that "Benedict restored the anti- Jewish language in the Good Friday liturgy." There is simply no way of looking at what actually happened which would make your statement true. Understood as plain English, it's wildly wrong. And even digging into the history of the intercession for Jewish people in the Tridentine editions of the Good Friday liturgy, as we've been doing - it's still not true that he "restored" anti-Jewish language. He substituted a new prayer for one that, rightly or wrongly, was perceived as anti-Jewish. The new composition also failed to please at least some Jewish commentators. But I don't think a fair and sympathetic reading of it could claim that it "restored" anti-Jewish sentiment which had previously been taken out.
FWIW - with the newly composed prayer, I think he tried to walk a tightrope, trying to come up with language that simultaneously (a) would be inoffensive to Jewish sensibilities; (b) would somehow be "in the spirit" of the Tridentine rite (which would have been important to him, for several reasons); and perhaps (c) - really speculating here - would reinforce his views on the extremely controversial topic of God's plan for salvation for the Jewish people.
If I was pope, I'd just make the traditionalists use the version we pray every Good Friday, i.e. the post-Vatican II version. If you were pope, you might just yank all the prayers for Jewish people out of all of the editions of the Good Friday liturgy, pre- and post- Vatican II. Benedict, who presumably wouldn't have agreed with either of us, tried something different.
was perceived as anti-Jewish.
DeleteYes - that w the perception of most Jews. Their perception counts, doesn't it? They have been persecuted on and off for 2000 years because of christianity's claims that Jews killed Jesus - they killed God. Benedict permitted the reintroduction of anti-Jewish thoughts, even if he didn't write the words himself. There are plenty of resources out there that he could consult before permitting prayers, events etc that may be "perceived" as offensive to Jews. (Or Muslims. He flubbed that too) He practically did somersaults trying to lure back the schismatics (Pius X group) even though their anti-semitism (not to mention their outrageous misogny) was pretty clear. . I'm quite sure the Chief Rabbi in Rome would be more than happy to consult.
Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ."
A very good prayer to drop FOREVER. even without the "perfidious".
Praying that the "veil" may be lifted, implying that Jews - if not God murderers are at minimum blind and must be prayed for. Stick to generic prayers for all. DON"T single out Jews. Or Muslims - for special attention. It's demeaning and insulting.
Have you ever read the vile homilies against the Jews by John Chrysostom? He is admired for his "beautiful" liturgy, as if rote prayers, actions and music in liturgy are what is important. Jesus didn't stress much about liturgy as far as I can tell. He did stress about people - treating people with kindness and love.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversus_Judaeos
You can read the homilies here.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eight_Homilies_Against_the_Jews
I found a back door to the article to see what all the fuss was about. I still don't see that it's worth a lot of fuss at this point. The translation in the article pretty much agrees with the one in my 1962 missal, with a couple of words a little different.
DeleteI'm pretty sure some of my evangelical neighbors, and all of the JW, and Mormon ones pray for the conversion of Catholics. And I'm fine with it, God can sort it out. In fact I pray for my own continuing conversion.
If they had left the "perfidious" wording in place, that would be wrong and offensive, because of the meaning of the word. But I agree with Jim that the pope should have just told the traditionalists to use the post VII version and deal with it.
The mainstream church has moved on and rejected the ugly anti-Semitic stuff of the past. The fact that the SPX society and other near or actual sedevacantists have not, tells us what we need to know about them.
DeleteMy problem with the "perfidious" language is that it narrowed it down to a subset of Jews like Bernie Madoff and Jeffrey Epstein. We should also pray for the beneficent Jews like Noam Chomsky, Abraham Heschel and Bob Dylan.
DeleteKatherine, note what you say - there is no problem ( in your eyes) and not worth a fuss. The «mainstream» church has moved on. So it doesn’t matter that the pope who just died was doing everything he could to embrace the breakaway group that was both anti- Semitic and extremely misogynist. I would hope for a bit more from those who claim to speak for God - literally. Evangelicals may pray for the conversion of Catholics but I don’t know. They don’t have liturgy that is rigid. Nothing baked in permanently. As a Catholic, you are a member of the largest religious denomination in a country that still is majority Christian. Christians have not been persecuted on and off for two thousand years by Jews ( or Mormons). If you can’t walk in the shoes of those who have been persecuted, primarily by Christianity, and primarily due to Catholicism, then it’s sad. No empathy. No ability to even try to understand how they might be offended.
DeleteChristians have not ever been accused of déicide. Nor herded into ghettos and concentration camps. Nor herded into gas chambers. Although Catholics are sometimes accused of practicing cannibalism ( the bread is flesh and the wine is blood) it’s never resulted in persecution. Catholics in the US were vilified and discriminated against for a while, but not for two millennia.
Benedict was catering to the Pius X crowd even though he was aware of their anti- semitism. The problem isn’t their beliefs. The problem is that a pope wanted them back anyway. It doesn’t really matter that he failed. The problem is the fact that he considered this to be ok - and, even worse, to me, is that millions of Catholics aren’t bothered that he considered this to be ok.
Stanley, how many perfidious Catholics have there been in history? How many of those perfidious Catholics were priests, bishops, cardinals and popes? Maybe we should be praying for forgiveness for all the harm done by perfidious Catholics instead. Maybe the prayers should be for their conversation - not for Jews or Muslims or Protestants or Hindus or ….Praying for Bob Dylan and Abraham Herschel is fine as long as you are praying in general for their well being - like you would for Katherine - and aren’t praying that « the veil will be lifted » and they will convert. That’s insulting.
I'm being facetious, Anne, as is my wont.
DeleteAnne, yeah, I do know how to read, and am aware of the history. Though I haven't read St. Chrystostom, he lived so long ago that I don't think he is very relevant to the present situation. The way Jews were treated in the past sucked, it was horrible. Plenty of Americans died in a war to defeat the person who was probably the worst Jew hater in history. The church is guilty of many sins, but has done a lot of work to correct the errors of the past. Plenty bothers me about Benedict; maybe his worst fault was kissing up to the SPXers and their warped ideas. But he isn't here any more. And nobody that I know of is saying "santo subito". I think we just need to let him go. And do the best we can to do better.
DeleteAt the time of Chrystostom, Jews represented a real challenge. Their Synagogues were often located across from Christian churches and their services often used the Greek OT. As we learn from his homilies some Christians saw no problem with going to their services.
DeleteChrystostom also said that the floor of hell was paved with the skulls of bishops (he had a lot of bishop enemies). Rhetorical excess was more the norm than the exception.
Katherine, one of the comments on one of the multitude of articles at the America site is calling for Santo Subito. I really don’t get it. Benedict was pretty much an average pope. He was a decent man who tried his best. He made lots of mistakes, surprising, especially given that in his very public role his mistakes had far wider influence than those of most of us. embracing the anti-Jewish Pius x folk was a really bad error as it implied that he didn’t consider being anti- Jewish to be wrong - a sin. I guess my criteria for calling someone « holy » are fewer than those of others. I don’t see that being a good academic theologian and praying a lot makes someone « holy”, much less a saint.
DeleteThe church has done very little to make up for all of the harm it inflicted on Jews throughout history - for 2000 years. It’s fewer than 50 years since JPII went to that Synagogue in Rome. The vile hatred of Chrysostom’s homilies seems to disqualify him for sainthood. He apparently forgot that Jesus was a Jew. Jesus never encouraged hate - not even of the Romans. I don’t believe that beautiful prayers and music in liturgy are nearly as important as Jesus’s commands to love. Excusing hateful rhetoric that resulted in physical harm to Jews as forgivable “hyperbole” or “rhetorical excess”:is giving hate a pass. Just like millions of Americans give trump’s hateful rhetoric a pass. Benedict isn’t a saint, nor is JPII, nor chrysostom, nor are most of the people called “ saint” by the church. Francis of Assisi deserves the honorific. Most who get canonized don’t.
Jesus wasn’t all wrapped up in liturgy. He was wrapped up in helping people and in teaching us to do the same. He wasn’t about imperial splendor - no silk and lace and rote ritual. The only rote prayer was the Our Father. Pope Francis comes a bit closer to teaching what Jesus taught, in words and in symbolic actions like choice of garments, living in an apartment house for Vatican workers, etc. A bit more like the saint who inspired his choice of name.
Thankfully the hoopla will be over soon, and Benedict can Rest In Peace. And the rest of us will get a break from all the misplaced adoration of him that we’re seeing now.
Stanley, I am still recovering from flu brain fog. I realized too late that you were being sarcastic. I had been so befuddled that I wondered to myself about the comment - this doesn’t sound like Stanley! And of course, the comment was not meant to be taken seriously. Sorry!
DeleteNo problem, Anne. I know how infections can take one's edge off. And sometimes I try to be too clever.
DeleteMy interpretation of the providential nature of recent papal elections does not depend upon any specific inspirations from the Holy Spirit but rather on the general tendency of papal conclaves to choose a new pope that has attributes different from the last pope.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of John XXIII, they wanted an interim pope after the long reign of Pius XII. They did get an interim pope but did not realize that he would start a Council that would continue under his successor.
When they elected PaulVI, they chose a veteran of the curia rather than an outsider like John XXIII. They obvious wanted the Council to be implemented by the Pope in a way that made sure the Curia did not interfere with its implementation (as some of them had during the Council) but at the same time that the Council would become part of the normal workings of the Church.
The choice of JP2 was obviously motivated by the problem of communism. It was both a bold choice politically but also a safe choice of continuity with the Council. Many probably did not realize that JP2 like Ratzinger was beginning to have misgivings about how far the Council had gone.
The choice of Benedict to follow JP2 was really a choice of too much continuity. Francis was actually the runner up to Benedict in that conclave, thought we did not know that until after Francis was elected in the conclave that followed Benedict’s resignation. The motivation for Francis both times was to resume what many viewed as the stalled agenda of Vatican II. (The election of Benedict has just delayed the progressive correction of the conservative correction of the meaning of the Council under JP2).
It is now clear that in case of two popes who came from countries that had never had a Pope before (Germany has had several) we got a pope that made real substantial contributions of how the church is perceived world-wide. So maybe an African, or Asian Pope but not a European (or American) Pope or another Latin American Pope? Or failing on an agreed-upon candidate, then an interim Pope who would likely resign in less than ten years.
It's funny how they don't depend on any specific inspirations from the Holy Spirit but (He? She? They?) tends to write straight with crooked lines. As you said, John XXIII was the designated interim pope, who started the Council. And Benedict was the actual interim pope who resigned in less than ten years.
DeleteAs a social psychologist, I am more willing to believe in individual inspiration by the Holy Spirit than in group inspiration.
DeleteI think that God did inspire John XXIII to call a Council and Benedict to resign. I don’t think God inspired the cardinals to elect an interim pope to replace Pius XII nor to replace JP2 with his right-hand man.
Some might see in the “immediate canonization” cries after JP2’s death and in the positive response of many to the Ratzinger homily at his funeral, and his well- received going into the conclave the work of the Holy Spirit. l don't agree. They are simply politics on the part of people who wanted continuity with JP2. It did get us Benedict, but he did not work out well.
One might see the work of the Holy Spirit in the election of Francis. I am skeptical. The conclave simply went back to the runner up from conclave that elected Benedict. That might have happened because the Curia failed to mount a successful campaign for their candidate, the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan. I suspect many third world nations along with Latin America went for Francis because he is from the Third World and not supported by the curia. The choice was probably obvious to them.
In the talks before the conclave there was wide agreement that the curia needed to be reformed. (That was true of the conclave after JP2's death). Many thought that Benedict, someone who knew the curia well, could do it because he
was also an outsider. That provided to be false. Therefore, picking a real outsider, Francis, the second time around was a good choice. Besides he is old and will not have much time to change things other than the Curia.
I think conclaves are mainly human processes. However, it is probably good that the cardinals after the conclave support the new Pope as God's choice, even if the was only their choice.
I'd be more inclined to believe that conclaves were inspired by the Holy Spirit if the participants were put in place by a more distributed election process and not top-down selection. It's all rather hierarchical and closed and maybe designed to keep the Holy Spirit under human control.
DeleteIt seems to me that even a cursory study of the popes indicates one of two things - 1) popes are the result of human, political actions and the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the selection. Or 2) it means that the HS is petty and vindictive and enjoys inflicting corruption and pain on the church. I’m guessing that it’s #1.
DeleteI think Vatican II was, in some way, influenced by the Holy Spirit. I offer that as an example of the Holy Spirit working through a group. Surely we should pray that the Synod on Synodality is similarly open to the Holy Spirit's guidance and promptings.
DeleteThe mechanics of a conclave are that of an election: the winner is found by compiling many individual decisions (votes). It's more or less the same thing the US House of Representatives will go through this week in selecting a Speaker (or at least starting that process this week - that one could be a drawn-out conclave!) In the case of a papal conclave, I would think that many of the participants sincerely beseech the Holy Spirit to help them exercise their electoral responsibility wisely.
But I also think the Holy Spirit can work "socially". That initial gathering at Pentecost was the primal example: the Holy Spirit came upon all of them gathered there - and then they went out into the city, where the Holy Spirit apparently was at work on an even larger scale when Peter spoke.
I don't know whether Francis's election in the last conclave was a foregone conclusion, but I understand he gave a talk during the conclave which was well-received. Ears and hearts apparently were open. I would detect the Holy Spirit at work in that receptiveness.
A defense of Benedict by a well known rabbi. He generously gives Benedict the benefit of the doubt. He notes that Benedict made some very serious fumbles. But he also notes that Benedict followed in JPII’s footsteps, literally, to try to repair the damage and heal Catholic-Jewish relations by continuing the approach taken by JPII. JPII had a deep, lifelong friendship with a Jewish man, dating from childhood and that obviously influenced his approach to the Jewish people. Apparently Francis also has had Jewish friends throughout his life. Maybe Benedict, growing up in Hitlers Germany never had Jewish friends. He was taught to think of Jews as “ the other”. He may have rejected that intellectually ( I hope but his actions with the Pius X crowd raise questions) but never had the benefit of a real friendship with Jewish people. At some point late in life he may have had a genuine conversion. I hope so.
ReplyDeleteThe author clearly sees Francis as being the real thing.
https://religionnews.com/2022/12/31/how-pope-benedict-xvi-helped-normalize-relations-between-catholics-and-jews/