Tuesday, April 25, 2023

2010 John Allen NCR Interview with Tobin

 August 6, 2010

Elevating another American to a senior Vatican position, Pope Benedict XVI on Monday named Redemptorist Fr. Joseph Tobin as the new secretary of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, colloquially known as the "Congregation for Religious."

My Comment: John Allen framed this as another example of Benedict's appointments of Americans to key positions in his governance. I think it is more interesting because of what Tobin says about religious life, the bishops, and the Vatican

Q&A with Fr. Joseph Tobin


Allen: On a personal level, Tobin is generally viewed as about as moderate as they come, and someone who prides himself on being able to see matters from a wide range of cultural and intellectual perspectives. He comes out of the traditional mainstream of religious life, thereby representing established orders who sometimes felt a bit neglected under John Paul II in favor of the new movements.

He was elected superior general of the Redemptorists in 1997, and re-elected in 2003. During that span, Tobin became a leader among religious in Rome, serving in key positions within the Union of Superiors General, the major umbrella group for men’s orders. He also sat on the “Council of the Sixteen,” composed of eight male superiors and eight female, who meet on a regular basis with the Congregation for Religious. After 12 years at the helm of the Redemptorists, which included a grueling schedule of travel around the world, Tobin was savoring a sabbatical year at Oxford when Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, called to scramble his life once again.

Allen: Any sense of why you?

I asked that question of Cardinal Bertone, in terms of what they’re expecting from me. I think a large part of it is that I have personal experience of one form of consecrated life, as well as the experience over the years of listening to people representing many other varieties of consecrated life. I’ve had fairly wide contacts both with women’s and men’s orders. I also know something about how consecrated women and men have interfaced with this dicastery, because I’ve served on the rather ominous-sounding "Council of the Sixteen," which includes eight male and eight female superiors general who meet with the congregation.

I also wonder if the fact that I’m an American has something to do with it. There’s a great deal of misunderstanding among American religious about the decisions of the Holy See, and in particular the visitation of women religious. I feel I can bring something to that, because I’ve worked all my life with women’s religious. They taught me when I was a kid, and my mother’s family was very close to the Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters. I’ve preached women’s retreats and listened a lot to them over the years. Maybe I can offer a different picture of American women religious than the one that has been presented in Rome. My own impression is extremely positive.

Beyond that, I like being with a wide variety of people, talking with people who represent other ways of thinking and other cultural mindsets. I hope that serves me well in this assignment.

Allen Over the years there’s been tension between the Vatican and some of the traditional orders and groups in religious life, such as the Union of Superiors General. You’re a veteran of the USG, so does your appointment signal healing?

Tobin: I hope so, and I guess I would be inclined to read it that way. For decades, there’s been a sort of mysterious breach between the Union of Superiors General and the Vatican ... "mysterious" in the sense that no one could quite explain what caused it. The USG tried unsuccessfully for years to get an audience with the Holy Father under John Paul II. To his credit, when Benedict XVI was elected, he met with both the women and the men. That showed some openness to dialogue. I guess you could say my appointment moves in the same direction ... at least, it’s as good an explanation as any! I have been heavily involved in numerous projects of the USG, including an international congress on religious life in 2004 that was more or less boycotted by the Vatican. Maybe this appointment amounts to a kind of rehabilitation.

MY COMMENTS

It is interesting that both Tobin and Allen as Vatican observers accept the "mysterious breach" between the Vatican and male religious orders. Over the centuries the bishops have long been at odds with religious orders, both male and female. Usually, the Vatican has been supportive of religious orders because they were reformers in the church far more than the bishops. Making religious orders subject to the pope rather than the local bishop has been a key dynamic in Western Catholicism. 

Since Vatican II we have evolved into a very parochial model of the Catholicism. The parish has become the model for the local church; Catholic colleges, monasteries, heath care centers, retreat houses, etc. are seen as extras. Parishes unlike institutions run by religious are very territorial. 

Vatican II called for the renewal of religious life, with each order going back to its founding charisms. Religious orders have responded generously but that has not resulted in increased vocations to the religious life in first world countries. Rather as vocations to the priesthood, both diocesan and religious, have declined, religious have been increasingly called to staff parishes. 

Although in the fifties, before Vatican II, Rome was heavily involved in promoting the renewal of women religious in the US (they were behind extensive formation efforts, including the pursuit of degrees by women religious) since Vatican II Rome has loss interest.  

Under JP2, a lot of the religious orders, both men and women, were seen as being too progressive. A lot of them have adopted very progressive governance models of consultation. JP2 was so concerned about the Jesuits, that he took advantage of the illness of the Jesuit Father General to impose his own appointee upon the Jesuits!

This conversation shows the large change that has taken place since JP2 in consulting religious. To his credit, B16 was a bridge to that change which has become extensive under Francis. 


12 comments:

  1. I think Benedict personally was more moderate, or at least was open to a wider span/breadth of views, than is commonly supposed. Benedict tended to surround himself with church conservatives and institutionalists, but I think he was personally more complicated. I don't suppose the German episcopate would have taken on the liberal cast it has had throughout my adult life without his approval or at least acquiescence. I don't think he was trying to introduce liberal balance; I just think he respected people, especially scholars, from across the ideological spectrum (as long as they didn't cross certain doctrinal lines, anyway). It doesn't surprise me that Benedict would be willing to promote someone like Tobin. FWIW, now-Cardinals O'Malley, Cupich, Gregory and McElroy also seemed to flourish under Benedict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Benedict was a real theologian who knew the tradition and who respected theologians that knew the tradition even when they disagreed with him.

      Of course, someone who made the decision to resign as pope, has to be counted as an independent thinker. We can see how powerful tradition can be even for Francis, who is now talking about the papacy and the office of superior general of the Jesuits as a life- time offices, not to be relinquished until one is no longer capable.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Jack, it seems to me like Francis doesn't want to encourage politicking for the next conclave. He put them on notice that "it's going to be awhile." I think if he were too disabled to do his job he would resign.

      Delete

    4. Jim, I disagree about Benedict being open to new theological understandings. As I recall, during the Ratzinger CDF years, he silenced around 130 theologians, priests and nuns. Benedict also let the nasty investigation of American women religious happen. That doesn’t sound very open minded to me. Benedict was not open to dissent from his own understanding. He fully believed in his own theological brilliance and apparently could not even conceive of a possibility that he might be wrong now and then.

      Francis has redeemed some of those whom JPII/Ratzinger/Benedict silenced, especially in the realm of libération theology, and he is doing the best he can to soften the draconian teachings of the church related to homosexuality and divorce. He also quietly closed the door on the malicious investigation of the American orders of women religious instigated by Burke and other Uber conservative bishops and approved by Benedict. Francis and whoever his CDF guy is now haven’t silenced anyone.

      I’ve long thought it absurd that a church that claims to always seek the truth is so closed to new understandings. I would have expected a truth seeking church to actively invite theologians who have developed new ways of looking at scripture in light of increased understandings of science, history, culture, human psychology etc to present them in open debate. But it seems the entrenched in Rome are so fearful of any demonstration of their human fallibility that they close the door on the truth seekers. They can’t admit that the church has ever gotten it wrong.

      Delete
    5. I tend to agree with Jim that Benedict was a complex person. Part of that complexity was that he was very loyal to people who were loyal to him.

      Loyalty to his fellow Germans likely explains part of his reluctance to bring the German bishops into line. Another part, however, is that they supply the Vatican with a lot of its money. Benedict may have been more influenced by that than Francis.

      Loyalty to JP2 explains a lot of his behavior as head of the CDF. JP2 wanted to rein in theological speculation and progressive interpretations of Vatican II and trusted Ratzinger do this well.

      Ratzinger went after liberation theology because JP2 though it supported communism in Latin America. However, Benedict was not convinced that it was all bad; when he became Pope he began the rehabilitation of liberation theology. Francis own support of liberation theology is based upon a version in Argentina was emphasizes the role of the people.

      Benedict appointed his number #2 at CDF as Secretary of State, a big mistake that no amount of feedback could change. He appointed his #3 at CDF, the American Levada, as CDF prefect. Of course, Benedict has been completely loyal to Ganswein, another big mistake. The persecution of the American nuns by the CDF was due more to American bishops that to Benedict or Levada.

      Delete
    6. I get the idea that Benedict was more tolerant of a certain degree of dissent in an academic setting, but he didn't like it going public.
      About Ganswein, I read that Pope Francis has asked him to make up his mind where he intends to live, Italy or Germany. And that he needs to move out of his papal apartment within a few months. Francis was quoted as saying that most papal secretaries went back to their own country after the pope they worked for died (hint, hint). Apparently Francis doesn't want him hanging around Vatican City stirring up trouble

      Delete
    7. Jack, the Uber right wing American bishops wanted to go after the progressive orders of women religious. Not only to shut them up, but likely also to find pretexts for seizing control of their ( often very valuable) property and other assets. Yes, they initiated it. But Benedict bears the final responsibility for permitting it. Ratzinger never had enough moral courage to stand up to his boss. He halted the investigation into Mariel’s crimes even though he knew darn well that Maciel was a serial abuser of boys in his junior seminary. JPII loved Maciel because he brought a lot of $$ into the church, and a lot of very conservative seminarians, and upheld teachings dear to JPII’s heart such as those on birth control and the inferiority of women. Benedict put loyalty to a man above doing the right thing. The oath cardinals swear is to the pope - the man - and to protect the institution from “ scandal”. God/Jesus is mentioned only once in that oath, and it’s clear that blind, absolute obedience to the man called pope was the primary obligation. Ratzinger was a good, loyal henchman to JPII, even though it very often meant not doing the right ( morally right) thing.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Just FYI, the so-called "Pontifical Secret" oath was lifted with regard to sexual scandals in 2019, ahttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50824842s

      Delete
  2. Tobin comes across in that interview as a pastoral person who has some leadership skills - apparently, some servant-leadership skills. Having people with that profile in leadership positions strikes me as more important than the point that person occupies on the liberal-conservative spectrum. I suppose most of us have dealt with people in pastoral positions who are markedly ideological but don't have strong pastoral skills.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, effective pastoral leadership transcends the lib-con spectrum. Pope Francis seems oriented toward ministering to those inside the Church who need nourishment to live the Gospel and those outside who want to be brought in. Somehow this is getting construed by some conservative Catholics as a threat to holy tradition. And by some liberal Catholics who want institutional changes as a failure.

      Delete