Steinfels’ Salutary Cautions
Before the talking-and-scribbling heads cruise into high gear for the forthcoming visit of Pope Benedict, some commonsense observations from Peter Steinfels:
Of course, part of the problem in getting a fix on Benedict is simply the feebleness of accepted categories for understanding any serious religious leaders — and hence the impulse to deal with them as celebrities or politicians. Of all the words he speaks during his trip here, the ones that will probably go least examined are no doubt the ones he treasures most, the words of the Mass.
But the pope is not just another spiritual guide or priest. He has enormous institutional powers and responsibilities. To what extent does Benedict conceive of his papacy as a work of prayer and teaching? To what extent does he conceive of it as a renewal of structures and institutions? How does he see those aspects interacting?
His trip to the United States will presumably provide some clues. But they will be missed if it is greeted and framed with all the ready-made reflexes.
Will Peter’s cautions about cliches bear fruit? Stay tuned. (But don’t get your hopes too high.)
Obviously we can expect some media oversimplifications and sound bytes.
Some will try to use the occasion for their agendas. The day after Peter’s column, the Catholic Scool Teachers Union of New York threatened a strike during Benedict’s visit(not to bother the Pope but to “embarass” the diocese they feel have plenty of dinero to settle. The Union’s been without a contract since last August.)
I do think though that many of the lay folk do not suffer the loss of brains Nicholas Kristoff wrote about in his e;oquen tOp-Ed Sunday Times piece yesterday, depite our “infomat” world -especially in matters Church.
The critical question remains in my poor opinion, how well this Pontiff who has styled himself Benedict follows the first rule of that great Saint. If he is sheilded off from all except the bigwigs, many will continue to perceive an overly top down Church which talks a nice game.
The superficiality of most of the expected press coverage — comparing him to JPII. remarks about his “Rottweiller” nickname, evaluating how and if he adddresses the clerical sex abuse scandals — may be inadequate in addressing the comnplexity of this scholarly Pontiff, but they, too, have a place since he does have a known history and prcedents to live with. it will be more interesting to see how he addresses the other mentioned issues of the Iraqi and Afghanistani conflicts, issues with the Islamic world, immigration, the practices of pluralism, and the general report on the shifts on US religiosity. Willl he bring the Love and Hope of Christ’s message that he wrote eloquently about in his encyclicals or further some steroetypes? I obviously hope for the former, but to get that covered adequately will be a challenge.
Peter Steinfels makes a good point when he notes that it may also be hard to neatly pigeonhole BXVI because even after BXVI’s three years as pope the media and the world does not have “much of a fix on his personality or his papacy. To what extent, for example, are his acts and statements highly calculated?” I happen to think he has a highly-developed game plan (that’s not intended as a negative characterization) that will elude all but the best analyzers, such as Mr. Steinfels himself.
From my completely selfish and breathless perspective, I’m happy the Pope will be saying Mass in the House That Ruth Built. After last season’s upheavals, God’s Team can use all the help it can get.
Another common-sense caution might be that the Catholic press will probably be more likely to cover the message at Mass and what the Pope has to say specifically to Catholics. The secular press will be more likely try to get a bead on what the Pope says that affects the secular political and social landscape.
Non-Catholics will look at Catholic coverage as a whitewash of the Pope. Catholics will see secular coverage as focusing on (and thereby distorting) the Church’s more controversial teachings or this Pope’s more controversial statements.
Is it just me who gets prickly when “The Press” is treated as some sort of monolithic entity with a fairly teensy brain?
With all due respect for Peter, is it possible that he is asking the wrong questions? Or to paraphrase Francis of Assissi, is it better to understand than to be understood? The Woman at the Well, the Disciples on the road to Emmaus, the cannanite woman, the blind man who was cured etc. seemed to have no problem getting the message. We understand that Jesus Crucified is a stumbling block to some and a scandal to others.
Might the question be more appropriately asked whether the message is not being delivered more than not being received?
In a visit like this, one never knows if the speeches will be generic or more specific and meaningful. For myself, I am interested in what he has to say in the speech in Washington on Catholic identity and Catholic education. Will he be limiting academic freedom in Catholic universities. I hope and feel sure that some of you will be attending the session. I cetainly look forward to your opinions of his speech. I’m sure you will be more objective and give a better insight than anything that can be gotten from the newspapers.
I think Jean’s question is a good one. It seems to me that non-Catholics will have different set of concerns about the Pope’s visit than Catholics. Here’s a question, then? What should educated non-Catholics want to know/learn with respect to this Pope?
My sense is that Catholics get geeked up about a visit from any Pope because he is Christ’s closest representative on earth come to be among them (us). Read through the papal visit issue of Catholic Digest, and I think you have a pretty good idea of the kind of uncritical hooplah that’s building up among the faithful. That view will affect how all his utterances are construed.
Non-Catholics, especially those skeptical of claims that the pope is elected by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the college of cardinals, are far more interested in whether Josef Ratzinger, the man, deserves the power and influence embedded in the papacy.
They will judge that by determining whether the pope will have anything to say to them about America’s social and political problems, not just the problems of the American church. They are also waiting to see whether he makes any effort to appreciate American culture, or simply rails against secularism and modernity.
I don’t think the pope needs to be warm and fuzzy or somehow tone down his Catholicism. But he could, in Pope John’s words, try to be “the pope of everybody.” He would do well to make clear statements and refrain from obscure references that have to be run through a theological sieve (ach! Regensburg!) to be understood by people of faith and good will.
Whether he WILL make those types of statements remains to be seen.
Probably lots more to say here, and many more points of view than what I’ve expressed here, but maybe that’s a start at Cathleen’s question above.
This Catholic was never enthralled with JPII’s visits, and I see no change with respect to Benedict’s visit.
I guess I could care less about these two popes.
Papal visits have become a cliche. Why expect their coverage will be otherwise? It is always possible that Benedict will come up with one of his signature gaffes. He has a certain knack.
No doubt that the secular press will be waiting to see what BXVI has to say about the sexual abuse crisis. And so it should be — but so also should be the Catholic press. Here in the US (and by no means only in the US) the church is left deeply wounded financially, and even more deeply wounded spiritually and morally. And this, largely because of the actions of its leaders. Yet all those leaders continue to occupy their positions as if nothing had happened. (Bernard Law, driven from office by people and priests, but not by Rome, is an exception).
Might this extraordinary situation have anything to teach us about the “dictatorship of relativism” — aspects of which, according to Benedict, are to be found in the church itself?
I suppose it would be nice if those reporting on the Pope had some understanding of his Catholic code words, but really, the Pope has no right to expect that from non-believing mediators of his words, and if his message is intended to be “universal” he has to grapple with the fact that language is not. It often seems to me that the Pope intentionally uses guarded, cryptic language precisely so that his words do not have plain meaning — and it seems entirely predictable that his words are then given ambiguous meaning and perhaps misunderstood. There is a remedy for this, it’s called speaking plainly, and the press is not to be blamed if it does not suit the Pope’s purpose. I have the same reaction when I am told that a given word in English isn’t really what the Pope intended because it is an imperfect translation of the original Latin.
Tying in with Peter Steinfels’s NYT article is a very good article, IMO, by John Allen of NCR titled “A ‘One-Stop-Shopping’ Guide to Pope Benedict’s U.S. Visit”:
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1685
Allen’s article provides an overview of what to expect at the venues BXVI will visit and what the likely themes will be in the Pope’s major speeches. Allen also comments on how Catholics and non-Catholics perceive the Pope, and why non-Catholics should also care about the visit.
Allen also comments on why the substance of the Pope’s visit will be missed if, to borrow Peter Steinfels’s words, the trip “is greeted and framed with all the ready-made reflexes”:
“In recent weeks on the lecture circuit, people have asked what they should ‘watch for’ when the pope comes. My snappy answer is that it’s a ‘John Paul’ question; he was the master of the symbolic gesture, so just keeping one’s eyes open was often enough to get the gist. With Benedict, it’s rarely enough just to watch. One also has to listen, and perhaps equally importantly, to read. One has to sit with his texts in order to ‘get it,’ because this is a public figure who expresses himself not in sound-bites but in carefully crafted paragraphs.
….
Benedict’s texts are never just delivery vehicles for isolated phrases. Every paragraph matters, and they’re integrally related to one another. That’s why reading his texts is a rewarding experience, and it’s also why individual snippets lifted out of context can sometimes generate tremendous misunderstanding.
Benedict, in other words, is something of an acquired taste.
To some extent, this is a question of personality. If John Paul II had not been a pope, he would have been a movie star; if Benedict had not been pope, he would have been a university professor. No surprise that John Paul took the world by storm, while Benedict stands a bit off the beaten path.
To some extent, too, Benedict’s lower profile is a matter of conscious strategy. He doesn’t want to feed a cult of personality, insisting that the proper focus should be on God rather than him. To take just one example of how that plays out in practice, Benedict will say Mass on April 19 in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, the first time a pope has celebrated Mass inside St. Patrick’s. Under John Paul, such an event would likely have been held outdoors to accommodate an overflow crowd. Whenever possible, Benedict prefers to celebrate in an authentic liturgical space, so that attention centers on worship rather than the person of the pope….”
“To some extent, this is a question of personality. If John Paul II had not been a pope, he would have been a movie star”
When an ancient polytheistic writer wrote about Jesus he was surprised that Christians would pick a person of the lower class like Jesus. So were the apostles. For 17 centuries the popes have been aristocrats. Is there a lesson in here somewhere?
The very concept of church bureaucracy, unavoidable as it is with a large institution – here, a hierarchy of the spirit, so to speak, that’s ordered according to how far up the institutional ladder one has climbed – has always struck me as counterintuitive. I think that all of us have known priests who, signed, sealed and certified though they may be, keep their light so well hidden under their bushel that it’s not at all apparent that there really is much there by way of light. Conversely, we’ve known lay people whose lights shine bright indeed.
Paul – Original Faith
Oaul Maurice Martin’s post made me think of a piece on Archangel, Msgr. harry Byrne’s blog, on prepartions for BXVI’s coming.
Little or no room for the laity at the inn. Only hierarchs and their best men will surround him it seems.
I told a friend that, deep down, BXVI sees the laity as twinkies and the parish priest as supertwinkies – except those with the right (chancery/Rome) connections.
If many are adrift and large numbers moving on, the symbolism only heightens the disconnect – though many wil love the pomp and occasion.
Please note that that doesn’t mean BXVI man ynot hav eimportant things to say or that the press may screw it up (thank God we have david and his new blog).
But the message to Catholics I fear will be the same fall in line words.
Bob –
The closet Voice fo the Faithful will get to the Pope is a full-page ad in the New York Times. Wanna bet it will be kept out of Benedict’s hands? I sometimes wonder whether he actually knows the figures for the abuse scandal — how many priest, how many children. He strikes me as a very caring man, yet he keeps Cardinal Law in a position of great responsibility and honor. There’s a huge disconnect here, I think.
He seems to me to be able to dissociate his opinions as pope from his own opinions as non-pope. For instance, when the La Sapienza brouhaha occurred, he was all for academic freedom, and note that his letter to the faculty there was signed not by *Pope* Benedict, but by the Bishop of Rome. But when Fr. Sobrino disagreed with his theology, has pope he called him down. What I’m wondering is whether or not collegiality is the dominant principle for him, whether as pope he defends strongly what the bishops defend strongly, but as mere bishop of Rome or less (as mere theologian) he perhaps expresses his own views of issues. It’s kind of schizophrenic, but he’s a very contradictory person, I think.
No, not the “closet VOTH” — the closeSt the Voice of the Faithfu. The last thing VOTF wants to be is in the closet.
The Catholic teachers of New York Archdiocese are going on strike. Will they do this when Benedict is in town?
http://religion.lohudblogs.com/2008/04/02/will-catholic-teachers-strike-when-benedicts-in-town/
Bill,
According to the article you cite, the Lay Faculty Association (LFA) yesterday voted 132-20 to authorize a strike, but the article also says the LFA represents 430 teachers in 10 schools. As a former union member, I have to ask what kind of union allows a strike to be authorized by a vote of only about a third of the people represented?
Speaking of strikes, and the Commonweal contributors and commenters on strike? It’s very slow here!
David, Presumably, there is some kind of quorum required for calling a strike, but doesn’t the fairness of the action also depend on whether those that didn’t vote were given a full and fair opportunity to vote and declined to respond?
Barbara,
It’s not so much fairness as effectiveness I would be concerned about. When I was in a union, there were times when less than half of the people represented were union members. It was an “open shop” and the union was required to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, whether they joined the union (and paid dues) or not. So if all the union members had voted overwhelmingly to strike, there still would have been less than 50 percent of workers willing to go out.
Looking at the vote as a former union member, my first thought is what message it sends to management to have only a third of the bargaining unit vote for a strike. For most unions, this would not be a credible threat to management. I am wondering it what’s important here is for them to do something during the pope’s visit for publicity rather than have a “real” strike where the goal is to have a very large percentage of the workers stay out for as long as it takes to get concessions.
David,
I understand your point but it might be minor to the reality that we build unnecessary 100 million dollar cathedrals, find it necessary to fund embassies in every country and will not pay teachers a decent wage.
As far as media coverage of the Papal visit I look forward to a rant by William Donahue ,Catholic League shill about some inappropriate costumed papal-dressed clown in front of St Pats.
I didn’t know John XXIII was an aristocrat, or Benedict XVI, or John Paul II, or John Paul I, or Paul Vi, or Pius XI, or Benedict XV, or Pius X, or Leo XIII, or Pius IX, or Gregory XVI, or Leo XII, Pius VIII, or Pius VII, but I’ll stop there.
Ah, Joseph, always letting facts get in the way of a good rant.
First, David Gibson’s blog already has some comentary from Mr. Donahue – the blog is clearly woth looking at.
If the teachers strike during BXVI’s visit, it may get press but could easily be counterproductive.
In talking about the effect of BXVI’s visit on the Catholic community, I hardly wanted to limit the impact to say VOTF.
They will have an ad in the NYT and already there is criticism within the group about its makeup and contents of the ad. Some folk I know see its approach (to get more folk on board) as more “preaching to the choir.”
My perception was geared to both the Pew Forum study about the many who’ve walked awy with the concomitant “browning” of American Catholicism and the many who’ve stayed but are clearly disaffected whether actively engaged in groups (like VOTF, which claim to to non-dissident and probably rightly so, and others like cTA, which suport groups like Woman Priests that clearly fall outside the party line) or many more just soldiering on.
One problem is (as in our political debate) the need to “change,” – a word that seems as malevolent to Church leadership as “taxes” are to Grover Norquist and his Republican buddies.
I posit folk are looking for change not retrenchment from BXVI and how he acts not just teaches and talks are critical to that perception.
(A last footnote: the “fringe” (if by numbers) groups like VOTF, SNAP and CTA offer a number of productive ideas to our Church: dealing with the abuse crisis by the first two and the issue of racism in the church by CTA at their last conference – this year they’ ll emphasize environmentalism.)
BXVI has xclearaly reached out to the Catholic “right;” I fear he’s mising many on (our?) Catholic left.
I would say that Augustine was fully an aristocrat. The prototype? If one is counting, perhaps I stretched the word a bit with reference to some popes. Angelo Roncalle certainly did not act like an aristocrat. But the point is made. http://books.google.com/books?id=tsE9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA284&lpg=PA284&dq=popes+who+were+aristocrats&source=web&ots=M8dPV3ks0u&sig=wdRzaaZgrCwditxDR_NbMdVOucw&hl=en
Of course, some still act as if we were still in the Middle Ages. But who is counting?
The last time I looked, Augustine wasn’t a pope.
I take it that the Pope’s entire message–everything he has said so far in his papacy, everything he will say on this trip–could be summed up in the words “Sursum Corda.”
Is this something that people are ready to hear? If so, I believe he can express it, but I agree with John Allen that he will be speaking in paragraphs, not soundbites.
If people are not ready to hear this particular message, can any preacher persuade anyone to open their hearts and minds, to “be opened” as Scripture says, or to “change your mind?”
I think, though, that there are many people who want to live a new and more elevated life. I think that he will be pitching his words to those who are willing to hear him.
You have to appreciate nuances, Joe. Everyone knows that Augustine is the Pontifex Maximus of the Western Church. Thanks for the Greeks for stopping this complete coronation. And Augustine clearly stated that we were free to disagree with him. Would that more of us took that advice.
BXVI comes as a teacher for sure. As the day appraoches, I keep thinking about the lines from the old Rogers and Hammerstein musical, The King and I, and Gertrude Lawrence singing:
“It’s a very ancient saying but a true and honest thought,
That when you become a teacher, by your pupils you’ll be taught.”
NCR has a whole page of demonstrations that BXVI can look forward to – a hardly taxative list at this point.
I don’t think BXVI will be moved by any of that.I do think it’s sad that we have to have demonstrations as the bottom up communication mode.
(an aisde” I see the United church is seeking a nationwide “serious” discussion on race beginning Trinity Sunday. An inter ecclesial discusion on a vital topic should be interesting and worth a thread perhaps, if not now, down the road. I see their leadership is strongly defending Rev. Wright as prophetic and dismissing the continued use of sound bytes of his.)
I think John Allen is right that BXVI is about “affirmative orthodoxy.’
In his weekly post, there’s a link to the PEW discusion on BXVI’s trip with John and George Weigel.
Buried (I think) in Weigel’s stements is the note that BXVI has “given up” on reform of the Curia.
If Allen and Weigel are right that Benedict sees Americaas a hope against the European lapse into seclarist “dictatorship of relativism” his continued ties to the curial/Roman/Eurcentric view will make the job harder in the face of the ongoing global shift.
If Benedict’s view is very long range (100-200 years) as Allen posits, the continuing pace of change, particularly informational, will harden that effort as well.
Finally, Beenedict will surely not be god’s rottweiller – he wants and really tries to be positive.
Given the aforementioned top down nature of the way he and those close by operate, the issue of not what he presents, but how effective it will be remains to be seen.
The new Pew reserach show more folks view him personally as positive, but it’s hardly clear what impact that will have on their behavior.
(One smll last note: could Joe and Bill duke it out with say horse pistol;s at 20 paces?) Basta.
The statement that the Aurelius Augustinus (his full name) is the Pontifex Maximus of the Western Church reaches for and attains a new level of the ridiculous. As for nuance, what is one to say? Anyone who claims that AA was an aristocrat should define her/his terms. I would have thought he was an African provincial of no great social distinction but remarkable intelligence.
One might make a case that the bishops of Rome have often imitated the secular rulers of European dominions far too much and not entirely with happy results. And some odd conclusions have been drawn by them from the Donation of Constantine, as it is called. Did the Pope really have the right to divide South America between the Spanish and the Portuguese? But this is rather differenc from calling the holders of that see aristocrats as a generality.