Mickens on Benedict.
A view from the Tablet‘s Rome correspondent:
“Before he became Pope, Joseph Ratzinger was known as a very staunch Catholic,” said one of New York’s local TV personalities. The reporter said Benedict XVI had shown that “he really is a ‘people person’, and that he is very open to change”.
The “gentle Bavarian visitor” (as one Wall Street Journal commentator called him) charmed the fickle American media and even converted some of his longstanding critics within the Catholic Church during a dozen public events in Washington and New York City. Fr James Martin, acting publisher of the Jesuit magazine America, boldly confessed in the New York Times that he “was one of those (many) liberal Catholics who was disappointed by (Benedict’s) election”. But he said last week’s visit left him “feeling real admiration – and even affection” for the Pope.
Whether or not it was a planned strategy, Benedict disarmed his critics. He coupled his preaching of the hard moral “truths” of conservative Catholicism with the Gospel message of love and hope. Even papal vestments and his softly spoken and distinctively accented English seemed to enhance his religious authority and impress ordinary Americans, most of whom were getting their first long look at the Pope. “Americans love anyone whose first name is ‘the’,” said a former Washington priest who tried to explain the Pope’s unexpected appeal.
But image was only part of the allure. Benedict XVI won points from nearly everyone for expressing “deep shame” over the clerical sex-abuse scandal and, even more dramatically, for meeting several of the victims – a private encounter that the Franciscan Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston helped arrange. The Pope admitted that the sex-abuse problem was “sometimes very badly handled” by the US bishops, though he later said they were now dealing with it “effectively”.
The overall effect of his repeated references to the abuse crisis throughout his time in the United States was a sign for many Catholics that “the Pope gets it”. Before the visit many wondered if he really did. Even leaders of Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), the group that has been most critical of church authorities for the way they have handled this issue, voiced appreciation for the Pope’s words and gestures, while also demanding further action be taken against bishops who reassigned the abusing priests.
You can read the rest right here.
I nevery knew Jim Martin was a liberal!
This is a test to see whether I can get through.
Since we’re plugging other publications, an excerpt from the editorial in America:
“Just as he came to heal, Pope Benedict also came to unify. His homilies and addresses allowed no gloating by one church faction over another. In addressing the bishops, for instance, he balanced pro-life issues with social justice concerns. “Is it consistent,” he asked, “to profess our beliefs in church on Sunday, and then during the week to promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs? Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of the human being from conception to natural death?” Though Pope Benedict’s critique of American culture—of individualism, secularism, materialism and the cult of untrammeled freedom—was clear, his reproof was consistently gentle: questioning rather than condemning, edifying rather than hectoring.”
Hi, Bernard,
If you have a Mac, try emptying your cache. That’s where to cookies live, and they can prevent you from signing on. You have to do it often because they keep piling in.
Good luck.
I never miss Mickens’s Letter from Rome, but you alway have to read all the way through! It is worth the subscription. He has Benedict’s number.
I finally realized what Benedict’s visti to the U.S. put me in mind of. Do read Acts 14:8-18 and see what you think.
That opening paragraph struck me as pretty funny for some reason. (“The Pope a staunch Catholic? Say it ain’t so.”)
We had a papal visit in Ireland in 1979 — it was a total success, a super-saturated three days of beauty, warmth, sublimity — it was followed by a much-touted surge in vocations — and then by the precipitous decline of Irish Catholicism.
Mickens is right: “few people were willing to recall the major role Cardinal Ratzinger played during the post-conciliar period and how it may have contributed to, or healed, the divisions in the Church he spoke about. Neither did anyone publicly cite the tensions in the 1980s between the once-robust US bishops’ conference and the Vatican – including the then Ratzinger-led Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – or that those tensions were resolved by the appointment of bishops more docile to Rome. Whether this was owing to collective amnesia or just a desire for a more serene period in the Church, the long-standing neuralgic issues such liturgical reform, women’s ministry, contraception, human sexuality and lay authority were never seriously discussed during the papal visit. It would be a mistake to think these have been resolved. As one seasoned New York priest said: “It was like having your father-in-law over for a visit. You hide all the mess and then, after he leaves, you bring it all out again.”"
Unfortunately, on the American Church and Benedict’s visit, I think Joseph O’ Leary is on target.
On the god issue, I hope all have noticed by now the Templeton Foundation’s “big question” on “Does Science Make God Obsolete?”
Many essays at their sight where you can chime in.
But, it indicates that the issue is alive and requires us to put forward opur best thoughtful responses.
I’ll leave it to others here as to how well BXVI met that challenge.