Coincidence or Strategy?
Has the Pope adopted a distinctive new rhetorical style that attempts to combine dialogue with confrontation? If so, is it likely to be successful? I found myself asking these questions after I read this news report of a sermon at a general audience. The quote from Jude Thaddeus, which criticizes “those who use the grace of God as a pretext to excuse their debauchery and to lead their brothers astray with unacceptable teachings,” is jarringly harsh. Yet it is in the context of a very reasonable-sounding speech calling for dialogue and reason. This seems to me to be the general pattern of the Regensburg speech, where the harsh quote from Manuel II Paleologus was jarringly inconsistent with the rhetoric of the rest of his speech.
Now two events can make a pattern for purposes of waiver under the Uniform Commercial Code. They cannot make a pattern of engagement for a pope. Still, it’s worth asking:
1. Why repeatedly combine quotes that undermine the likelihood of dialogue with a call for dialogue. (If you don’t think that the quote undermines the likelihood of dialogue dialogue, well switch things around: Suppose a prominent liberal Protestant leader were to call for dialogue with Catholicism in a publc speech to his followers, and included a quote from an earlier Reformation figure that harshly criticzed “those who use the purity of reason as a pretext to excuse their sexual repression and to lead their brothers away with superstitions” (my attempt to flip the Jude quote around while preserving the rhetoric). No matter what else they said in the speech, I doubt very much that too many Catholics would feel like talking–or would feel like the other party really wanted to talk.
2. The pope is a brilliant man–I doubt very much the rhetorical implications of both speeches escaped him. So, then, what’s he trying to do?
Really interesting question, Cathy.
A respondent to the Regensberg speech post suggested that this was the Pope’s way of laying groundrules for any dialogue. I think this meant that he was signalling those of other faiths and denominations that he’ll talk, but that they should expect him to vigorously uphold Catholic teaching.
I found that explanation persuasive.
But, like you, I wonder whether it will really bring anyone to the table. Or whether the Pope is all that interested in ecumenical dialogue.
My sense is that this Pope is more focused on Catholics, particularly European Catholics who have fallen away or become indifferent, than on ecumenical dialogue.
QUOTE: The quote from Jude Thaddeus, which criticizes “those who use the grace of God as a pretext to excuse their debauchery and to lead their brothers astray with unacceptable teachings,” is jarringly harsh.
Well, then, let’s hope that the Pope’s audience never opens a copy of the New Testament and turns to Romans 6 or I Timothy . . . .
What does it mean for a church–or a civilization–when a clear statement of its basic principles is deemed harsh or intolerant? With all due respect to Prof. Kaveny–her worries are not prima facie invalid–our culture’s heightened sensitivity to this is a sign of moral cowardice and intellectual laziness.
(1) I cannot find the quotation attributed to the Epistula Iudae anywhere in the text. Has anyone else been able to find it? I have read through the letter now both in English and Latin. The full text is “those who use the grace of God as a pretext to excuse their debauchery and to lead their brothers astray with unacceptable teachings, introducing division within the Church”. The Latin at verse 4 is the only resemblance at all I can find: “Dei nostri gratiam transferentes in luxuriam”.
(2) I do not find any change of tone in the speech. Benedict has said before that serious dialogue is about searching for the truth. I think he is saying here that we ought to make it clear what we hold even though it may offend or put off those we are talking with. In this he resembles Socrates on certain occasions.
The problem, MJJ, and Stuart, is that the culture is engaged in an argument about what precisely constitutes debauchery — and sexual repression for that matter. It’s not as if there are no arguments on the other side. There are lots of arguments on all sides. The pope’s rhetoric doesn’t make an argument — it announces a conclusion. For those who disagree with the pope about what constitutes debauchery –this type of rhetoric isn’t going to help start a rational conversation.
My point isn’t that the pope can’t decide to engage in prophetic denunciation. What I find striking is the use (or apparent use, or at least invocation) of prophetic denunciation in precisely the same document that’s calling for dialogue, albeit dialgue from a particular position. And the fact that this has happened more than once.
The text of the address to the Wednesday General audience does contain the words I found puzzling but they are Benedict’s own words, offered by him as a summary/paraphrase of a theme of the Letter of Jude. Zenit gives a full text of Benedict’s remarks in English translation. The AsiaNews makes it appear that Benedict is using words straight from the N.T. I found these words hard to interpret as coming from the N.T. I also find them hard to interpret as uttered by Benedict. Everyone says that Benedict is brilliant. That is as may be, but he can be opaque where one would wish he had been lucid. Too long in Rome?
Here is a link to the Zenit version of the Pope’s speech. Click on the item on Simon and Jude Thadeus:
http://www.zenit.org/english/
Has anyone anywhere else actually registered a complaint about this speech? Or is the point to anticipate all hypothetical objections?
In my view the Pope is often held to an impossiby high standard. He is said to be “brilliant” and therefore if anyone is offended it must be intentional on the Pope’s part.
After quoting from Jude, the Pope said: “Today, perhaps, we are no longer accustomed to using such polemical language which, though adopting beautiful poetic imagery, does not fail to state with great clarity both what is distinctive of Christianity and what is incompatible with it. The path of tolerance and dialogue, taken by Vatican Council II, must certainly be continued with firmness and constancy. This must not, however, make us forget the duty to reconsider and highlight the irrefutable guidelines of our Christian identity . . . which requires strength, clarity, and courage of conviction.”
The Pope’s reference had nothing to do with sex or debauchery, but with moral clarity and Christian identity. And Benedict XVI did not say anything here that he has not said before: that dialogue cannot take place unless the positions and princples of both parties are clear. He said this as Cardinal Ratzinger with respect to the Anglican and Lutheran dialogues and he has been saying it since he became Pope. And he doesn’t care if people dialogue with him if they can’t accept these conditions.
It strikes me that one can be prophetic, clearly state pronciple or express one’s position without being harsh – and being harsh is usually counterproductive.
I think the issue here is the starting point of dialogue. The atrium analogy is very helpful experientially in bringing folks together. One must realize that their view is from one side of the atrium overlooking a courtyard is not the same view another person has. One may hav ea bigger window to look out and more light to see by, but to complete the picture mst appreciate the other’s view.
Real dialogue (if it’s to get anywhere) starts that way. I don’t see BXVI as moving in that direction but rather as being the teacher who instructs
Then you misunderstand the Pope (and Catholic theology) completely. According to Catholic theology (at least orthodox Catholic theology), the Truth, the Way, and the Life are Jesus Christ. There is no “view from one side of the atrium” that another side can complete or supplant. All the Pope wants from dialogue is an honest appreciation of the rights of the Catholic Church (e.g., reciprocity from Muslims) and some cooperation where it is possible. This is “real dialogue” if one believes in Revelation and takes it seriously. The Pope already knows his other potential “dialogue partners” don’t have his “view,” but appreciating their side of things won’t complete the picture. The Catholic picture is already complete.
Some of the comments from the full version of the speech, even in the less harsh translation on Zenit do evoke the language of prophetic denunciation . The key passage is this:
“Central concern of this writing is to put Christians on guard from all those who give as pretext the grace of God to excuse their own licentiousness and to lead astray other brothers with unacceptable teachings, introducing divisions within the Church “under the influence of their dreams” (verse 8). Jude compares them in fact to the fallen angels, and with strong words says “they followed the path of Cain” (verse 11).
Moreover, he labels them without hesitation “as clouds without rain blown away by the wind or trees at the end of the season without fruits, twice dead, uprooted; as wild waves of the sea, which foam their filth; like errant stars, to which is reserved the fog of darkness in eternity” (verses 12-13).
Today we are no longer in the habit of using such controversial language, which nevertheless tells us something important: That in all the existing temptations, with all the currents of modern life, we must preserve the identity of our faith. Of course the path of indulgence and dialogue, which the Second Vatican Council has felicitously undertaken, will surely be continued with firm constancy. But this path of dialogue, so necessary, must not make us forget the duty to rethink and to witness always with as much force the guiding lines of our Christian identity that cannot be given up.
It is important to keep very present that this, our identity is not to be toyed with on a simply cultural plane or on a superficial level, but requires strength, clarity and courage given the contradictions of the world in which we live.”
Now, that’s strong stuff. Imagine being told your opinions make you like an errant star, reserved to “the fog of darkness in eternity!” Benedict grants the necessity of following the path of dialogue recommended by Vatican II, but at the same time seems to be drawing a line in the sand, suggesting that there are unnamed people leading the faithful astray for whom prophetic denunciation is a more appropriate response. And there is a strong hint that, whoever they may be, if they keep to their course, that’s just what they will get.
But by mentioning that we don’t use such controversial language nowadays, Bendedict can use it without (this time) taking responsibility for it. And by failing to identify the divisive leaders within the Church, he is targeting , he gets the utmost mileage out of his threats without giving any specific source the right to complain. Neat trick. Maybe he has learned a few things since Regensburg.
You’re assuming he made a mistake at Regensburg. I think he purposely used the Manuel II text. In any event, Benedict XVI doesn’t need to identify these particular people. We all know who they are: the dissidents who have been corrupting the Church for the last forty years with unacceptable teachings.
Two passages I find difficult:
(1) “those who use the grace of God as a pretext to excuse their debauchery ”
I have tried to imagine how someone might do this and am at a loss. I can see how someone might use the grace of God to hide his debauchery. Any one care to explain?
(2)”lead their brothers astray with unacceptable teachings, introducing division within the Church”
Does “unacceptable” serve as euphemism for false? Or, taking the words as they stand, are we to suppose that Benedict is referring to propositions that he is not prepared to deal with definitively by formally condemning them as false, but also does not want see put forth because they are controversial?
Earlier this week the Vatican released the “definitive version” of the Pope’s Regensberg lecture. This version contains a footnote that follows immediately after the Manuel II quote that caused such furor in the Islamic world. The footnote reads:
“In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.”
Perhaps after-the-fact explanatory footnotes will become a feature of the Pope’s “distinctive new rhetorical style.”
Joseph Gannon – With respect to your paragraph 1, interpretation might be easier with starting with a different translation. I offer the NIB comment” “Apparently they interpret the grace of God to mean that they are free from the bonds of sexual morality. This ‘perverts God’s grace; it moves beyond accepeted traditions.’”
James Keegan:
Thanks for the suggestion but the words I find puzzling are a literal translation–I have checked the Italian–of the Pope’s own words. Incidentally where the translation has him speaking of “irrefutable” lines of our Christian identity the Italian text (from Zenit) has “irrinunciabili”, i.e., unrenounceable, which is a quite different concept, and certainly affects the tone.
It seems we have once again entered the “Twilight Zone.” To take a homily which so obviously talks about the importance of keeping a strong hold on our Christian identity and turning it into a question of whether or not Benedict wants to be a true dialogue partner on anything other than his own harsh terms seem ludicrous. He quotes an admitedly flowery NT verse, says that it is not the way we speak today (see Vatican II words) and then ends the homily with “to give both strong and sereen witness.” It seems that some made up their mind before they read the last sentence. What well-respected literary critic would ever ignore final summarizing words?
Janice said: In any event, Benedict XVI doesn’t need to identify these particular people. We all know who they are: the dissidents who have been corrupting the Church for the last forty years with unacceptable teachings.
Jean says: I thnk that sums it up, at least partially.
My read is that he means to put us on our guard against elements that seek divisions in the Church.
That would include dissidents like the women who had themselves ordained and the Lefebrites. But I wonder if it would also include those orthodox believers who are calling for a “smaller and more faithful church.”
Maybe not. I don’t pretend to know whether the Holy Father has specific individuals or groups in mind when he makes these statements.
But I do infer that he takes a somewhat more tolerant approach to those of us asking questions–which, after all is not a sin, nor ought to be equated with dissidence–than some of the defenders of the faith I have encountered on this blog.
He says, “Of course the path of indulgence and dialogue, which the Second Vatican Council has felicitously undertaken, will surely be continued with firm constancy. But this path of dialogue, so necessary, must not make us forget the duty to rethink and to witness always with as much force the guiding lines of our Christian identity that cannot be given up. ”
I’m working from the Zenit translation (thanks, Susan), and my Italian is pretty basic, so maybe my read is not as nuanced as it should be.
Perhaps I am naive but Cathy can you explain your statement: “The problem, ….. is that the culture is engaged in an argument about what precisely constitutes debauchery — and sexual repression for that matter.”
On the other hand this statement of Benedict seems to want to highlight sex as the major culprit which thankfully all these celibates happily avoid. I am bewildered how this ties into ecumenism. Although I can see how some just believe anything that comes out of the pope’s mouth.
I think the best solution is to take the Augustine solution and “compelle intrare.”
Then we will happily have all the terrorists inside the church where they can show the bishops how they can more efficiently move pedophiles around and steal money from within.
I don’t see this or our last pope being interested in genuine ecumenical dialogue (as in “If it ain’t been done right, it ain’t been done”). I remember JPII asking how he couild make the papacy of greater service to efforts at Christian unity. I remember chuckling at his Request for Proposals and thinking “in a way acceptable to the pope.”
Benedict has referred to non-Catholic denominations as ecclesial communities but not as churches, if I recall. I wonder how this remark impressed members of the Anglican Communion, the Presbyterian Church USA, etc. Did I, a Catholic and product of a mixed marriage, detect a bit of Vatican pomposity or arrogance here?
Then we have the Regensburg speech dealing with faith and reason and including a line that would understandably give offense to any “reasonable” Muslim.
We have a pope supposedly more interested in restoring Catholic “identity” than in dialoguing with “others” different from us. There’s talk of his granting a universal indult for saying the Tridentine mass. In the CDF, he treated troublemaker theologians in a most unchristian, fearful way.
He impresses me as a pope more interested in “traditional Catholic trappings” than in true dialogue with Christians or non-Christians in a manner truly respectful of both sides. Personally, if I were “the other,” I’d be tempted to say, “Thanks but no thanks.” Many Catholics, of course, have as much said the same. Perhaps Benedict will, indeed, get his “smaller but purer” Church.
Jean,
You said:
“That would include dissidents like the women who had themselves ordained and the Lefebrites. But I wonder if it would also include those orthodox believers who are calling for a “smaller and more faithful church.”
Maybe not. I don’t pretend to know whether the Holy Father has specific individuals or groups in mind when he makes these statements.
But I do infer that he takes a somewhat more tolerant approach to those of us asking questions–which, after all is not a sin, nor ought to be equated with dissidence–than some of the defenders of the faith I have encountered on this blog.”
The Holy Father himself has asked for a smaller, more pure Church. And while he encourages questions, he is including, I believe, the dissidents who always couch their tired rants in the form of questions, e.g., is the Magisterium still relevant, why isn’t every single philosophy useful for Christianity, why can’t homosexuality be honored as much as heterosexuality, etc. That is also dissidence, but unlike the SSPX, these dissidents don’t have the principles to state their dissent and leave.
Janice: The Holy Father himself has asked for a smaller, more pure Church.
Jean: Really? The Pope really wants a smaller church? The Pope only wants those in the Church who who obey, understand and agree with every jot and tittle in the CCC? No more people struggling with the hard parts of the faith because it’s all perfectly clear to them? No need for Confession anymore b/c everybody’s pure?
Well! I’d sure like to read that statement, so maybe you could offer a source or link to it.
Because if the Roman Catholic Church is only for saints now, I’ve certainly overstayed my welcome.
Thanks for the update!
Joseph Komonchak’s essay, “The Church in Crisis / Pope Benedict’s Theological Vision,” ought to be kept in mind when one reads the Pope’s statements. The essay was published in the June 3, 2005, issue of Commonweal.
It appears that David Gibson, in his new book “The Rule of Benedict / Pope Benedict XVI and His Battle With the Modern World,” endorses Komonchek’s judgment.
I have ordered but not read Gibson’s book. My judgment about the book is based on Paul Wilkes’ review in the October 9, 2006, issue of America.
When I read the Benedict’s statements, I suspect an assumed, but unexpressed premise, that when the magisterium speaks it binds the conscience of Catholics in whatever role they play in modern life.
Is my discomfort justified?
Harold T. Hartinger
Jean,
Of course, the Roman Catholic Church isn’t only for saints. But Pope Benedict wants a church of truly committed Catholics, not those who constantly question every doctrine and every moral teaching. That, by the way, isn’t searching or seeking. It’s being a dissident. Sentire cum ecclesia is the guidepost for theologians as well as those in the Church who have “hard” questions. Too often, in the past 40 years, every hard question has been answered with: “it’s up to your own, uninformed conscience.” To which Pope Benedict would reply: “Your own conscience is not enough; your conscience has to be informed by Church teaching in order to make a truly informed decision.” And yes, the CCC is there because it states the presuppositions of the Catholic faith. Otherwise, why issue it? Of course, there are various levels of “doctrine” in the CCC, but one must work within its guidelines. Here is the definition of the Catechism: “The new Catechism contains the essential and fundamental content of the Catholic faith in a complete and summary way. It presents what Catholics throughout the world believe in common. It presents these truths in a way that facilitates their understanding.”
The dissident wing of the American Catholic Church has used the question format in order to cast doubt on every Church teaching, as if everything were up for grabs and nothing was for certain (see the Pope’s pre-conclave homily). Dissident Catholics in the United States have become no different from the rest of secularized America.
As for the reference you requested, here’s a quotation:
“We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge of a new era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different from those we have faced in the past, when Christianity will resemble the mustard seed [Matthew 13:31-32], that is, will continue only in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world (Salt of the Earth, 1995).”
You might ponder what Benedict XVI said about his own role: “[the pope] must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.” If the Pope himself bows in obedience to the Word of God, why shouldn’t the Catholic faithful do the same? You might also consult Cardinal Ratzinger’s Worthiness to Receive Communion document, which lays out the parameters for faithful reception of communion.
The article by Komonchak on Benedict XVI in Commonweal was a hit piece. Rather than giving Benedict XVI his due, Komonchak goes out of his way to find fault with nearly every aspect of Benedict’s theology and scholarship. He “avoided” Aquinas; he established himself as a ressourcement theologian, showing “little interest” in another stream: “which, inspired by Aquinas, proposed and attempted a positive engagement with modern intellectual and cultural movements.” Komonchak characterizes Pope Benedict’s theological vision as “Bonaventuran” and then goes on to characterize Bonaventura’s late work as anti-intellectual, anti-philosophical, and anti-Aristotelian (but Komonchak does not make mention of the fact that Joseph Ratzinger himself noted these things in his work on Bonaventura). Komonchak then notes that: “There are remarkable parallels between Bonaventure’s final view, as described by Ratzinger, and the basic attitude the new pope has himself adopted in the face of the great changes in the post-Vatican II church,” leading one to conclude that Pope Benedict, if the parallel is to hold, must be anti-intellectual, anti-philosophical, and anti-Aristotelian.
Komonchak also failed to recognize (or chose not to) the presence of several Augustinian allusions in the Installation homily of Pope Benedict that he discusses. He concludes by writing: “Beautiful as is the description of what the gospel has to offer, is it the case that apart from Christ the world is only a desert, or “salt waters of suffering and death,” “darkness without light”?” I can only find this statement surprising in someone who calls himself Catholic and does not acknowledge 1) the uniqueness of Christ; and 2) the presence of the Augustinian tradition behind this statement.
Komonchak concludes by criticizing Cardinal Ratzinger’s role at the CDF, where, he says: “Ratzinger wanted the church again to be able to pose a real alternative . . . Such a position is easier, of course, if one does not believe that genuine dialogue with the world is possible, if one believes that dialogue threatens the distinctive speech-act of the church, the proclamation of the gospel in its distinctiveness, the call to the decision of faith.”
Obviously, two very different worldviews are in evidence here. But I don’t think Komonchak did himself any favors by so one-sidedly presenting Pope Benedict’s credentials. It is clear that the aggiornamento strain at Vatican II did not contribute much of value; what they did offer was doctrinal confusion, identification with the world, rather than engagement with it, a much-lessened concept of sin, and the constant harping of dissidents who thought everything was up for challenge.
Janice quotes Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict: “We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge of a new era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different from those we have faced in the past, when Christianity will resemble the mustard seed [Matthew 13:31-32], that is, will continue only in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world (Salt of the Earth, 1995).”
Jean says: Thank you, Janice.
I don’t construe this is a CALL for a smaller, more faithful or pure church. I see it as a willingness to ACCEPT a smaller church than trying to accomodate “popular” notions of vice and virture.
To me, this is an important distinction. It is the difference between “get out” and “try to understand.”
I’m sure that many of us Catholics-in-progress are a pain in the neck to those who find obedience an easier yoke to bear. I’m sure that it is easy to construe our questioning and critiquing as “dissidence.”
I find the Pope Benedict’s responses to us pains in the neck somewhat more pastoral than those of his avid supporters. I would guess that’s why he’s the Pope and some others are not.
Janice,
You speak of people who question every teaching. I do not know who you are talking about. I do hear of some people who question teachings that have never been inffallibly defined. There are also sensible people who are aware that the Bishop of Rome has not had in the past and and should not have now any claim to be an oracular voice at whose every utterance the faithful may expect to learn someting marvelous. I suspect you know very little of church history.
There was a time when it was considered a grave sin, directly against the law of nature and forbidden by Christ himself, to charge any interest on a loan whatsoever. This is not the case now. The Bishops of Rome were not the first ones to wake up and smell the coffee, but at length they did. In the meantime those who respectfully dissented from official teaching were right. There is a lesson there.
Janice:
You don’t understand the history, process or ethic of dialogue. IF BXVI wants real dialogue, he needs to see the Muslim community as a real partner with something to say. Historically, as has been pointed out here, non-Christians and particularly Muslims have been given low rung on the dialogue pole. I suggest you look at Hinze”s Dialogical Practices in the Roman Catholic Church and the chapter on dialogue with non-Christians.
Speaking of history, describing the Cathechism as a kind of final version of the Church’s truths, as has been als pointed out here, seems historically untenable.
Once more, I reject the appropriation of the term ortohdox by some and suggest it be replaced by ‘by the book.”
I’ve seen too many discussions as well where the term dissident is bandied about as if that’s a final word against someone’s view.
I guess I’m reminded that less than 200 years ago, the Church held women to be somewhat lower than children or imbeciles.
While we stil haven’t figured out that issue with some complete clarity (there seems to be some evolution on the topic), I’m glad we’ve got past that.
Robert said: I guess I’m reminded that less than 200 years ago, the Church held women to be somewhat lower than children or imbeciles. While we still haven’t figured out that issue with some complete clarity (there seems to be some evolution on the topic), I’m glad we’ve got past that.
Jean responds: Sorry, couldn’t help laughing out loud at that one. Mental image of a bunch of men studying children and imbeciles to see which ones women resembled more. Men will really never figure out “that issue with complete clarity,” will they?
My real question, though, is when did the Church ever say women were lower than imbeciles and children? It seems to me that the Church has been making saints out of real smart women for centuries, so this doesn’t seem right.
Oy gevalt, Robert.
Perhaps you could take a page from your own book and do some reading. May I recommend Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity, in which Stark demonstrates pretty convincingly that the Church has always been more progressive in its attitude toward women in leadership, education, and basic human rights than the larger society.
What does Benedict want? I think he wants to enter into any form of interchurch or interreligious dialogue with a clear set of principles that are central and are not subject to compromise. This seems reasonable to me. Let us take a look at possible dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox. Benedict has said, if I recall, that union with them would be possible on conditions that would allow them to conduct their affairs in the main as they do now except that they would have to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. What one would one would like to know is what exactly a union envisaged along such lines would entail for the Eastern Orthodox teaching and practice. In other words what in Roman Catholicism does Benedict regard in this context as predetermined and not subject to compromise?
What would he hold as a precondition for dialogue with Islam? Except for mutual respect and forbearance and reciprocity, a kind of “peaceful coexistence” (“peacefull competition”?) I do not know. I wonder what he really thinks?
Jean,
Clearly, Paul the apostle shows women in leadership positions while the monarchical church which boomed in the third century has none. Junia is without doubt a woman apostle, not recognized by Rome.
Nowadays women are prime ministers, presidents, secretary of state, ceos, etc, etc.
Nothing like that appears in the church.
Finally, it is abundantly clear that Janice is stuck at Trent and disavows John XXIII and Vatican II.
” .. what in Roman Catholicism does Benedict regard in this context as predetermined and not subject to compromise?”
How about the filioque?
How about “First among equals?”
Mr. Hartinger, you write, “When I read…Benedict’s statements, I suspect an assumed, but unexpressed premise, that when the magisterium speaks it binds the conscience of Catholics…” You then ask, “Is my discomfort justified?”
Hell yes, your discomfort is justified! Awhile back, COMMONWEAL published an article titled “What Is a Good Conscience?” by Sidney Callahan who addressed comments by then Cardinal Ratzinger to the U.S. bishops at their 1991 workshop in Dallas. I hope someone here can link this article since I am not computer-savvy.
According to Callahan, “Ratzinger maintains…that when a person possesses an erroneous conscience he or she is morally guilty: it’s not just a case of human limitation or ignorance.” (Never mind, I might point out, that the CCC 1801 states, “Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.” Which means, of course, such ignorance and errors CAN BE free of guilt!)
After showing the pitfalls of the future pope’s erudite (or convoluted) line of reasoning here, Callahan states, “[I]n the Ratzinger reading of conscience, papal teaching authority would have to be ultimate and unquestionable. Think about it. First you claim that a person’s unknown, unconscious nature is more important than any ‘superficial’ self-conscious reasoning and awareness; then you assert that [the pope has] been given the key to elucidate the essential truths hidden beneath the surface…
“Perhaps the worst effect of Ratzinger’s views is that they justify silencing dissent and reasoned dialogues. One must defend the Church from erroneous sinners. Papal authority becomes one with the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, so help us, God.”
Jean, you remark that “if the Roman Catholic Church is only for saints now, then I’ve certainly overstayed my welcome.” If I remember, Benedict once mused about a “smaller but purer” Church (sorry, I don’t have a citation). It doesn’t take much to connect the dots: a “smaller but purer” Church, in our pope’s vision, is comprised of Catholics who kowtow to a pope’s unique ability to divine the mind and will of God in every circumstance; it is comprised of Catholics who hang on every word that comes out of the papal mouth.
Janice, you may have very good reason to be concerned — but not by us “dissident” Catholics of AmChurch. You stated earlier that one’s “own conscience is not enough; [it] has to be informed by Church teaching in order to make a truly informed decision.” You either have a poor grasp of Benedict’s mind on the matter, or you are prepared to turn your conscience formation completely over to the pope. Obviously, Benedict’s thinking on conscience formation is clearly at odds with the CCC 1801. If ignorance and error can be “free of guilt,” as the Catechism clearly notes, how can this statement be true if Benedict believes that only the pope can ascertain the truth? (Incidentally, I read Ratzinger’s speech over a year ago, and Sidney Callahan, in my opinion, demonstrated a clear and accurate grasp of its content.)
Unfortunately, there are Catholics who are more than willing to give their “humble assent” to the magisterium of the Church — no ifs, ands, or buts. These “faithful” can be expected to obey — without exception — every road sign erected by the Vatican’s highway department. Never mind if there’s an animal carcass or a fallen tree or a sinkhole ahead. We must not veer from our lane or even think of slowing down or — heaven forbid! — of stopping! “Papa knows best.”
God gave us a brain to use with our experience of life. He expects us to use it. Not to use reason and critical thinking amounts to telling our Creator, “Thanks, but no thanks.” If so-called “orthodox” Catholics want to cede their moral obligation to “chew over” moral matters to the pope as Benedict prefers, so be it. To me, this kind of “humility” is anything but standing on firm ground. Indeed, it is tantamount to sticking one’s nose in the “humus” without a second thought. When this occurs, of course, we know what’s there for all to see!!!
Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Seeing as how religious leaders ruled the Sabbath in Our Lord’s day, we should be prepared to follow Jesus’ example by using common sense (if nothing else) in evaluating the usefulness of pronouncements from on high. If this approach is good enough for Jesus and his disciples, it should be good enough for the rest of us — if not for Benedict.
Oops, regarding my 4th paragraph above, I wrote, “After showing the pitfalls of the future pope’s erudite (or convoluted) line of reasoning…”
I should have said, “After showing the pitfalls of the future pope’s erudite (or dangerous) line of reasoning…”
Sorry.
Joe writes: Jean, you remark that “if the Roman Catholic Church is only for saints now, then I’ve certainly overstayed my welcome.” If I remember, Benedict once mused about a “smaller but purer” Church (sorry, I don’t have a citation). It doesn’t take much to connect the dots: a “smaller but purer” Church, in our pope’s vision, is comprised of Catholics who kowtow to a pope’s unique ability to divine the mind and will of God in every circumstance; it is comprised of Catholics who hang on every word that comes out of the papal mouth.
Jean says: Cardinal Ratzinger had a style that is very different from that of Pope Benedict.
I think it behooves everyone to interpret the Pope’s statements in light of his new position and perhaps to assume he is more guided by the Holy Spirit.
In any case, the “smaller, purer church” is one the Pope is willing to accept rather than make concessions to Church teaching. But, as I responded to Janice, I do not infer that this is where he HOPES the Church will go.
For reasons I cannot fathom, however, those in the orthodox movement/revival–call it what you will–like this quote, use it in the media often, and seem to WANT the Church purged.
Don’t fall for it.
Jean, you are more optimistic than I am.
Some of the content of “Church teaching” and our expected response to it are very real concerns to me. Most official teaching, as we know, is not infallible although many folks have made note of a “creeping infallibilism” in our Church. I see a reactionary veer to the right that I find discomforting, to say the least.
Until I see more moderation from Rome, I am not prepared to assume anything for the better/best out of the Vatican.
May God bless us everyone!
:)
Joe’s postings can be summed up in the words of Ronald Reagan The Great (that’s a joke, folks) …..
“Trust but verify”
Here is a link to the article “What Is a Good Conscience?” by Sidney Callahan which Joe referred to above
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n17_v120/ai_14553469
Sunil Korah
It may indeed by said that Benedict trails clouds of Platonism. Maybe we should all (re) read the Meno, preferably in Greek. Just the text for the “new orthodoxers”. A few years studying Greek would do them no harm.