An Old Benedict Ready for a New Francis
The historian Anthony Grafton has posted a short appraisal of Pope Benedict XVI’s strength’s and weaknesses on the blog of the New York Review of Books. The judgments are equitable; the tone, remarkably equable. He describes Benedict as a man of qualities — as, among other things, “probably the greatest scholar to rule the church since Innocent III” — but he also argues that Benedict’s best qualities may not be the ones most needed in the wake of a scandal. Grafton ends by hinting that Benedict himself may know this. Among the pope’s many virtues, Grafton suggests, is a lucid awareness of his own limits, and an understanding that the church needs saints more than it needs popes.
It seems unlikely that Benedict is the man to transform the Church, so that it freely and frankly confronts what many priests have done to the children in their charge, and what many of their superiors did to conceal their crimes. Still less does he seem likely to remake the church into an institution that not only worships in an orderly, beautiful and theologically clear way, but also ministers to the world as it is now. But he is a great scholar, with a mind as crisp and deep as Innocent’s. He knows that the church, whatever its resources, needs its saints, and has often found them far outside the Curia. History matters to the Pope, and that gives some reason to hope that he is not looking for another Dominic, since he himself has played that role so well, and that he too will recognize the Francis or the Angela Merici of our time when he or she appears before him.
Fr. Kavanagh at America has a nice piece this week on whether at this point we are going to follow the way of Maciel or Romero, calling on Benendict to both pilgrimage to assissi and to canonize Romero – for, Fr. K. asks, the question for all is not about how orthodox or no twe are or evn laws. sacraments, etc. bu tare we and he following Christ.
The paragraph quoted in this piece sounds like drooling sycophancy.
What can I say, Fr. O’Leary, except that Grafton is not Catholic — and that not every generous word about someone you don’t like can be dismissed out of hand as an expression of servility.
“The judgements are equitable; the tone, remarkably equable.”
Not so much when you consider this part of the “appraisal” -
“That stiffly protective attitude towards the institution helps to explain some of the Pope’s past conduct-such as the masterly inactivity with which he greeted pleas from the Oakland Diocese to unfrock a priest.”
The tone is remarkably disingenerous, the judgements not equitable because they are not based on facts.
Scholar or not it is hardly a compliment to be compared to Innocent III, a warlike, manipulative, crusading, power wielding pope. Innocent needed Francis to show there were some in the church who remembered the gospel. Alas even Francis found it difficult to sustain his renewal as his own friars began corrupting his Order even within his lifetime.
The problem with Ratzinger is that he chose orthodoxy over renewal a long time ago. The good of the “church” superseded the good of the people who really are the church. Benedict, no doubt, has a great mind but his scholarship is compromised in so many ways as he followed the monarchy rather than the gospel in his theology where the magisterium became more important than the Spirit.
I admit that the author’s praise of Benedict as the greatest scholar on the throne of Peter since 1200 CE is a gracious concession within a critical article. Still, remembering how non-Catholics were the most sycophantic writers about John Paul II also, I query any contributions to the rituals of sycophancy. The said throne is not a stranger to real or alleged ‘great minds’ — for instance, Pius II (the great Italian humanist Piccolomini) or Benedict XIV (Lambertini, the Pope of the Enlightenment).
Benedict’s career, as Bill Mazzella hints, is an intellectual tragedy.
Another intellectual pope was Pierre de Tarentaise (Blessed Innocent V), a Dominican, collaborator of Aquinas and Albert the Great, and author of a commentary of the Sentences that had been considered doctrinally unsound but was rehabilitated at Lateran IV.
Innocent V was a close friend of St Bonaventure and preached at his funeral; Benedict XVI wrote a very weak thesis on Bonaventure. Innocent was Pope for only five months in 1276.
John Bessarion admired the scholarship of Sixtus IV (1471-84). Hadrian VI (1522-3) was a noted Louvain professor, becoming rector and chancellor. (JND Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes)
I know he has other things to do but it would be fascinating if Benedict’s were to reflect on a few of his papal predecessors. He’s given several series of homilies/lectures on the Apostles and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Of course the popes are not so edifying a subject but he could always pick and choose.
As I understand it one of the problems Innocent III faced when condemning concubinage on the part of priests was that the local populace often supported the practice (or were afraid to denounce it) and bishops would cover up or look the other way. I’ve also read that Innocent used both carrots and sticks in his reforms directed at the clergy – he enforced celibacy but also inaugurated a minimum wage. As a skeptic about the effects of minimum wage legislation I’m interested in the details and results of that part of his program but have never been successful in learning more.
Better yet, as a service to future scholarship about the papacy, Benedict could publish his own candid memoirs.
The historian John Hale on Pius II (Enea Silvio Piccolomini, 1405-64), the only Pope to produce an autobiography:
“He veils nothing (it seems) of his ambitions and indiscretions, and produces a startling inside picture of the church (including a vivid account of the corrupt practices employed in the conclave of 1458). Thanks to this work he is of all the Renaissance popes the one who can best be known and, perhaps in part for this reason, is not among those who are most admired.”
Again, I freely acknowledge that such scholarship is not the most immediately pressing task. But still, in the best of all possible worlds …..
here an interesting message someone sent me:
Here’s an interesting insight into a ‘side effect’ of the current Vatican abuse crisis.
>
> You do realize that it was John Paul II who attempted to “close ranks”
> and more highly centralize the Church’s government in such a way (as
> many have put it) so as to make the Church governed by one bishop (in
> Rome) with a bunch of “branch managers” around the world in various
> dioceses. In this, he was leading a retrenchment after Vatican II
> called for greater collaboration among the world’s bishops and less
> centralization. This is what prompted my observation that people can’t
> expect the Roman Curia to be a kind of federal government for the
> Church.
>
> NOW, that the spin has moved away from seeing gross incompetence on
> the local level in handling sex abuse cases, which is where the real
> problem lies, and focusing instead on the Vatican and wondering why it
> didn’t, doesn’t and won’t seem to be doing more to get bishops around
> the world to fall in line and follow a common policy we’re going to
> see even more centralization. Now, the world is clamoring for the
> Roman Curia to set up guidelines and policies. Things like
> disciplining and even removing priests will no longer lie with the
> local bishop. Everything will have to be done through Rome. In effect,
> the Curia WILL become a federal government for the whole Church.
> Despite what the Council called for there will be even more
> centralization not less.
>
> And it won’t happen because some pope has imposed it but because the
> rest of the world (within the Church and without) will have demanded it.
>
> There’s progress for you.
Anthony Grafton is expert in many wide-ranging subjects, but it seemed odd that a non-Catholic , even a learned one, should have expressed such strong (and familiar) conservative preferences in Catholic theological and liturgical matters. But there are some prominent conservative Catholics at Princeton and perhaps such ideas are in the air.
So I turned up an article from the Daily Princetonian on the Opus Dei connection on campus. Is it too off the mark to wonder whether Grafton’s exceedingly generous comments on Benedict might be reflecting the views of some of his Catholic colleagues at Princeton?
Here are a couple of snippets from the article:
“The Clover Foundation, a $25 million foundation that sponsors Opus Dei programs, gave $180,000 to the University’s Humanities Council to support its yearlong sequence tracing Western civilization from ancient Greece to the present. “
“At the Humanities Council, chair and history professor Anthony Grafton says the program takes no money that has strings attached. . . . .
“We’re always delighted to receive donations,” he said. “There’s never enough money.”
Regarding Opus Dei’s efforts to support scholarship, Grafton said that “there’s an old connection there. Princeton was always humanistic, but who founded it? The church.”
For the rest:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/opus/opus51.html
Earlier Grafton comments in the New Yorker on Benedict’s thought are examined here:
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2005/08/when-dinosaurs-roamed-halls-of.html
“…this piece sounds like drooling sycophancy.”
Amen.
B16 epitomizes the very “traditional” values, assumptions, underlying beliefs, etc. at the heart of the Church of Rome’s dysfunction. Sexual abuse of children is merely symptomatic.
One cannot reasonably expect the “leader” to clean his own house when doing so would upset his cherished apple cart.
In a very real sense, BENEDICT IS THE PROBLEM.
Let’s get real here!
Ms. Danielson:
did Grafton get his facts wrong in dealing with the Oakland case? I don’t know enough about it to be able to judge one way or another. G. is a splendid historian, but of course that doesn’t necessarily make him a splendid judge of current events. Where did he go wrong?
On another subject, I’ve never met Grafton,but I doubt very much whether he would allow his own scholarship or that within his program to be infected the ideologies of outside donors. (Perhaps I’m being a bit defensive about my alma mater!)
Thanks for the excellent post, Mr. Boudway….always appreciate another viewpoint. Also, think that some of these comments make good points.
In terms of Benedict – here is a link to a review of a republished version of Ratzinger’s book detailing his experience of Vatican II. Some highlights that enhance and broaden this disucssion:
“In the first place, in refusing to endorse the materials prepared by the Roman curia, “the body of bishops” demonstrated that it “was a reality in its own right.” The preparatory schema on revelation, for example, was “utterly a product of the ‘antimodernist’ mentality,” according to Ratzinger. Would the “almost neurotic denial of all that was new” be continued? Or would the church “turn over a new leaf, and move on into a new and positive encounter with its own origins, with its brothers, and with the world of today? Since a clear majority of the fathers opted for the second alternative, we may even speak of the council as a new beginning.” (and what does that say after 30 years of JPII & Ratzinger and there hermuenetics of “whatever”)
Per Ratzinger – “And now, against the curial congregations which serve the Holy See and its unifying functions, the council had caused to be heard the voice of the episcopate — no, the voice of the universal church.” (if only that were true today and in the past 30 years – the abuse crisis only underlines the failure of a small group in the curia to overturn 4,000 bishops)
“…….the notion of collegiality: “Just as Peter belonged to the community of the Twelve, so the pope belongs to the college of bishops, regardless of the special role he fills, not outside but within the college.” Later discussion of the schema on bishops sought concretely to implement the concept of collegiality by decentralizing power to bishops and episcopal conferences, and by proposing appropriate forms of centralization through the creation of “an episcopal council in Rome.”
“…..He puts his finger on what he calls “the actual weakness of the debate on collegiality”: “So much energy was focused on the relation of collegiality to the primacy that the intrinsic problems of the collegial principle itself, its complexity, its limits and its historical variability were no longer seen.”
Where the relations between pope and council are concerned, he believes that the papal interventions during November 1964, however necessary in the interest of mediating between opposing forces in the council, showed that “the papacy had not yet found a form for the formulation of its position,” that is not, and does not appear to be, monarchical. This, he believes, is a practical rather than a theoretical problem in the sense that its resolution will take time: “Patience is necessary.” (Tell that to the victims)
Per this reviewer: For several years now, officials of the Roman curia have been conducting an energetic campaign of polemic and misrepresentation against this history, in an attempt to discredit the story it tells
“…..It is worth noting that, in discussing the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Ratzinger remarks on the question of priestly celibacy: “In view of the shortage of priests in many areas, the church cannot avoid reviewing this question quietly. Evading it is impossible in view of the responsibility to preach the Gospel within the context of our times.”
Per reviewer: Forty years later, the shortage of priests approaches crisis level, and yet Benedict seems to have succeeded in continuing to evade it.
“…..few things come out more strongly from this book than Ratzinger’s wholehearted support for the council’s central project: namely the elaboration and implementation of the doctrine of episcopal collegiality as the framework for, in his words, the “long desired strengthening of episcopal power.”
So, we are left with a question by this historian’s analysis and by Ratzinger’s own words – the question arises, and it is a question of far more than merely academic importance: To what extent does Pope Benedict XVI agree with young Fr. Joseph Ratzinger?
Mr. Gibson may want to weigh in on this review given his biography of Benedict; Mr. Allen seems to be bending over backwards to reinforce the concept that B16 has changed the church’s approach to this crisis (documentation – his 2001/2002 letter which was just amended again two weeks ago); even Judge Ann Burke has stated that in reality Ratzinger may be the best person to confront this crisis.
No sure what the answer is – but, as O’Leary’s friend stated – be careful what you wish for….for 30 years we have seen an over centralization of power in Rome overturning the wishes of Vatican II. Would suggest that Rome does need to clearly and forcefully lay out the principles, regulations, and canon law to address this abuse crisis. Following our tradition of “both-and” – every conference of bishops should be involved in this process and then should be held accountable and responsible to enforce these regulations and processes.
This would be an immense change in the “prevailing culture” – it would move reporting, allegations/hearings; etc. from the 2001 Ratzinger centralized CDW approach to every conference of bishops. (BTW – given Scicluna’s recent comments, how can 10 men in this department handle the tens of thousands of cases that will be coming forward. He stated that over 8 years they reviewed 3,000 cases resulting in 20% being defrocked (is the end result of defrocking even the whole point and goal – so, the church unloads a damaged priest/bishop into society?).
At best, Judge Burke may be correct but B16 will at best only start a process of change and it will fall on his priests the hardest – bishops….let’s wait and see if it moves beyond tokenism; the curia – I seriously doubt it.
I believe Benedict is indeed a great scholar. And I believe John Paul was indeed a great statesman. So what’s a boy to do?
Michael: what’s a boy to do? Pray for a great pastor. The other 2 attributes are interesting but not the principal competency of the office.
Since my question was rhetorical, I’ll answer it. B16 will spend the rest of his life dealing with this crisis. JP2 will not be beatified. And the next pope, unless he has a Jesuit intellect, will succomb to the unimagineable burden of reconciling dogma with the here-and-now.
I don’t think Pope Innocent III should be idealized. He launched the Fourth Crusade, still an obstacle to relations with Orthodox churches because the Crusaders sacked Constantinople. He ordered (but did not live to see) the disastrous Fifth Crusade. an attempt to conquer Egypt, which never could have been held even if the invasion were successful. He launched the Albigensian Crusade, which echoed in the Reformation era. He did recognize that the church needed to be reformed within, and the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council banned various kinds of corruption in straightforward language. But he had an exalted view of his own power – the first to call the pope the Vicar of Christ rather than the Vicar of Peter. The current scandal in the church calls for servant leadership and not Innocent’s politicized, militarized, authoritarian style of leadership.
I thnk I agree with Jimmy Mac and Paul Moses. But I’m not smart enough to know for sure.
The rage now engulfing and convulsing the church is not necessarily going to push things in the liberal direction that most people here would wish. It is not necessarily going to bring back Vatican II. It may vindicate all the criticisms we have been making of the restorationist Vatican since 1978 just as the Iraq catastrophe vindicates criticism of the neocon presidency, but it does not necessarily draw the conclusions we would like.
Still, the rise of Obama, who is a reasonable competent leader, gives some hope that something similar may happen to the church. In the absence of democratic elections, the rage may force the clueless cardinals named by John Paul II (whose bad judgment is now apparent) to retire ungracefully from the scene, letting younger men (sic) take the reins. A Council, with a massive lay participation, would be wonderful — but has the church today got the administrative and theological talent to run one?
Sorry forgot the link to his book and the Jesuit reviewer: http://ncronline.org/node/17871
Oleary is right about Obama, coming in from nowhwere he rallied a huge change. Maybe Church leaders will emerge.. that’s what the Holy Spriit is about. Men like Martin in Ireland, maybe O’Malley from the USA, Schoenburg from Austria, confident men who sense the meltdown and are willing to act. [no Poles]
A meeting of twenty such leaders, clandestine. could effect a change. the other 4000 bishops if they saw hope would follow along because that’s what they are used to doing all their lives.
This comment is in response to no one in particular but to eveyone in general. I humbly request that posters write to my [6th grade] level. Pompous comments are not only unintelligable, but potentially harmful. Obscurity has not served the church well in the past, and it will not do so in the future. Straight up.
This blog sees the participation of a number of academics in the humanities. They feel comfortable quoting Latin without translation and they sometimes have arguments about topics way above my head. They have fun trading arcane historical anecdotes – to each field its own style of entertainment! It’s not designed for the general public, although everyone is welcome to join if they wish to. We are lucky that they let us listen to their sometimes learned discussions.
Claire, ut arceam ignorantiam et malitiam ignavorum, proposui, linguam antiquam utendo, sub velo discretionis tegere cogitationes ignorantibus invitas. Magistra universitatis legionis hederae non debet sibi ascribere inculturam infimae plebis.
Joseph O’Leary
The quality of your Latin is revealing and what it revealing is not flattering.
Claire, you may be sure that what the “good father” has to say is not so much over your head as beneath your notice.
Joseph Gannon, quaeso ut errores meas clementer corrigeas.
Forsitan Joseph Gannon non bene interpretavit dicta mea?
oops, errores meos! Sed honorabilius est errare latine quam anglice.