The dog-bites-man pope.
Check out David Gibson’s op-ed in Monday’s New York Times, “His Own Pope Yet?”:
Above all, in his pronouncements and writings, he carefully accentuated the positive. His first encyclical was titled “God Is Love,” and charity has become the recurring byword of his apparently irenic pontificate. “Christianity, Catholicism, isn’t a collection of prohibitions: it’s a positive option,” as Benedict said last year.
By and large, the pontiff’s approach has worked. Liberal Catholics were so relieved that Benedict was not issuing daily bulls of excommunication that they took a kind word as a hopeful omen. Indeed, the loudest complaints about Benedict’s record have come from his erstwhile allies on the right who are miffed that he has not cracked down hard and fast on those they consider dissenters.
But the Catholic right ought to have more patience, just as the Catholic left — and everyone else — might want to pay closer attention. The reality is that during these two years, even as he has preached the boundless grace of Christian charity, Benedict has also made it clear that divine love does not allow for compromise on matters of truth as the pope sees it, and that he will not brook anything that smacks of change in church teachings or traditions. Nor is he a caretaker pope who is willing to stand pat.
If you can get behind the TimesSelect firewall, read the rest right here. And when you’re done with the pope, you can jump over to Slate to read James Martin, SJ’s “Saintly Bad Behavior.” (No, the two articles aren’t related.) And when you’ve finished with that, you can hop back to the Times site and read Michael Powell’s piece on Cardinal Egan, which includes a rare interview with the archbishop of New York.
“When I came here, I told everyone what I would do, and quite frankly, I did it,” Cardinal Egan said. “I had to deal with the sex scandal, and I did. I had to realign, and I did. I wanted peace in my diocese, and it’s peaceful.”
His smile is broad. “It’s all been a colossal success,” he said.
Honest question here – Gibson says – “the loudest complaints about Benedict’s record have come from his erstwhile allies on the right who are miffed that he has not cracked down hard and fast on those they consider dissenters.”
Ok – who are they? Where have these loud complaints been made? Which specific dissenters are they complaining about?
I guess I’m part of the unhappy folk about JPII “the great,” primarily because(as opposed to Slate) his criteria for appointing bishops seems to haveb een the same absolute loyalty that our current White House practices in its certainty that it has it all right.
So we have the “collossal success” at New York.
At least Benedict seems to want more pastoral bishops -we’ll see.
But he has his own hangups as well, including an overestimated view of Europe’s import.
Beyond that, BXVI says he wants folks to see our faith as something joyous and positive, not a bunch of prohibitions – how consistent will his actions be about that?
One statement by David Gibson puzzled me.
“Benedict has reinforced the primacy of the Pope–an issue his predecessor had opened for debate.”
Did Saint Subitus really call for such a debate?
As for Cardinal Egan, if he were a friend of mine, I would advise him not to talk to the press.
Sean, I’m guessing that folks on the right dissatisfied with B16 are reactionary pew spies who thought he’d bring his “dog eat man” practices from the CDF to the papacy, as well as SSPXers and other “outside” reactionary Catholics who will not accept the legitimacy of Vatican II. (Please don’t ask me for specific identities, for I could care less who they are. Besides, Rome would never even think of revealing the identities of its pew spies :)
Joseph, when the late pontiff asked our non-Catholic brethren to offer suggestions about making the papacy more “user friendly,” so to speak, I never placed much stock in his invitation. While these folk were not subject ecclesiastically to JPII, it can hardly be said they were unaware of his behaviors (appointment of reactionary hierarchs, uncharitable treatment of theologians, etc.) toward his fellow Catholics. I do, in fact, believe there was, and is, a consensus that JPII basically stopped the momentum of Vatican II’s influence in the church. If I were a Protestant or Orthodox Christian, I suspect I would have declined JPII’s invitation, saying “Thanks, but no thanks.”
Perhaps this is just a minor blip on the radar screen of BXVI’s papacy, or perhaps it is a signal of further shifts to the right to come, but Sandro Magister has an article today at his website about the Holy See’s lifting of a ban on commentary about the work of Romano Amerio, a now-deceased Swiss theologian and philosopher who wrote extensively on what he perceived as the dilution of Catholic tradition by Vatican II. Apparently, Amerio was also highly critical of ecumenism, finding in it the seeds of destruction of the Catholic faith. During JPII’s papacy, Amerio was blacklisted, but BXVI has decided to bring Amerio’s work back into the light of Catholic intellectual thought.
You can read the article at
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=135061&eng=y
Dear Sean et al: I’ve been away from the computer so just responding now.
First off, I think every writer and every reader (at least on this blog) would like to have more information and more explanation. But op-eds are windows into an argument, I believe, almost invitations to debate more than complete and footnoted theses. This piece was long–1200 words as opposed to the usual 900–and still, never long enough to cover the topic as everyone would like.
The self-serving answer is to say read my book (!). And that’s a good idea, I think…
But as to your point, Sean: There are innumerable instances of disappointment registered by “conservative” Catholics (yes, the labels are another awful shorthand, but I’m a journalist–I squeeze cliches into tight spaces for a living).
Some of the complaints are from the usual suspects, and alot of it is blogger chatter. I will find some links later if I have time. But a few examples are the appointment of Levada to the CDF, which upset many on the right. The appointment of George Niederauer, Levada’s friend, as his successo in SF was also a shock to th right. Niederauer saw “Brokeback Mountain” for example, and liked it, and actually said so publicly. Brave man. Archbishop Wuerl in DC is another example. (I happen to think Benedict’s epsicopal appointments will be his principal legacy in the US, since he likely won’t have a personal presence here; and so far so good, unlike other places). Giving communion to the soon-to-be-late Brother Roger at Mass in St. Petere’s Square, the meeting with Hans Kung (in which talk of church matters was off-limits!), as well as Benedict’s “failure” to clean house in the curia or support the war in Iraq or suppress the Jesuits or nail Sobrino harder are all documented cases of disappointment. They go on.
But my space is more than filled. I will continue this exchange above in response to Peter Nixon’s broader (and welcome) critique. David.
PS: Regarding papal primacy–JPII did call for a debate on it in Ut Unum Sint, and retired Archbishop John Quinn (of SF) especially took the opening. Interestingly, JPII made it as an ecumenical gesture, but Catholics were the ones who leapt at the opprtunity offered.
I don’t know that anything would really come of it, but JPII was that way.
As for Benedict, one of his first acts was to drop the title of “Patriarch of the West.” This was interpreted–and later confirmed by Vatican officials–as a sign that he did not see the bishop of Rome as a Patriarch because that would put in in potential “pares” with other patriarchs. The Pope is sui generis. And while I believe Benedict’s greatest ecumenical opportunity is with the Orthodox–his spirituality is almost more Eastern than Western–ironically it is himself, as Pope, who poses the greatest challenge because of his office. That is a structural obstacle. But Benedict has stressed, esp in his weekly catecheses, that the Bishop of Rome always, since the earliest days of the church, exercised primacy over the entire church, and that cannot change. He says it nicely, as always. But it doesn’t make the orthodox too happy. Still, it seems they are more interested in an ecumenism of the trenches, seeing Rome as an ally in a dangerous world.
Hello David (and all),
“Archbishop Wuerl in DC is another example.”
I suppose I should be surprised. I lived in Pittsburgh for nine years while Archbishop Wuerl served as bishop of that diocese, and never once heard anyone there suggest that he had any sympathy for any of the “liberal” Catholic agenda. (And I agree with you David. While I, too, am reluctant to use labels, I have to communicate my ideas somehow. So I will follow your lead.) Indeed, I heard a great deal of complaints that Archbishop Wuerl was too “conservative”. And he was the bishop assigned to the unenviable task of “fixing” the diocese of Seattle when the Vatican determined that Archbishop Hunthausen was too “liberal”.
Then again, Archbishop Wuerl is known to have participated in ecumenical events on occasion. Perhaps this is what has some “conservatives” upset. While I don’t think it’s fair to generalize, I have been quite stunned by the depth of hatred I’ve seen some “conservatives” express towards anyone they suspect of having “liberal” tendencies. (I’m not saying that I think this is a “conservative” trait. Perhaps some “liberals” have the reverse deep hatred of anyone who might be friendly to anything “conservative”. But I have no acquaintance with the latter and I do have some acquaintance with the former.)
David’s own earlier book “The Coming Catholic Church” is a relevant example. I found the book quite informative. (Haven’t bought your new book yet David, sorry!) I particularly appreciated what I thought was David’s generous treatment of figures such as Michael Rose and George Weigel (and participants here already know what I think of Weigel). So I was amazed when out of curiosity I visited the Amazon web site to look at the posted reviews there. Some have reviewed the book positively, but the negative reviews are savage, denoucing David for everything from pandering to “liberals” to ignoring “conservatives” to even presenting sexual innuendo in the book’s title. Even on a superficial reading of David’s book, one who is not determined to find fault with him will see that all these charges are unfair.
Hello again all,
And a last comment regarding Mr. Weigel, just for clarification (and then I will try not to bring him up anymore). I think most of the discussants here inferred this already from my earlier posts, but I despise Mr. Weigel because I think he has no respect for his readership, not because he is “conservative”. John Finnis, Robert George, Alasdair MacIntyre and a number of the contributors here tend towards “conservatism” and I respect them all for defending their views with careful arguments and responding carefully to the arguments of those they oppose without impugning their character. Weigel does neither and I think the evidence is overwhelming that he is well aware he does nether.
Grant, you packed a lot into one lead. Egan really needs his own post as well as James Martin. I agree with Peter V on Weigel. They include him, Neuhaus, Novak and Mary Ann Glendon in the infamous “gang of four.” I don’t know Glendon that well but she seems to have more integrity than the other three.
It is hard to argue that Benedict remains part of the restoration group in dismantling Vatican II. One has to wonder how much ego is involved since he is guarnteed the limelight as often as he chooses while he had to exercise punitive power to get attention, previously. Think about it.
As far as Egan goes, his nieces may have the last word on him. Out of the mouths of babes.
As to saints, JPII demonstrated that the canonization of saints is basically irrelevant. Especially when he passed over Romero and others.
Correction. Rather than “argue” I should have said “deny.”
David,
I hate to say this, but some unnamed bloggers don’t cut it. I have read other comments like yours in the media – that there are some sort of broad or “loud” complaints from the “right” in the Church. I simply haven’t seen it. I may have seen some comments on a few blogs, but nothing that would indicate any significant, or frankly even notable disaffection.
Sean:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/01/the_truce_of_20.html
That’s one of many sites easily found by Googling “The Truce of 2005?” The full article is here:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=80
I am delighted to discover this blog and its famous participants. I have just written a review of the Pope’s book on Christ (see josephsoleary.typepad.com), which I read with very mixed feelings. Yes, we all want Christ to be what John portrays, one who brings us God and brings us to God. But the brunt of Benedict’s book is a deeply repressive vision of biblical scholarship (not to mention theological work like Sobrino’s or Schillebeeckx’s that has learned from that scholarship). If the faithful take this book to heart, almost all scriptural scholars will be seen as rejecting the teaching of Scripture and the presence of Christ. It is not that the Pope is fundamentalist, exactly, but he has forged very clever arguments that the Gospels as they stand, including John, are more or less direct representations of the historical Jesus. Another disheartening aspect of the book is the discrediting of the “Gospel of Justice and Peace” emphasis of Vatican II in favor of a massive stress on “the Primacy of God” — a Primacy conveyed in very abstract devotional terms which leave it compatible with right wing political choices. The Pope’s book also reinforces the vision of Dominus Iesus that we already have the fullness of revelation in the New Testament Christ, of which other religions can offer only the dimmest and most distant shadows. Here is a third flank on which the Pope is opposed to what is regarded as creative and critical theology.
Hello Grant (and all),
Thanks for the links. Actually, I read the First Things article by Fr. Neuhaus when it first appeared. When I reread this article this afternoon I was reminded by how annoyed I was at Fr. Neuhaus’ assertion that the editors of Commonweal were dissenting from magisterial authority. That conclusion simply does not follow from what the editors said in the editorial Fr. Neuhaus quotes in his piece. But careful and charitable reading of others’ words has never been one of Fr. Neuhaus’ strong suits.
That said, I realized on a second reading that in the remainder of his article, Fr. Neuhaus does not criticize Pope Benedict. Read charitably, the Neuhaus article only expresses a worry of what might happen if the Holy Father does not respond to those who disagree with the instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education on homosexuality and the priesthood in the “right” way. So what Fr. Neuhaus says here is compatible with his frequent public assertions that he is delighted with the pontificate of Pope Benedict. (And I realize you never suggested otherwise.)
To be sure, some of those who contribute to the blog to which you pointed us are most definitely not delighted with Pope Benedict.
But I have a question. Is the “Truce of 1968″ story summarized in this article and the cited George Weigel First Things article a complete and fair account of the relevant events in 1968 and afterwards? I’d be interested to know the complete history here, and I don’t know where to look.
Take care all, ~P.