Pope Emeritus Benedict weighs in on Abuse Crisis

This article by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, prepared for a Bavarian clergy magazine is well worth the read.

Now, in an ideal world, I'd like a Pope Benedict essay with my breakfast every morning, but when he resigned from the Papacy I thought that it would be better for the sake of his potential successor & the unity of the Church if he didn't publish anything new for the rest of his lifetime. Given a tendency to set him up as a counter-weight to the magisterial and moral authority of our actual Holy Father, I haven't changed my mind on this point. However, Benedict felt a calling to write something and seems to have prepared this article before the international meeting of Bishops in Rome this past February, and is publishing it with the agreement of the Pope & the Secretary of State.

A Testimony Rather than a Magisterial Document

Despite my reservations, it's a joy to read Ratzinger again, despite the tragic circumstances that provoked his intervention. Contrary to what some people are saying, it is not written like an encyclical or a papal document - it's more in the manner of a personal reflection on the past and a theological reflection on the context and ecclesial dimensions of the current situation. It's also very much a testimony - an account of what Benedict himself witnessed.

Limited Scope of the Essay

Because of this - and I think this point cannot be made too strongly - it deals with part of a larger issue. It doesn't really deal with abuse in itself - but rather the situation of the Church. There are a lot of essential topics that he doesn't address in this essay, and, in fairness, he couldn't be expected to do so in such a short reflection. So, the fact that he doesn't mention, (for example) clericalism, shouldn't be an excuse to suggest either that those who do mention it are wrong or that Benedict is at fault because he doesn't. As American columnist Ross Douthat observes, “There is plenty of interest in the letter! But it still answers one partial analysis with another when the church needs synthesis.”

The Possible Criticisms

Even though I fundamentally agree with BXVI, I think that one could make some reasonable criticisms about how the historical events he chooses to describe fit together and how they relate to each other and the Church's current situation. I don't think this essay will change many minds - however, I think it may be invaluable in terms of deepening reflection within the Church. His exegesis regarding the 'little ones' and regarding Job is valuable and worth pondering.

An Important Historical Point

Benedict's 'political' analysis regarding why abuse cases were moved to the CDF and what was going wrong inside the Congregation for Clergy is hugely significant. It confirms - from the horse's mouth - what was certainly guessed at (with good reason) in Roman circles that the dominant ethos at the Congregation for Clergy was simply incapable of handling abuse cases rigorously. I remember hearing an official from that Congregation address a group of priests in about the year 2010 and I was shocked at how he failed to grasp the seriousness of the crisis and the damage it was doing to so many people. The fact that an official of the Congregation was so slow to catch on was a huge disappointment.

Some Interesting Points

The point about God taking Franz Böckle to Himself as an act of mercy before he could launch an  assault on St John Paul II's document, Veritatis Splendor also says a lot about what was happening in the Church & Benedict's own understanding of Divine Providence. It's also interesting how he does strike a balance by acknowledging that the Church's magisterial role in matters of morals isn't quite identical to that exercised in matters of faith. Benedict writes, "There is probably something right about this hypothesis that warrants further discussion." Also of interest is the following: " I think that even today something like catechumenal communities are necessary so that Christian life can assert itself in its own way."

The Question of Seminaries and Priestly Formation

There's some worthwhile stuff in there about seminary formation too - and I don't think what he says sits easily with the proposals floated by +Fintan Monahan in the Irish Catholic recently. For example, whilst abolishing a so-called 'monastic' model is treated by some as a panacea, Benedict is less sure:

In one seminary in southern Germany, candidates for the priesthood and candidates for the lay ministry of the pastoral specialist [Pastoralreferent] lived together. At the common meals, seminarians and pastoral specialists ate together, the married among the laymen sometimes accompanied by their wives and children, and on occasion by their girlfriends. The climate in this seminary could not provide support for preparation to the priestly vocation. 

How do we understand our Problems?

I also like that how Benedict is critical of treating Church problems as political problems - an attitude that is fundamentally pelagian and implicitly denies the source of Christian hope.

Indeed, the Church today is widely regarded as just some kind of political apparatus. One speaks of it almost exclusively in political categories, and this applies even to bishops, who formulate their conception of the church of tomorrow almost exclusively in political terms. The crisis, caused by the many cases of clerical abuse, urges us to regard the Church as something almost unacceptable, which we must now take into our own hands and redesign. But a self-made Church cannot constitute hope. 

He makes it quite clear that the issues are theological and spiritual, within the context of an apocalyptic horizon. To understand what the Church is, we must remember the call to witness and the faith of the martyrs and everyday Christian witness:

 Today there are many people who humbly believe, suffer and love, in whom the real God, the loving God, shows Himself to us. Today God also has His witnesses (martyres) in the world. We just have to be vigilant in order to see and hear them.

Concluding Thoughts

Anyway, please read the whole thing & take it on board. I fear that Benedict is going to get a lot of flak from within & without the Church because he's pointing in a different direction than many commentators & ideologues. I'm sure as well that he'd much rather what he wrote be used to support the ministry of Pope Francis rather than foment attitudes of suspicion and schism. And I doubt that he'd want anyone saying that he had the full answer. The whole thrust of his writing is to point us towards the One who provides the answers that we cannot humanly manufacture ourselves!  Benedict is contributing what he can as one of the great theologians of our day. Let us welcome that contribution with attention and care.

Pope Benedict XVI - some thoughts

I've not yet posted anything about the astonishing resignation of Pope Benedict. I was fortunate enough to be in Rome when he was elected and will greatly miss his thoughtful and reflective teaching. I very much regret the fact that most of the faithful in Ireland haven't really seen the real Benedict - a gentle and prayerful shepherd who proposes a vision of life and culture radically grounded in the life and person of Jesus Christ, an understanding of things shaped by the great thinkers of our Christian tradition.
I've had a number of conversations about recent events over the past couple of days and have surprised a number of people with my personal enthusiasm for Pope Benedict, both as a thinker and as a human being. I spent a number of years in Rome when he was head of the CDF and saw the start of his pontificate at close quarters as I finished my theological formation there and was ordained priest.     
For many, he will be dismissed as a 'conservative' thinker in a world where the word 'conservative' is a pejorative term. However, this 'conservative' is the one who set aside almost 6 centuries of precedent by resigning the Petrine ministry. More attentive commentators have described him as 'radical' - that is 'rooted' in the Christian tradition in a way that manifested itself in an extraordinary inventiveness. His use of the 'Ordinariate' structure to welcome Anglicans and the Anglican tradition into full Communion was innovative. His decision to write three popular books about Jesus of Nazareth as a private theologian whilst Pope was unprecedented.
And then there is his commitment to the 'New Evangelization'. In the early days of the Pontificate, I remember being told by a fairly knowledgeable priest that we'd see less talk about the 'New Evangelization'. That, he told me, was John Paul's pet project and Benedict would drop this particular piece of jargon. On this point, my friend was mistaken. Benedict himself established the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization - a new Vatican office with special responsibility for this project and proposed the 'Courtyard of the Gentiles' - a forum for friendly discussion between Christian and secular thinkers. None of this made headlines, of course, but it's significant nonetheless. Despite the fact that his distinctively Augustinian thought is caricatured as pessimistic, Pope Benedict has shown himself to be very committed to the idea of a shared rationality affording the space for profitable dialogue between believers and non-believers. (One need only look at Cardinal Ratzinger's public conversation with Jurgen Habermas as an example of this commitment.)
Theologically, Benedict is radically (I use that word for a reason) committed to the Second Vatican Council. The Council itself was inspired by the mid-20th century flourishing of biblical, patristic and liturgical scholarship that re-invigorated the Church's self-understanding. The reforms of the Council were to be rooted in a re-discovery of the riches of her own tradition and a creative engagement with modernity. One of the great tragedies of the post-conciliar era has been the neglect of these treasures of the Church - the scriptures, the Fathers, the liturgical tradition - in our engagement with the culture. Benedict - true to the intention of the Council - insists that we must be grounded in the scriptures, the Fathers and the liturgy, if we as Christians are to engage productively and creatively with modern and post-modern thought. Only those with a superficial knowledge (or with an axe to grind) of Benedict's thought will dismiss this as just being thoughtless conservatism. Indeed, it's often amusing/depressing to see some Lutheran & Jewish thinkers engage more enthusiastically with the thought of Ratzinger than his Catholic critics do.
I could write more - and I'm very aware of not having touched on many of the big issues that have dominated the public assessment of Pope Benedict. However, I will miss our professor-Pope and wish that the world knew him better.

The Princess & the Cardinal...

A few days ago, Seraphic mentioned that it was the Dianaversary - the anniversary of the late Princess Diana of Wales. The public response to her death was enormous and is popularly perceived as somehow changing the relationship between the British Monarchy and the people.  The popular narrative is that the official behaviour of the traditionalist Royals was deemed inadequate by the general public.  The press judged that the populace's grief at the loss of the 'People's Princess' was more authentic than that of the Royal family and put pressure on them to leave Scotland and come to Buckingham Palace where floral tributes were stacked high outside the railings.  Headlines such as Where is our Queen? Where is her flag? and Show us you care challenged the traditional protocol and in response, Queen Elizabeth gave orders for the Union Flag to be flown at half-mast on the day of the funeral - a break from the traditional protocol, but (more importantly) touted by press and politicians as a sign of some sort of seismic shift in relations between the Monarchy and People in Britain. It was taken to represent the public will overcoming the traditions of the Royal family and forcing the Monarchy to engage in a new way with its subjects.

Not being British, I'm not sure I can comment intelligently on the extent to which that narrative is true -  it certainly suited the newspapers to congratulate themselves as the influential and powerful mouthpieces of the British people capable of bending the will of the Queen herself and I suspect that the self-consciously modernising 'New Labour' government of Tony Blair found it a useful story as well. Regardless of whether it effected change within the Monarchy or not, that's the accepted story out there and I suspect that newspaper editors everywhere are looking to repeat the job again - to seize on something that strikes a chord with the public and seem to play an influential role bringing about change and progress.

I'm inclined to think that today's Leading Article in London's Independent newspaper is an attempt to stir up some of same emotions that swirled about at the time of Princess Diana's death.  The occasion is the death of the Archbishop Emeritus of Milan, Carlo Cardinal Martini SJ, and in particular the international attention given to his last interview (text here in Italian) where (a month before his death) he argued that the is Church behind the times and urged a re-thinking of some areas of Church life. Non-Italian speakers will find this automated translation a help in understanding what the Cardinal said.  The juicier parts of the interview have been widely reported and put out there as a challenge to Pope Benedict.  Shorn of their context, they seem to have become a rallying cry for people who had probably never heard of Cardinal Martini until last week.

The article in the Independent begins with a challenge, trying to set up its Diana-moment:

If Pope Benedict does attend the funeral in Milan of Cardinal Martini, whose body, robed and mitred, crosier at his side, was laid out for the veneration of the faithful at the weekend, it will surely be with mixed feelings. The danger of not attending the last obsequies of such a high-ranking prince of the Church is that it might appear cowardly, tantamount to a public admission that a rift had grown up between them.          

 A nice opening, but one totally detached from reality. The protocol - no matter how well-regarded or important a Cardinal might be - is that the Pope sends a delegate to funerals on his behalf.  In this case, Cardinal Comastri will attend on the Pope's behalf and read a message at the funeral. Cardinal Marini's successor, Cardinal Scola will celebrate the funeral Mass. The Independent would like to have us think that this might appear cowardly and a public admission of a rift between Pope and Cardinal - but that's only the case if you know nothing about the protocol surrounding these funerals and the absurdity of the idea that the Pope's attendance was ever a possibility.
If you look at this list of the Cardinals who have died during Pope Benedict's papacy, you'll see that between 5 and 10 Cardinals die each year. Some were close collaborators of the Pope in the Roman Curia. Others headed important dioceses throughout the world. Some were retired scholars or churchmen who were honoured by the Holy Father for their life's work. Some were men whose thought was close to that of Pope Benedict, others might called part of the 'loyal opposition' or have theological opinions which differ from the Popes.  All were - for one reason or another - significant in the life of the Church.  To the best of my knowledge, the Pope didn't attend the funerals of any of them - not even the funerals of those who worked in the Vatican and had their funeral Mass in St. Peter's with the exception of doing some of the prayers for Cardinals whose funerals were celebrated in St Peter's Basilica. The Pope was represented at all of them and he mourned their passing, but he doesn't celebrate their funeral Masses and doesn't attend them in person. I suspect that one of the reasons why he doesn't attend these funerals is precisely so as to avoid the kind of insinuation made by the Independent article - if one Cardinal is honoured by the Pope's presence at his funeral, then the Cardinal who does not have the Pope attend is immediately presumed to have been snubbed and dishonoured by the Pope. As it is not practical or possible for the Pope to honour all Cardinals with his personal presence at their funeral, then the protocol must be that he honours them all equally by sending a representative and by offering Mass himself each November for the Cardinals who died during the year.
There is also a practical point to consider - a Papal trip to Milan for Cardinal Martini's funeral would, in effect, be a pastoral visit of the Pope to that North Italian city with all the attendant diplomatic and security hullabaloo. Is it really to be expected that the necessary preparations could be accomplished in a couple of days? Or that it would even be appropriate for the Pope to take away from the funeral liturgy by the fuss which would inevitably accompany his own presence?
No, this whole false question of whether the Pope would attend Martini's funeral in Milan is either the ill-informed pondering of someone who knows next-to-nothing of Church affairs or a speculation dishonestly raised by someone who knew it was not a possibility, but wanted to fling some mud in Pope Benedict's direction with the expectation that it would stick.

The rest of the article is the usual boiler-plate criticism of the Church.

The rest of the Catholic hierarchy is afraid of its authoritarian leader, and seems unwilling even to question, let alone oppose, his hard-line views on contraception, homosexual relationships, the remarriage of divorced people in church, the admission of women to the priesthood, the abolition of clerical celibacy and a lot of other issues.

It's very easy to fulminate about Pope Benedict the 'hard-liner' and 'authoritarian leader' if you approach these issues with the presumption that the tradition of the Church has nothing to add to the discussion. It's easy to paint Pope Benedict as the big bad wolf if you set aside his evident humility and the fact that as a theologian and a Cardinal, he did indeed scrupulously and seriously question the Church's position on many of those issues. The trouble with Benedict from the Independent's point of view is that when Ratzinger/Benedict raises these questions and seriously discusses them, he doesn't come up with the answers the Independent was looking for. For example, just last June at the 'World Meeting of Families' in Milan, as part of a Q&A session, the Pope dealt with the question of Divorced and Re-married couples. Interestingly, both Cardinal Martini and Pope Benedict see engagement with and support of families in just that situation as being a key pastoral priority for the Church. In his final Cardinal Martini asked:

 The question of whether the divorced can take Communion should be reversed. How can the Church get to help with the power of the sacraments to those who have complex family situations?

 Speaking in Milan, Pope Benedict XVI dealt with precisely this problem and said:

 As regards these people - as you have said - the Church loves them, but it is important they should see and feel this love. I see here a great task for a parish, a Catholic community, to do whatever is possible to help them to feel loved and accepted, to feel that they are not “excluded” even though they cannot receive absolution or the Eucharist; they should see that, in this state too, they are fully a part of the Church.

Certainly Pope Benedict and Cardinal Martini were not in full agreement on this matter.  However, responsible journalism would do more to make clear that Pope Benedict is exercised by the same concerns for people's situations and their relationship with the Church that troubled Cardinal Martini. It is not fair to imply he is blind to these problems and that he hasn't encouraged Catholic thinkers and pastors to do their best to bring the love of Christ and His Church in seeking to respond to these pastoral situations.
I think too that the media has a responsibility to the memory of Cardinal Martini as well. Even though I profoundly disagree with some of the things said by the Cardinal and frankly believe some of them to be irresponsible and in error, it would be fairer to him and to those who hold him in high regard to report what he said fully and in context, rather than mining his interviews for stones to throw at the Pope.  At times I believe the Cardinal spoke out of line and spoke in error. I fear that in some ways he misled a great many people.  At other times, however, he raised genuine and serious questions to assist the Church in responding to the challenges of the world in a manner faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Accurate and nuanced reporting would enable us better to sift the wheat from the chaff in Martini's contribution to the debate. (Blog post corrected to take account of more accurate information received about Cardinals' funerals in St Peter's.)

I despair, I really do...

... about the inability of the press to accurately report religious matters.
The Daily Telegraph website has the following headline:

The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift

Do I need to say that the headline is totally misleading?
Anyway, the article opens as follows:

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the pontiff will end the Church's absolute ban on the use of condoms.
He will say that it is acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention is to "reduce the risk of infection" from Aids.

So, what did the Pope actually say? The Curt Jester actually quotes chapter and verse from the Pope's interview with Peter Seewald:

From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119:

On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.
I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.
As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Now, that's quite a lot to read by the standard of today's journalists, but it seems to me that the Pope is stating quite explicitly that condoms are not a moral solution. What's unclear about that?
Yes, the Pope does point out that in certain circumstances the decision to use a condom to prevent a sexual partner from contracting HIV may represent for that person a first step towards a healthier and more moral appreciation of their sexuality and their sexual behaviour. But, what he says is in no way an alteration of the Church's teaching.

(If I might suggest an analogous argument - a promiscuous young man who makes a decision to be faithful to his steady girlfriend may be a first step towards a healthier and more moral sexuality. I think any sensible confessor or moral theologian would see that. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that extra-marital sexual activity is something good or something to be approved of.)

Also, one would have thought that the Telegraph's Religious Affairs Correspondent would know that Popes aren't in the habit of promulgating major doctrinal rulings in book-length interviews. It's curious how journalists who, presumably don't believe in Papal infallibility, tend to attribute the greatest of weight to the Pope's obiter dicta.

Edited to add:
Of genuine interest are these snippets from the book in question.

For example,

And how does Pope Benedict pray?
As far as the Pope is concerned, he too is a simple beggar before God – even more than all other people. Naturally, I always pray first and foremost to our Lord, with whom I am united simply by old acquaintance, so to speak. But I also invoke the saints. I am friends with Augustine, with Bonaventure, with Thomas Aquinas. One says to such saints: “Help me!” In this sense, I commend myself to the communion of saints. With them, strengthened by them, I then talk with the dear Lord also, begging, for the most part, but also in thanksgiving – or quite simply being joyful. 

 That image of the beggar strikes me as very Augustinian

Pointers towards a response to James P Mackey

The Irish Times is running a series of 5 articles by James P Mackey which are supposed to reflect on the future of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Well, that's what the by-line says. Professor Mackey himself admits to a more polemic intention. Starting with the Papacy he says:

[I]n this and a further four columns, five features of church life and teaching that most loudly cry out for reform will be analysed.

Certainly not a case of 'accentuate the positive'... I won't deny the usefulness of non-Catholics presenting their critique of the Church and her constitution, but what I find offensive about this article is the way in which the author's criticisms are so detached from an accurate understanding of Church history and what the Church actually teaches about the Papacy. It's the kind of mud-slinging exercise which poisons the public discourse and upsets Catholics who haven't had the formation to see the blunders that Mackey makes.

Mackey's Reading of Scripture
Mackey begins with his reading of the Gospel scene where Christ appoints Peter as the Rock on which His Church would be built...

In the gospel scene in which the prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, is thought to have instituted papacy, Jesus is pictured choosing a leader for his group of close companions in mission. He wants to make sure the leader will know who Jesus is and what he is about.
Cephas steps forward and confesses that Jesus is the Christ and is duly rewarded with the new name, Peter or Rock, and given the keys of the kingdom of God. But at this point promoters of a Petrine papacy seem to stop reading and fail to notice that Peter is quickly fired from the job just offered him.
When Jesus went on to say that he must go up to Jerusalem and die for his message and mission, as prophets often had to do, Peter corrected him.
Jesus suddenly realised that Peter’s idea of the Christ was modelled on King David, the paradigmatic Christ in Israel’s history, who would reign over the same kingdom, now won back from the Romans, and reign as absolute monarchs are wont to reign, by threat of force both armed and punitive.

Beneath that analysis is a picture of a Jesus Christ who doesn't really know what's going on. Mackey presents Him as a wobbly and indecisive personnel manager rather than the Incarnate Son of God. Christ's rebuke of Peter is severe - Get behind me Satan - but if you actually read the Gospels AND read the writings of the early Christians, there's no indication that Peter's commission was somehow withdrawn at that moment. When dealing with the Apostles, the consensus of the scriptural and non-scriptural early texts of Christianity consistently put Peter in the role of leader.

Now, theologians can and do argue about what that role means for the future of the Church and the development of the Papacy, but Mackey's suggestion that Christ somehow sacked Peter just after appointing him is a novel and bizarre reading.

Of course, the Gospels do show Peter making a mess of things. They don't paint a rosy picture of him. (And this is a point in favour of their accuracy!) He can be blustering and impetuous, and when the moment of trial comes, He denies Christ three times. That is a moment where Peter seems to undo himself. However, far from being a moment where Christ dismisses him, it's Peter's own weakness which sees him fall short of the role given to him. And Christ knew that would happen. If we have a look at the 22nd Chapter of Luke we find:

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Even after his failure, the task of strengthening his brethren would fall to Simon Peter.

And when he does fall, what's Christ's response? After He rises from the dead, he takes Peter aside...

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, "Follow me." (John 21:15-19)

The three-fold denial is undone with a three-fold declaration of love, and even though Peter is more aware than ever of his weakness, Christ commissions him to feed His flock.

Mackey seems to side-step the importance of that passage by saying, "There is no scene in the New Testament that describes Jesus reinstating Peter as pope before he died; indeed in one scene of the arrest of Jesus, Peter draws the sword to bring on the insurrection." Note the qualification before he died. Is Mackey unwilling to deal with the 21st chapter of John because he doubts the veracity of the resurrection appearances or is he sneakingly trying to dodge the issue with a little equivocation. Is he hoping that the readers won't notice the qualification he makes and will overlook what Christ has to say after He rose from the dead?

Constantine and the Pope?
The rest of Mackey's article is flawed as well. He brings up the old boogey-man of the Constantinian papacy - the idea that somehow the first three centuries of Christianity led to the generation of a Papal monarchy. Even a cursory reading of Church History shows that Mackey doesn't know what he's talking about. Yes, things did change for the Church with Constantine. But, it didn't result in the immediate creation of some form of Papal Monarchy. Indeed, Mackey seems to be engaged in some hand-waving here... He points out:

The assimilation was consummated under Constantine, who himself as Pontifex Maximus was head of religion as well as state; just as Pope Benedict is absolute monarch of his Vatican statelet and simultaneously of the worldwide Catholic Church – and pretender to absolute rule over all other Christian churches.

Is he implying that Benedict XVI is - in some sense - a successor to Constantine? Well, he's glossing over the fact that Constantine wasn't Pope. Whatever was 'consummated' under Constantine wasn't some kind of Papal Imperium. Mackey seems just to want some kind of excuse to throw Benedict's name next to that of nasty ol' Constantine.
What Mackey is not saying is that from the time of Constantine onwards, one of the key battles of the Church has been to stop secular rulers from abusing the spiritual authority of the Church for their own advantage. Putting a limit on the claims to spiritual authority of Constantine and his successors - as well as preserving the Church's own independence from temporal interference - is one of the big themes of Church history for the millennium after Constantine. Scraps between Pope and Emperor pepper the following centuries.
The Papacy does develop over that span of time. Frequently some very unworthy men filled that office. Many of them could be accused of greed and veniality. However, the assertion of Papal authority which came under Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) is much more important in terms of defining the role of the papacy than anything that happened with Constantine. The Gregorian Reform, as it is known, was aimed at securing the freedom of the Church from the corruption of medieval nobles, a renewal of holiness and an affirmation of the spiritual mission of the Church. Now, the history of the Papacy is certainly painted in shades of grey and there's plenty there to criticise. However, the point I wish to make is that Mackey's historical picture is confusing and detached from the facts.
I'm also at a loss to charitably interpret Mackey's reference to the 'Vatican statelet'. Does he want us to imagine Benedict sitting on his sofa contemplating his absolute rule over a mighty empire of 110 acres? The Vatican City State could have been bigger, but during the negotiations with the Italian state in the 1920s Pope Pius XI refused to accept anything more than the current size of the Vatican to serve as place which guarantees the independence of the Papacy.

The Infallible Governor?
Finally, the sting in the tail, Mackay's assessment of Papal infallibility and his confusion between the Pope's teaching and governing functions:

The matter of papal infallibility is also relevant to the historical papal hunger for absolute power; as the promoters of that cause before Vatican II amply illustrate.
For even if an absolute monarch dictates to you, without need for your agreement, some harsh rule on what to believe, how to worship, how to live, you might still retain some slight hope that you could persuade him that this was a mistaken or at least a counter- productive move. If though he has decreed himself infallible, you are utterly helpless.

Speaking of the Pope as an 'absolute monarch' is a somewhat pejorative description of the Pope's role in the Church. Yes, he does have the 'last say', but to speak of him as an 'absolute monarch' without reference to the rights of the laity and clergy as set out in the Code of Canon Law, without reference to the governance exercised by bishops in their own diocese (something the Papacy is loath to interfere in) and without reference to how things actually work is a cheap shot. Additionally, the Pope's authority to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals is not something self-declared. It's something taught by the First Vatican Council and (horror of horrors!) Vatican II. Mackay's article would be a lot more useful if it explored what that infallibility consisted of. It's not about infallible governance as Mackay seems to imply, but rather a special charism and responsibility to formally and authoritatively teach in matters of faith and morals. It's something which has been used sparingly and within a narrow scope. And, it's also worth pointing out, when the world's bishop's teach together on matters of faith and morals - either when they gather together in a council or when they teach separately but in harmony in their own diocese - they too have the charism of infallibility.
The appeal to infallibility has - in theory and in practice - very little to do with how the Pope governs the Church from day-to-day. It's an easy word to bring up when you want to have a pot-shot at the Catholic Church, but Mackay's article doesn't even try to engage with actual Church teaching about the Papacy or infallibility. Nor does it go into specifics about how infallibility has been mis-used. One would expect better from someone claiming to be a theologian.

Why not an honest critique?
There are issues to be discussed here both within and outside the Church. The ongoing dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches will see the role of the Papacy debated and clarified. However, discussion cannot be based on the kind of caricature painted in Mackay's unworthy article. He presents us with a reading of scripture which has no support in the New Testament itself or in any early Christian reading of the scriptures that I'm familiar with. His reading of Church history is self-contradictory and doesn't even attempt to engage with the real (and sometimes murky, I admit) development of the Papacy's temporal and spiritual power. And, finally, his point about the Pope's role as 'absolute monarch' seems to based on a knee-jerk distaste for the term infallibility rather than an actual engagement with what, for example, Vatican II teaches about the governance of the Church or how things actually happen in real life.

Footnote:
A close reading of Vatican II's Lumen Gentium explains the make-up of the Church and the Pope's role. Likewise, the Catechism does a good job explaining the special mission of the Pope and the hierarchy.

Edited to add:
I drafted this post under the assumption that Professor Mackey was a non-Catholic. However, some Googling suggests that he might be Catholic. That's a puzzle, because I would expect a theologian with a Catholic background to understand things a little better.

Pope's Letter to the Catholics of Ireland

Full text available here.

To be quite honest, apart from welcoming it whole-heartedly and repeating the Pope's own request that Irish Catholics read it themselves, I think that too much comment is superfluous. Just let it be read prayerfully, seriously and repeatedly. It would be naive to think that the problems of the past and present can be sorted out within the space of a few short media cycles. However, that's not the impression one gets when watching the news or reading the papers. There seems to be an assumption that problems can be dealt with swiftly - a hurried resignation here, a statement of apology there, and then mission accomplished. Not so! Any meaningful kind of healing, purification or renewal is going to be a long and deliberate process, and if we claim to be Christians, then the healing process must involve a turning back to Christ and a willingness to offer penance.

De Iustitia

The Holy Father has issued his annual Lenten message, focusing on justice. It's interesting that he concludes his brief reflection with a lesson in basic Christology:

The Christian Good News responds positively to man’s thirst for justice, as Saint Paul affirms in the Letter to the Romans: "But now the justice of God has been manifested apart from law … the justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith" (3, 21-25).

What then is the justice of Christ? Above all, it is the justice that comes from grace, where it is not man who makes amends, heals himself and others. The fact that "expiation" flows from the "blood" of Christ signifies that it is not man’s sacrifices that free him from the weight of his faults, but the loving act of God who opens Himself in the extreme, even to the point of bearing in Himself the "curse" due to man so as to give in return the "blessing" due to God (cf. Gal 3, 13-14). But this raises an immediate objection: what kind of justice is this where the just man dies for the guilty and the guilty receives in return the blessing due to the just one? Would this not mean that each one receives the contrary of his "due"? In reality, here we discover divine justice, which is so profoundly different from its human counterpart. God has paid for us the price of the exchange in His Son, a price that is truly exorbitant. Before the justice of the Cross, man may rebel for this reveals how man is not a self-sufficient being, but in need of Another in order to realize himself fully. Conversion to Christ, believing in the Gospel, ultimately means this: to exit the illusion of self-sufficiency in order to discover and accept one’s own need – the need of others and God, the need of His forgiveness and His friendship. So we understand how faith is altogether different from a natural, good-feeling, obvious fact: humility is required to accept that I need Another to free me from "what is mine," to give me gratuitously "what is His." This happens especially in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist. Thanks to Christ’s action, we may enter into the "greatest" justice, which is that of love (cf. Rm 13, 8-10), the justice that recognises itself in every case more a debtor than a creditor, because it has received more than could ever have been expected.

I say this is interesting because it's typical of Pope Benedict to bring the message back to Christ. Likewise, he likes to link dogma to the other areas of theology. Staying at the level of moral theology or social ethics when discussing justice isn't sufficent. If we believe that all is revealed in Christ and that He transforms things utterly, then we should say so. If we can't link what we believe about Him to our overall outlook on life, then our faith is deficient.

Caritas in Veritate - New Papal Encyclical

Just a reminder that the Pope's new encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) has been published.
It seems quite dense and deals with "integral human development in charity and truth."

What precisely has the Pope done?

This morning's bulletin from the Holy See's press office contains the news that the Pope has lifted the excommunications of four bishops of the Society of St Pius X. Now, I'm worried about how the media - and in particular the Irish media - are going to report this event. I fear that all too easily this will be used as a stick with which to beat the Pope and that most journalists lack the background to explain the precise significance of this event. So, I'm writing a brief post to explain what precisely the Pope has done and what the background to this event is.

Basically the Society of Pius X is a society of priests who are not in full communion with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. It was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre because of his resistance - and the dissatisfaction of many clergy and laity - concerning the liturgical changes which came into effect after the Second Vatican Council and various elements of the Council's teaching - especially on the subject of religious liberty. It operated for some years outside the normal structures of the Catholic Church in what might be described as being, at best, a canonical grey area. In 1988, without papal permission, Archbishop Lefebrve ordained 4 men as bishops. This was a very serious crime under Canon Law, so he, an assisting bishop and the 4 men who were ordained bishops were excommunicated.
Archbishop Lefebrve has since died, as has the bishop who assisted him. The 4 men he ordained bishops (Bishop Fellay being their leader) were, until this morning, still excommunicated.

However, in recent years there has been an attempt to reconcile the SSPX to the Church. There have been behind the scenes discussions and communications. In order to facilitate this process of reconciliation, the Pope has lifted the sentence of excommunication placed on the 4 SSPX bishops. He has removed the punishment they incurred for allowing themselves to be ordained bishops without permission. This is an act of mercy and a gesture aimed at healing wounds and encouraging reconciliation.
However, that does not mean that all is well with these bishops and the clergy of the SSPX. Whilst no longer excommunicated, these bishops are still not proper Catholic bishops in union with Rome. They lack the necessary permission to act as bishops, and the priests who work under them do not have the necessary permissions to act as priests. The division between the SSPX and Rome has not been healed, and it is still a very serious matter for a Catholic to receive the sacraments from a member of the SSPX in all but emergency situations. SSPX clergy do not have the necessary permission from Rome or from local bishops to carry out their work anywhere in the world. The Pope lifting the excommunications does not mean that the separation between the SSPX and Rome has ended. However, it is a move which seems to promise a sincere effort on Rome's behalf to bring the SSPX back into the tent of the Church. The ball is now very much in the SSPX's court in terms of how they will respond to this gesture.

It should especially be noted that the lifting of the excommunication does not mean that the Pope agrees with anything or everything that the SSPX bishops might say. In a singularly infelicitous episode, one of the SSPX bishops seems to have denied the holocaust recently. Do not let anyone try and convince you that the Pope endorses these views. Sometimes it is necessary to extend mercy to people whom we do not approve of - in this case, for the sake of the souls of the SSPX clergy and the people who attend their chapels, the Pope has been very brave in persisting with this act of mercy even though it threatens to be a PR disaster.

What next? There are a whole host of things that need to be sorted out between the Roman Curia and the SSPX. Fortunately, other smaller communities with an attachment to the older form of the liturgy have been received back into the Church in recent times. Aside from the liturgical issue, the question of the interpretation of Vatican II and its teaching on religious liberty is something that will need to be agreed between Rome and the SSPX. I suspect that even if the proposed discussions are successful, not all of the clergy and faithful who are attached to the SSPX will be happy to reconcile with Rome. Some hold opinions which flatly contradict the teaching of the Church and they may not be willing to abandon these opinions. However, I think that we should all be praying that this process of reconciliation goes smoothly and that we will be able to welcome many back into full communion with the Holy Father. We should also pray that those hostile to the Church and those hostile to the Holy Father within the Church will not take advantage of an act of Papal mercy in order to further their own agendas.

As usual, American blogger Amy Welborn covers this issue very well.

Various

Many thanks to Don Marco for posting an English Translation of the Holy Father's catechisis on Rom 12:1. My blog title is derived from that verse, and I took the concept of rationabile obsequium as a challenge to myself in the exercise of the priestly ministry.

True Worship in Christ
But the question persists: Then how should we interpret this "reasonable spiritual worship"? Paul always supposes that we have come to be "one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), that we have died in baptism (Romans 1) and we live now with Christ, through Christ and in Christ. In this union -- and only in this way -- we can be in him and with him a "living sacrifice," to offer the "true worship." The sacrificed animals should have substituted man, the gift of self of man, and they could not. Jesus Christ, in his surrender to the Father and to us, is not a substitution, but rather really entails in himself the human being, our faults and our desire; he truly represents us, he assumes us in himself. In communion with Christ, accomplished in the faith and in the sacraments, we transform, despite our deficiencies, into living sacrifice: "True worship" is fulfilled.

Christ's True Sacrifice Made Present
This synthesis is the backdrop of the Roman Canon in which we pray that this offering be "rationabile," so that spiritual worship is accomplished. The Church knows that in the holy Eucharist, the self-gift of Christ, his true sacrifice, is made present. But the Church prays so that the celebrating community is really united to Christ, is transformed; it prays so that we ourselves come to be that which we cannot be with our efforts: offering "rationabile" that is pleasing to God. In this way the Eucharistic prayer interprets in an adequate way the words of St. Paul.

Alas, the current English translation of the Roman Canon fudges the following:

Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemquw facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi.

Secondly, Kansas Catholic has some wonderful pictures of a first profession of vows by one novice and the investiture of four postulants by the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles. Amongst the 4 who received the habit was my good friend Sr Mary G.

Finally, may Fr Richard John Neuhaus rest in peace.

Holy Father's Christmas Address to the Roman Curia

I like to keep an eye on the Pope's Christmas address to his collaborators in the Roman Curia. Remember, it was in the context of his first such address that he coined the term Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Well, this year's address (link to Italian version) was interesting, with the Pope making a number of sharp points. Rocco analyses what he had to say about World Youth Day.

"The uniquness of the [World Youth] days and the particular character of their joy, their creative force of communion, can find no explanation. Above all it's important to take into account the fact that the World Youth Days do not consist solely in just the one week where they're publicly rendered visible to the world. It is a long road, interior and exterior, that leads to them. The Cross, accompanied by the image of the Mother of the Lord, makes a pilgrimage across countries. Faith, in its way, needs to see and touch. The encounter with the cross, which comes to be touched and carried, becomes an internal encounter with the One who took up the cross and died for us. The encounter with the Cross sustains in the soul of the young the memory of that God who wanted to make himself man and suffer alongside us. And we see the woman given us as our Mother. The solemn Days are but the culmination of a long road, along which we find one another and go together to encounter Christ. Not just in Australia did the long Via Crucis cross the city and become the culminating event of these days. It likewise reflected again all that happened in the years preceding it and pointed to Him who reunites together all of us: that God who so loved us even to the Cross. So, too, the Pope is not the star around which it all unfolds. He is totally and merely the Vicar. He returns to the Other who is in our midst. Finally the solemn liturgy is the center of this togetherness, for in it comes that which we cannot realize and which, still, we are always awaiting. He is present. He enters among us. The heavens are torn and the earth is made luminous. It's this that renders life light and open and unites the many ones with others in a joy that is incomparable with the ecstasy of a rock festival. Frederich Nietzsche once said: "The ability is not in organizing a party, but in finding the people able to bring it joy." According to Scripture, joy is the fruit of the Holy Spirit (cf Gal 5:22): this fruit was abundantly perceivable in the days of Sydney. And just as a long road precedes the World Youth Days, a path following it is likewise drawn. Friendships are formed that encourage a different lifestyle and that sustain it from inside. The great days have, not an ending, but the scope of sustaining these friendships and of making places of life in the faith rise in the world where, together, hope and love can be seen.

And what's the subtext? Rocco speculates as follows:

During WYD Sydney, a leader of the Aussie branch of the Society of St Pius X -- the schismatic traditionalist group -- knocked the weeklong event as a "happy party" with "very little that is truly holy and sacred and prayerful" in it.

Interesting! WYD 2000 in Rome was a crucial event for myself personally and a major help in encouraging me to pursue my priestly vocation.
Also of interest is the following passage:

Poiché la fede nel Creatore è una parte essenziale del Credo cristiano, la Chiesa non può e non deve limitarsi a trasmettere ai suoi fedeli soltanto il messaggio della salvezza. Essa ha una responsabilità per il creato e deve far valere questa responsabilità anche in pubblico. E facendolo deve difendere non solo la terra, l’acqua e l’aria come doni della creazione appartenenti a tutti. Deve proteggere anche l’uomo contro la distruzione di se stesso. È necessario che ci sia qualcosa come una ecologia dell’uomo, intesa nel senso giusto. Non è una metafisica superata, se la Chiesa parla della natura dell’essere umano come uomo e donna e chiede che quest’ordine della creazione venga rispettato. Qui si tratta di fatto della fede nel Creatore e dell’ascolto del linguaggio della creazione, il cui disprezzo sarebbe un’autodistruzione dell’uomo e quindi una distruzione dell’opera stessa di Dio. Ciò che spesso viene espresso ed inteso con il termine "gender", si risolve in definitiva nella autoemancipazione dell’uomo dal creato e dal Creatore. L’uomo vuole farsi da solo e disporre sempre ed esclusivamente da solo ciò che lo riguarda. Ma in questo modo vive contro la verità, vive contro lo Spirito creatore. Le foreste tropicali meritano, sì, la nostra protezione, ma non la merita meno l’uomo come creatura, nella quale è iscritto un messaggio che non significa contraddizione della nostra libertà, ma la sua condizione. Grandi teologi della Scolastica hanno qualificato il matrimonio, cioè il legame per tutta la vita tra uomo e donna, come sacramento della creazione, che lo stesso Creatore ha istituito e che Cristo – senza modificare il messaggio della creazione – ha poi accolto nella storia della salvezza come sacramento della nuova alleanza. Fa parte dell’annuncio che la Chiesa deve recare la testimonianza in favore dello Spirito creatore presente nella natura nel suo insieme e in special modo nella natura dell’uomo, creato ad immagine di Dio. Partendo da questa prospettiva occorrerebbe rileggere l’Enciclica Humanae vitae: l’intenzione di Papa Paolo VI era di difendere l’amore contro la sessualità come consumo, il futuro contro la pretesa esclusiva del presente e la natura dell’uomo contro la sua manipolazione.

In brief, the Pope is reminding us that the Church has a responsibility for creation. However, this isn't only about protecting the environment - we are also called to develop an "ecology of man" whereby we stop ourselves from destroying ourselves. Central to this understanding of humanity is the Church's recognition of the relationship between man and woman. The reduction of 'gender' to the status of a social construct is to ignore God's plan and the fact that God speaks to us through creation - man being the image of God, for example, and the analogy between marriage and the covenant.

I'll try and post an English translation of the more important bits when it's available.

A Homily to be Preached at a Public Mass in Convent of Augustinian Nuns

3rd December 2007 - Monday of the 1st Week of Advent (Readings)
[Please pray that this will still be understandable when I render it into Italian]

Sisters and brothers, we find ourselves at the start of the new liturgical year, during the season of Advent. This word Advent comes from the Latin verb advenio and refers to the arrival or coming of the Lord. It is a time of preparation and expectation. Despite not having the strong penitential character of Lent, it is a sober time and one during which we are encouraged to have a conversion of heart in order that we might be ready to welcome the Lord when he comes. In short, Advent is a time of hope – because the Lord is faithful to his promises, and therefore our preparations will not be in vain.
It is therefore very fitting that the Holy Father should give us as an Advent-present his new Encyclical Letter, Spe Salvi. He addresses us his words on Christian hope, as we enter this period which is built around the hope of the Christian in the Coming of the Lord.

But what do we mean by the Coming of the Lord? Has not the Lord already come? Is Advent not just the preparation for Christmas, the feast that celebrates the Son of God entering the world? This is true, but our focus is elsewhere during the first half of Advent. We are invited to reflect on the Second Coming of the Lord. The word Advent, Adventus, translates into Greek as Parousia – the word used to refer to coming of the Lord in glory and judgement at the end of times. Looking around the world, we see that there is much injustice and suffering – and if history is to make sense, then there is need for a final, decisive intervention from above. What else does Isaiah mean when he speaks of “the blast of judgement and the blast of destruction” when “Lord will come and rest on the whole stretch of Mount Zion and on those who are gathered there, a cloud by day, and smoke, and by night the brightness of a flaring fire.”

The image is terrifying – but we must not be afraid. It is not intended as a threat but it is a call to responsibility and hope. The Holy Father tells us, “From the earliest times, the prospect of the Judgement has influenced Christians in their daily living as a criterion by which to order their present life, as a summons to their conscience, and at the same time as hope in God's justice.” (Spe Salvi, 41)
We hear the Lord speak of this same hour of justice in the Gospel when he says “many will come from east and west to take their places with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob at the feast in the kingdom of heaven.” Do not forget, He makes this promise in response to the astonishing faith of the Centurion. Let us take this Centurion as our model and welcome the Lord with humility. If we trust in Him and His justice, He we can be sure that will guide us through this season of preparation and make firm within us His hope.