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.

On Deacons, Female Deacons and Deaconesses...

This statement by Fr Lombardi is what is known as 'pouring cold water' on a story.

In fairness to the Pope, he was asked the question & he _didn't_ really seem enthusiastic about it. He said that he'd have to check whether there were studies done about it. (He obviously didn't recall the 2002 report of the International Theological Commission which stated quite clearly that the deaconesses of the early Church were not simply female versions of the ordained deacons.) He pointed out that in so far as he knew, the historical and theological evidence was that deaconesses were not simply 'female deacons', by reference to what he had been told by an expert in the field. And then, proceeding from that point of uncertainty he said that a commission on the matter "seems useful to me." To my mind, a fair reading of his words suggests that the establishment of a commission is something that he _might_ do, having looked into the matter further.

However, various media outlets ran with the story suggesting that the pope was _definitely_ going to establish a commission. Various Catholic commentators went into _overload_ throwing out scenarios about all the work that 'female deacons' would do in terms of preaching, baptising, etc, etc... and basically gave the impression that this was around the corner.

Now, speaking as someone who doesn't claim to be an expert, but who has studied the history of theology, it seems to me that the 'deaconesses' in Church history didn't have the same duties as the ordained deacons, and that their appointment/installation as deaconesses wasn't usually seen as being sacramental ordination. I cannot see _any_ plausible path whereby the present historical evidence can justify any other convincing conclusion.

The question of whether some kind of non-sacramental position within the Church carrying the title of deaconess might be useful in this day and age is another question, and is possibly more debatable. Given Pope Francis's consistent line about not clericalising the laity, I don't see that happening.

But whatever your understanding of the historical and theological position, I think there's a lesson here in the way that the media and certain Catholic commentators aren't content to give a balanced account of what the Pope _actually_ says, but decide to run with their own agenda. That's what leads to Fr Lombardi having to clarify these remarks. It's not the Pope being hopelessly obscure. It's people choosing not to listen to him honestly.

Miserando atque Eligendo

Processing
I suppose I'm still trying to process the election of our new Pope Francis.  The transition from Blessed John Paul II to his trusted collaborator Cardinal Ratzinger was relatively straightforward. I was already well familiar with the gentle professor from Bavaria who grew into the man I revere as Pope Benedict XVI.  His resignation and retirement into a monastic life of prayer for the Church was a huge surprise, and it was only after the excitement of the announcement of Pope Francis and his charming 'Buona sera' to the world and the people of Rome died away, that I began to realise how strange it would be to adjust to a new Pope, and one who was only slightly known to me as a Cardinal before his election.

Francis is neither Benedict XVI nor John Paul II
I suppose the first (blindingly obvious) point to be made is that Francis is neither Benedict nor John Paul and it does a huge injustice to all concerned if we expect all Popes to be the same.
I know that parish clergy are familiar with the phenomenon that there there is no priest as good as the man who preceded him in his parish. I had the experience recently of talking to a woman from a parish where a very popular priest was being replaced by a younger successor. In conversation, she told me how upset she was that Fr Pat was going to another parish and how there would be no one ever like him. "Well," I said, "aren't you getting Fr Joe in his place, I know him well and he's a fine priest too." I don't know whether I was hoping to ease her disquiet or to wring from her some expression of positivity towards the new man. Whatever I had hoped she'd say, I must confess that I was disappointed when all she could reply was that there was no one like the man who was leaving.
In retrospect, I suppose it testifies to the fact that priests do make a positive impression in people's lives, and the (honest) conviction that no one could be as good as the priest is a by-product of that positive effect. And as things happen, when it's time for the little-regarded newcomer to move on, he'll have become the one that everyone misses and believes to irreplaceable.
The Church has been through an extraordinary period of almost three-and-a-half decades (half a biblical lifespan!) when the successor of St Peter has been a top-drawer intellectual. Blessed John Paul II was a fine philosopher, whilst his collaborator was one of the theological greats of the age. Blessed John Paul II's magisterium was particularly fruitful, whilst Benedict XVI came to the Petrine Ministry with a higher theological profile (in terms of books published, etc...) than any of his successors to date. We might have gotten used to what is, historically speaking, an anomaly. Certainly previous Popes were fine scholars and brilliant men.  However, very few were intellectuals in the way that John Paul and Benedict were. We forget that we have often had Popes in the past who were diplomats or pastors or canonists, who have successfully steered the Barque of Peter making use of the talents and charisms they themselves have had.  There is a saying, after a fat Pope, a lean Pope - a reminder that Popes differ in their talents and that it may well be the Church needs a Pope who differs from the man who came before him.
I suspect that we'll need a decade or two to properly digest the magisterial contributions of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  They have laid down the intellectual framework within which the Church has received the Second Vatican Council. The outlook of the priests formed under their influence will have its impact in the years to come. Now, however, that the intellectual foundation has been laid, perhaps it is time for Peter to do something else, whilst the Church as a whole draws on the teachings of his two predecessors.

The Jesuit Pope
 In the short time that I've come to see him, Pope Francis has reminded me of some of the best of the Jesuit who taught me in Rome.  We have heard much about the simplicity of his life - the apartment in Buenos Aires, his use of public transport, his nearness to the poor.  All that is typical of the best sort of Jesuit.  They live a simple life and are totally committed to the mission assigned to them.  It's interesting to note from his biography that he has had a very varied range of ministries - a man qualified in chemical engineering, he has also taught literature and psychology, been involved in the formation of religious, done parish work, served as Jesuit Provincial in his home country and has served as a Bishop. If the impression he has made as Archbishop of Buenos Aires is anything to go by, he has that Ignatian charism of giving oneself totally to one's mission in obedience to ones superiors.  I think that augers well for a Papacy that will be one of service, distinctive and innovative in style, perhaps, but above all obedient to the Lord who entrusts him with this ministry.

The Latin-American Background
It seems that to make sense of our new Pope, we need to take into account his Latin American background. Much has been made of the supposed contrast between his doctrinal conservatism and his care for the poor. It genuinely grieves me that it should be accepted as a commonplace that one can be either orthodox or compassionate, but rarely, if ever both.
From my rather crude understanding of things, the Church in Latin America has struggled with the attractions of both the political left and right.  On one hand, there exists the temptation of 'protecting' the Church by siding with the so-called right, turning a blind eye to corruption and oppression for the sake of preserving the status of the Church as an institution. On the other hand, one can opt for the so-called 'left' and buy into a kind of Marxism that sides with the poor, albeit at the cost of some basic Christian principles and the danger of flirting with revolutionary violence.  As I say, that's an exceptionally crude caricature of the lay of the land there, but the most authentic response of the Church is to reject such a devilish dilemma by remaining true to the Gospel in its fullness.
I thought that Pope Francis's first homily as Pope was very telling.
He preached Christ, the Cross and our inability to build anything as a Church if we do not build on Christ. He said:

we can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ.

Confession of Christ is at the core, and Francis has done that in his ministry to the poor in Buenos Aires. He insisted that more priests work in the barrios and frequently visited the poorest parts of his diocese in a spirit of service and solidarity with the poor.  And yet, he rejected the so-called liberation theology movement.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as head of the CDF, was hugely critical of this movement.  He saw that in reducing the work of the Church to political and economic liberation, there was an implicit rejection of Christ. In making the Church just another participant in class warfare, the image of God as Old Testament liberator was not 'filled out' by the fuller vision of God given to us through His beloved Son. The Cross was perceived purely as a sign of oppression, rather than as God's own instrument to bring about liberation.  Ratzinger feared that the theological analysis of some Liberation Theologians essentially excluded Christ, and in so doing, failed to respect the right of the poor to receive not only social and economic justice, but also the spiritual and intellectual liberation that is given to us in Christ Himself. To deny the poor that kind liberation and to make of the Church's mission something primarily economic or political was, Ratzinger argued, a denial of the full humanity of the poor.
I would read the homily of Pope Francis as being in continuity with Ratzinger on this Christological point.

My Hopes for Pope Francis
I must say that I was charmed and continue to be charmed by our new Pope. He is not the towering figure of John Paul II or a gentle professorial guide like Benedict XVI. He will build on their foundations, but he will not be exactly like either of them.
Having read some of his preaching as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, it's clear that his style is not as intellectual or refined as his two predecessors. I don't mean, of course, that he's not a thinker - he's a very accomplished and intelligent man. Even though Benedict spoke with great clarity, I suspect that he will challenge us more directly than Benedict did, and, whilst not as natural a man for crowds as John Paul II, I suspect Francis will hit us straight between the eyes with the Gospel and shame us into being better Christians.
Much has been laid on the shoulders of Pope Francis so far as Curial reform is concerned. I don't know enough about him to know what his background is in this.  He's definitely a Curial outsider, never having served in the Roman Curia, but has been on a number of important Vatican Congregations, so he's not totally naive either. Some reports say that his time as provincial of the Jesuits and as head of the Argentinian Bishops' Conference show him to have the capacity to administer and reform. I certainly hope so, and trust that the evident goodwill and affection of his fellow Cardinals and the Church as a whole will stand to him in this task.
Finally, I pray that the warmth and affection that the world has for Pope Francis will help him make Christ known, that he will, by his way of life and preaching win many hearts and souls for Christ and His Church, and help those of us within the fold to live our vocations more authentically.