The key assumption made in debates in the Australian blogosphere about the elevation of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to the Papacy under the name of Benedict XVI is that his record at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith indicates his will be a conservative if not reactionary Pontificate.
This is true in one sense - no Cardinal elected by this Conclave was likely to break ranks with John Paul II on issues such as women priests, the distinctiveness of the Catholic Church, homosexuality, the “culture of life” and so on. Much as I’d welcome some movement on these matters, that’s just realism.
However, on reflection, I’m not so sure that the dire predictions of many liberal Catholics and indeed self described secularists are necessarily going to be fulfilled. Interpreting the tea leaves of Vatican politics is as complex an exercise as Kremlinology was, and predictions have always been rife, including those of Nostradamus. Obviously the speculation about Benedict’s future based on Ratzinger’s past are based more in rationality than arcane and esoteric prophecy. But I’d like to sound a note of caution.
Ratzinger was a liberal theologian in his youth and as a peritus (expert) at the Second Vatican Council, and a close colleague of Hans Kung. It’s eminently possible that he will bring aspects of this past to his Papacy as well. The hyper-orthodox who act more like a political faction than a religious grouping, and who blithely take upon themselves the power to accuse liberal Catholics of heresy are often (though not always) difficult to distinguish from schismatic “traditional” Catholics who reject Vatican II entirely. Ratzinger was careful to defend the teaching of the Second Vatican Council as an integral part of Catholic tradition against the schismatic movement of Archbishop Lefevre. Benedict XVI would be well aware of the tendency of hyper-orthodox Catholics to set themselves up as their own judges in matters of faith and morals, and aware also of the need for unity in the Church. Indeed, such extremism differs from traditional ultramontanism (or the tendency to elevate the Papacy over the local Church) in that it is also a sign of the postmodern phenomenon of picking for oneself elements of religion to observe. It’s remarkable how often these conservative Catholics ignore papal teaching when it suits them, for instance on matters of justice and peace.
One conclusion that can be drawn from the short Conclave is that Cardinal Ratzinger must have had the support of many moderate Cardinals. His personal qualities seem attractive. And, as a number of commentators, including the bete-noire of the ultra-orthodox, Australian priest Dr Paul Collins have observed, his choice of the name Benedict is significant:
In choosing the name Benedict, the Pope is seeking to inherit the mantle of Benedict XV, pope from 1914 to 1922, who was regarded as a moderate following the anti-modernist Pius X.
The name Benedict appears intended to soften the Pope’s image as a hardliner.
In his first encyclical, issued only months after his installation, Benedict XV called a halt to the war between traditionalists and progressives in the church.
He also sought to end what he called the “useless slaughter” of World War I that played out during his papacy.
“Benedict’s pontificate was characterised by the attempt to bring peace both to a war-ravaged Europe and to a church recently torn by the Modernist crisis,” according to the Encyclopedia of Catholicism.
The other factor to take into consideration, as Jesuit Fr Bill Uren also notes, is that in any organisation it’s hard to discern the genuine views of those in subordinate positions, no matter how powerful. Uren also argues that Ratzinger was a moderating influence on John Paul II.
I’m not making any predictions, but on reflection, I wouldn’t be so quick to rush to judgement about the papacy of Benedict XVI as some on both left and right have been.
Elsewhere: Chris McGillion argues the case for seeing Benedict XVI as a compromise candidate. Peter Wilson suggests in The Australian that it’s Benedict’s turn to be “good cop”.
Update: Tim Dunlop looks at some of the political issues that arise for secular liberals. The Guardian has a round up of international blog reaction, reinforcing the point that those chanting “down with heresy” may be reacting prematurely.
Further update: Hans Kung argues we should not rush to judgement and John Allen in the National Catholic Reporter reinforces the point about the choice of the name Benedict:
The very name is maybe one indication. While the primary reference may be to St. Benedict, the founder of European monasticism, no doubt there are echoes also of Benedict XV, who reigned from 1914 to 1922 and put an end to the conservative anti-modernist campaigns of the pontificate of St. Pius X. Benedict said that rather than worrying about the least signals of doctrinal error, it was enough for someone to use Catholic as their first name, and Christian as their family name.
Perhaps, therefore, Pope Benedict XVI was sending a subtle signal that he too would like to be a conciliator rather than an authoritarian, repressive figure.
The English text of the Pope’s first homily is online at the New York Times. The NYT notes a striking change of tone.
Additional update: Mark has another liberal Catholic take posted.
Extremely interesting: Courtesy of saint in comments, this article by an Italian journalist said to be well informed lays out some speculations on Benedict’s papacy, including the suggestion (with some supporting evidence) that the Church may revisit its prohibition on condoms.
I daresay it gives you even less joy to hear it than it does me to say it, Mark, but for the first time ever I completely agree with you.
Now isn’t that a civil way of starting a flame war?
No, Rob, it’s nice to be in agreement sometimes. See, we disagree!
I think they Benedict is a somewhat stop-gap Pope, designed to be pretty much a JPII sequel until the Church can work out which way people will go. I heard this morning that 2900 Catholic churches in the States are without a priest because there aren’t enough priests left (but I don’t know who said it or what their motivation was). However, as many RWDBs have pointed out people are returning to more traditional churches in the wake of terrorism threats, so perhaps the Pope is the right one if he is a conservative because that may be what people are looking for. I think the Church has taken a calculated risk in thinking those that who want change will stay and try to change from within so they won’t lose too many people.
Yes, those 2900 priests left for a good woman (or man, I guess) and the occasional shag. I persoanlly know two Aussie former seminarians who left for the same reason - and its not like I hang round Church circles. Makes me wonder how Tony Abbot went when he did his time in the mid-80s.
Which is the slowburn issue for Catholicism - forget women priests, how about allowing humans at the pulpit first?
Mindy, it’s like that in Australia too. In inner city Brisbane, 2 priests are assigned jointly to 6 parishes.
Here’s another example:
The demographic profile of the priesthood is rapidly aging, and the retirement age of Australian priests is now 75. I once saw a 90 year old priest being held up (literally) by two men at the Altar when he said Mass in the absence of the Parish priest. All the predictions show the ratio of priests to parishioners rising very rapidly over the next decade.
The Australian National Council of Priests has supported removing the celibacy rule.
So Hermes, there are indeed humans in the pulpit - many very old, tired and lonely.
“Only Nixon can go to China”.
Fingers crossed.
Well I suppose it’s nice if he’s going to be a conciliator, but unless you’re a Catholic, this is of no great moment. What matters is how he’s actually going to rule on matters of doctrine. I don’t mean celibacy and women priests, because I don’t personally mind if the the church shrivels and declines due to lack of vocations. Rather I mean what the church teaches about homosexualtity and condoms, which have a real effect on attitudes, values and practices worldwide. It’s no good being a concilator, listener, nice to his opponents etc. if he isn’t going to change the doctrine. And if he sees the issues as black and white, he won’t change it, will he?
There’s also some hope he’ll take a strong line against the abuses inherent in the “War on Terror”, James, and on issues of peace and war generally. Like the last Benedict.
I agree with you on condoms - but it’s possible from within the Catholic tradition to defend their use as preserving life and as a “lesser evil”. If it saves lives, then I wouldn’t worry too much about the theological hair-splitting.
We’ll see.
Kim’s right that issues of morality and sexuality aren’t the only ones where the Papacy has an impact outside the Catholic Church. International politics, where as I noted ultra conservative Catholics usually ignore or explain away Catholic teaching (another example is JP2’s strong support for the UN), is a very important one.
There’s also the fact, James, that social justice teaching has an impact on the people in the pews’ politics - there’s survey evidence for instance, as I recall, that practising Catholics are more compassionate towards refugees than the general population in Australia.
‘…practising Catholics are more compassionate towards refugees than the general population in Australia.’
My WA relatives think refugee boats should be towed away if not sunk, while my next-door neighbour thinks they should be welcomed and the detention centres closed. All mass-going Catholics. I’m not sure if there’s any pattern. In any case, none of them would change their minds on the basis of papal advice.
I wonder how many American (mass-going) Catholics were influenced by the JPII’s pronouncements on the Iraq war.
James, I said more compassionate not overwhelmingly so or universally so. It’s always easy to find anecdotal evidence to disagree with survey research. I have to run though so you’ll have to rely on my recollection - I don’t have time to track down the source today.
The Village Voice has a deeper probe into Rats and his connections.
Rats it appears will be an integral part of the NeoCon ‘war on terror’, with a mighty coalition of far-right Protestants and Catholics, with the US administration pitching in and financial support from Domino Pizza (crust almighty!).
http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/000859.php
And our George is the local factotum.
Watch the takeoff of Notre Dame, with a little help from our John.
Quite right, Mark. Sorry if I seemed to be refuting survey evidence with anecdote. In any case what you say is consistent with my original comment that popes affect attitudes. If Ratzinger will contuinue to spread a sense of social justice, that’s terrific, but it would be even better if he also helped spread tolerance to gays, and a preference for sexual hygiene and rational procreation.
I don’t disagree, James. But I think we’ll be hoping in vain on the first (and extremely important) point.
farthington, I found the logic of the VV article very weak. It’s all about some character called Monaghan, whose only connection with Ratzinger was as a student. What sort of student - a Doctoral student, someone who sat in a lecture? Were they close? Are they still in touch?
Benedict XVI would be well aware of the tendency of hyper-orthodox Catholics to set themselves up as their own judges in matters of faith and morals, and aware also of the need for unity in the Church.
I’ll put this much more politely than a commenter at his place, but Dreaddie is an example - his casuistry in trying to claim that it’s ok for him to have sex as a gay man if he regularly repents and he can use a condom because he’s not meant to have sex anyway reveals some contradictions, to say the least. And of course he argues that he’s not bound by Papal teaching on issues to do with social and economic justice, or war and peace.
Right-wing Cafeteria Catholicism!
I wouldn’t worry if I were him - love is not a sin and to be gay is not “inherently morally evil”.
I wonder if his first mass indicates a massive change of tone arriving with the job (as sometimes happens to people appointed as judges), or just a stab at diplomacy.
It is difficult to see how he has moved on from the Church’s position in the dark ages (trackback).
Kim, you have mischaracterised my position and the Church’s all at once.
I don’t think it is ok to confess with the intention of sinning again. That would make an invalid confession and approach scandal. I have never supported such a position, in fact numerous times I have rejected it.
Nor have I ever discussed the use of condoms in the manner you describe, rather I have supported the Church’s teachings on that issue in numerous posts.
Finally, the Church does not believe that to BE gay is inherently morally anything. Orientation is morally neutral.
I am surprised that you fit all of those errors into one small post. Quite an achievement
“Finally, the Church does not believe that to BE gay is inherently morally anything.Orientation is morally neutral.”
So, as long you don’t actually act on your desires Dreads, you won’t go to hell? Sounds a bit, um, wanky.
Perhaps it’s true that Church doctrine says that orientation is neutral. Good luck getting Communion, though, DREADNOUGHT, if you’re openly gay or lesbian.
dreadnought, you say that the Church believes “orientation is morally neutral”, but that’s not what Cardinal Ratzinger said in his letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexuals. He said “homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern.”
Ah, the contortions of theology… Even some gay rights advocates are only trying to get ‘celibate homosexuality’ accepted (and how does that work again?)
Personally, I feel sure the Catholic church was invented by the Good Lord to make sex more thrilling and sinful.
Incidentally, where does Der Vati stand on wanking? Anyone?
Stop it, Hermes, or you’ll go blind.
[Christ I wish Homer had said that.]
*
Michael Novak the American free-market Catholic conservative has an article in the NY Times today. His quotes from the new pope suggest sympathy for an anti-statist position close to economic libertarianism. I suspect the Church majority has realised that the American fundamentalist right is its natural ally on the important moral issues, and that the old-style Christian Democrat leanings of JP2 on economic policy (vague and ambiguous as these were) were an obstacle to consolidating this alliance. After all which Oz politician pushes Catholic moral values? Abbott union-basher no. 1.
(accessories / accessibility / magnifier…)
Ahh, Fyodor, its you… Give me a moment…
Hi Mark
I didnt write that last paragraph (Novak etc)- not wanky enough for my tastes. Who’s the other Hermes?
Another take.
I’ll make a decision when the panoply regalia disappear and hysteria die down. Personally I think more of the same with a twist here and there.
Mark, the other argument is that the changes John Paul II made in the election procedure. Under No 75 after 30 ballots a conclave can elect by 1/2+1, not 2/3+1. A determined candidate with 1/2+1 of the votes could simply refuse to release his votes and threaten to wait out the 30 ballots until the 2/3+1 formula stopped applying. Until the usual leaking about the conclave starts we just won’t know.
I agree that Benedict XVI may end up quite different from Cardinal Ratzinger, but it could go either way.
Let’s get down to the basics.
Celibacy is bullshit.
The Catholic Church is in crisis because it will not admit the facts.
Expect Free Range Molestation (T.M.), under Joe the Rat.
Now “old red sox”.
Hermes, oddly, all the comments seem to originate from the same email address and IP. Puzzling? Divine intervention?
Alan, I agree that the changes made by JP2 are negative.
saint, thanks for the link.
Re the priesthood, is there any evidence young men are knocking down the door to become Anglican priests or AOG pastors? I doubt it. The West is becoming mission territory and we’ll probably be evangelised by Koreans, Africans and Indians.
With respect to the reception of Pope Ratzinger, I have to say the turn-around amongst liberals is amazing - welcome, but amazing. Embarrassed by their own hysteria they’re now realising he might be alright. The “down with heresy” bit was self-indugent caricature Mark, oui? Who was chanting that exactly?
Liam, I’m not sure what you mean by implying openly gay people can’t receive communion. To suggest that all gay people look gay can’t be what you mean; and even if true, they wouldn’t be barred from communion. If you’re referring to approaching the sacrament wearing an advertisement that proclaims your rejection of the Church’s moral teaching (and also your own teaching authority within the assembly - authority you don’t have), then, yes, you’ll be passed over.
As you should be.
C.L., I believe the Anglican Church in Brisbane has more priests than it knows what to do with or can employ. Go figure!
The “down with heresy” thing comes from a US Catholic blog - follow the Guardian roundup link at the bottom of the post.
As to a turnaround, well, that’s a bit exaggerated - there’s nothing wrong with a bit of reflection, surely. I took the opportunity last night of reading a lot of Ratzinger’s writings and that shifted my views, and thought more about the whole thing. I imagine I’m the only lefty blogger who’s done the turnaround though!
I still repudiate the position that Benedict has taken in the past on homosexuality and generally on matters of sex and sexuality.
But as I’ve said consistently, us mob are the Church just as much as the Pope is. I had a beer with a theologically-inclined friend tonight and we agreed that reading some of the ultra-orthodox stuff on the web (not referring to you of course - you’re a moderate Santamaria/Mannix Catholic) that many (not all) liberal Catholics are more faithful to the Church than the ultra-orthodox who hover uneasily on the edge of schism, are often close to heretical (e.g . the Neocats on sacramental theology who’ve been vigorously attacked by traditionalist Catholics), and have a sect-like vision of the Church which is most unCatholic. Plus the phenomenon of private judgement (not the same thing as liberty of conscience) that I noted in the post.
We also discussed how Ratzinger paved the way for women priests in the next Papacy or the one after, but perhaps I’ll post on that seperately some time as I’ll imagine you’ll need some convincing.
Anyway, I’m happy to keep saying “[Credo in] unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.” Popped in to St. Stephen’s this arvo and said a prayer in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel for old Benny.
Oh no, CL, you misunderstand!
If he turns out to be “alright”, then that’s alright, at face value. And if he turns out to be just Ratzinger in a pointy hat, i.e. if he embarked on a “hang onto your rosaries!” crusade, confirming the Church of Rome’s anachronistic status and alienating more people from it through grumbling about heretics and all that, well, that’s alright too!
It’s not as if I was expecting a liberal to become pope, anyway.
Oh yeah, judging from the problems that Protestant demoninations have finding ministers, (aside from the charismatic “tithe and be saved!” franchises) I wouldn’t expect allowing married priests to solve the vocation problem by itself.
Aside from that, given Ratzinger’s experience as lieutenant to JPII, I think he ought to be worldly enough to approach various issues with some amount of pragmatism.
Graham, on his pragmatism, as I noted, there’s some evidence (and more I’ve found after some research in his writings) that Ratzinger was a moderating influence on JP2. I’ll have more to say soonish.
The article saint linked to by an Italian journalist said to be well informed lays out some speculations on Benedict’s papacy, including the suggestion (with some supporting evidence) that the Church may revisit its prohibition on condoms.
First encyclical should be interesting.
That’s also what Hans Kung’s saying! I think we are in for some very interesting times.
How about dental dams?
Um I believe in South Australia, the Baptists have more ordained ministers who are not in ministry than those that are.
Frankly whatever you think of married priests, celibate priests or whatever, I doubt that would impact on those lining up for the ministry. It seems to me that sheep bite is about as common an affliction amongst shepherds as being sheep shy.
As to Ratzinger: I think, like all of us, he will be his own man.
The big issue about celibacy is that it forces regular clergy to live fairly isolated and miserable lives. That’s obviously exacerbated by the clergy abuse scandal. It’s one thing to have a sociable life in the Vatican where you get to talk to human beings occasionally and quite another to face a grim existence in the Woop Woop presbytery. Celibacy is fairly recent, (800 years as opposed to 2000) and it’s not applied generally anyway. Ex-Anglican priests who become Catholics stay married and get to be Catholic priests. Celibacy is really only a rule that you can’t marry if you’ve always been Catholic. It undoubtedly makes clergy abuse more likely, it’s not central to the tradition and it should be reformed.
The obvious reform is the Orthodox rule that priests can marry but monks cannot. Benedict XVI is actually a lot more liberal on this issue than his predecessor.
Have found it impossible to download article about condoms by Italian journalist and our “New Value, Groovy Pope”, via saint.
Suspect, Benny would be trying to prop up Pirelli tyres. A natural flow on ,to make him acceptable in his adopted country. George Pell, would surely have been more Ansell orientated. An opportunity blown for Anzacs.
Alan while I don’t have a problem with married priests, I don’t think it makes sexual abuse more likely: what of the filth amongst the Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox. Oh and the U.C. hasn’t been immune either. And world leaders on sexual misdemeanours: pentecostals
The more and more I read of Ratzinger’s actual texts, the more hopeful about Benedict XVI I become.
Alan as far as I am aware married priests who become Catholic priests are asked to give up their sexual relations with their wives, but are allowed to have their wives stay married to them and help them in their ministry. This may have changed or may be completely wrong, but it is what I heard years ago when involved in a discussion of religion.
I don’t think that’s right (at least anymore), Mindy, but I’ll check on it. You might be thinking of the early development of celibacy in the Western church where it became a belief that priests should abstain from sex before celebrating Mass. This was related to ideas about impurity derived from Jewish temple practice, and stigmatised women as the source of impurity (the custom of “churching” women - ie blessing women who’ve given birth before they can participate again in liturgy has a similar root) and is therefore misogynistic - another reason why many people oppose celibacy (there are arguments that go beyond the practical ones). When priests began to celebrate Mass daily, they could never have sex.
The discussion was probably 12 years ago, about an Anglican priest who had recently decided that the Catholics did it better and gone to be a Catholic priest instead. As he was married (and this may have just been scurrilous Anglican gossip) he was expected not to continue having relations with his wife, although of course they wouldn’t/couldn’t divorce.
Sorry Mark, Alan, seems like it was just scurrilous gossip after all. A quick google of married catholic priests came up with a website saying that JPII gave already married priests from other faiths special dispensation to become Catholic priests while still enjoying their marriage.
That’s what I thought, Mindy.
But are these priests required to believe in Popper’s theory of free trade under the rule of law?
Well, if not, then they should be, Kim!
it isn’t popper’s law but poper’s law