He always had more than his fair share of critics. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with John Paul, he stood his ground against the eruption from hell we know as the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. But his senior partner was so charismatic, dynamic, charming, brilliant and entertaining that no one could lay a finger on him, no one could land a punch. He was Achilles without the Achilles heal. So they went after the quiet, shy, gentle one. But Benedict was like Odysseus to Achilles. More human. But for that reason even more admirable in his courage, steadfastness, and interior tranquility in the face of persecution.
With his passing, even those within his company don't hesitate to scrutinize him.
First things first: the red shoes. I had viewed this as a hint of metro-sexual vanity, relatively minor. But I learned that these red shoes have been worn for centuries by popes as testament to the blood of Christ's passion and that of the martyrs. He gets a pass on the red shoes. Part of his witness!
In a piece in First Things, Monsignor Tom Guarino of Seton Hall gives a typically concise, accurate overview of his contribution to Catholic theology, especially his participation in and implementation of the Council and related themes including faith/reason, Church and State, etc. He does not mention the immense impact of his personal writings including Introduction to Christianity and the marvelous Jesus trilogy. Staying in his lane as an academic theologian, Guarino does not highlight the aesthetic, dramatic and inspirational quality of Benedict's work.
Balthasar, Ratzinger's friend and collaborator, famously lamented the split off of academic theology from the more spiritual theology of the monasteries after the 13th century. Perhaps no one overcame this chasm as well as Benedict/Ratzinger. Even more than the more abstract, encyclopedic Balthasar, Benedict in everything he wrote has a pleasing, artistic touch; a crystal clarity and precision; and an understated sense of the ever-present Mystery of God in Christ. Only a handful of theologians have accomplished this happy synthesis: Schleeben, Newman, Guardino in the mode of Augustine.
Guarino identifies four weaknesses in his legacy: his dismissal of the theological significance of national episcopal conferences, the overly narrow Dominus Jesus, his failure to strongly discipline McCarrick and his acceptance of the Dallas Charter in its abuse of priests. These points are well taken: moving forward as a Church, these are four issues that demand correction. And yet: I cannot help myself; I must defend Benedict.
These four were not academic statements in a book or lecture, but pragmatic, pastoral, prudential judgments by a Church authority. Such practical statements are always open to criticism, development and correction. But within the context, these can be defended. Given two hours in a quiet library, Joseph Ratzinger would develop an impeccable, balanced theology of national bishops' conferences. But he was facing the real world that demanded practical guidance. I give you two words: German Synod. I give you another two words: Dallas Charter. Ratzinger saw the obvious dangers of various nations going their own ways. Guarino admits that as he mellows the criticism. To my mind he gave us good advice to take with more than a grain of salt much that comes from these conferences.
Likewise, Dominus Jesus lacked the ecumenical graciousness that Guarino so appreciates in the Council. But in view of the widespread indifferentism, relativism and sloppy syncretism of mainstream theology, I would argue that such a firm word was much needed, even as it needs to be corrected by the kind of concerns dear to Guarino's heart.
The failure to firmly discipline McCarrick is in retrospect a mistake. But I hesitate to criticize. The information at that time was not clear; the worst revelations only came later. The prospect of a canonical trial posed difficulties, especially given the network of support McCarrick had developed in the Vatican. And lastly, Benedict was at this point fatigued and his gentleness of character no doubt reluctant to start a fight based on uncertain evidence.
On the Dallas Charter Guarino is on firmer ground. This is mostly the work of the American bishops but we wish the Vatican had intervened or would now do so to protect due process for accused priests. I just went back and reread the scathing criticism which Avery Dulles penned as early as 2004. He clearly saw the toxic dynamics unleashed by Dallas. It is a tragedy that Guarino alone has taken up the mantle of Dulles in defense of the priesthood.
A different analysis comes to us from the always observant Ross Douthat. With his generational cohort of conservative Catholics he grieves the implosion of the Catholic Restoration that seemed to have been accomplished by John Paul and Benedict. Douthat is accurate, from a journalistic-political perspective: the legacy so apparently fixed by the dual papacy has imploded under Francis. However, I view it from a different, more hopeful and philosophical viewpoint.
First of all, the culture war over liberal, progressive, late-modernity...accommodation versus resistance...is never-ending and endemic to the Church. It will never end. The impulse to a "concordat" with the broader culture (of Francis) is always with us. So the swing from "conservative" to ":progressive" is part of Church history.
More importantly: the legacy of Benedict and John Paul is firmly in place. First of all, their amazing teaching is with us: in their books, talks and writings. Secondly, several younger generations of priests are faithful to this legacy. They are the Church of the future. Thirdly, the lay renewal movements and newer religious orders are passionate in their allegiance. This legacy has a staying power!
At this point, a decade in, we can evaluate the pontificate of Francis. It is one of confusion and polarization as the "synodal" process promises more of the same. But on the positive side, (as noted in earlier blog): Francis has not clearly reversed any Catholic teachings. He is always vague and confusing. He has not articulated a theological vision. He will not be an inspiration to a new generation of young, progressive priests. Why would a devout young idealist give up marriage, family, wealth and freedom to campaign against capital punishment in the state of Texas, the Islamic and Communist countries? Or to open the borders of the wealthy North to the suffering South? Or to reduce global warming?
Finally, we consider again the widespread conservative lament that Benedict abandoned us and our cause with his resignation. On the contrary: he demonstrated for us how to continue to wage the Culture War. calmly, prayerfully, joyfully, confidently, hopefully, soberly, humbly. He taught us how to hate the sin and the error but love the sinner and the one who is in error. We know from the new book by his secretary that he grieved the suppression of the Latin mass, the failure of Francis to answer the Dubia, and other actions of his successor. But amazingly, he maintained a mutually reverent and affectionate relationship with the new pope. His loyalty was impeccable. His interior peace unblemished by resentment, fragility, or vulnerability. He was a tough cookie! Brilliant! Holy! Humble! Gentle! Sober! Serene!
He is our captain, our leader, our commander. He, with John Paul, leaves us the content of our faith and also the manner in which we are to live it. He will NOT be missed because he is closer to us now, in death, than he could ever be in the flesh!
No comments:
Post a Comment