The focus of Pope Benedict’s reign has been to draw sharp boundaries that strictly define what it means to be a Catholic, what it means to be a priest, and how the Church should reconfigure itself in order to exile members who are not true believers. For Benedict, the church must be an orthodox community, which means that it will be a smaller community.
But as we have seen in the Vatican’s unsure handling of the controversy around Bishop Richard Williamson, the global trends that the Pope wants to resist are going to pose serious challenges to a more orthodox church and its leadership.
Tyranny of the Minority
Benedict’s understanding of the church—his reinterpretation of the reforms of Vatican II in particular—erases the power of local culture in the experience of Catholicism. It also undermines the ecumenical movement by claiming that Protestant churches are not “true” churches, judges priests on their identity (gay priests must leave) rather than their actions, stops dialogue on any topics that do not meet the Pope’s approval (such as the possibility of women priests), sheds gay people from its ranks and fights against their rights, ignores the diminishing number of priests and the effects of this shortage on Church communities, and calls on Catholics to form the “perfect society” resembling the ecclesiology of Opus Dei. It is no surprise that Pope Benedict comes from a country—Germany—where the percentage of Church members attending Sunday mass is one of the lowest in the world. Strict adherence to orthodoxy will not be popular.
In an odd parallel, Benedict’s view of the Church resembles the ecclesiology of the Protestant theologian Stanley Hauerwas, who argued that the Christian church should focus on creating a community of character that strictly follows its convictions as a body while suppressing autonomy in its members. Adherence to the ethos of such a church is through the family, which is shaped by a sexual morality that is limited, exclusive, and onerous. Drawn together by this shared narrative, the church community is small, insular, and rigid in its political commitments and ethical expectations.
Hauerwas’ church engages with the world by transforming its members, not by seeking to transform the ethics of its non-members. This is where the resemblance between Benedict and Hauerwas ends. While Benedict is leading his church into a period of contraction through strict orthodoxy, he wants to maintain the influence of Catholic moral theology on the larger global society. For instance, the Vatican maintains its presence at the United Nations, where it opposes resolutions like the recent one in support of gay rights. We might call this strategy “the tyranny of the minority.”
Through the “small Church” ecclesiology of Benedict, many Catholics are already being encouraged to take their spiritual business elsewhere. We have seen an increase in the number of American politicians who are asked to remove themselves from communion lines and, recently, priests have even denied parishioners communion if they vote for a political candidate who favors abortion rights. This exclusion from the sacrament is essentially a form of excommunication.
Dogma Over Diplomacy
Ironically, at a time when many earnest believers are being turned away from the communion rail, the Pope recently un-excommunicated Bishop Richard Williamson, who a few days before his reconciliation with the church reaffirmed his belief that the Holocaust did not happen (as Louis Ruprecht has reported on these pages). Unfazed by the possibility of public outrage, the Pope has embraced a figure who is a lightning rod when it comes to the Church’s relations with Jews. While Catholic-Jewish relations had grown closer during the reign of Pope John Paul II, Benedict’s background as an ex-Hitler youth has created some suspicions about his true beliefs when it comes to the dignity of the Jewish religion. With this new development, the Rabbinate of Israel has severed ties with the Vatican and expressed concern about future relations with a Benedict-led Catholic Church.
Why would Benedict reach out to Bishop Williamson and two of the bishop’s fellow travelers at a time when he is shrinking the church? I would argue that reconciliation with these Lefebvrite bishops, as well as the resurrection of the Tridentine Mass, shows that in the eyes of the current papacy, orthodox belief in traditional dogma is more important than the church’s relationship with other religions and the rest of the world. Put simply, these men think like Benedict when it comes to the church’s relationship to the world. This is underlined by Benedict’s revision of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, a move that mirrors the thinking of Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the renegade church with whom these bishops are attached.
Benedict makes it clear who is part of this more tightly circumscribed church and who is not. While many people are troubled by the Pope’s embrace of Holocaust-deniers and saddened when priests ask folks to step out of communion lines because of how they vote, Benedict believes that those who value spiritual sentiment over orthodoxy do not fit the mold of what it means to be Catholic today. They must see the church and Catholicism the way he sees it or leave the fold.
The Vatican seemed surprised that the rapprochement with Bishop Williamson would pose public relations problems for the church. Condemned by many theologians, politicians (including Angela Merkel in the Pope’s native Germany), and Jewish leaders, Benedict’s ecclesial acceptance of someone most thoughtful people would not invite to a cocktail party demonstrated a lack of emotional intelligence when it comes to understanding history and the changing sensibilities of his own flock.
The Vatican has not only felt the need to respond to the secular challenges related to this story through an atypical press statement; moreover, it has also come under pressure to clarify Benedict’s own position on Vatican II. Consequently, the Vatican has now requested that Williamson and the Lefebrvrite bishops publicly state that they are in adherence with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
All corrections to this controversy aside, what has been revealed in this story is Benedict’s vision of the Church as a “perfect society” that places orthodoxy as the primary requirement of membership. If the faithful are willing to give this unquestioning assent to papal rule, then filtering history through the lens of bigotry is not a problem for the Church.
But Benedict’s vision for the Church is a big problem for gay folks, women who seek equal rights, people who believe the expression of sexuality should not be restricted to marriage and procreation, those who embrace ecumenical dialogue, and people who believe in the primacy of conscience (a hallmark of post-Vatican II Catholic moral theology). For Benedict, a Holocaust denier is welcome and these ecclesiastical outliers are not. Ironically, by recognizing Williamson as a member of the Church in good standing, Benedict has made his flock much smaller.
Tags: benedict, denial, excommunication, holocaust, homosexuality, orthodoxy, paul gorrell, pope, reform, reform, richard williamson, sexuality, vatican ii
Gorrell disingenuously misreads Benedict XVI, his intentions and Vatican II. He rightfully notes that the Vatican was caught off-guard by the reaction to this one bishop. The Pope and the various Vatican offices have been focused on reconciliation with a schismatic group of Catholics. Students of history will understand that the best time to heal a religious fissure is soon after the split, before the split becomes permanent and begins to develop its own permanent beliefs that themselves become permanent obstacles to unity. Like so many progressive and conservative Christians, Mr. Gorrell sees much in Vatican II that is simply not there. Pope Benedict XVI has the advantage of actually having been there. Yes, Bishop Williamson (a former Anglican) has held to noxious notions about the Holocaust, but attempts to link Bishop Williamson's views to some dark Vatican scheme are refuted by the words and deeds of the Pope individually and the Catholic Church corporately to forge better relations with Jews and Judaism. For the Pope and the Catholic Church, this is a distraction, and one that the Vatican has dealt with rather well, demanding a recanting of Bishop Williamson's denial of the Holocaust. But back to the big picture, reconciling traditionalist Catholics to the Church is the goal of the Pope and of the Catholic traditionalists, as well. Mr. Gorrell's summarizing comments regarding the Pope's vision of the Church are curious at best. The Pope is simply articulating Vatican II Catholic ecclesiology and theology, no more and no less. The cross is no easy thing to bear and for some it's harder because of the choices they make. If they Church is smaller, it is not because the Pope has made it that way by excluding secularly-affrirmed classes of sinners but because sinners choose not to "sin no more".
The Vatican fails my "Snail Honesty Test" for the second time in a month.
If gays were snails then Vatican policy would be: “We welcome snails - but dragging your house around on your back and leaving a glistening trail is an abomination before God!”
If Holocaust Deniers were snails then Vatican policy would be: “We shun snails - but dragging your house around on your back and leaving a glistening trail is irrelevant as criteria for club membership!”
The stream of humbug coming from Rome would be funny if it wasn’t malevolent.
Paul thanks for your insights. I have taken the liberty of introducing it into a discussion we've been having in the Catholica conversation and which I reproduce here. The Fr Cekada mentioned here is a traditionalist, sedevacantist priest in Ohio one of our journalist particpants came across today. He preached a homily last weekend that makes Bishop Williamson look a liberal in comparison.
I am almost sick to the gut at what we're watching at the moment. I've just been reading an article I came across via NCR "The incredible shrinking Catholic Church" by Paul Gorrell. Sadly I suspect Benedict is not much different in his thought patterns to Fr Cekada. The only difference is that Benedict has a slightly different sent of absolutes to those held by Cekada. It's this understanding of "being" — a metaphysics of the human being as some little social conformist clone. Trying to have a rational conversation with any of these people is as fraught as trying to have a rational conversation with [name deleted here but another priest it is impossible to have a rational converation with] — or the many instances we have seen since we've been associated with these discussion boards of trying to have a rational conversation with some of these other individuals. It simply CANNOT BE DONE. They have a view of what it means to be a human being, a view of what it means to be a religious or spiritual human being, and they are totally unable to see it from any other perspective other than the one viewable from the extremely narrow box each of them finds themselves in. One cannot have a rational conversation with these people. They couldn't give a stuff about the viewpoints of everyone else — their view is "you see the meaning of this spiritual/religious quest through my eyes otherwise I couldn't give a stuff about you". Reading that crap you put up today from Cekada (the newsletter article HERE on "una cum Masses", as well as the homily) is so revealing of the mindset of these people.
Most of the world has "moved on" from viewing the spiritual/religious quest as this exercise of "social conformism" of doing this and this and this and not doing that and that and that and — like a game of "join the dots" — if you do all those things at the "end of the life journey" God will reward you for being such a "good little girl or boy" and give you the equivalent of some big lollipop called "heaven". I argue all these people, including Benedict as well, basically seem to think in that broad mindframe. What distinguishes them from one another is only that they all have slightly different interpretations of what the "this and this and this" and the "that and that and that" are — and also slight differences on the magic incantations that one has to say, sing or do in ritual, rubric and liturgy to merit the "lollipop".
Continued — an alternative view II...
Brian Coyne
Editor & Publisher
www.catholica.com.au
Continued...
There is another view. It is impossible — UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE — to have a conversation with those people about it though. They simply do not "get it". It is too far out of their frame of reference. What is this other view? I think people are still searching for it. That's the big quest of all who have rejected the view I've described above. It is slowly emerging though in this vibrancy of discussion about spirituality that one finds in so many places today. I think it is this quest, described so long ago by St Gregory of Nyassa, to literally "become like God". But this is NOT some game of social conformism — trying to be "the nice boy" or "nice girl" our mothers dreamed we would grow up to be. It's a process of "learning to think and act" as God were to act if he suddenly found himself engulfed by bushfires as so many in Victoria (Australia) are tonight and you've "lost everything" — how do you respond morally to such a calamity in one's life? Do you get angry and blame the government, act like the idiot I heard about from a fire chief last night who had a $2.4m house and he wanted special protection for it because he was "an important person" and as far as he was concerned all the other houses in the street could be left to burn because they belonged to "peasants and unimportant people"? (The fire chief told him to "get nicked". Refused to station all the fire trucks outside this man's house as requested and endeavoured to save the properties of all in the area.) How do you respond in life if your husband or wife walks out on you, or your daughter or son walks in one day and announces they are gay, or an unmarried daughter announces she is pregnant, or a daughter, or son or friend announces they have committed some ghastly error of judgment that has landed them, or their business, or family in serious difficulties? How do you respond if retrenched in the present economic climate? Real Life is not some kindergarten-level game of social conformism — ticking all the boxes, or running around constantly trying to prove you know "all the moral laws" (and everyone else doesn't). It's about actually knowing how to navigate through all the moral laws — knowing when to obey them, when they do not apply, when to negotiate through their conflicting ideals — to arrive at the particular "moral truth" that does "grow us into becoming (thinking and acting) more like God's Godself would act if placed in the same set of conflicting circumstances as ourselves".
Do we have a Pope, a head of the Catholic Church today, who thinks like that? Or do we have a man who wants to compress all of us into some liturgical and moral straightjacket of social conformism — trying to make us all into "nice girls and boys" who'd please our mothers and bugger trying to please God himself by our ways of thinking and acting? Benedict might be the arch enemy of Cikada. The enormous irony, is that Benedict's thinking seems not to be actually much different to Cikada's. They just disagree on what the rules for the "social conformism" are, and what the rubrics of worship are.
Continued — An alternative view III...
Brian Coyne
Editor & Publisher
www.catholica.com.au
Continued...
We — society at large — hunger today for spiritual guides and pastors who can show us how to navigate these "ordinary challenges of lived life". These games of "petty social conformism" are over. Unfortunately these "petty social conformists" largely control the agenda of the institution today and they could not give a stuff about anyone who does not think within the narrow boxes of social conformism through which they view life, their neighbours, the world and God's Creation.
What was so radically different about the Second Vatican Council is that it lifted the entire Church out of this framework of the religious quest being a game of "social conformism" and pointed us to this far more holistic insight into what the entire spiritual and human quest was about.
Brian Coyne
Editor & Publisher
www.catholica.com.au
The original, unedited, location of this comment is at:
www.catholica.com.au/forum/forum_entry.php?id=22653
Only two comments regarding two comment by Brian Coyne.
"The Fr Cekada mentioned here is a traditionalist, sedevacantist priest in Ohio one of our journalist particpants came across today. He preached a homily last weekend that makes Bishop Williamson look a liberal in comparison."
Sedevancatist and priest do not compute as being faithful to the Vatican. I am sure the Liberals will have a hey day with your article, you know, clapping, stamping their feet, "Right on bro." So be it.
"Most of the world has "moved on" from viewing the spiritual/religious quest as this exercise of "social conformism" of doing this and this and this and not doing that and that and that and — like a game of "join the dots."
Secondly, my opinion is that the world has "moved on" to despair, and uncertainty because of society's loss of the disciplines of the Catholic Church. Relativism and secularism have not brought contentment to this world, nor will it ever. Our world needs the security of the truths of the Catholic Church which many in this world society have lost. In their pursuit of spiritual fulfillment they have pursued illusions.
.
At the beginning of his papacy, Benedict XVI was attacked in the British tabloid press as "Razi the Nazi" for his past membership in the Hitler Youth. Most people considered that attack unfair.
Now Benedict has rehabilitated a Nazi sympathizing bishop and the best Benedict's apologists can say is that there is no theological basis for condemning William's Nazi sympathy. That is an ahistorical lie.
Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated Leander Perez, a segregationist politician, because Perez's racism denied that all of the human race had a common origin and destiny. Certainly, Nazi racism denies this, also. Since, as a bishop, Williams promoted sympathy for this ideology, he is liable for excommunication on the same grounds.
Benedict's venality in facing William's Nazism is collaboration with it. Benedict can no longer be seen as a German opponent to Nazism. He's a willing collaborator even when not in personal danger. He is "Razi the Nazi."
The pro abort pols. and others who support abortion may appear "earnest". But appearances can be deceiving. If they were truly Faithful, they would not support abortion, or anyone who makes this issue their platform.
True, one cannot know the hearts of the common folk, the voters, but give me a break!! It is very apparant what those public figures such as Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy hold dearest in their hearts and it is NOT their Catholic Faith.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.