New signs from Pope Benedict XVI

I suppose I have to start calling him by his official title instead of Ratzinger I.  Habemus Ratzinger, no doubt.  But lots of people will soon forget his civilian title.

Will Benedict XVI take a different direction than Joseph Ratzinger?

Ingolf Bossenz, the writer for the German paper Neues Deutschland which I quoted earlier, has written a follow-up article on the prospects for the new Pope, one which, coming as it does from a secular and leftist European paper, is more optimistic than many reform-minded Catholics: Päpstlicher als der Papst: Benedikt XVI. und das Erbe des »reinen« Ratzinger von Ingolf Bossenz Neues Deutschland 21.04.05.

Bossenz describes the working relationship between Pope John II and his chief doctrinal watchdog:

Es war der Pole Karol Wojtyla, der als Papst Johannes Paul II. den scharfsinnigen Kirchen-Intellektuellen, der sogar auf einen italienischen Literaturpreis verweisen kann, an die Spitze der Glaubenskongregation stellte – der ältesten und zugleich wichtigsten der neun Kongregationen (Ministerien) der römischen Kurie. Als Leiter der Nachfolgebehörde der Heiligen Inquisition wachte Ratzinger seither mit Argusaugen über den rechten Glauben. Da konnte der Papst getrost auf Auslandsreisen sein weltläufiges Image pflegen; die Einheit und Reinheit der katholischen Lehre, das wusste der Pontifex maximus, war in sicherer Obhut.

[Translation: It was the Pole Karol Wojtyla who as Pope John Paul II put the astute Church intellectual [Ratzinger], who can even claim an Italian literature prize, at the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the oldest and at the same time the most important of the nine congregations (ministries) of the Roman curia.  As leader of the successor office to the Holy Inquisition, Ratzinger watched over correct belief until now with the eyes of Argus.  Therefore, the Pope could comfortably tend to his world-traveling image; the unity and purity of Catholic teaching was  in secure care, that the Pontifex maximus knew.]

He notes that the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) was largely the product of Ratzinger's particular view of the faith.  While not directly challenging the doctrinal innovations of the Second Vatican Council - Catholic theological disputes don't work that way, and it would be especially awkward in an official Church catechism - it did represent a very cautious approach to issues like the church's ecumenical views of non-Christian religions.  It was published in the wake of Ratzinger's (and John Paul II's) doctrinal jihad against the "liberation theologians" and sought to reinforce the retrograde trend.

Razinger's influence seemed to grown even stronger during John Paul's final years.  Ratzinger reinforced the anti-ecumenical emphasis with the 2000 document Dominus Iesus, which emphasized the primacy of the Catholic Church.  Bossenz writes that even the notoriously conservative German bishop Cardinal Karl Lehmann expressed reservations about Dominus Iesus.

Bossenz describes the respective role of John Paul II and Ratzinger as having been what Americans would call a good cop/bad cop routine, with the late Pope projecting more of a fatherly image of moderation while Ratzinger played the doctrinal hardliner, "God's Rottweiler," as he has been called.

One of the most disturbing pieces of news in Bossenz' article is that it was Ratzinger himself who encouraged the American bishops to try to discredit John Kerry in 2004 with their entirely inappropriate threats to deny communion to Democrats who support abortion right.  (More on this below.)  This kind of blatant ecclesiastical intervention into partisan politics is bad for democracy and bad for the Christian religion.

Bossenz gives a good summary of the fears of the Church reformers - which is also the hope of Church reactionaries:

Wie kein Zweiter polarisiert er die öffentliche Meinung über die heutige Rom-Kirche.

Diese Polarisierung war auch im Konklave erwartet worden – als Abstimmung über das von Ratzinger geprägte Bild der Kirche: Fortschreibung des stockreaktionären Klerikalismus oder der Versuch einer zumindest zaghaften Reformierung. Dass die Kardinalsmehrheit nicht nur den Kurs des Glaubenspräfekten in toto absegnete, sondern mit seiner Person auch für »Ratzinger pur« votierte, zeigte das Fehlen eines ihm Ebenbürtigen. Lediglich der gleichaltrige Italiener Carlo Maria Martini reicht vom Format und der internationalen Bekanntheit her an Ratzinger heran. Doch Martini ist der Bannerträger des – offenbar stark geschrumpften – Häufchens der Reformer.

[Translation: Like no other, [Ratzinger/Benedict] polarizes public opinion about the Roman Church of today.

This polarization had also been expected in the conclave [to select the new Pope] - as a vote about the image of the Chruch molded by Ratzinger: continuation of the stock-reactionary clericalism, or the attempt at an at least timid reform.  That the majority of the cardinals not only blessed the course of the prefect of the faith [Ratzinger], but also voted "pure Ratzinger" by selecting him personally, was shown by the failure of one of his contemporaries.  the Italian Carlo Maria Martini of the same age merely matched the standard and the international recognition of Ratzinger.  But Martini is the standard-bearer of the - clearly much shrunken - group of reformers [literally, little pile of reformers].]

On the other hand, Bossenz sees Razinger's selection of the papal name of Benedict as a possibly positive signal.  On the other hand, St. Benedict (480-547) is considered the patron saint of Europe, an image fitting well to Ratzinger's previous passion of the Sisyphean goal of "re-evangelizing" Europe, aka, converting people to Catholic Christianity.  Last week's selection of the American Levada as the new head of the CDF is taken by some as another indication of this emphasis.

Bossenz concludes on what for Catholic reformers will be a hopeful note:

Es ist also durchaus eine Auseinandersetzung zwischen Benedikt XVI. und Joseph Ratzinger zu erwarten. Und diese könnte weitaus spannender sein als jene zwischen Traditionalisten und Reformern.

[Translation: It is therefore absolutely to be expected that there will be a clash between Benedict XVI and Joseph Ratzinger.  And that could be far more exciting than that between traditionalists and reformers.]

A couple of the Church's recent actions send somewhat contradictory signs about the new Pope's direction: the forcing out of the Rev. Thomas Reese as editor of the Jesuit magazine America, and the appointment of San Francisco Archbishop William Levada as the new head of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Ratzinger's former position.

Reese and America

The American Catholic magazine Commonweal editorialized in defense of Reese: Scandal at 'America' Commonweal editorial 05/06/05 (for the issue of 05/20/05):

It is hard to judge what is more appalling, the flimsy case made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)--apparently at the instigation of some American bishops--against Reese’s orthodoxy and stewardship of America, or the senselessness of silencing perhaps the most visible, and certainly one of the most knowledgeable, fair-minded, and intelligent public voices the church has in this country. As a political scientist who has written extensively on how the church’s hierarchy works, Reese has for years been a much-relied-on source for the mass media in its coverage of Catholic issues. During the recent conclave, his visibility increased exponentially, with millions of television viewers being introduced to him on PBS, CNN, and other networks. Not surprisingly, he showed himself to be lucid, succinct, and nonideological. In a church with a more confident and magnanimous hierarchy, Reese’s prominence would be seen as a great asset, not a threat. Instead, Reese’s dismissal, following so closely his increased exposure during the conclave, has become front-page news. As a consequence, the first thing many Americans are now likely to associate with Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy will be yet another act of Vatican repression. Does this mean that the zeal with which then-Cardinal Ratzinger harried theologians while head of the CDF will continue during his papacy? ...

Those calling for the strict regulation of Catholic discourse argue that public dissent from church doctrine creates scandal,  confusing or misleading the “simple faithful.” What really gives scandal to people in the pews, however, is the arbitrary and self-serving exercise of ecclesiastical authority. What the CDF has done to Thomas Reese and America is the scandal. Is itpossible that not one bishop has the courage to say so? That too is a scandal. (my emphasis)

Reese's prominence as a commentator on Church affairs is reflected in the fact that Bossenz' article quoted above begins with a quotation from him.

The America magazine itself has made an editorial statement about Reese's departure: 'We Had Hoped' America 05/23/05 issue; editorial undated, accessed 05/14/05.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, they were obviously wording their statement gingerly:

It would be foolish to pretend that in the wake of the announcement of the departure of Thomas J. Reese, S.J., as editor in chief of America, the past weeks have not been turbulent ones for the editors and staff, for many of our readers and for others as well who are concerned about the Catholic Church. The story of the last few years of the magazine, which has been told with varying degrees of accuracy in the media, has prompted much discussion among Catholics across the country. And discussion is always good for the life of the church.

At the same time, some of these voices evince a sense of creeping despair about the present state of affairs. Certainly there are causes for serious concern: the sexual abuse crisis that rocked the church in the United States, the dramatic decline in vocations to the priesthood and religious life and the shuttering of parishes and schools in almost every American diocese. All these have caused immense sadness among the faithful. Perhaps not surprisingly, a note of doom and gloom has increasingly crept into conversations about the future of the church, especially in the United States.

Naturally, one of the purposes of this kind of heavy-handed action is to intimidating other Catholic publications from publishing articles that dissent from the current Vatican line: Editor's ouster worries Catholic publications by Michael Paulson/Globe Staff Boston Globe 05/10/05.

[America]  has been under criticism for at least five years from the Vatican agency that Ratzinger ran, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the office charged with safeguarding and promoting church doctrine. The congregation placed the magazine under formal scrutiny for several years, warned the magazine that its coverage of same-sex marriage would be watched, and repeatedly protested about the magazine to Jesuit headquarters in Rome, according to sources who have spoken to Reese.

According to one of those sources, Ratzinger's office objected several years ago to articles debating ''Dominus Iesus," a controversial document written by Ratzinger that suggested that non-Christians are in a ''gravely deficient situation." The Vatican office, the source said, also objected to articles on AIDS prevention and on  gay priests, an editorial criticizing the congregation's disciplining of theologians for writings that the congregation viewed as contrary to Catholic doctrine, and a positive book review about Garry Wills's ''Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit," a critique of doctrinal positions of recent popes.

Then, more  recently, the congregation criticized a piece by Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, on the issue of Communion for Catholic politicians who support abortion rights and an essay questioning the  church's  position on same-sex marriage that was paired with an essay supporting the church's position.

William Levada at the CDF

This San Franciscan's Road Leads to Rome by Larry Stammer and Maris LaGanga Los Angeles Times 05/14/05. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-levada14may14,0,7410106.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Archdiocese's restive faithful predictably made his tenure as archbishop tricky by Elizabeth Fernandez San Francisco Chronicle 05/14/05
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/14/MNGIRCPBFO1.DTL

Highest- ranking American in church history must deal with scandals and a divided flock
by Don Lattin San Francisco Chronicle 05/14/05

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) is considered to be the most important office in the Vatican hierarchy after the Pope.  Among other things, it is expected to clear other senior-level papal appointments before they are finalized.  While it's inevitable this early in Benedict's papacy that people will look for major policy clues in his appointments - and rightly so - it's also important to remember that Levada worked at the CDF for a number of years under Ratzinger/Benedict, and so is likely seen as an experienced and trusted lieutenant.  As Bossenz noted with Ratzinger and Pope John II, the Pope needs to have a great deal of personal confidence in the head of CDF.

One interpretation of William Levada's appointment to head the CDF sees it as a continuation of Ratzinger's rigid orthodox approach: Pope Gives Top Post to American by Tracy Wilkinson and Larry B. Stammer Los Angeles Times 05/14/05
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope14may14,0,2525165.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Levada, a conservative fourth-generation Californian well-versed in both church bureaucracy and pastoral practice, will become prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the office that the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger headed with a firm hand for 24 years before his election as pope April 19.

The appointment of Levada, who had also previously served in the doctrinal office, appears to be further confirmation that the new pope intends to hew rigorously to strict, traditional positions on faith and theology. It may also signal sharper attention to the troubled Roman Catholic Church in America.

But, even though Levada was less in tune with the San Francisco area Catholic spirit than his predecessor, Archbishop John Quinn, I'm willing to see a glimmer of hope for a more sensible approach to doctrinal issues in his appointment.  The article cited above give some information on his background, including his strong reputation as a theologian.

But it's the account of his stand on the ridiculous attempt to refuse communion to Catholic politicians who supported abortion rights that show a hopeful side to his approach, as recounted in the Don Lattin article:

There was a clear split among the bishops in how to respond to the issue. Levada, chairman of the U.S. bishops Committee on Doctrine, was one of three bishops selected to address a closed-door meeting of about 250 American prelates held in the midst of the media frenzy over the politics of communion.

Levada argued that Catholics -- including Catholic politicians -- must accept church teaching about "the evil of abortion" if they wanted to remain "in full communion with the faith of the church."

At the same time, he said in an article published in Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocese's weekly newspaper, that he would not actually deny communion to abortion-rights supporters until he could "listen to their concerns and offer them the opportunity for a fruitful examination of Catholic teaching." ...

While Levada agreed that "abortion holds a unique place" in Catholic social teaching, he took a more conciliatory approach to the controversy. ...

He acknowledged that Catholic politicians had the "complex and difficult task" to consider "conflicting points of view in society, and the recognition that laws may have to take into account prevailing societal attitudes and customs."

[Rev. Jim] Bretzke, the Jesuit theology professor at USF [University of San Francisco], said Levada's analysis of the issue distanced the archbishop and the majority of the bishops from a small group of hard-line conservatives who were "leading the charge.''

"That paper was very carefully done,'' Bretzke said. "As a moral theologian, I thought the archbishop was right on the money.'' 

So there's at least a live possibility that Levada's appointment will show,as Bossenz' puts it, Benedict XVI winning out over Joseph Ratzinger.  Or, in the words of the America editorial cited above, "Discouragement may be a natural human emotion in the face of difficulties, but despair is rightly seen by the great spiritual writers as the antithesis of the Christian message."