The man who became Pope
The Sunday Business Post (Ireland)
Sunday, April 24, 2005
I posted this item before the US visit in the thread about April 19, 2005. Since we have not really looked back enough at the double anniversaries for the Holy Father at the time of the visit, I thought I would cross-post this here as well, because what Joseph Ratzinger had to say in 1995 is not only equally relevant today, but perhaps more so, because now he is the Pope.
The striking and perhaps most pleasurable aspect about re-reading Ratzinger is that almost everything he had to say (or write) in the past sounds as though he were saying them today, mutatis mutandis.
The following is a post-Conclave account, in the form of a 1995 interview - 10 years old at the time! But even today, what Cardinal Ratzinger said about sex offenses by priests, why women will never be priests, and the nature of the Magisterium are as valid as ever.
The Post was the first Irish newspaper to interview Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. The interview was first published on December 17, 1995, and was conducted by David Quinn, who met Ratzinger in Rome.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger works in a modest enough building just outside St Peter's Square in Rome. Modest that is, when one considers the power and influence the cardinal exercises over the Catholic Church worldwide.
Depending on how such things are measured, he is arguably the most important man in the Church, apart from the Pope himself.
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he is the Church's doctrinal watchdog. It is he who ensures that the doctrinal purity of the faith is maintained.
In cooperation with the Pope, it is his responsibility, when it proves necessary, to bring recalcitrant theologians into line. Not surprisingly, he is no hero to liberal Catholics; orthodox Catholics despise him.
[????]
Yet despite his fearsome reputation, and the similar reputation of his office - it was formerly called the Holy Office, or the Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition – Cardinal Ratzinger in person is a softly-spoken, attentive, modest and courteous man.
A native of Bavaria, he is an academic by training and inclination, who, word has it, would prefer to be back at his studies instead of performing the often thankless, albeit vital task, which has befallen him.
When we met in Rome last month, it was only four days after the divorce referendum result had been announced.
Was he aware of the situation in Ireland? Was Rome concerned with the decline of Catholicism in what was considered for so long a bastion of the faith?
His view about crises in local Churches:
He seemed rather philosophical about recent developments in Ireland. Surveying the state of the Church and society in this country he pondered:
I cannot speak in the name of Rome. I can only speak in my own name, but it seems to me that Ireland cannot but share the problems of the Western world. Culturally Ireland is not an island, it is in community with the West. It is the task now of the Irish Catholicism, with its great traditions, to find a way of adapting to the modern world without losing sight of those traditions.
It is impossible to foretell the exact outcome of this contest, but we can be confident that the faith will always play an important part in the life of the Irish people. The Irish Church, with the help of her theologians, must find a way of coming to terms with modernity while remaining faithful to the teachings of the Church.
Nevertheless, the impression I have is that the faith is still strong in Ireland even in spite of all the recent social changes and in spite of the various scandals. Ireland's historical identity is rooted in the faith. It will never give this up entirely.
Cardinal Ratzinger's office has no direct input into how the Church, either locally or universally, should deal with the sex scandals which have been rocking the Church in various parts of the world.
[This was 1995; the CDF was not entrusted with a direct role in dealing with the scandal till 2003.]
Nonetheless, he does have his own views on the matter.
On the sex scandals in the Church:
Thanks to our dialogue with the Irish and American bishops, we are very aware of the scandals which seem to have hit the Irish and American churches hardest of all.
They present a very grave problem to the overall Church, to the wisdom and resources of the Church, to canon law. We are confronted with this most serious problem and its reality.
It makes it necessary that we look into the whole area of priestly formation, something which is already underway.
Priests must be prepared properly for the challenges of situations of which there is a new awareness. They must be chosen based upon the judgement of the Church that they will be able to be faithful to Christian principle in the face of the inevitable challenges which the modern world poses.”
About how the Vatican was dealing with the crisis:
What about the perception in Ireland that Rome is more interested in stamping out any signs of dissent, than in dealing adequately with the scandals afflicting the Church?
It seems to some in Ireland that Rome is more interested in pursuing bishops who question celibacy than in tackling the problem of clerical sex abuse.
This is not a correct impression. Rome is very concerned about these scandals, but generally does not publicise its dealings with local churches.
It is unfortunate if this has created the perception that Rome does not care. However, the fact that Rome does not publicise its actions should in no way be interpreted to mean it is not taking the situation very seriously indeed.
On relations between Church and state in terms of social legislation:
During the divorce debate, the matter of church/state separation was a dominant theme. He did not agree with the view, held by some in Ireland, that state law should necessarily reflect the teachings of the Church.
Ireland must rediscover an appropriate equilibrium between church and state, never forgetting that the Church has to be allowed to speak on matters of public concern.
Church and state have their own separate realities. State laws cannot be expected to reflect Church morality simply as a matter of course. On the other hand, state laws cannot ignore the moral convictions of the wider society simply because those convictions are Christian in origin.
If the Church is restricted, or restricts itself, to the private sphere, it would be failing in its responsibilities because it has a public message also. We have a message about humanity and about human life as such.”
Was divorce, then, one area where church and state should be separated? Were the Irish bishops correct to have urged a No vote during the divorce campaign?
I cannot comment on the actions of the bishops in this particular instance. There is no fixed formula to be applied in this sort of situation, it all depends. For example, it would be quite redundant for the bishops in say, Germany or America, to try and overturn divorce laws of those countries given the cultural situations which exist there.
However, there can be societies where it is still possible to uphold the indissolubility of marriage in law and where it is appropriate to do so. It is all very dependent upon individual circumstances.
On why the Church does not allow female priests, and the nature of the Magisterium:
At the end of October, Cardinal Ratzinger's office issued a communiqué confirming, as infallible, the teaching that the Church has “no authority whatsoever'‘ to ordain women priests, and declared that this teaching is to be held by all the faithful.
How was the cardinal's response to the charge that this teaching effectively reduces Catholic women to the status of second-class citizens within the Church?
I would simply say that it is erroneous to think that priests are first among Christians and everyone else is second-class. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of priestly service.
You obviously do not have to be a priest to be a good Christian. If you read the New Testament you can see that for the Lord, priestly service entails being in the last place, not the first. This is the opposite of power and privilege.
But surely it could be objected that this is not a convincing reason to deny women this mode of service?
It must be pointed out first of all that we are not building Christianity out of our own ideas. The Church is given out of the will of God, and the will of God is in turn a gift to the Church and it determines our will. We must be in communion with the will of the Lord.
Second, decisions of the Lord can at first seem inexplicable to us. We must follow his way before we can begin to understand. The Pope is obliged to obey the Lord's will.
The Lord's will is visible in the New Testament and in the tradition of the Christian life and he has shown that men and women have different gifts which are shown in different ways but are equal in dignity.
We gave to reflect more on why the Lord decided so, but we cannot simply treat the Church as a sociological construct and change it according to our will.
Yet isn't it true that the Church's magisterium, its teaching authority, is exercised by men and men only? Therefore, isn't the priesthood in reality more about power than about service?
Two things must be said here. The magisterium is not exercised only at the moment when a Pope makes a decision or publishes a text. The proclamations of the Holy See develop out of a long process of Church life involving contemplation, study, and experience. In this process, all members of the Church are present. It would be easy to find the influence of Christian women on vital decisions of the Church throughout its history.
In the end, the Pope can only give definitive form to what is already part of the faith.
The second point is that the promulgation of doctrine is not an exercise of power, it is an exercise in obedience.
There are certain things the Pope cannot do if he is to be obedient to the will of God, and this includes allowing the ordination of women. The magisterium is not like a government which can overturn the decisions of its predecessors.
The cardinal rejected any suggestion that this teaching [on women priests] could someday be reversed.
It is impossible because it is part of the deposit of faith.
On authority in the Church and why it can never be 'democratic':
The question of women priests has focused attention once again on the way in which authority in the Church is exercised, and has strengthened calls for the Church's decision-making process to be more 'open and democratic'.
I think we must reflect more on what democracy in the exercise of authority would mean. Is truth determined by a majority vote, only for a new ‘truth' to be ‘discovered' by a new majority tomorrow? In the fields of science or medicine such a method of arriving at the truth would not be taken seriously. A democratic magisterium in this sense would be a false magisterium.
On unity vs uniformity:
A further charge commonly brought against Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II is that they are intent upon imposing uniformity upon the Church. This is demonstrated by the actions taken against theologians such as Hans Kung or Charles Curran. What was his response to this allegation?
Anyone familiar with the real situation of the Church knows that there is no such uniformity. Our task is to promote the unity of the faith, not impose uniformity. It is very important to distinguish between the two. Unity is a very great ideal not only for the church but for all humanity.
Unity is necessary for peace. Hence the search for unity is also the search for peace. But a unity which is only an ideal disappears into its various interpretations and ceases to be a real unity.
Unity must be in the truth, and that truth cannot be changed. It has an objective content, and it is one of the tasks of the Church to teach what the content is. It is odd that sometimes those who search most ardently for union with the other churches overlook the need for unity within their own church.”
On Vatican-II:
Pope John Paul II is repeatedly accused of betraying the ‘spirit of Vatican II' which ended 30 years ago this month. What was Cardinal Ratzinger's answer to this criticisms, and how would be describe the spirit of Vatican II?
There are certainly radically different perceptions of the Council. In fact, if truth be told, there were two councils in the 1960s, a council of the bishops and a council of the media. Often the presentation of an event in the media overwhelmed the event itself.
The media presentation of the real council shaped and distorted the public perception of it. The presentation created a certain impression of what the ‘spirit' of the council was; that it was about conforming the Church to the modern world, that it was about placing the Church in the service of ‘progress', that it was about promoting individual rights.
I think it is important to correct this perception because it is erroneous, but in correcting this impression, the spirit of the council will not be betrayed, but served.
As for the ‘spirit' of the council, it is hard to define it. Perhaps it would be better to spell out what it intended to achieve, and there is no better way to do this than to observe the actions of this pontificate.
One of the great episodes of this Pope's [John Paul II] life was his involvement with the council. In all of my dialogues with the Holy Father, I see how completely he identifies with the Second Vatican Council.
He sees it as his mission to respect and deepen collegiality among the bishops, to realise a reformed liturgy faithful to the great traditions of the Pope. He seeks to teach the Christian message in a way understandable to modern times.
The essential aim of Vatican II was to create a new presence of the gospel in our time, to present the gospel as an answer to the great problems of our times and as a response to the great opportunities.
On how to make the Gospel relevant today:
The cardinal then turned his attention to the problem of how the Church can persuade people of the relevance of the gospel in the modern world.
This is one of the great questions. All Christians must collaborate to find a way. It is not only an intellectual challenge. The answer must also arise from our practical experience of everyday living.
The search is long-term and will likely only be fruitful in the long-term. It must always be borne in mind that Christ's victory only occurred after the ‘defeat' and humiliation of the Cross.
“The Church should never forget the Cross. Nor should it forget that if we are in communion with Christ we are assured of overcoming all obstacles.”
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 26/04/2008 23:14]