« An Agenda at Work | Main | The Dream of the Rood »
April 14, 2006
On Benedict
First, from Hans Kueng - scroll down a bit
The man's ego is evident and unintentionally humorous. He has an impressive sense of his own importance and the attention that must be paid to his opinions. So with that in mind -
Benedict must choose between an eventual retreat to the pre-modern, pre-Reformation world of the Middle Ages, or a forward-looking long view which will take the Church into the post-modern universe that the rest of the world entered for quite some time.
The Pope may decide on retreat, but I don’t believe he will. He may decide to stand firm right where the Church is now, but to be limited merely to celebrating the Papacy instead of helping the Church in its present needs would be tantamount to taking a step backwards.
Or he may decide to go forward – and this is what I and countless other persons within and outside the Catholic Church wish that he would do. The Pope knows that the situation of the Church is serious. John Paul II failed to convert many persons to his rigorous viewpoints, especially in matters of sexual morality, despite all his speeches and his travels. Such viewpoints have been rejected by a crushing majority of Catholics and national parliaments, even in his native Poland. All his encyclicals and his catechism, his decrees and his disciplinary sacntions, all the pressures from the Vatican, plain or hidden, on those who opposed him, resulted in practically nothing.
Maybe Benedict perceives that the campaign to re-evangelize Europe revived fears of spiritual imperialism from Rome and contributed to the rejection of even a mention of God and Christianity in the preamble to the European Constitution. The oceanic Masses by the previous Pope, though they were very well-organized and effective as media events, failed to hide the fact that things are not going well for the Church.
And...Charles Curran! All your favorites!
Yet I have been pleasantly surprised by the first year of Pope Benedict’s papacy. He has recognised his role as a centre of unity and has not seen the Church primarily as a small remnant in opposition to the world. Church pundits have often pointed out that the most important document from a new pope is the first encyclical. On 25 January, Benedict released his first encyclical: Deus Caritas Est. My fears were that the first encyclical would be on truth: we the Church have the truth and we must struggle against the relativism and subjectivism in the world around us. Many of Cardinal Ratzinger’s earlier statements and homilies before his election took this approach. But the first encyclical is a reflection on what Pope Benedict calls “the heart of the Christian faith” – love. He is speaking here as the centre of unity in the Church, confirming his sisters and brothers in their faith in the power of love. There is nothing divisive about this encyclical.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8348292d053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On Benedict:
Comments
I guess a lot of this falls into the same-old same-old category, but I'm kind of struck by this from Kung: Maybe Benedict perceives that the campaign to re-evangelize Europe revived fears of spiritual imperialism from Rome and contributed to the rejection of even a mention of God and Christianity in the preamble to the European Constitution.
One of my children who has recently spent a couple of years in France has talked about this, saying that Americans in general don't have any sense of the importance of this fear of the Church in French society. Don't know about other countries, but he says that among the French who are not part of the upper classes there is still a very strong fear and resentment of the Church as partner, if not instigator, in oppression. French TV, for instance (he says) often features as villains decrepit and evil cardinals plotting against the people.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Apr 14, 2006 10:02:39 AM
The thing about Kung and Curran (and this would apply to hundreds of other "thinkers") is the absolute predictability of what they are going to say. I mean, not only the substance, but the almost word-for-word nature of what is produced. This was especially striking about Kung's "effort." The man is crowding 80 (!) and he's happy to put out this standing still vs. moving forward vs. return to pre-Reformatiion days garbage. "Und I am tired today [he's addressing his secretary] zo, lizzen, just rrrrelease article number 4 to ze press, okay, Helga?"
Posted by: bruce cole at Apr 14, 2006 10:07:27 AM
Just like Chicago, Doobie Brothers, other old school bands that go on tour during warm weather months. Trouble is, they play better than Hans or Chaz at this point.
Posted by: Gerard E. at Apr 14, 2006 10:20:22 AM
Golly, that's funny, Gerard!
Posted by: thomas tucker at Apr 14, 2006 10:30:57 AM
Reactionary liberals, stuck in the 1970s.
Posted by: Socius at Apr 14, 2006 10:57:03 AM
Oh, let's not start another 70s thread like the one last summer about the Bee Gees and then Christine and the space aliens and then...Oh, I better not get started.
Posted by: bruce cole at Apr 14, 2006 11:07:03 AM
But are they right? I don't mean right in their religious beliefs, of course; God forbid. But could Curran, for example, perceive correctly that Benedict has taken a much more safe, "middle of the road" approach than anyone here had hoped? Is it possible that Ratzi has toned down the conservative rhetoric for political reasons since becoming pope? I don't ask this with a definite answer in mind; I'm just throwing it out there because I'm wondering.
Posted by: Andy Nowicki at Apr 14, 2006 11:13:29 AM
I love all this talk about the Church "looking forward." Aside from the incredibly cliched and ignorant comments about the Middle Ages and what they represented (a topic for another day), but does Kueng view the Church as a political party or a religion?
Posted by: paul at Apr 14, 2006 11:23:11 AM
Kung and Curran both want Catholicism to turn into a market research religion like mainstream Protestantism. What they don't seem to notice is that it is precisely those denominations that have experienced the sharpest decline in numbers. Anyway, the truth is the truth, no matter how many find it inconvenient. Kung's remarks that JPII's writings had no effect is totally off the mark; look at those energized laity and clergy who are studying and trying to broadcast JPII's theology of the body. Their numbers are not large in an absolute sense, but the history of the Church is largely about "remnants" passing on the faith.
Posted by: GSJ at Apr 14, 2006 11:42:35 AM
"Benedict must choose between an eventual retreat to the pre-modern, pre-Reformation world of the Middle Ages, or a forward-looking long view which will take the Church into the post-modern universe that the rest of the world entered for quite some time. "
I thought the po-mo universe had seen through the myth of progress and now only looked inward, a glory in its own mind.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Apr 14, 2006 12:44:22 PM
In a spirit of charity on this most holiest of days, I'm not going to read what they have said today. There is time enough for me to get blue in the face with anger and disgust next week.
Posted by: Bender at Apr 14, 2006 1:03:20 PM
Boy, they're going to blow a gasket when they read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2134140,00.html
Posted by: brian at Apr 14, 2006 1:12:19 PM
About the Church and the ages, let's weigh Hans Küng's thoughts alongside Fulton Sheen's.
"Like a mighty oak tree which has stood for twenty centuries she bears fresh green foliage for each new age, that the age may come and enjoy the refreshing benediction of its shade. The flowers that open their chalices of perfume this spring are not old things, but new things on an old root. Such is the Church. She is reborn to each new age, and hence is the only new thing in the world. It is the errors that are old, for our so-called new thought is only an old mistake with a new label; it is not a new enthusiasm nor is it a new loyalty. The Church has put to bed all the errors of the past for she knows that to marry the passing fads of any age is to be a widow in the next. She is therefore not behind the times, but beyond the times, always fresh while the age is dying." (Rev. Fulton Sheen, The Divine Romance: Dying And Behold We Live, April 30, 1930)
Posted by: Konkani Catholics at Apr 14, 2006 1:30:20 PM
What's wrong with the Bee Gees? I had a huge crush on Barry Gibb until the scales fell from my eyes when he started doing duets with Barbra Streisand..
I shouldn't be typing something like that so close to 3pm on Good Friday.
Shame on me.
Posted by: kathleen at Apr 14, 2006 2:15:45 PM
Don't start, Kathleen, Good Friday or not, I may not be able to control myself.....
Posted by: bruce cole at Apr 14, 2006 2:27:14 PM
"Christine and the space aliens"
Bruce --
And you seem to have a problem accepting that some of my best friends are space aliens, yes ??
Posted by: Christine at Apr 14, 2006 2:45:16 PM
Wishing all a holy and joyous Paschal feast.
Posted by: Christine at Apr 14, 2006 2:52:10 PM
Christine:
Before I could reply, you sent that very nice second post, so I won't (I really, really won't) go on about the Bee Gees warping your mind irreprebally (sp?) and how I pleaded with you last summer to seek help...Oh, I guess I did! Oh, well, a very happy Easter to you, as well.
P.S. Do the space aliens prefer lamb or ham?
Posted by: bruce cole at Apr 14, 2006 2:56:29 PM
Q: "Do space aliens prefer lamb or ham?"
A: The Jewish ones prefer lamb.
Posted by: Rob at Apr 14, 2006 4:04:14 PM
Both men use the term, "the world".
Why is it that when non-dissenting Catholics talk about "the world", we get a lecture about how there are different meanings of "the world" and how we are supposed to be IN the world and not OF the world, as if we didn't know that.
My point is that this question is central to the problems in the Church, IMO. Kung and Curran support the idea of assimilation. No one I know is talking about becoming Amish. But rejecting "the World" is pretty much fundamental to being a Christian, is it not? I don't look forward to another 40+ years with people talking about "the world" with no one agreeing on just what it means and how we are to confront it.
We can see where assimilation get you.
Posted by: Michael Hugo at Apr 14, 2006 4:37:54 PM
Rob: I set myself up for that one.
Posted by: bruce cole at Apr 14, 2006 5:09:00 PM
Somebody tell these guys it's too late to kiss up to the new boss. They will never get their cushy jobs back.
Posted by: John J. Simmins at Apr 14, 2006 6:34:00 PM
I read Curran's article and found it very good. I guess I'm just one of those people who respects "dissenters." But, hey, imagine that some people might actually wait to read Kueng's article in the original German to see what he actually said. At least I had the respect to read the last encyclical in German, to see what it actually said--great stuff. It seems that some of you folks want to have a sect and call it Catholicism. Anyway, sorry for being so negative, have a happy Easter. I really mean that, by the way. Really too hot for the Spring. Jack2
Posted by: Jack2 at Apr 15, 2006 12:19:17 AM
Snnnnore . . .
(the comments by Kung and Curran, not those above)
Posted by: Sam Schmitt at Apr 15, 2006 7:29:54 AM
You can't separate faith and morals as if either can stand alone. Cardinal Ratzinger spent much of his life on the morals pillar, so now as Pope he has the opportunity to work on the other pillar.
What's interesting about Kueng's excerpt is how Christ isn't mentioned or seem particularly relevant, while with Benedict everything is Christocentric.
Posted by: TSO at Apr 15, 2006 7:52:06 AM
