When Cardinal Carlo Martini, the former Archbishop of Milan, died on August 31, many must have wondered what kind of leader the Church had just lost. “Progressive Catholic Icon . . . Dies After Saying Church ‘200 years’ Behind,” headlined CBS news on September 3. The following day, the Catholic News Service reported Pope Benedict’s tribute: “The late Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini was a ‘generous and faithful pastor of the church,’ who not only studied the Bible ‘but loved it intensely and made it the light of his life.’”
Could the secular press and Benedict, be speaking about the same man? Yes, and their reactions to Martini’s passing reflected his multifaceted and sometimes controversial life.
There are two dimensions to Cardinal Martini’s legacy, and it would be a mistake to downplay either one.
The first derived from his expertise on the Bible. Cardinal Martini was a renowned Jesuit Scripture scholar, and was at his best when exploring its teachings, leading figures, and showing how they related to contemporary life. Whether he was recounting the sufferings of Job, the conversion of St. Paul, or the trust and surrender of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Martini had a unique ability to highlight the Gospel’s power and immediacy. As much as anyone, he helped revive the ancient practice of lectio divina—the spiritual reading of Scripture—and the Church is far better off because of it.
At the heart of Cardinal Martini’s spirituality was an intense devotion to Christ. Understanding the Lord, drawing closer to him, and becoming his faithful servant, was what directed Martini’s exegesis. Of course, he knew that in order to be a disciple of Christ, one first had to accept the Incarnation, and truth of the Gospels, which is often a struggle for those contending with modernity. It is a trial Martini experienced himself.
In one of his most memorable essays, “My Life with Christ,” the Cardinal wrote:
My journey started very early, in childhood and early adolescence. It is the story of a boy who knew Jesus in the family, at school, in his various surroundings and was greatly drawn to him, in love with him. The boy knew at once that it was impossible to treat such a figure lightly: either you accept all or you reject all. It was a time of increasing, enthusiastic knowledge: the time of fire.
But that passionate burst of faith was followed by doubt:
. . . at first scarcely noticeable, then more insistent. Can it really be so? How could we know that the evangelists were telling the truth, that things happened in that way? What is the historical basis for what these books tell us about Jesus? Why are these pages credible? May we not be building up a figure on the fantasies of fanatics in the past? What is said about Jesus may all be very fine, but is it soundly based?
Longing to find the truth, Martini plunged himself into studying the New Testament, and read everything he could on “the historical Jesus”—including Christianity’s fiercest critics. Only after testing the Church’s claims against the most rigorous demands did he see “more and more clearly the solid basis for what we can know about Jesus” and that “there were significant and decisive sayings and events in his life that could not be eliminated by any criticism.” Having liberated himself from his fear of embracing Christ fully, he did so, and was inspired to evangelize others:
When we consider the mystery of God crucified and God’s weaknesses, seeing these in Jesus crucified and risen, then the words and actions of Jesus, the parables, the beatitudes, the miracles and cures, the teaching of forgiveness, and his being tortured to death take on a new meaning. Reading the Gospels again, one finds in them . . . a profound coherence, an unexpected richness of meaning. Everything is linked again in a new understanding of Jesus, which makes it enter the pith of our living experience as weak creatures seeking a hope that will not disappoint us. It is this mysterious, enticing journey which I should wish for everyone.
It was for passages like these that Cardinal Martini is now being fondly remembered.
Yet there was another side to Cardinal Martini, one far removed from the contemplative exegete and spiritual master. This was the prominence he adopted as public commentator, would-be Church reformer, and unofficial pope of progressive Catholics. It is a role he evidently welcomed, right up to his last interview.
“Many of his positions on social issues,” noted CBS, “were frowned upon by the Vatican. He was open-minded toward homosexuality, believed that divorced and remarried Catholics should be allowed to receive full sacraments, and said he understood—even if he did not support—abortion.”
This is actually an understatement. Cardinal Martini was not merely “open” toward homosexuality, he approved civil unions for same-sex couples. He often praised the family and Christian love, yes—but did so in the context of assailing Humanae Vitae, and advocating the use of condoms to fight AIDS. He challenged the Church’s position on bioethics. Most seriously, he wrote that there was a “positive” aspect to legalizing abortion, and referred to this crime euphemistically as a “termination of pregnancy.”
The Cardinal’s defenders say these statements shouldn’t be isolated, but viewed in a broader picture, alongside his strong statements in favor of life, traditional marriage, and the papacy. But they don’t realize, anymore than did the late Cardinal, that once you make a statement undermining Church teaching, it contradicts and fatally undermines anything orthodox you say. The world hears only the dissent, and edits out all the rest.
The biggest disappointment here is that the Cardinal’s persona as a public commentator was often at odds with his strengths as a biblical interpreter. Serving as the latter, he stressed the need for interior conversion, a renunciation of worldly values, and deeper obedience to Christ. Yet his outreaches to the world became not so much pastoral as fashionable. There was a reason he was “respected among nonbelievers and lapsed Catholics,” as the Washington Post put it, and it wasn’t because he challenged his secular audiences: it was because he accommodated them.
The word “reform” was often mentioned in connection with Cardinal Martini, but rarely in its proper Christian sense. Authentic Christian reform does not—as so many dissenters think—mean secularization and moral laxity, but a deepening of commitment to Christianity’s highest standards. Vatican II called for a vibrant spiritual renewal, not dissolution.
In a thoughtful reflection on his passing, Father Raymond de Souza praised Cardinal Martini’s achievements, noting his long-time friendship with Pope Benedict, but also outlined the significant differences between the two men. Pope Benedict sees “a culture drifting farther and farther away from its Christian roots” and thus views the Church “as one of prophetic witness, offering criticism and even rebuke.” Cardinal Martini, in contrast, “took the gap between the ambient culture and the Church as an invitation for the Church to move toward the culture.”
Which brings us to Cardinal Martini’s last interview, the one in which he called the Church “200 years out of date.” What was so striking about it was how familiar it sounded. As Pietro De Marco of the University of Florence pointed out, the Cardinal’s list of grievances and suggestions echoed those of the 1960’s, which “no longer have any meaning, after half a century of failures.” More importantly, Cardinal Martini was vastly underestimating the situation. The Church is not 200 years out of date—it is 2,000 years out of date, and will remain so, for the eternal truths of Jesus Christ are timeless and not subject to the trends of any particular age, however “forward” it thinks it is.
At Cardinal Martini’s funeral, Cardinal Angelo Scola, his successor as archbishop of Milan, appropriately noted the phrase the famed Biblical scholar chose to have engraved on his tombstone: “Thy word is a lamp to guide my feet, and a light on my path.” (Psalm 119).
May the Cardinal now experience that full light, frequently obscured on earth, and may we all strive to find, live under it and protect it.
William Doino Jr. is a contributor to Inside the Vatican magazine, among many other publications, and writes often about religion, history and politics. He contributed an extensive bibliography of works on Pius XII to The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
“Cardinal Carlo Martini, Papal Contender, Dies at 85,” The New York Times, August 31, 2012.
“Progressive Catholic Icon Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini Dies After Saying Church “200 Years” Behind,” CBS News, September 3, 2012.
“Pope Says Cardinal Martini’s Love for Bible Guided His Life,” Catholic News Service, September 4, 2012.
“My Life with Christ,” by Carlo Maria Martini, The Tablet, March 29, 1997.
The Testimony of St. Paul by Carlo M. Martini (Crossroad, 1989)
Perseverance in Trials: Reflections on Job
The Gospel Way of Mary
Belief or Non-Belief? A Dialogue
“Controversial Retired Cardinal Martini Calls Legal Abortion, ‘Positive’,” Lifesite News, April 21, 2006.
“Cardinal Martini’s Book Gives Scandal to the Faithful, Archbishop Says,” Catholic News Agency, December 2, 2008.
“Cardinal Carlo Martini, Symbol of Vatican II, Represented Catholic Church That Might Have Been,” by Tom Heneghan, Reuters, September 3, 2012.
“Was Cardinal Carlo Martini the Last Liberal Catholic Bishop?” By Alessandro Speciale, Religion News Service, Washington Post, September 7, 2012.
“Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, Advocated for Church Reform,” The Catholic Register, September 5, 2012.
“Cardinal Martini’s Jesus Would Never Have Written Humanae Vitae,” by Sandro Magister, L’espresso, March 11, 2008.
“After Martini, the Fight Over His Spiritual Testament,” by Sandro Magister, L’espresso, September 6, 2012.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
But let's imagine a lay Roman Catholic who will never get gay civil unioned or gay married, but who knows that there will always be gay men and lesbians, and who would rather them be able to form more stable unions than be alone. I know the church is opposed to it, but does this Roman Catholic have to endorse this position in voting, or does she just have to not get gay married, but it would be OK to allow others to have the opportunity?
In other words, is voting directly for gay marriage considered a sin, even though the person doing the voting will not get gay married?
The Church is clear in her attitude toward homosexual persons and about the homosexual act. Because the Church condemns the homosexual act and, while charitable toward homosexual persons, considers their orientation to be a disordered condition, homosexuals generally and homosexual activists especially are decidedly at odds with Church teaching. It is my opinion homosexual activists, and the large amounts of money they are throwing at the president, are the engine behind the government's drive to destroy the Church.
As to your question, the issue is not homosexual marriage per se, it's about the attempt to normalize that which clearly is abnormal. The Church opposes that effort. The Catholic individual is either for or against the Church. Your move.
This sounds like a "personally opposed, but........................"
In other words, you're "personally opposed to gay marriage (as a Catholic), but who am I to impose" etc., etc.
I bet you're also "personally opposed (as a Catholic) to wife beating." Answer the question yourself; is it a sin to vote for wife beating? or Slavery? Do you, as a Catholic, propose to "vote in" slavery or wife beating because there will always be those who want slaves and those who would like to beat their wives?
Buck up! Be a Catholic, and mean to be a Catholic, or go to the United Church of Christ!
In the spirit of true disclosure, I'm not a Catholic.
That said, I think your question misses the point. The belief is that SSM has no meaning as a string of words. If you, as an individual, also believe that, then what is it you are voting for? The extension of the belief is that SSM recognition by law will cause the meaning to slowly leech out of Marriage itself. Marriage is already badly battered by attempts to make the institution an easier one to live with or without with fairly bad consequences: the growing percentage of out-of-wedlock births being one of them and the possible dissolution of stable families being problematic for children at large another. Not all of those attempts are written into law. If you believe in the consequences, then what are you voting for? If you don't believe either of those, then why do you think SSM is a sin? To restate, SSM is not a sin to the Catholic Church. To the Church, SSM simply isn't and consequently will have bad effects, if we so pretend it is as a society.
Down to simple basics, do you really believe that Marriage cannot exist without a government approved piece of paper? That is also contrary to Catholic teaching. The Church teaches that the couple marries each other. The priest and the guests are witnesses. Registration with the government authorities is just that, though the government does have a general interest in public health issues around Marriage. That is a common idea of Marriage, not limited to the Church, that is the basis for the idea that it predates government. Do you really believe that a government approved piece of paper somehow makes Marriages more stable? The benefits of the paper are peripheral and mainly make it easier for the couple to bring children into the world.
Perhaps there is a need for set of government setup benefits to allow a group of people to live in common without having to piece the benefits together by writing their own legal contracts. Inheritance rights, in particular, could thereby be made simpler for say a couple of sisters who have pooled resources in their old age to support each other. But why should this be called "Marriage" or limited to same-sex couples? "Marriage" is not a magic word that somehow makes the non-monogamous monogamous nor "strengthens" the relationship that isn't already there.
Hopefully, I've given you some food for thought. The decisions remain yours.
You say "That said, the Lord is quite clear about this matter; whoever is not for us is against us. There's nothing ambiguous about that."
Matthew 12:30 - "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."
Luke 11:23 - "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."
Not "us." "Me."
"We" should take care that "we" don't act like the Pharisees to whom the Lord directed the statement.
You say: "As to your question, the issue is not homosexual marriage per se, it's about the attempt to normalize that which clearly is abnormal. The Church opposes that effort. The Catholic individual is either for or against the Church. Your move."
Must a Catholic legislator or voter oppose remarriage following divorce? No-fault divorce laws? May a Catholic employer allow an employee who is divorced and remarried to take advantage of company benefits (such as insurance) for his "wife" (with whom he is living in adultery)? Some Catholic organizations have balked at providing insurance for a same-sex spouse. Should they also balk at providing insurance for a spouse of a second (third, etc.) marriage when, according to the Catholic Church (and Jesus himself) those remarried couples are living in adultery?
Your move.
David Nickol, there are enough rabbit holes in your questions to confuse a rabbit. The short answer to them is, the Catholic legislator is expected *by the Church* to be a Catholic 24/7. My opinion is, if he can't be a Catholic and a legislator at the same time, he needs to choose one and eliminate the other. Same for the Catholic employer.
There are many difficult choices before all of us in today's confused society. The fact many of us fudge the questions hedge on the answers is one reason the Church has seriously been weakened over the past five or so decades.
Re @Ferde Rombola. Is your thought that Roman Catholics should not be employers rather than adhere to non-discrimination laws and regulations?
jfm, the Catholic in business is required to obey the law. The question under discussion now is whether the law can compel the Catholic to violate his religious rights. We'll find out when the case(s) get to the Supreme Court.
May he rest in peace. And may the expectation of dissenters, that the "next pope" will fulfill their dreams of a (false) reform of the Church, be likewise "interred with his bones."