With the announcement of his resignation, Pope Benedict signals the end of the heroic generation. No longer will the Catholic Church be run by a man who was a participant at the Second Vatican Council, the three years in the life of the Church that have defined so much of the last fifty.
Joseph Ratzinger was one of the young turks at the council. A wunderkind theologian, he served as peritus for Cardinal Frings of Cologne. It was Frings who led the successful opposition to efforts by Vatican officials to turn the council into an affirmation of the status quo, often giving controversial speeches ghostwritten by Ratzinger.
Allied with Karl Rahner, Hans Küng, and others, Ratzinger wanted to give the Church a warmer, more immediate, open, and effective witness, one capable of engaging the questions and challenges facing “modern man.” This made him something of a radical. In his contribution to a commentary on the documents of the Second Vatican Council, Ratzinger went so far as to criticize Dei Verbum, The Constitution on Divine Revelation, for not saying outright that tradition is properly subordinated to Scripture.
His work at the council reflected his experience as a young seminarian and priest. After World War II, the Catholic Church in West Germany supported the Christian Democratic Union, Konrad Adenauer’s inter-confessional movement. This put an end to the Catholic Centre Party, which was a legacy of the Kulturkampf, the period of intense conflict in the late nineteenth century between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Prussian State.
German Catholicism was not only entering the political mainstream; it was undergoing a remarkable intellectual revival. Guardini, Rahner, Pieper, von Hildebrand, Adam: The Church of Ratzinger’s youth had a confident, creative, influential voice that allowed Catholicism to join with modern humanism to rebuild Europe after the horrors of Nazism and against the threat of Soviet domination.
That’s why Ratzinger’s youthful radicalism was one of confidence in the Church, not doubt. When he went to the Second Vatican Council he wasn’t thinking about how to fix a broken Church. He was part of the generation that was confident that, with the right changes, the Church’s strengths—her ability to play a central role in the public life, her intellectual vitality, her muscular sanctity—could become still more effective. Thus he has insisted on a “hermeneutic of continuity,” which means reading Vatican II as a deepening rather than a rejection of what came before.
Ratzinger fought an intellectual battle for sanity in the long decade of theological insanity that followed the council. When he was appointed as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by John Paul II in 1981, he was no longer a young turk but instead the pope’s “Rottweiler.” But his early experiences remained. Benedict XVI was formed with an essentially positive view of the Church’s engagement with modernity.
The next pope won’t be shaped by the successes of post-war Catholicism. A conversation I had with Christoph Cardinal Schönborn drove this home to me. I asked him about the greatest challenges he faced as a young priest. He replied by recounting painful memories of men leaving the priesthood and his beloved Dominican order suddenly giving up its traditional discipline of life. For him and men of his generation, the formative experience was quite different from Benedict’s. Their memories as young priests are of the sudden, profound, and debilitating disorder that overtook the Church in the immediate aftermath of the council. The world came apart, and the Church with it.
This difference will make a difference. We have lived through fifty years of self-inflicted wounds, some very deep. John Paul II and Benedict XVI felt these traumas, of course, and they responded effectively. John Paul II spoke forcefully about the non-negotiable objectivity of moral truth and the unity of faith and reason. Benedict XVI emphasized the renewal of the liturgy and promoted firm theological standards. They knew that the Church cannot be salt and light if she is not true to herself.
The next pope will continue along the same lines, pressing forward with the reform of dysfunctional religious orders already underway, as well as securing greater consistency in seminary training. He will no doubt remind our relativistic culture of the reality of objective moral truth. But the tone will change. He’ll know firsthand the foolishness of playing footsie with the increasingly hostile secular culture in the West.
This won’t mean a retreat from the Second Vatican Council and its wonderful confidence in the culture-shaping power of the gospel. The heroic generation will remain heroic. But a man who came of age when the Church was falling apart will know in a deep, primitive way that even sound teaching is empty and faithful proclamation ineffective when the household of faith is in disarray.
Thus my prediction: The college of cardinals will give us a pope who knows in his bones that the evangelical power of a Church rests in its ability to stand against the world with both a spirit of charity and a coherent, effective inner discipline. Only then can the world hear again the gospel and choose to stand with the Church.
R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
But ad extra plus was a complete re-orientation in the Church's relation to and appreciation of the Jewish People, their continued religious vitality, and their continued (perhaps eternal) religiously valid relationship to the Land of Israel.
Begun by Pope John XXIII, ratified by Pope Paul VI, made visible and vibrant by Pope John Paul II, and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, the complete re-orientation of the Catholic Church to the Jews has been little short of a joyous shock And Pope Benedict, from his earliest professional years, has been crucial, absolutely essential to this reorientation.
When he was unjustly maligned over the Williamson Affair, I was pleased that he pointed out that his Jewish friends came to his support and helped to sustain him. As we Jews say, G-d acts measure for measure ("middah keneged middah" for the Hebraists in the audience). Pope Benedict fought for us against the remnants of the old regime, and we fought for him when he needed us.
Those of us who know what he has done on our behalf wish him the very best through the tears that rain down our faces.
While I am sure that he will live, as he says he wishes to, a life of prayer, I hope that this prayer will also result in his continued writing.
Twice he sought to return to privacy and scholarship, and twice Pope John Paul II told him that he was indispensable in his service as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Now, for what time he has left in this world, he can go home to his beloved chapel, study, and writing desk.
Farewell dear friend, know that you have made a huge and positive difference in our lives as well as those of your flock.
We shall miss you dreadfully, but we rejoice that we have known you.
Rabbi Chaim Frazer
I agree with how you characterize the difference between Ratzinger's generation and that from which the next pope will come. But a lot hinges on particular personalities.
As a lay Dominican, I like Cardinal Schönborn and his work on the CCC. But he has a penchant for embarrassing gestures: getting into a public spat with the previous Vatican secretary of state, which is "brutte figura"; handling gay members of his diocese in such a way as to give the impression he approves same-sex partnerships; addressing the Medjugorje issue in ways arguably incompatible with Vatican policy.
Cardinal Angelo Scola would be a more solid choice. But he's Italian, and the Church probably needs somebody from outside Europe--if not immediately, then soon.
Now this has been corrected, but It was a tough time for faithful Catholics.
Amen. The ambivalent and sometimes contemptuous and cruel treatment of the Jews by my Church is one of the most shameful stains on its record. I thank God that this has been repudiated at long last by a series of great popes (I personally would include Pius XII, but views differ here). The Jews have given us everything, Filial piety and profound gratitude are in order, and finally part of the policy of the Catholic Church.
Thank you all. Please forgive us.
Best,
Richard
Thank you very much for your kind words.
I listed the Popes based on the original article, which I think was a good thing.
Pope Pius XII faced not only the Nazis and Fascists, but also a Church with large elements hostile to Jews with varying degrees of ferocity. In retrospect, it's very clear that large elements of the French Church helped Nazis escape to South America. The predominantly Catholic Croatian Ustashi puppet regime in Yugoslavia was ferociously anti-Jewish, anti-Eastern Orthodox, and anti-Communist, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians using methods that repulsed even the SS.
In short, Pius XII was not outspoken not only because of caution regarding the Germans and their allies, but also because of concern regarding whether local or regional 'Churches would share his concerns and follow his directives. Within that highly restrictive framework, my feeling is that Pius XII did what he could with great delicacy and effectiveness.
What changed with the papacy of John XXIII, among other things, was the huge desire of the Council Fathers to reshape the relationship with the Jews, a desire to which John XXIII contributed, as well as one which he discerned. 'There was still very powerful resistance to such a change, and it was by no means certain that the Council Fathers would prevail over their opponents, but at least the Church's center of gravity had shifted decisively.
Paul Vi then broke the final resistance, and that too was a closer victory than realized. In ratifying Nostra Aetate, he was a braver and greater hero than is generally realized.
John Paul I died, unfortunately, before he could continue the Council's path.
John Paul II grew up with, knew personally, and liked Jews. His effervescent personality broadened and deepened the relationship, particularly given the length of his pontificate.
Benedict XVI consolidated John Paul II's initiatives into the Church as as institution. It was also Benedict's personal tragedy to be slandered viciously throughout both his Curial career and his papacy. (Note: after my first experience of reading 2 paragraph's of Benedict's writings, I knew that though conservative, he was and is a thoughtful man of great intellectual clarity and balance. In the words of Peter Seewald, he was and is truly one of the Church's wise men.)
I believe that those who have attacked (and slandered) Benedict (beginning in his Ratzinger days) have generally confused religion with sociology. Religion focuses on paths and imperatives that come to us from a transcendent, Divine source. Sociology arises from popular consciousness and shifting political tides.
Benedict has rooted himself in the religious, and has gotten along very well with others, such as Orthodox Jews (like me) who have done the same.
He was truly a treasure to us, and his loss is painful beyond description.
Rabbi Chaim Frazer
If I may descend to niggling, I have something to say in response to Germain Grisez (t.h.e Germain Grisez?).
Mr. Reno is correct. The Second Vatican Council commenced on 11 October 1962 and concluded on 8 December 1965 (both dates being occupied in ceremonial and liturgy). That's effectively three years.
As for leading "the successful opposition to efforts by Vatican officials to turn the council into an affirmation of the status quo", the key initiative, as is well known, was certainly Cardinal Liénart's in speaking on 13 October 1962 (without authorisation) in favour of an adjournment to enable the Council Fathers to consult with one another upon the membership of the conciliar commissions.
What might have been snuffed out, however, as a merely French quibble over mechanics was transformed by the intervention of Cardinal Frings in seconding Liénart's motion. This, at any rate, is how it appears from Alberigo's History, vol. 2, pp.27-32 (Eng. trans.).
Without this initiative, the outcome of the Council would have been very different. As to what followed, of course you are right in insisting that there was a sizeable group of Council Fathers who might credibly be termed its "leaders", although the ones you name were influential not so much on account of their unaided contributions, as because of the stature of their periti.
While Cardinal Frings certainly had a role in leading Vatican II to carry out the vision of John XXIII and to set aside elements of the preparatory work that were at odds with it, I do not think it accurate to call him the leader of the "the successful opposition to efforts by Vatican officials to turn the Council into an affirmation of the status quo." There was no one leader of the course the Council took, but Cardinals Leger, Suenens, Dopfner, Montini, Bea, and others were as important as Frings.