However history remembers Pope Benedict, one thing is assured: his reign will be remembered as one of the great teaching pontificates. Even those who question other aspects of it, praise it for that. “Where the Church has emerged especially strong under Benedict,” wrote the Los Angeles Times, “is in its intellectual discourse, elevated by a professorial pope who dedicated considerable time and energy to a series of highly regarded encyclicals and three books on the life of Jesus.”
The Acton Institute’s Samuel Gregg hails Benedict as “Reason’s Revolutionary,” and John Allen notes his intellectual achievements, too:
Many observers believe four cornerstone speeches delivered by Benedict XVI—at Regensburg, Germany, in 2006; at the College des Bernardins in Paris in 2008; at Westminster Hall in London in 2010; and at the Bundestag in Germany in 2011—will be remembered as masterpieces laying out the basis for a symbiosis among faith, reason and modernity.
George Weigel believes Benedict’s rich insights have “turned the Church definitively toward the New Evangelization—the evangelical Catholicism of the future,” and thus placed Catholic orthodoxy in a far stronger position than his critics realize.
Given his reputation, it is fitting that Benedict’s decision to abdicate has served as an extraordinary teaching moment itself. The decision is at once humble, wise, and courageous. It is humble because it reveals Benedict cares more about the strength of the Church than he does about his own personal position or privilege (unlike numerous other prelates). It is wise because it shows that he understands that the current demands of the office are better served by someone in vibrant health. And it is courageous because, as the first pope to step down from the papacy in six centuries, he is bringing true reform to the contemporary Church, making it easier for future pontiffs to follow suit, should they, too, believe that is the best course to follow.
But the greatest lesson to take away from Benedict’s momentous act is its fearlessness and expression of freedom—above all, the freedom to follow one’s conscience as the Lord leads it, regardless of secular expectations.
In today’s world, there are tremendous pressures—political, cultural and religious—to change one’s convictions, and conform to certain mass patterns of thought and behavior. We also face an attack on religious freedom throughout the world—and now, to a lesser extent, even in our own country. Benedict has met both challenges with firm resistance, and a clarion call for freedom.
Pope Benedict’s belief in the fundamental dignity and freedom of every human being is at the heart of his papacy, and yet it is usually either overlooked or contested by critics. They accuse him of being inconsistent—preaching about tolerance, while supposedly acting as an “authoritarian” and “oppressor” of those seeking more freedom in the Church.
This is to profoundly misunderstand the true nature of freedom, as the Church expounds it. True freedom is not the freedom to do whatever we please, but the freedom to abandon sin and error, and pursue objective truth, and commit ourselves to Christ unreservedly in the service of that truth.
The charge that the Catholic Church inhibits authentic freedom is unjust. Catholic orthodoxy holds that membership in the Church is an entirely free act, i.e., completely voluntary, not mandatory, and that anyone in the Church is perfectly free to leave it, who objects to its essential teachings and beliefs. Benedict is the first to proclaim this: the Catholic Church proposes; it does not impose. Further, when people freely enter or retains their membership in the Church, they simultaneously accept and understand—if they are knowledgeable and faithful Catholics—that the role of a pope is precisely to uphold, preserve, and develop the Deposit of Faith—but never contradict or undermine it in any fundamental way.
If there is one area where Pope Benedict’s “holy freedom” can be found, it is in his teachings on the liturgy, and his commitment to its renewal. In her book, Ratzinger’s Faith, Dr. Tracy Rowland explains Benedict’s understanding of the liturgy as a priceless treasure to be cherished and revered—and reformed only with painstaking care, not with endless experimentation:
Ratzinger believes that showing respect for faithfully transmitting the Liturgy to the next generation has the effect of guaranteeing the true freedom of the faithful. It makes sure that members of the laity are not victims of something fabricated by an individual or group, it guarantees that laity are sharing in the same liturgy that binds the priest, the bishop, and the pope.
If liturgical innovators or dissenters are allowed to violate sacred boundaries, warns Benedict, an unholy “dominion” will overtake and offend the faithful, and bring harm to the Church. Real Christian liberation must always be rooted in humility, and obedience to the timeless truths of the magisterium.
The pope’s decision to retire, rooted in this genuine concept of Christian liberty, is widely said to have “shocked the world,” and even much of the Church. But it really is not that shocking to anyone who has followed the life and beliefs of Joseph Ratzinger. For both before and after he became pontiff, he has always marched to the beat of his heart and inner conscience, guided by total devotion to Christ and His Church. For faithful Catholics (and not only them), Benedict’s last major papal act, like his beautiful teachings, are a source of profound inspiration.
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
R.R. Reno, Benedict: Last of the Heroic Generation
Russell D. Moore, An Evangelical Looks at Pope Benedict XVI
David Novak, A Rabbi Remembers Pope Benedict
Johann Christoph Arnold, Pope Benedict: An Anabaptist Appreciation
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
I object to one small detail--saying that Benedict was the first to say the Church proposes, not imposes. John Paul the Great made that point before.
Why can't we let people's virtues speak for themselves. Benedict has taught diligently, and upheld the Creed faithfully. He has traveled and labored to an extent that does deserve admiration. And then there is this rather unprecedented move. Apparently heartfelt, carefully deliberated and well-intentioned, certainly. Any pope, and especially this one, deserves such assumptions. But "humble, wise, courageous"? Seems like those are adjectives better suited for a postulator's case than contemporary observers' valedictory send-offs. After all, we wouldn't want the Pope to get a big head.
May God grant him the rest he so richly deserves.
Have you read sect.42 of Verbum Domini prior to my posting? I think not. Benedict, very much like John Paul II in section 40 of Evangelium Vitae, saw OT violence as not coming from God but from an unevolved culture and that the prophets were a cutting edge exception to the violence hence Benedict writes in the same section: " In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel."
Simply not true. Let's look at Jeremiah as he warns the Chaldeans that they had better massacre the Moabites perfectly in Jeremiah 48:10..."Cursed are they who do the LORD’s work carelessly, cursed those who keep their sword from shedding blood.” Does that sound like Jeremiah is opposing "every kind of violence"?
Elijah slits the throats of 450 prophets of Baal in 1 Kgs.18:40. In I Kgs.19:17 God says that Eliseus is to kill any of the House of Ahab that escape the sword of Jehu. Samuel the prophet "hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal" because Saul did not obey God's command to do so...I Sam.15:33. Examples go way beyond this...try Joel with his reversal in 4:10 of Isaiah's spears to prune hook metaphor in Isaiah 2:4.
Pope Benedict was a sweetheart of a man in later years but Popes are not pan infallible despite internet Catholicism's insinuations to the contrary. Section 42 of VD is an example of why Vatican I restricts infallibility to certain parameters.
He wrote,“…if homosexuals unions are perceived more and more as enjoying the same standing as marriage, then we are truly facing a dissolution of the image of humankind, bearing consequences that can only be extremely grave.”
Pope Benedict XVI. Essay from Without Roots. Basic Books. First Things. January 2006.
Amen! A much needed voice. Frank Sheed made the same blunder on the Old Testament, unfortunately [see the new Ignatius reprint of his book now titled "Knowing God." Just goes to show that otherwise brilliant and godly minds can still miss the fact that to dismiss this aspect of the OT, even with the best of intentions, is to open the door too widely to a 20th century approach that has plagued us since Vatican II]. Another discussion altogether, granted, but a reminder that eulogies of any papacy's legacies are best left unspoken until they have in fact long passed.
"Let a man so consider us, as servants [aka "galley slaves"/"under rowers"] of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in stewards that one be found faithful...Therefore, judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes [Titus 2:11-13; Hebrews 9:28], who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the motives of the hearts.Then each one's praise will come from God."
(In this context, see Jesus' words to Peter, regarding the unknown "stewardship" and/or God-ordained responsibilities, bestowed upon the beloved disciple "John," in the Gospel bearing his name: Chapter 21:18-22; see also John 12:44-50 & Romans 2:14-16.)
In the end, may my life be viewed from the Lord's perspective, as having been ONLY partially as "faithful," as that of one Joseph Ratzinger...then perhaps I'll also hear my Lord, Savior and ultimate Judge declare : "Well done, good and faithful servant"? May G-d bless you, and reward you richly Pope Benedict!
Your thoughts on section 42 of Verbum Domini are well known, and consistent across your numerous postings on a variety of web sites. I think that while you focus on a statement that is problematic (nothing wrong with that), you pass over part that included the text that Benedict put in italics:
"Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs..."
One does need to bring an understanding of history and culture to the writings of the past. Also, when the Pope was trying to get the Chinese to desist from appointing bishops themselves, the activities of the French in an earlier century hardly seem pertinent.
On a personal level, I am curious. What Catholic writings do not exhibit "weakness" in your eyes? Does Humanae Vitae qualify?
What has your enquoted Benedict passage to do with literally hundreds of Divine/violence connections in OT verses? Are they all fictional connections in your mind? Yes or no. My Humanae Vitae position, that of Rahner who wished well on his 84th birthday by John Paul II in 1984, is spelled out at Homilectic and Pastoral Review recently and has zero to do with Benedict but perhaps you are an ferventer than Pope disciple since you broach it here for emotional/strategy reasons which no Pope does. Go there and read. But answer here...are hundreds of Divine/violence connections in the OT fictional? Or does the difference in the pre Christ dispensation require than men without abiding grace and faced with a stronger pre grace satan...require fear of the Lord as dominant in their lives until grace arrives with Christ? And does this mistake of two Popes lead to inmates being murdered in prison wherever the death penalty has been ruled out by law....as happened to Fr. Keoghan and Jeffrey Dahmer....both murdered by lifers in non death penalty states.
The Church's mission is not about meddling in governance (wicked as the leadership of most other countries are in important ways), but to bring the Good News to all men. And greed and other sinful motives are eventually turned to good by the mercy of God, who cannot be thwarted by his creatures.
Pope Benedict has been a great warrior for Christ, with faith as his shield and wisdom as his sword. (The bureaucracy is always an issue. but if the leader does the important things, the secondary work will eventually get done.) Guided by the Holy Spirit, he and his predecessors have worked miracles in this world, despite the obvious advantages of the evil one (the "ruler of this world") and his minions. I for one praise God and pray always for the Vicar of Christ.
Early Genesis has much poetic imagination...Christ does not regarding those killed in 70 AD after him.
You and Thomas Murray and Pope Benedict can look at the dooms of the OT with a poet's eye. Unforetunately for the three of you, Christ predicted the worst doom ever, after Roman historians are present....between 600,000 and 1.1 million human beings killed by God through the Romans in Jerusalem in 70 AD for two reasons: A.) they did not know the time of their visitation ( Luke 19:44)/ B.) they had filled up the sins of their ancestors ( Matt.23:32). The Trinity killed possibly 1.1 million people outside the poetic Old Testament...after the Church began. And Christ said women would be killed with their children within them ( Luke 19:44). One can only
be fundamentalist about 70 AD because Tacitus and Josephus were the writers
involved. Watch Catholic and Protestant authors on 70 AD. You'd think the only thing that got hurt was the temple. Christ, Tacitus and Josephus are telling you something much more awesome....possibly a million humans were killed outside of your poetry paradigm within the OT.
Joe M, the Word must speak to men at all times. And the Holy Bible must be read as a unified whole. The ideas are only "embarrassing" if read without the guidance of the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.
"Doom" is not karma or simply consequences. You'll notice teens and babies were killed in Jerusalem in 70 AD...Christ tells you of the latter. Hugh Hefner is still alive after many sins but all aged people died in 70 A.D. We inherited original sin not as a consequence of anything we did. In Acts 12, Herod is killed by an angel of the Lord. Exodus 20:5 will explain to you the punishment down to the 3rd and 4th generation...ie Jerusalem.
Deut.32-39
" It is I who bring both death and life,
I who inflict wounds and heal them,
and from my hand no one can deliver."
carried in Mandarin sedan chairs. Hence the letter must have struck Chinese as not truth but salesmanship.
Another non rational moment in the papacy was section 42 of "Verbum Domini" in which Benedict implies that the dooms by God of certain groups ("massacres") were not from God when Scripture repeatedly says they were from God. He suggests something he recently criticized in his farewell talk to priests ie excesses of the historico-critical school: " Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context."
Sorry folks but believing the dooms did not come from God as Scripture repeatedly states they did means the Church should remove the entire 12th chapter of Wisdom from the canon...which see.
I liked Benedict's rationality but let's not as per usual move into sheer flattery mode...the weakness of much Catholic writing.