Ads


The Legacy of Benedict XVI

At his election in 2005, some thought of him as a papal place-keeper: a man who would keep the Chair of Peter warm for a few years until a younger papal candidate emerged. In many other ways, and most recently by his remarkably self-effacing decision to abdicate, Joseph Ratzinger proved himself a man of surprises. What did he accomplish, and what was left undone, over a pontificate of almost eight years?


He secured the authoritative interpretation of Vatican II that had been begun (with his collaboration) by his predecessor, Blessed John Paul II. Vatican II, the council in which the Church came to understand herself as a communion of disciples in mission, was not a moment to deconstruct Catholicism, but a moment to reinvigorate the faith that is “ever ancient, ever new,” precisely so that it could be more vigorously proposed.


He helped close the door on the Counter-Reformation Church in which he had grown up in his beloved Bavarian countryside, and thrust open the door to the Church of the New Evangelization, in which friendship with Jesus Christ is the center of the Church’s proclamation and proposal. As I explain in Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church, Benedict XVI was a hinge man, the pivot on which the turn into the evangelical, mission-driven Church of the third millennium was completed.


He accelerated the reform of the liturgical reform, accentuating the liturgy’s beauty. Why? Because he understood that, for postmoderns uneasy with the notion that anything is “true” or “good,” the experience of beauty can be a unique window into a more open and spacious human world, a world in which it is once again possible to grasp that some things are, in fact, true and good (as others are, in fact, false and wicked).


He proved an astute analyst of contemporary democracy’s discontents, as he also correctly identified the key twenty-first-century issues between Islam and “the rest”: Can Islam find within itself the religious resources to warrant both religious toleration and the separation of religious and political authority in the state?


He was a master catechist and teacher, and, like John Henry Newman (whom he beatified) and Ronald Knox, his sermons will be read as models of the homiletic art, and appreciated for their keen biblical and theological insights, for centuries. As for the incomplete and the not-done:


Benedict XVI was determined to rid the Church of what he called, on the Good Friday before his election as pope, the “filth” that marred the image of the Bride of Christ and impeded her evangelical mission. He was successful, to a degree, but the work of reconstruction, in the wake of the sexual abuse scandal, remains to be completed.


This is most urgently obvious in Ireland, where the resistance of an intransigent hierarchical establishment is a severe impediment to the re-evangelization of that once-Catholic country. And the next pope must, in my judgment, be more severe than his two predecessors in dealing with bishops whom the evidence demonstrates were complicit in abuse cover-up—even if such an approach was considered appropriate at the time by both the counseling profession and the legal authorities. The Church has higher standards.


Joseph Ratzinger had extensive experience in the Roman Curia and it was widely expected that he would undertake its wholesale reform. Not only did that not happen; things got worse, and the Curia today is, in candor, an impediment to the evangelical mission of the pope and the Church. A massive housecleaning and re-design is imperative if the Church’s central administrative machinery is to support the New Evangelization: which, for the Curia, is not a matter of creating a new bureaucratic office but a new cast of mind. (Evangelical Catholicism contains numerous suggestions for how that might be done.)


And then there is Europe. The man who named himself for the first saintly patron of Europe tried his best; but like his predecessor, the best he could manage was to stir the flickering flames of renewal in a few parts of Catholicism’s historic heartland. Its re-evangelization remains an urgent task.

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. 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:

2.20.2013 | 7:38am
Nancy D. says:
As long as The Big Tent Mentality remains, and those who have left Christ's Church spiritually, are allowed to remain within His Church physically, causing chaos and confusion, while leading many astray, apostasy, not evangelization, will occur.
2.20.2013 | 12:40pm
Anna says:
I have always had the impression that Benedict would have liked to reform the curia, but realized that it was so unwieldy that it would take a long time to do it properly. I think he probably thought "I am not going to have a long enough pontificate to undertake this job. I will leave it for a younger, more energetic and creative successor. He then used the gifts that God gave him abundantly to teach brilliantly and to model the humble, servant attitude that was lacking in some of the people around him. Vatileaks was a terrible episode, but it allowed the decades long dysfunction of the curia to come to a head. This will enable the next pope to come up with a solution that even the previously resistant members will have to accept.

An excellent article...an excellent pope!
2.20.2013 | 4:10pm
Don Roberto says:
Agreed: "A massive housecleaning and re-design is imperative." As a plant thrives only when pruned, so must our next Vicar step boldly. One suggestion: We've got plenty of experience with "loosing." A "theology of the 'binding'" might be in order. And with this, more rigorous penances, e.g., something more than an Our Father and three Hail Marys—penances designed to teach a lesson and to be remembered. (In the good old days one might even be sent off to evangelize in foreign lands, where death was a real possibility.) As a parent castigates a child, and even punishes him severely if/when circumstances warrant, so would true love be better reflected in penances that are at least somewhat correlated with the sins.

As for the statement that, "...such an approach was considered appropriate at the time by both the counseling profession and the legal authorities...," let's remember this lesson: neither the "counseling profession" (filled as it is with pseudo-atheists, always willing to ally themselves with libertine neo-pagans) nor the "legal authorities" (who are demonstrably better at inventing "penumbras" than finding real law) should be taken as our guides on moral questions. Just because a thousand psychologists state an opinion by no means implies we should agree and/or act on it. Their "considered opinions" do not make evil good. And the courts are obviously wrong when they say, for example, that because we don't know if the unborn are people it is therefore okay to kill them.
2.20.2013 | 7:28pm
A's Letters says:
Pope Benedict also offered us profound wisdom on one of the most important issues of our time, the attempt to redefine marriage and thereby deliberately deprive a child of a mother or a father. He wrote,

“…the absence of complimentarity in these unions (same sex unions) creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, ..in the sense that the condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.”

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, (2003). Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, n.7. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
2.20.2013 | 11:39pm
Very interesting blog, good coverage of Ireland and Europe. But what about North America. Before we point our collective fingers at continental Europe and the British Isles, let us get our own house in order.
2.21.2013 | 4:49am
Jacob R says:
Nancy D,

You're right.

They keep calling themselves the leaven of society, but in actuality the dough is suffocating and spoiling the leavening.

If we're not strong enough even to espouse our own ideals, we'll be hopeless when it comes to converting confident and aggressive secularists.
2.21.2013 | 7:47am
Nancy D. says:
To deny the personal and relational essence of the human person created in The Image and Likeness of God, does violence to all persons. We are male and female, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters...not objects of sexual desire. Our call to Holiness, is a call to authentic Love.
2.22.2013 | 1:45am
But Nancy, I have always thought I was really a tree sloth. I cannot remember a time when I was not, in my heart, a tree sloth. In fact, I insist: I *am* a tree sloth! (How can anyone deny this assertion?) Now that we have the technology, I insist on my right to *marry* one of my own kind, and, given the advances in bioengineering, that the governement pay for our (test-tube) chimeric love child. Only then will my right to happiness be respected!
2.22.2013 | 7:02pm
Anna --- your comment @ 12:40 pm lays it out there quite nicely and accurately as well. thanks. This only makes his resignation all the more understandable, i.e. the time is now for curia reform and he simply could not take it on in his advanced years. I love Benedict most of all. Even the author of this article above just called him on Relevant Radio as the greatest papal preacher and homilist since 6th century Gregory the Great. I, too, am that amazed by Benedict's brilliant insights using the simplest of words.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact