How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Pope Benedict

On the day Pope Benedict XVI was elected, I remember very clearly getting a phone call from a friend giving me the news.  She was very excited about the development, and she knew that I would be disappointed.  I was of the view that a new direction was needed after the "lost years" of John Paul II's pontificate when he was sick.  I thought that many of John Paul's selections of American bishops were very poor--pure institutional men, who did not have the pastoral or personal skills to respond to the sex abuse crisis or the other challenges facing the Church.  I thought we had become locked into a tired fight over the meaning of Vatican II, one that had come to drown out every other concern.

I still believe all of that.  However, I assumed the election of Josef Ratzinger was a sign that we were going to continue in the status quo for the foreseeable future, and that Pope Benedict would govern just like Pope John Paul did.  In that, I was wrong.

My problem, I think, is that I viewed Catholicism in binary terms.  I thought there were only two poles--liberals who wanted Catholicism just like it was in the 70s, and conservatives who followed the lead of John Paul.  Since Josef Ratzinger was certainly no liberal, he must be a John Paul II-style conservative, I reasoned.

It has become clear that Pope Benedict represents a third dimension, which is best (if not perfectly) described as traditionalism.  The key to Benedict's traditionalism, I think, is that he is focused on the Church as an institution, and how it relates to other institutions (in particular to the state, but also to institutions of culture).  This is in contrast to John Paul, who self-described his understanding of faith as "personalist."

John Paul II Catholicism, particularly as it manifested itself in the United States, was Revival Catholicism.  It had energy and enthusiasm to spare, but ultimately it was about what the individual thought and felt about the faith.  You were supposed to be "fired up" about Catholicism, you were supposed to dive into all of the writings and speeches of John Paul.  But it was very much about you, and where you were with regard to the faith.  If you didn't get caught up in the enthusiasm, then you were out.

Modern life is the cult of You.  What are you going to do, what are you going to buy, how are you going to market yourself to others.  You.  What I love about Catholicism, more than anything else, is that it allows me to break free of this Cult of You by reminding me that this faith is not mine.  I did nothing to earn it, nor do I own it--I have been given custody of it for a while from those who came before me, and I will pass it on to others when my time is over.  Just as it is not mine, nor is it anyone else's--not John Paul's, nor Benedict's.  I do not care for it as I should, but neither does anyone else, and yet it continues. 

I do not belong to the Catholic Church because it reflects my own awesomeness; I belong to the Church because I realize that I am not awesome, and thus I need the Church.  Also, and this is important, is it not enjoyable to spend time with those who do believe the Church reflects their pre-existing awesomeness.  Because Revival Catholicism has, in my experience, a strong tendency to self-satisfaction and Phariseeism, just as its close cousin evangelical Protestantism does.  Without really being conscious of it, I think the crypto-Protestant quality of that style of Catholicism turned me off.

I have come to believe that Benedict understands all of this in a way that I don't think John Paul ever did.  While Benedict certainly is not given ground on the big ticket issues, he has turned down the temperature on everything.  It seems to me that he has focused on strengthening the institutional Church, and is allowing people to breathe and find their own spot.  Once the institution is strong, it can meet people where they are, even if where they are is not necessarily where you would hope they would be.  Because those people are Catholics, too.  Those people need the Church, too.

Two concrete examples come to mind. I read an interview (which I now can't find) where Benedict was asked about that old bugaboo, the "Christmas and Easter Catholic." Benedict's answer was something along the lines of "well, better that they come on Christmas and Easter than not come at all," and said something about the need to welcome them when they come, since they too are members of the Church. Related to that, I saw a directive recently issued to the Argentinian bishops which instructed priests not to deny anyone who comes to have their child baptized, regardless of the level of practice of the parents. After all, baptism confers grace--why punish the child for the failings of the parents?  That's the vision of the Church that has nourished me--the Church that is around me, but not about me.

I have a couple things that still bother me.  I still think there is an disproportionate emphasis on sexual issues, in a way that drowns out other concerns.  And I wish he had done more to respond to the sex abuse crisis (I wish everyone had done more).  But I think Pope Benedict has put things on a more stable footing, and for the stuff that I am unsure about, such as the slow return to pre-Vatican II liturgical practices, I am very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  After all, he is the Pope, and I am not.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus Doesn't Care if You Masturbate, and Other Provocations

Image
1.  A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon this post on the Patheos Catholic channel .  In it, a young woman named Marina S. Olsen began what she promised is a series of posts discussing sexual sins, and she begins with masturbation.  To call the post alarmist would not do it justice--even in the heyday of the drug scares in the 80s, an anti-drug ad that adopted this tone would be seen as over-the-top.   But something struck me in reading her post--Ms. Olsen believes, with an apparently unshakable conviction, that what the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation is true.  Actually, that's not quite right--she takes as a given  that what the Church says about masturbation is true.  It is noticeable that at no point does she try to do the Dr. Greg trick, which is to justify her opposition to masturbation on the basis of ostensibly neutral or scientific grounds .  No, her thesis is that people despair about masturbation because masturbation is going to result in those folks
Read more

Another Theology of the Body, Part VI--A Theological Exploration of the Clitoris

I was introduced to The Body's Grace by Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right in this post , where he quotes Williams saying: It puts the question which is also raised for some kinds of moralist by the existence of the clitoris in women; something whose function is joy. If the creator were quite so instrumentalist in ‘his’ attitude to sexuality, these hints of prodigality and redundancy in the way the whole thing works might cause us to worry about whether he was, after all, in full rational control of it. But if God made us for joy…? I want to talk about the first part of that quote here, regarding the clitoris.  I am not aware of any theology that has been done on the clitoris, but there should be.  As Williams alludes to, the existence and nature of the clitoris is a theological "problem," especially if you want to hold on to traditional Christian sexual morality.  It is especially problematic if you want to hold that sexuality needs to be understood through the
Read more

Holy Sex!--Part 3.3 Getting Down to Business, Part II

Chapter 12 is about foreplay.  Most everyone acknowledges that foreplay is good, and this chapter is no exception.  Popcak makes the interesting but seemingly effective choice to break foreplay down into the various senses.  So, for example, under seeing he discusses things like wearing lingerie, under smell he suggests to use scented candles, etc.  There is nothing revolutionary or earthshaking here, but the suggestions are solid and reasonable. He also provides an unambiguous defense of oral sex.  Some might be puzzled as to why oral sex needs defending, but the traditional position of the Church opposed oral sex--hence the reason it was traditionally grouped with anal sex under the heading of "sodomy."  So, Popcak is stepping out a bit on a limb here, and he deserves his kudos for that.  He also makes clear that oral sex goes both ways, subject only to the One Rule.  Good on him for recognizing the needs of the ladies in this realm. I could see how his constant use of
Read more