|
Once more among
the many deeds and gestures of the pope, some isolated and not
even central statements are being blown out of proportion and
threaten to make us forget all the rest. Just as his critical
comments about Islam – during his speech at Regensburg – and his
words about condoms – during his trip to Africa – were
retransmitted in a distorted way that often showed little fidelity
to the truth, so now in that same tone the international media
recently heralded the “fact” that the pope had finally permitted
condom use, and that they solemnized this event as a historic
reversal in the world of Catholic morality.
Did the Pope permit the use of condoms?
The fact of the matter is, the Pope simply said that one might see
a male prostitute’s use of a condom with the intention of
preventing the transmission of AIDS as a first step toward his own
moralization and assumption of responsibility. One might, along
the same lines, say that a murderous thief’s decision to restrict
his future activities to larceny, so as to cease making attempts
on the lives of others, could be seen subjectively as the first
step toward his moralization. To conclude that theft would
therefore become morally defensible is just as unfair as the
assertions of certain bishops and theologians, according to whom
Benedict XVI finally opened the door to certain means of
contraception.
We must note however that the Pope’s reference to “particular
cases” provides a certain basis for such interpretations. He
actually should have taken advantage of Peter Seewald’s question,
whether the Church is not “opposed in principle to the use of
condoms” to remove all doubt. But he simply answers that the
Church does not consider condoms to be a “real or moral solution,”
although “in this or that case,” condom use could “be a first step
in a movement toward a different way, a more humane way… of living
sexuality” (Light of the World, Ignatius Press, 2010, p. 119). To
put it politely, that is a weak argument. Of course the pope did
not deny that sexuality can be lived out in a manner consistent
with God’s will and human dignity only within the context of
marriage, and that condoms or any other method of artificial
contraception must be rejected morally, but neither did he clearly
affirm it, which would be quite necessary today. As a result, and
because of his desire to go as far as possible to meet the
secularized world and not hurt anyone, he shares with the media a
certain responsibility for the confusion and deception that this
recent information has caused among faithful Catholics.
We must also note, in the statement that the Catholic Church
approves of natural family planning (p. 147), a certain relaxation
of Catholic morality. Certainly, it is morally defensible for a
couple to use the infertile periods in the female cycle to space
births or even to limit their number, but only in the case where
the growth of the family would not be morally responsible, because
of health or economic considerations, or other similarly serious
reasons. The pope’s statement may give the impression that spouses
would be permitted to use natural family planning just as others
would use other methods of artificial contraception, that is, with
the goal of having no children or at most a limited number of
them. Now that is not at all in keeping with Catholic morals,
given that procreation is the principal goal of marriage.
The cases of abuse of minors – celibacy
Clearly, the cases of sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests
occupy a major portion of the work. Concerning the problem of the
cover-up of these cases by certain ecclesiastical authorities, the
Pope makes the interesting observation that the “ecclesiastical
penal law functioned until the late 1950s… After the mid-sixties,
however, it was simply not applied any more. The prevailing
mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but,
rather, a Church of love; she must not punish” (pp. 25-26). These
comments allude to the disaster that was to befall the Church with
the Second Vatican Council. But that problem is not addressed in
the book.
Meanwhile, the question of celibacy is back on the floor. Benedict
XVI does not venture to sketch a relaxation of the Roman
discipline of priestly celibacy. However, what he says about
priests who cohabit with women is peculiar. In such cases, he
says, “one must examine whether a real will to marry is present
and whether [the priest and his concubine] could build a good
marriage. If that is the case, they must follow that path” (p.
39). This does indeed conform to the current practice of Rome, of
systematically secularizing such priests, but it is in flagrant
contradiction with the ecclesiastical discipline before Vatican
II. To allow a priest so easily to contract marriage calls into
question the true meaning of the vow of chastity that he made.
Does a definitive promise made before God to practice continence
have such slight significance? A married man cannot simply leave
when life in common with his spouse seems to have become tiresome.
Furthermore, what conjugal fidelity can be expected of a priest
who did not hesitate to reject the most sacred oaths that exist?
The pope correctly points out that celibacy is feasible and
credible “only … if there is a God and if celibacy is my doorway
into the kingdom of God. In this sense, celibacy is a special kind
of sign.” Therefore “[i]t is important for priests not to live off
on their own somewhere, in isolation, but to accompany one another
in small communities, to support one another, and so to
experience, and constantly realize afresh, their communion in
service to Christ and in renunciation for the sake of the Kingdom
of heaven” (p. 149). Since its foundation, the Priestly Society of
St. Pius X has put this ideal into practice.
Man is capable of truth
The words of the Pope on the subject of the “dictatorship of
relativism” are among the most important passages of his book.
Contrary to “a large proportion of contemporary philosophies,”
Benedict XVI firmly professes man’s capacity for truth and voices
concern that “the concept of truth has become suspect” (p. 50). In
this context, he even finds strong words against the intolerance
toward Christianity that is characteristic of modern society:
“When, for example, in the name of non-discrimination, people try
to force the Catholic Church to change her position on
homosexuality or the ordination of women, then that means that she
is no longer allowed to live out her own identity and that,
instead, an abstract, negative religion is being made into a
tyrannical standard that everyone must follow” (p. 52). “In the
name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished; this is a real
threat we face” (p. 53).
The Williamson Affair
There is a whole chapter dedicated to the “Williamson affair”. The
Pope’s opinion that Bishop Williamson “was never Catholic in the
proper sense”, since “he was an Anglican and then went over
directly to Lefebvre,” is not right (pp. 121-122). Richard
Williamson was not in the Society of St. Pius X when he converted
to Catholicism; he did so independently of it, before entering the
seminary in Écône. What is more, at the time when he entered,
among the first groups of seminarians, the Society enjoyed the
full approval of the competent ecclesiastical authorities.
It is interesting to learn (p.121) that already under the
pontificate of John Paul II, a reunion of all the heads of
dicasteries had decided to grant the lifting of the
excommunication if the bishops asked for it. Besides this, hardly
any mention is made of the Society of St. Pius X, or of other
traditional communities, in the Pope’s work. The liberalization of
the traditional Mass was supposed to be a sign for the internal
coherence of the Church’s history; Benedict XVI’s adoption of the
distribution of communion on the tongue is in his eyes a “clear
signal” in favor of the Real Presence (pp. 158-159). The Pope
claims here to have nothing against communion in the hand in
principle, and to consider the New Mass as the normal form of
celebration, but at the same time regularly repeats that the
liturgy should not be open to a celebrant’s creative antics.
Ecumenism and Relations with the Jews
Ecumenism is ever and always for Benedict XVI the path that the
Church should follow. He insistently evokes the good relations
that he maintains, principally with several directors of Orthodox
communities. As for the Protestants, he has to admit that they,
“with women’s ordination and the acceptance of homosexual
partnerships,” etc., have rather distanced themselves from the
Church (p. 94), a fact which, however, in no way makes him
question his ecumenical orientations. St. Augustine wrote
concerning heretics: “On many points they are with me, only on a
few are they not with me: but because of these few points on which
they differ from me, it is no good for them to be with me on all
the rest.” (In Psalm. 54, n. 19; PL 36,641). Although Benedict XVI
holds the bishop of Hippo in great esteem, he certainly seems to
differ from him on this point, since he looks for all the points
he has in common with the Protestants. The name “ecclesial
community” (and not Church) given to the Protestants is supposed
to show “that such communities embody a different mode of being a
church” (p. 95). According to Benedict XVI, “Protestantism has, as
it were, shifted the accent of Christianity and … we are trying to
understand this, to acknowledge one another as Christians, and to
join in service as Christians” (p. 95). This positive outlook on
Protestantism is in contradiction with the traditional teaching of
the Church. Each Protestant taken as a private person can
certainly be “bona fide”, that is, in good faith for lack of
knowledge, but Protestantism in itself cannot be said to be “a
different mode of being a church”, it is separated from the Church
of Christ.
Benedict XVI’s clear defense of Pope Pius XII against the unjust
and untenable accusations that in the wake of dramatist Rolf
Hochhuth (1) are constantly being made against him, is a source of
great joy (pp. 109-110). When objectors say that Pius XII had
“old-fashioned ideas about the Jews” – in spite of everything he
did to save them – and that he did not measure up to Vatican
Council II”, Benedict XVI rejects this criticism, but he proves
again that he at least measures up to Vatican II. Indeed, rather
than speaking of “elder brothers” – an expression that the Jews,
drawing a connection with Esau (the reprobate brother) might find
hurtful – Benedict XVI speaks of “our fathers in the faith” (p.
82). Although that is true of the Jews of the Old Testament, it is
not true of those living today who expressly reject Christ and His
Church. His explanations of the new prayers that he introduced
into the traditional Good Friday rite are still more obscure.
Contrary to many trends of modern theology, the Holy Father
remarks “that there are not two channels of salvation, so that
Christ is also the redeemer of the Jews and not just of the
Gentiles.” He immediately adds, however, that in the new prayer,
we do not make “a direct petition for the conversion of the Jews
in a missionary sense,” but rather ask “that the Lord might bring
about the hour of history when we may all be united” (p. 107). For
anyone who thinks logically, it will be difficult to understand
why we would not pray for the conversion of the Jews, if it is
given that Christ is their Savior. What is more, in reading the
prayer introduced by Benedict XVI: “Let us pray for the Jews, that
the Lord Our God may enlighten their hearts, that they may
recognize Christ as the Savior of all men”, the normal faithful
will be led to think that we are praying for the conversion of the
Jews.
The Crisis of the Church
The crisis of the Church, especially concerning Europe and North
America, is often mentioned. Because of the Pope’s (and Peter
Seewald’s) origin, the particular situation of Germany receives
special attention. Benedict XVI is aware that “in Catholic Germany
there is a rather large group of people who, so to say, are on the
lookout for an opportunity to attack the Pope” (p. 125). He cannot
understand why in Germany, where every child has between nine and
thirteen years of religious instruction, “so very little sticks”
(p. 140). What a euphemism! The Pope cannot but know that the
official books of Catholic teaching transmit anything but the
Catholic faith, and that most of the professors of religion, in
spite of the canonical mission given by the bishop, are not
qualified to transmit the Faith. Consequently, his exhortation to
bishops to “seriously reflect on ways to give catechesis a new
heart” should probably be understood as an implicit criticism.
In Conclusion
In this new book, Benedict XVI stays true to his course. He
remains the teaching and pacific [? irenic?] Pope, who does his
best to understand everything, to avoid extremes and to reconcile
in the Church modern reasonings and Tradition. Already in 1985 he
said so himself in his book-length interview with Vittorio Messori,
The Ratzinger Report: “I have always tried to remain true to
Vatican II, to this today of the Church”, without “any impatient
thrust toward a tomorrow that is not ours”, but also without
anachronistic “longing for a yesterday irretrievably gone”. (p. 19
of the English edition, Ignatius Press, 1985)
This book will certainly open the eyes of many who know little or
nothing of the Catholic Church to the deformations and errors
propagated by the press. In his introductions to his different
questions, Peter Seewald clarifies the facts several times, which
paints a picture very different from those that are now widespread
in the public. Perhaps we could not hope for more for the time
being. The Priestly Society of St. Pius X is however of the
opinion that the Church cannot have a renewal without a clear
condemnation of the false developments realized since Vatican II
and without a return to her perennial Tradition. (Source: SSPX-Germany
– DICI 226, December 12, 2010)
(1) Author of the play The Deputy. |
