Thankfully, Benedict XVI is not a "Commonweal Catholic"

UPDATE (Jan. 10, 2008): A reader commented that columnist Ray Schroth is also known, in some circles, as Father Raymond A. Schroth, S.J. Sure enough, he is. Which makes, I think, his column (see below) all the more exasperating.

In a piece titled, "Can the Church learn to listen?", columnist Ray Schroth sings the praises of the infallible, ex cathedra, magisterial pronouncements of self-described "Commonweal Catholic" and philosopher George Dennis O'Brien and his new encycl—er, book, Finding the Voice of the Church (Notre Dame University Press). There's a plenitude of head-scratching material in the column, but I'll limit myself to two or fifty items. First:

I first encountered Dennis O'Brien, philosopher and president emeritus of the University of Rochester, in the 1970s when he wrote in Commonweal magazine that philosophy should be taught not by philosophers but by English teachers.

And I, for my part, have long thought that physical education should be taught by chemists, math should be taught by custodial engineers, and Britney Spears should be taught how to disappear by David Copperfield. But I suppose Schroth's anecdote makes sense, because it appears O'Brien thinks that Commonweal Catholics and non-Catholics should teach the Holy Father how to be a better Catholic:

Even though American Mass attendance surpasses that of de-Christianized Europe, here the younger generation is falling away from Christian belief. One reason is that once the Vatican Council closed, "the spirit of dialogue evaporated." John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, conducted a teaching papacy, not a learning papacy, as if they feared open discussion.

What is a "learning papacy"? I suspect (and my suspicions are confirmed by remarks later in the column) that it involves the pope essentially taking orders from academics and self-proclaimed experts, not from Jesus, who happened to play an essential role in the founding of this whole Church enterprise. The comment about fearing open discussion is sheer nonsense and simply reveals that Schroth needs to spend a little time actually reading the various writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, whose works are filled with interaction with other viewpoints. Again, it's not hard to figure out that the issue isn't that the popes won't engage in open discussion (since they do, constantly), but that they won't, say, allow the ordination of women, sing the praises of contraceptives, turn the Church into a democracy, etc., etc.

Thanks to modern communication techniques, the Pope has become the public "voice" of the church.

And 1950 years before "modern communication techniques," the Pope was the public voice of the Church because, well, Jesus gave him the keys to the Kingdom. Just thought I'd mention it...

The trouble with this, suggests O'Brien, is that of the many "voices" the Pope could use he has chosen those that cannot be heard effectively in the modern world. We have become accustomed to the Pope as "super-professor" or "judge." He writes long encyclicals and delivers homilies in which he tells us definitively -- sometimes infallibly -- what to think. At one time he said the issue of women's ordination was settled, and not to be discussed.

This sounds quite a bit like my three-year-old son at 8:00 a.m.: "I want a cookie!" "No, you cannot have a cookie right now," I reply. "Why?! I want a cookie!!" he demands. "You cannot have a cookie because you need to eat some proper food and not have any sugar at the moment," my wife says. "Whhhhhhyyyyyyyy!! Whhhaaaaa!" And so forth. My son thinks I'm being mean, unfair, authoritarian. I think I'm attempting to be a decent, caring father. Likewise, when someone says the Pope, by virtue of articulating and explaining Church doctrine (which, we know, he cannot revoke or remake), is acting like a "judge" or is not speaking a way that modern people like, be assured that the issue is not the method, but the content. And the Holy Father can issue short and clear explanations of why, for example, women cannot be ordained priests, but length and clarity are not impediments; the problem is a rejection of Church teaching. Period.

But our experience of the professor and judge model is that they are not infallible.

Keep in mind that John Paul and Benedict, combined, have issued—arguably—one ex cathedra statement. One. Uno. And that, of course, was on a matter that the Church has consistently said, "No can do. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Jesus."

Historians, for example, admit there is much they don't know and invite colleagues to correct them. O'Brien suggests that the Pope play the role of "patriarch," a "father" who has authority in his family based on his love for them, even though good fathers are sometimes wrong.

Have these guys read anything by Ratzinger/Benedict? Anything at all? Here, for example, is a short excerpt from Ratzinger's Called To Communion, on the nature of the papacy:

For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.

When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone: "flesh and blood" do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood. To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is. Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it . . .

Speaking of St. Peter, Schroth writes:

O'Brien beautifully contrasts the Peter in Matthew's Gospel, who receives the "keys of the kingdom," which is interpreted as papal authority, and the post-resurrection Peter, who has experienced forgiveness, in John. Jesus tells Peter to "Feed my sheep."

This, frankly, makes little to no sense. What contrast? In Matthew 16 Peter is given authority by Christ. (Shortly thereafter he is harshly rebuffed by Christ: "Get behind me, Satan!") In John 21 that authority is reiterated and restored in the aftermath of Peter's denial. Jesus tells Peter: "Feed my lambs" and "Tend my sheep" and "Feed my sheep." In other words, Peter is told by the Good Shepherd that he will participate in Jesus' shepherding of those who need feeding and guidance. Nowhere does Jesus say, "Make certain to establish a learning papacy that takes its cue from Commonweal Catholics." Yes, Peter is a flawed, sinful, and weak man. As are his successors. As are, dare it be noted, philosophers, theologians, and newspaper columnists. But, then, the Vicar of Christ, by virtue of his office, is given a unique task and the grace to perform that task, despite his weaknesses and imperfections. He is guided by the Holy Spirit and follows the example of the Lord. But Commonweal Catholics, we learn, have better ideas:

O'Brien suggests that the Pope learn from the psychotherapy of Carl Rogers, become the father who listens skillfully, and then teaches by offering forgiveness as a central Christian appostolic [sic] approach. He should teach more through prophetic action than through words.

So much for Peter preaching at Pentecost! Or making a definitive declaration at the Council of Jerusalem. Or preaching to Cornelius and his household. How is it that Peter and his successors ever got along without the teachings of Carl Rogers? It boggles my mind. Regardless, I conclude with these thoughts from Cardinal Ratzinger, found in the book/interview, Salt of the Earth (Ignatius, 1997):

There is an ideology that fundamentally traces all existing institutions back to power politics. And this ideology corrupts humanity and also destroys the Church. Here is a very concrete example: If I see the Church only under the aspect of power, then it follows that everyone who doesn't hold an office is ipso facto oppressed. And then the question of, for example, women's ordination, as an issue of power, becomes imperative, for everyone has to be able to have power. I think that this ideology, which suspects that everywhere and always what's at stake is basically power, destroys the feeling of solidarity not only in the Church but also in human life as such. It also produces a totally false point of view, as if power in the Church were an ultimate goal. As if power were the only category for explaining the world and the communion present in it. After all, we are not in the Church to exercise power as if we were in some kind of association. If belonging to the Church has any meaning at all, then the meaning can only be that it gives us eternal life, hence, real life, true life as such. Everything else is secondary. If that isn't true, then all "power" in the Church - which then sinks to the level of a mere association - is nothing more than an absurd "spectacle". I think we have to escape from this theology of power and this reduction that derives from Marxist suspicion.

Comments

[Nick Milne]

O'Brien suggests that the Pope learn from the psychotherapy of Carl Rogers...

Oh man, I am dying with laughter here.

[Robert Miller]

It strikes me that, in one respect at least, we contemporary Catholics (and the rest of the world) are most fortunate: We have 24/7 instantaneous access to the teaching office of the Holy Father.

We don't have to dig through libraries of old books and stacks of papers. We don't have to wonder how the Pope would interpret the various signs of the times. In a sense, the internet "completes" the innovation of print and broadcast media.

For centuries now, the voice of the Church has been muffled by the din and spin of publication/broadcast. Now that voice can be heard clearly, contemporaneously, anywhere and at any time.

Pope Benedict XVI seems keenly aware that his co-workers of the truth are listening. And that's what has the Commonweal -- and America, and National Catholic Reporter, etc. -- crowd worried. They have good reason to be fearful. Schroth's column is a prime signal: Catholic pundits don't have the luxury they've enjoyed most of the last five decades of "spinning" the Church's word to the world.

[Ed Peters]

Carl, great piece.

[Dan]

Please indulge this passage, written by Fr. Neuhaus and posted today on the "First Things" website:

"In night hours and in times snatched between the myriad appointments of the day, Benedict sits alone at his desk, writing and writing. He is ever the teacher, a 'scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven . . . who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old' (Matt. 13:52). Hence the first two encyclicals; hence the compellingly erudite lectures at public audiences; hence the first and promised second volume of Jesus of Nazareth. It is said that this pontificate represents a return to the basics of Christian faith and life, and there is truth in that. More strikingly, it represents an appeal for the modern world to recognize that its achievements cannot be sustained apart from the authentic humanism of Christian faith. To date, and with few exceptions, those who control the commanding heights of culture have not engaged, or even deigned to notice, his efforts. Undaunted, he returns to the task again and again, writing and speaking in most intimate communion with St. Paul and St. Augustine, proposing to the world 'a more excellent way' (1 Cor. 12:31)."

[Dan]

The advice that the Pope should look to psychotheraphy brings to mind a Ratzinger quote: "Psychotherapy has taught us that to repress the truth induces neurosis. Psychotheraphy cannot however teach us what the truth is."

(I'm paraphrasing from memory -- I don't have it with me -- it's somewhere in "Co-Workers of the Truth.")

[Little Gidding]

Carl Rogers. Fer sure. He did such wonders with the sisters of the IHM. That's just what the Church Universal needs.

[Kyro]

Terrific article, Carl. I appreciate the references to Benedict's actual words. Watching how certain people criticise the Pope and the Church becomes so frustrating at times when it is clear that they have taken no time to actually probe the actual words and thoughts of Benedict.

Ratzinger/Benedict has published thousands of words a year in multiple languages for decades, I doubt most detractors have actually committed the time to read two of above said pages. Im continually frustrated that this sort of thing is seen as enlightened discourse.

[Carl Olson]

Watching how certain people criticise the Pope and the Church becomes so frustrating at times when it is clear that they have taken no time to actually probe the actual words and thoughts of Benedict.

Yes, very frustrating. Strange, isn't it, that those who prattle on and on about "listening" are the ones who exhibit the least interest in actually listening?

[Dan]

I find the uninformed criticism frustrating also but there is a reason for much of it, I think: it takes grace to hear and really understand the Pope. I think that without the requisite grace his words simply do not register. This is also true of the Church's teachings generally.

[Dan]

But my previous comment does not mean that I don't find outrageous some of things that are in the Schroth piece. This one really got me: "John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, conducted a teaching papacy, not a learning papacy, as if they feared open discussion." Cardinal Ratzinger is unquestionably one of the most profound and erudite thinkers of our times, in or out of the Church. He has mastered the modern secular thought that he critiques (whereas modern secular thinkers typically have not mastered Christian thought) and I have seen no one rise to the intellectual challenge that he poses to the modern world. For Mr. Schroth to suggest he has something to teach to this Pope is just an embarrassment.

[Carl Olson]

For Mr. Schroth to suggest he has something to teach to this Pope is just an embarrassment.

Exactly. Or worse.

[Robert Miller]

Excellent article and stimulating comments.

Leaving Schroth and his ilk aside, what concerns me is how few "traditionalist" and "conservative" (and even "pro-life activist") Catholics I know have even the slightest familiarity with Ratzinger/Benedict's works. They love him as a "conservative" and pro-life figure, but they don't seem to have the time or inclination to fully engage with his thought and teaching (magisterial and non-magisterial).

Developing a "Ratzinger movement" among "ultramontanist" Catholics in the US is one of our most urgent requirements.

[jack]

I believe it is rev. schroth,sj. When I lived in NJ, he was a professor at St. Peters College and a regular when the newark star ledger needed a priest to subtly undermine Church teachings. Keep him in your prayers and also the renewal of the Jesuits.

[miguel alberto]

J. Ratzinger's papacy: not a "learning papacy"? That simply is absurd. You're right to ask what kind of "learning papacy" is spoken of. Pope Benedict has not just been delivering homilies and catechesis. He has been actively engaging in and inviting everyone to a dialogue about the world, its prevailing ideologies. And true to his task, he has been tireless in his invitation to take a second look at Jesus of Nazareth - to recognize in Him something or Someone greater than us, than the universe itself: a God who loves. Many times he has articulated what many find hard to express in words simply because of the restrictions on reason imposed by postmodernity.

[Dennis O'Brien]

Dialogue first comes into being when there is not only speech but listening..To listen means to know and acknowledge another and to allow him to step into the realm of one's own "I". It is a readiness to assimilate his words, therein his being, into one's reality as well as assimilate oneself to him in corresponding fashion. Thus, after the act of listening, I am another man, my own being is enriched and deepened because it is united with the being of the other...
Joseph Ratzinger The Nature and Mission of Theology

I appreciate the deep listening of the bloggers. Thanks Carl.

DOB