What will be the long-term impact of Benedict's visit?

From an Associated Press piece titled, "Impact of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to US to be seen" (April 21, 2008):

Pope Benedict XVI's U.S. visit left behind the impression of a compassionate and candid leader who has made a successful transition from professor to pope.

But it's uncertain whether the pontiff's six-day pilgrimage, which ended Sunday, will make a lasting imprint on a country he obviously admires.

"In the short term, the trip was an enormous success, probably beyond anyone's expectations, including those of the pope himself," said Russell Shaw, a Catholic writer and former spokesman for the U.S. bishops' conference. "Whether the trip is going to have a significant outcome regarding the large problems facing American Catholicism, that's anyone guess."

Shaw, of course, has some experience with papal visits, having helped organize two of Pope John Paul II's visits while working for the American bishop's conference. From later in the report:

Shaw, however, is skeptical that Benedict's first U.S. visit as pope, however well-received, will reverse U.S. Catholicism's troubling trends: declines in Mass attendance, a priest shortage, hemorrhaging membership and struggles to meet the needs of a fast-growing Hispanic population.

"I saw the same phenomenon at the time of John Paul II," Shaw said. "The big crowds, the enthusiasm, the charisma. Looking back 20 or 25 years later — in terms of anything you can quantify in American Catholicism — it's all been downhill."

Two others sections of this AP piece caught my attention. First:

John Allen Jr., a senior correspondent with the National Catholic Reporter, an independent weekly, said Benedict came off as candid, kind and comfortable with the adoring crowds.

"Basically, he seems like a nice guy," Allen said, "which already is an advance over what some of his publicity was three years ago when he was elected."

Allen does much fine reporting, for which he should be commended, but it shouldn't go unobserved, I think, that some of the publicity—decidedly negative publicity—that greatly influenced perceptions of Ratzinger/Benedict came from Allen, whose 2000 book, Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith (Continuum, 2000), was strongly criticized by many close to Ratzinger as being badly skewed and often quite unfair. For instance, Fr. D. Vincent Twomey, author of Pope Benedict XVI: The Conscience of Our Age, took Allen's book to task in a review published in Homiletic & Pastoral Review:

For Ratzinger, in the final analysis, remains for Allen the bogeyman that frightens most liberals, the main source of division and demoralization in the contemporary Church. He is the power-wielding churchman whose later theological views, in contrast with his earlier "liberal" stance, has had the effect, inter alia, of "legitimizing the concentration of power in the hands of the pope and his immediate advisors in the Roman curia" (p. 309). In other words, despite all his efforts to be fair, and Allen does make considerable efforts in that direction, the Cardinal remains the ogre.

I mention this, in part, because it has been pointed out over on the Catholics In the Public Square blog that Allen, in the wake of the Holy Father's visit, has made some dubious observations about Benedict's views of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. I also mention it because it's more than a little annoying when some in the media somberly judge the Pope to be a "nice guy" when they were responsible, to a significant degree, in creating the perception that he was not only not nice, but a reactionary nasty.

Secondly, the AP piece makes a rather misleading observation:

Benedict also lamented divisions within the church. Some American Catholics emphasize the church's conservative moral stances on abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage; others champion its more liberal stances on poverty and the death penalty.

Not only is this far too simplistic (even for a newspaper report), it creates the impression that the Church's teachings on all of the mentioned issues are of equal weight or of the same character. The Church is clearly and emphatically opposed to abortion, "gay marriage," and embryonic stem cell research (and has clearly and emphatically explained why in many different ways and places). And while the Church is also, of course, against poverty, and exhorts Catholics to help the poor, it provides principles, not policies, for Catholics to adhere to in addressing poverty and related issues. As for the death penalty, the Church teaches: "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." (CCC 2267). There are no such qualifiers for abortion.

As Benedict made clear in his various talks and homilies, we Catholics should seek to the live the Gospel fully, with all that we are and all that we have: "Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel" (Address to the Bishops, April 16, 2008). There are legitimate differences among Catholics regarding many matters involving prudential judgment, including how best to help the poor, how to work within the public square, and so forth. But those are quite different from divisions that have to do with rejecting or accepting Church teaching. Put another way, it is one thing to emphasize or focus on a certain aspect of Church teaching—about abortion, for example—but it is a completely different thing to ignore or dismiss clear Church teaching and then claim that it is not as important as something not taught by the Magisterium (i.e., the complete abolition of the death penalty).

• Are Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Compatible? | From Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions.
• The Papal Visit | James V. Schall, S.J.
• Curious About the Heart and Mind of Benedict XVI? | Carl E. Olson
• The Essential Nature and Task of the Church | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Comments

[Joe]

Excellent post.

The fact a reporter can get away with a verdict like, "Basically, the pope seems like a nice guy," speaks volumes. A nice guy... as opposed to what? A jerk? Sheesh.

[Dan]

It is fair to ask if an entire pontificate will have an impact on long term trends such as Mass attendence, etc. It is silly to ask whether a single Papal trip will have any such impact.

[padraighh]

I am still waiting for the Holy Father to wag his finger in the face
of Nancy Pelosi or Dick Durbin. I heard on EWTN that someone had
arrainged for Tim Ruusert (did he perjure himself in the Libby trial?)
and Wolf Blitzer ( Sponsor of Jack Cafferti's idiodicity)
to be given papal medals. I dont know if it is true.
But what does this say about the bishops with leverage?

Where was Unambigiously-prolife-Chaput?

Where was No-vocation-problems-here-Bruskewitz?

Where was Stand-up-and-be-counted-Burke?

Like Fulton Sheen - the real heros are marginalized.

[CV]

I heard a report on NPR this morning that announced that, during this visit, Benedict basically rehabilitated his image from Vatican enforcer to kindly grandfather.

Amazing that in doesn't occur to more MSM reporters that they just might possibly have gotten it wrong in the first place.

I generally respect Allen's reporting, but I think (hope) that hardliner portrait of Benedict he helped create is rather embarrassing to him now.

[LJ]

The Pope is a "hardliner." He just preaches the gospel in a very gentle way. If any of these reporters want to check out the transcripts of his various messages they will see he didn't back down from the truth at all, nor is he likely to. In fact, his goal on this trip was to persuade Catholics that their hope is in a return to Catholic truth.
The MSM is concerned about optics, not substance, and the Pope gave them optics that didn't fit their template, so now he's a nice guy. And they still don't get it.

[Dave Deavel]

Carl,

In defense of John Allen, I want to point out that Allen had already repudiated his own 2000 book by the time of the last conclave and tried to stop its re-release. The publisher refused and so Allen wrote a new book. So he is in part to blame but he did his best to undo his earlier work.

[Carl Olson]

So he is in part to blame but he did his best to undo his earlier work.

Yep, and he has certainly improved his approach to discussing Ratzinger/Benedict. But, unfortunately, I think his earlier work had a tremendous influence. And it does beg the question: Why did Allen get Ratzinger so wrong for so long?