I was trying to explain last night to a non-Catholic just how dumb-struck many reformist Catholics are by the elevation of Ratzinger. And then I found a way to explain. This is the religious equivalent of having had four terms of George W. Bush only to find that his successor as president is Karl Rove. Get it now?
ME ON RATZINGER: From back in 1988, when I became interested in the man’s theology. It’s a PDF and can be found here. I just re-read it after many years. It’s closely focused on Ratzinger’s Augustinian theology and how his exercise of power came to corrupt the idealism of his earlier thought. And it benefits from not being clouded by the inevitable emotions of the present. Money quote:
The most telling difference between the pope [Wojtila] and the prefect [Ratzinger] is John Paul II’s more successful blend of Augustinian otherworldliness and Thomist trust. His admonitions, while increasingly firm, have never lacked the compassion and optimism that ally themselves with a countervailing confidence in God’s will working its way through nature. Ratzinger is an altogether more jaundiced figure … His bleakness, while theologically a way in which the extremity of grace can be radically described, is – once in power – a recipe for authoritarianism… What Ratzinger’s elevation [to chief enforcer of orthodoxy in the Church] unleashed – the wild card in Ratzinger’s development – was the factor of power. His theology did not change. But its new context was to tansform the purity of its intent.
The Dostoyevskian ironies are acute, and they are getting sharper. The theologian who stressed the apolitical as Christians’ first resort has become an official who has sacrificed theological argument for political coercion and control. The otherworldly cleric has become the first prefect to give an extended, published interview to the international press. The thinker who wrote above all about the central conceptions of the faith, of the mystery of the Incarnation, of the Last Things, of the core truths of Christianity, has begun to show signs of a creeping obsession with sex and concern with the passing phenomena of a secular agenda.
Since I wrote those words, Ratzinger’s immersion in political culture wars has become even deeper. I also cover his radical innovations on the role of women, gays and conscience. A woman should follow the “roles inscribed in her biology”; gays are inherently disposed to “intrinsic moral evil”; conscience as the modern world understands it is illusory. Yes, we have a new Pope. Just like the old one, but without any of his redeeming features.
A POLITICAL THEORY: I have no idea how this insular and regressive choice was made. But I would not be surprised if John Paul II’s electoral rule change had an effect. The change was to ensure that a pope need not get the two-thirds of cardinals’ support if such a super-majority hadn’t emerged after a long series of votes. At that time, a mere majority would be all that was needed. My hunch is that Ratzinger carefully lined up a narrow majority of cardinals who pledged they would never vote for someone else. He had enough power in the waning years of John Paul II to ensure that kind of loyalty. So the conclave knew after the first couple of votes that at some point, therefore, Ratzinger would prevail. And that he was so intent on maintaining control of the Church that he would sit through as many votes as necessary to get it. Under the old rules, after too many votes in which Ratzinger had failed to make the two-thirds, his name would have been withdrawn. Under the new rules, time was on his side. So the cardinals caved early. Why prolong the agony? Just a theory.
QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “The Church must make claims and demands on public law and cannot simply retreat into the private sphere.” – pope Benedict XVI, in “Church, Ecumenism and Politics,” 1988. This was as much a political decision as a pastoral one.
JUST LEAVE: An arresting email:
I can understand your sense that you cannot leave the church. But I know from experience that it is just that–a sense. You have felt the presence of God at Mass? I have too. You can feel it elsewhere but you cannot know that until you look. The gospels speak to you? I know you don’t seriously think they speak only though the Catholic Church. As for the family/mother analogy, it simply isn’t a good one. There is no biology here no matter how like that it may feel. Still, it can be valid in this way: If the church is your mother you have been, still are, and if the events of today are any indication, will increasingly be abused by her. Mentally, spiritually, and perhaps even physically abused. I feel for the pain I see in your writing. I have felt it too. But you have to take the advice you would give to anyone in an abusive relationship: get out.
It may be difficult, seem almost impossible, but that is the bottom line. I got out myself. I can assure you there is a rich and rewarding spiritual life to be had elsewhere. Religion is a choice. Please, for your own sake, choose a non-abusive one.
The Dish 