Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope's concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.This is an interesting paragraph to me because it's very expressive of Benedict's awareness of dynamics in the Church. He recognizes that some wonder why in the world anyone should bother with the SSPX and this issue - it does not seem to be a pressing concern for most. It seems distant from the questions that pastors know that those in their charge grapple with.
An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church's path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council - steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which - as in the days of Pope John Paul II - has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.Now - as we discuss this, we have a choice. We can either believe Benedict is telling the truth or maintain that he is lying. That is - Benedict points outright to his own personal and theological approach to Christian-Jewish relations, which is one committed to appreciation and understanding - those who persist in reading dark, secret, anti-Semitic motivations into the Pope's action on this score should just come out and admit that they believe Benedict is being dishonest about his own views and his vision of Christian-Jewish relations.
This is a point that emerges constantly in discussions of Benedict in which he is continually accused of wanting to scratch the Second Vatican Council out of the history books. It does not matter how many times he says or writes that this is not so. It does not matter that his writings evince a deep concern with the fundamental concerns of the human search for meaning and the particular shape that search takes in the 21st century. It does not matter that his nuanced writings on the Council (which he attended) are widely available and display no such hostility, and in fact, bear a recognition of the problems of the pre-Vatican II Church in Europe, in particular.
I see this frequently, even in commentary from Catholics. It does not matter what Benedict actually says or even does. It would be refreshing if those who refuse to address the totality of Benedict's views and actions, who insist on imposing an image upon him, would just straight-out admit that they think he is lying when he patiently affirms the core direction of the Council.
(And I have to say - I am a bit amused by the Pope's reference to "Williamson" without any title or honorific.)
And by the way,for a broader view, you might want to look at some Traditionalist discussion boards and blogs.
You will find a definite response of - shall we say, disgust - with this letter. As I said in my "Your Move" post, I don't think the general public really understands the level of disagreement that many Traditionalists have with the post-Conciliar Church. For them, this letter is affirming that Pope Benedict is a Modernist who refuses to call the Jews to conversion and who maintains that the excommunications actually happened rather than admitting that they were invalid, as they maintain.
Now, as for the excommunications themselves:
You will find a definite response of - shall we say, disgust - with this letter. As I said in my "Your Move" post, I don't think the general public really understands the level of disagreement that many Traditionalists have with the post-Conciliar Church. For them, this letter is affirming that Pope Benedict is a Modernist who refuses to call the Jews to conversion and who maintains that the excommunications actually happened rather than admitting that they were invalid, as they maintain.
Now, as for the excommunications themselves:
Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment - excommunication - with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.I'm going to let canonist Ed Peters take this one - I've got to run out for a bit:
In any case, the canonical explanations I suggested for the excommunication remission on 27 Jan 2009 (see also 24 Jan 2009 and even 3 Feb 2006) now seem verified. I had said that: either the pope was acting on the basis of information available to him privately concerning the necessary withdrawal from contumacy before censures can be lifted under 1983 CIC 1358, or, that the pope was acting praeter legem in lifting the censures as a pure gesture of mercy.Next Up: The Second Vatican Council and Church History or How Can You Luv Sts. Francis of Assisi and Theresa of Avila but Disparage the Mass In Which They Worshipped?
Now Benedict writes: "The withdrawal of the excommunication . . . was possible after the affected had expressed their fundamental recognition of the pope and his pastoral authority, albeit with reservations as far as obedience to his magisterial authority and that of the Council is concerned." I take this to mean that the four bishops expressed to Benedict their regret at having taken episcopal orders contrary to the directives of John Paul II (albeit with some canonically irrelevant reservations about popes and councils). If I am right about that, such an apology would suffice as a withdrawal from contumacy for the act of illegal ordinations and would enable Benedict XVI to lift the penalty in accord with Canon 1358. But, even if the bishops did not apologize for their action, the pope (but no other authority in the Church) could still have lifted the excommunications as a praeter legem gesture of mercy intended to encourage the SSPX to move toward full communion. If the pope's action were of the second sort, one might be able to question its prudence (c. 212), but not its legality.
Briefly, in regard to two other points: (1) to no one's surprise (well, not if they read In Light of the Law!), Benedict XVI did not repudiate John Paul II's imposition of the excommunication in 1988; and (2) the pope confirmed that the remission of the censures impacts only the canonical status of four individual bishops and has no impact on the status of the SSPX itself, which is still irregular.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
I see nothing but love in his letter and hear only the voice of Jesus through him. Gently correcting us, extending love and acceptance and forgiveness to those who have wandered. I keep coming back to the statement "this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians?” and “we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love?”
So psychologists think that Pope Benedict believing God has given him the power to bind and loose is evidence that he is crazy? Not exactly. The columnist doing the diagnosis is not actually a psychologist. She just thinks anyone who thinks the Catholic faith is really true must be crazy. But she is the one who has spent years studying the Catholic faith without actually believing it. The wisdom of God is foolish to men no matter how many degrees they have.
Asked why the church was once again promoting the need for indulgences, Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, said, “Because there is sin in the world.” But, really, is there any greater sin than willfully separating a human being from the love of God? Welcoming people to the table, regardless of their beliefs, their sins, their sanctimoniousness, was the central purpose of Jesus’ ministry in this world. That the Roman Catholic hierarchy seems bent on undoing the work of the Incarnate God is not simply sad, it is profoundly erroneous.
So nobody is separated from God? Except Catholics who don't agree with her. They are the worst sinners. But then there is somebody separated from God. Or are they separated from her? The church is guilty of the sin of believing there is sin. Ms. Manson knows there is no sin so therefore she can point out the sins of the pope. This woman went to Yale?
I followed Chris Sullivan's link and read the silly thing until I reached a description of shocking behavior towards the Blessed Sacrament. Then I couldn't read anymore of it. These people really think THEY get to decide what is good and holy and right, and they are going to decide based on their shallow little thoughts derived from TV and trendy academia, which are ultimately derived from a philosophy and world view which is fundamentally opposed to Christianity. Well, they are free to be in error, but not to proclaim and act according to their error and remain Catholics. One cannot demand the Body of Christ. Receiving it is a sign of oneness with the Church and in fact creates that oneness with the Church, and to receive it in antagonism to the Church is to engage in a blasphemous lie.
Had I been in the church that day I would have tried to prevent what he describes. And I don't know why the priest did not prevent it.
Benedict doesn't want to extend mercy to the SSPX and try to bring them back into the Church out of a kind of generalized niceness. The SSPX practice a sincere and devout form of Catholicism according to a conception of Catholicism and the Church which prevailed for many years. They are having trouble integrating some of the growth which the Church has made in recapturing some of its own past and coming to a deeper understanding of some of its own truths. Benedict would like to show them that this growth is not incompatible with the Catholic truth of centuries. And note that these people have abstained from Catholic communion because they disagree with what the Church is doing; they haven't demanded Catholic communion despite their excommunication. Benedict has hopes for them and believes it is right to do everything possible to bring them into unity. Note that he is NOT saying come be Catholic and you don't have to accept Vatican II, you can have your own doctrines, we'll have ours and everything with be just hunky dory and loving. They have to assent to Catholic truth. And if these presumptuous women described in Chris Sullivan's story would do likewise, they too would be received back into the Church.
Greetings, Amy!
I think it is not only many of his fearful progressives who read into Pope Benedict an agenda of retrenching interpretation (or worse) vis-a-vis Vatican II, but also many of his erstwhile cheerleaders, as it were. There prominent Catholic English-language bloggers, for example, who seem intent on whipping up their audience into paranoid state about the power of the enemies of the Pope's intended mission, which mission they interpret more aggressively than the Pope himself appears to in practice. This kind of thing is just as unedifying as facile self-serving rhetoric from the other side - but both are consumed with relish by their respective audiences....
All that said, the culture of romanita failed the Pope here, big time. And he would have been even better served if he had acknowledged that sometimes in the past he may have been part of a process of which others felt similarly victim. That level of transparency - which need not descend to Oprah-like emotive catharsis - is a valuable rhetorical tool towards eliciting increased credibility from questioning (though not hostile) audiences.
The reason that the Holy Father can draw closer to the SSPX than the liberal Catholics is because the disagreements between the Church and the SSPX is about how to deal with the modern world. The traditionalists take the position of all the popes prior to V2. The Vatican is following along with the experiment of V2 that is becoming increasingly hard to justify, as we see mass defections, confusion and religious illiteracy.
The liberals or modernists on the other hand are essentially heretics. They openly and brasingly deny defined dogmas. They also in many cases accept and promote immorality, and justify actions that are against Christian morality.
For this reason, it is obvious that the Holy Father would lean towards the SSPX because when reconciled, they will be a strong counter-weight to the liberals in the Church.
Here is a very isightful commentary on the Holy Father's letter from the traditionalist perspective, that is more balanced overall than the liberal thesis.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0315-ferrara-pope_stands_with_traditionalists.htm
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.