Pope Benedict XVI: Liberal?
The announcement last week that Pope Benedict XVI had approved a new procedure to allow entire congregations of Anglicans to return to the Catholic Church took the Christian world by storm. It didn't take long for pundits to return to their keyboards to offer their opinions. Some articles were thoughtful, attempting to analyze how the Holy Father's directive will be implemented and what it might mean for the future of the Anglican Communion. Many others were outrageous, seemingly designed to provoke controversy (for instance, claiming that Pope Benedict hopes to gather all the "bigots," "misogynists," and "homophobes" into the Catholic Church).
And still others were frankly bewildering, especially when they came from writers who are regarded as experts on the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict, yet who seem incapable of getting basic facts, much less interpretations, correct.
David Gibson's article "Is Pope Benedict a closet liberal?" is a case in point. Writing in the Washington Post on October 26, Gibson, the author of The Rule of Benedict: Pope Benedict XVI and His Battle With the Modern World, sets out an elaborate argument that is almost entirely based on fundamental errors. He claims, for instance, that the Holy Father's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which restored the Traditional Latin Mass as one of two approved forms of the Mass,
created, for the first time in Catholic history, two parallel rites in the Western church— one in Latin, the Tridentine rite (after the Council of Trent); another in a newer form, which is almost always celebrated in the vernacular, or local language.
This is simply nonsense. Part of Pope Pius V's purpose in promulgating his missal (what is now often called the Traditional Latin Mass or the Tridentine Mass) was to consolidate the various Western rites of the Catholic Church. The Gallican rite, used in various forms in the areas of Western Europe north of the Alps and in Spain, succumbed rather quickly (as did other smaller rites), but the Ambrosian rite of Milan and the Mozarabic rite in Spain continued, and today are seeing a resurgence.
Even more to the point, Pope Benedict himself, in his letter to the bishops concerning Summorum Pontificum, states bluntly:
It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites." Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
And finally, the "Anglican-use" liturgy that new converts from Anglicanism will be allowed to celebrate is not exactly new: Pope John Paul II gave permission for its use in 1982—a fact that readers might reasonably expect those opining about Pope Benedict's move to know.
It gets worse. Gibson makes an astounding claim:
when the pope restored the old Latin Mass, he also restored the use of the old Good Friday prayer, which spoke of the "blindness" of the Jews and called for their conversion. That prayer was often a spur to anti-Jewish pogroms in the past, so its revival appalled Jewish leaders. After months of protests, the pope agreed to modify the language of the prayer; that change and other modifications made the "traditional" Mass more a hybrid than a restoration.
The idea that the traditional Good Friday Prayer for the Jews (one of a dozen or so intercessory prayers offered at the Good Friday service) sparked pogroms has been thoroughly debunked, but Gibson is a man on a mission, and he won't let the facts stand in the way. As I wrote in my coverage of the revised Good Friday Prayer for the Jews, however,
In July 2007, when Pope Benedict XVI, in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, restored the Traditional Latin Mass as one of the two approved forms of the Mass, there were rumors that he would also revise the "Solemn Prayers" that are prayed on Good Friday.
In other words, the Holy Father did not "agree" "to modify the language of the prayer" "After months of protests"; he intended to do so all along.
So where is Gibson going with all of this? He wants to make a clever point and claim that Pope Benedict XVI, long regarded as a conservative, really is a "closet liberal." He saves what he clearly regards as his trump card for last:
More important, with the latest accommodation to Anglicans, Benedict has signaled that the standards for what it means to be Catholic—such as the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Mass as celebrated by a validly ordained priest—are changing or, some might argue, falling. The Vatican is in effect saying that disagreements over gay priests and female bishops are the main issues dividing Catholics and Anglicans, rather than, say, the sacraments and the papacy and infallible dogmas on the Virgin Mary, to name just a few past points of contention.
This so splendidly and spectacularly wrong that it is hard to imagine that Gibson himself believes it. The traditional Anglicans to whom Pope Benedict has reached out believe in the Real Presence (many even explicitly subscribe to the doctrine of transubstantiation). Their priests, as Cardinal Levada pointed out at the announcement last week, are not validly ordained today; in order to function as priests in the Catholic Church, they will need to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders after their conversion. In other words, they will celebrate the Mass as validly ordained priests.
And on the other questions—"the sacraments and the papacy and infallible dogmas on the Virgin Mary"—Pope Benedict is not giving ground, either. Those Anglicans who wish to enter the Catholic Church will be expected to believe what the Catholic Church teaches, and no less.
If Gibson weren't so determined to push his clever point, he might understand that the conservative Anglicans he quotes at the end of his article—two bishops who have no intention of becoming Catholic—are not refusing Pope Benedict's offer because they think he has "glossed too lightly over the really tough issues"; they are refusing it because they know that they would have to enter into the Catholic Church on the Church's theological terms.
That may mean that the hopes of many (myself included) for an influx of traditional Anglicans may fall short. But if those hopes are disappointed, it will be because the Holy Father has held his ground on doctrinal issues.
When it comes to the truths that the Catholic Church teaches, Pope Benedict XVI is no liberal, closeted or otherwise.
I wonder if he is even aware of how hypocritical it looks.
To welcome Anglicans is fine, and I welcome them too, but to dismiss our need for priests the important issue here.
As long as the church uses some antiquated law, and it is not scripture driven, as Peter was married, we are missing out on a lot of fine clergymen. I do not believe in ordination of women but I sure do believe in an option when it comes to celibacy of our clergy. Until we make some changes it will be harder and harder for many parishes to have a full time priest. I witnessed this problem when I was in Australia. In one community there was a priest monthly.
That is simply unconscionable.
As long as the Vatican sticks to some antiquated law, man made, it will continue.
Sheep begin to wander if there is no shepherd………..
Interesting that Mr. Gibson goes to Father Thomas Reese when he wants a comment from a Catholic priest. It’s rather like the History channel always going to John Dominic Crossain. If you only listen to your own voice, how will you hear anything else? And yes, “conservative” writers and producers do the same.
Of course Gibson is wrong theologically, many times, as Scott points out. But he’s probbably right in suggesting that a “big tent” Catholicism–embracing a plurarity of rites and and cultures–may tend to have a liberalizing effect on what has been historically Roman Catholic unity. One thing thing the Second Vatican Council surely reaffirmed is that the Church consistently misunderstands and underestimates modern cultural forces in the West. Anglicans, as we know, have their own opinions about things. I think it’s a little naive to suggest that the existence of a book entitled “the Catechism of the Caltholic Church” will hedge against the inevitable cultural drift the Anglicans have, historically, led.
I think a bigger point, to take a tack from the previous commenter, is that the Catholic church has always been a big tent in the sense that 1 Billion people fully agreeing on every point is improbable, impractical and I daresay impossible. The diversity of the Church in its people is part of its stregnth. The Gospel and the Body and Blood of Christ are the same to all people but the outward form, liturgy and practice can vary from culture to culture. Hence the multiple rites within Roman Catholicism (in terms of liturgy) as well as the several rites within the Catholic Church (i think there are 20+ separate rites which are in full communion with Rome but someone can correct me on the number). The fundamental doctrines of the Church don’t change based on culture but the practices of the Church may and historically have (as Scott references in his article). I think that American/Western cultural shifts will provide a fertile ground in which to sow an Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church and potentially have a much greater impact on the spiritual health of our communities (with married men hearing the call to the priesthood leading to an increase in vocations hopefully leading to a resurgence among men to be spiritual fathers and husbands and more involved spiritually in their communities – it’s a vision/dream/hope/prayer but I can see it happening because of this move).
enough rambling for now. i’ll look forward to seeing other thoughts.
from the Philippine catholic view:
As long as the NECINE CREED and the basic catholic dogma- upon which we base our belief is upheld, our shepherds are allowed to make the necessary adjustment in order to enjoin other separated brothers to come in to the catholic fold.
I fully believe in the wisdom of the Holy Father in this.
I hope that in the near future, the separated Filipinos, especially those under the sect founded by Fr. Gregorio Aglipay will be re-united to the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that the main reason for the faction was due to abuses committed by the Spanish clergy at that point of the Philippine History.
The mind of God is what i see in the decision the Holy See made, for Our Lord said “Father may they be one as We are one” i think what we all should be doing is praying.
Why become a catholic when catholesism has such a long history of murderous violence???
Why become human when humanisticum(sic) has such a long history of murderous violence???