Benedict's vacation spot is significant in his history
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, March 14, 2008 - Vol. 7, No. 27 | |
Pope Benedict XVI is on vacation from July 28 to Aug. 11, passing his summer break in an Alpine town in northern Italy known as Bressanone by Italians and Brixen by German-speakers. Benedict is a guest of the local seminary, lodging in an apartment known colloquially as "the bishop's room."
It's a setting where this pope clearly feels at home.
Aside from the fact that the pope's family, on his mother's side, has roots in the surrounding region (known as Alto Adige in Italian and Südtirol in German), over the years Joseph Ratzinger has come to be on intimate terms with Bressanone and its seminary.
As a rising young theologian in 1967, Ratzinger lectured at a conference in Bressanone on the figure of the priest in the New Testament and the recent decree of the Second Vatican Council on the priesthood, Presbyterorum Ordinis. He was obviously impressed, because from 1968 to 1977 Ratzinger and his brother Georg, along with their sister Maria, vacationed in Bressanone, usually lodging at a local hotel. (The owner recently recalled that the Ratzinger siblings took three single rooms on the third floor of the 45-bed hotel, sharing a bathroom in common.)
After Ratzinger was named archbishop of Munich-Freising in 1977, he continued to summer in Bressanone as a guest of the seminary, befitting his new ecclesiastical status. He kept coming back after relocating to Rome in 1981; between 1977 and 2005, Ratzinger passed his summer break there 10 times. He became such a regular, in fact, that the rector gave him his own key to the seminary library. There's even a shady patch of the garden informally named for Ratzinger, before his election as pope, because of his predilection for reading there.
Some of the pope's writing owes its gestation to Bressanone. He completed the first four chapters of Jesus of Nazareth here in August 2004, and rumor has it that Benedict may use some of his down time this summer to work on the promised second volume.
This is Benedict's first visit to Bressanone since his election three years ago.
* * *
All this might seem a charming, but largely insignificant, footnote to the pope's biography, were it not for the fact that Bressanone was the setting for a defining moment in Joseph Ratzinger's life and career. It was in his seminary apartment, overlooking the garden, where Ratzinger granted an incendiary interview to Italian Catholic journalist Vittorio Messori over three days in August 1984. Extracts were published in late 1984 by the magazine Jesus, immediately causing a global sensation, and the entire interview appeared in book form in early 1985 under the Italian title Rapporto sulla fede, and in English as The Ratzinger Report.
Some 23 years later, it can be difficult to recall the earthquake the book triggered. Ratzinger bluntly described a "crisis" in Catholicism after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the antidote to which was rejecting an "unrestrained and unfiltered opening to the world" and emphasizing the continuity of Vatican II with earlier eras of tradition. The Ratzinger Report was an immediate best-seller, with more than a half-million copies gobbled up in the United States alone. It polarized opinion dramatically; as Messori recalled, it seemed everyone felt the need to take a stand for or against the cardinal's vision.
Looking back, it's striking how many vintage Ratzinger stereotypes either originated in widely quoted passages from the book, or were crystallized by them:
1. Ratzinger the pessimist
"Western culture is hellish when it persuades men that the sole aim of life is pleasure and self-interest. … Today more than ever, the Christian must be aware that he belongs to a minority and that he is in opposition to everything that appears good, obvious, logical to the 'spirit of the world,' as the New Testament calls it. … It is time to find again the courage of non-conformism, the capacity to oppose many of the trends of the surrounding culture, renouncing a certain euphoric post-conciliar solidarity."
2. Ratzinger the restorationist
"If by restoration we understand the search for a new balance after … the overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world, then a restoration understood in this sense (a newly found balance of orientation and values within the Catholic totality) is altogether desirable and, for that matter, is already in operation in the Church."
3. Ratzinger's change of heart about Vatican II
"What the popes and the council fathers were expecting was a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension which -- to use the words of Paul VI -- seems to have passed over from self-criticism to self-destruction. … There had been the expectation of a step forward, and instead one found oneself facing a progressive process of decadence that to a large measure has been unfolding under the sign of a summons to a presumed 'spirit of the council,' and by so doing has actually and increasingly discredited it."
4. Ratzinger's obsession with socialism
"The 'absolute good' (and this means the building of a just socialistic society) becomes the moral norm that justifies everything else, including -- if necessary -- violence, homicide, mendacity.... And what looks like 'liberation' turns into its opposite and shows its diabolic visage in deeds."
5. Ratzinger's hostility to bishops' conferences
"In many episcopal conferences, the group spirit and perhaps even the wish for a quiet, peaceful life or conformism lead the majority to accept the positions of active minorities bent upon pursuing clear goals."
6. Ratzinger the Grand Inquisitor
"Every theologian now seems to want to be 'creative.' But his proper task is to deepen the common deposit of the faith as well as to help in understanding and proclaiming it, not 'to create' it."
7. Ratzinger the autocrat
"The Church of Christ is not a party, not an association, not a club. Her deep and permanent structure is not democratic but sacramental, consequently hierarchical."
8. Ratzinger the anti-feminist
"What radical feminism -- at times even that which asserts that it is based on Christianity -- is not prepared to accept is precisely the exemplary, universal, unchangeable relationship between Christ and the Father ... I am, in fact, convinced that what feminism promotes in its radical form is no longer the Christianity that we know; it is another religion."
* * *
The furor all this set off is difficult to overstate.
For liberal Catholics, it seemed the polite veil had been ripped off the Vatican and its true essence revealed -- fearful, defensive, hostile to creative thought and to dialogue with the world. Conservatives rejoiced that someone in authority had the wherewithal to say out loud what many of them had long felt about the direction of the church after Vatican II. In any event, the battle lines in Catholicism had been well and truly drawn.
A statement issued about the book by a group of priests in Munich, Ratzinger's former archdiocese, was typical: "Those who, like Ratzinger, exalt themselves in such a triumphalistic manner above everything … exclude themselves as dialogue partners," the priests said.
In September 1985, the Synod of Bishops met in Rome to look back at Vatican II after 20 years. Despite four weeks of speeches, debates, and work towards a set of resolutions, the only thing journalists seemed to care about was Ratzinger; at one stage, Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium snapped during a press conference, "We're having a synod around a council, not a book!"
The drumbeat became so intense that the papal spokesperson at the time, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, even felt compelled to put a bit of distance between Pope John Paul II and his top lieutenant. While stressing that John Paul cherished Ratzinger, Navarro-Valls hinted that the pope might have phrased things in a sunnier fashion.
"Ratzinger is right in what he has written in the book," Navarro-Valls told reporters, "but he is not right in what he has not written."
* * *
All of which brings us back to Bressanone, because it was here that the image of "Herr Panzerkardinal" was set in cement, and it is now here that Benedict XVI arrives after having done a great deal over the last three years to lay that image to rest.
To be sure, there were flashes in that long-ago conversation with Messori of what I've come to describe as Benedict's "affirmative orthodoxy," meaning his capacity for expressing the doctrinal essentials of Christianity in a positive spirit.
For example: "The only really effective apologia for Christianity comes down to two arguments, namely, the saints the Church has produced and the art which has grown in her womb." In a similar vein: "A theologian who does not love art, poetry, music and nature can be dangerous. Blindness and deafness toward the beautiful are not incidental; they necessarily are reflected in his theology." Or this: "Salvation for the church comes from within her, but this in no way means to say that it comes from the decrees of the hierarchy."
On the whole, however, the popular take at the time was that The Ratzinger Report was too much orthodoxy, not enough affirmation.
At the level of public impressions, Benedict today seems to have these two dimensions of his outlook more in sync. His ideas have not mutated, but his mode of expression, and thus the public reaction he typically elicits, is different. Positive responses to his recent visits to the United States and Australia make the point.
In that light, it might be a fascinating exercise if Benedict were once again to sit down with a journalist during his break in Bressanone, covering some of the same ground, in order to gauge how his intervening 23 years of experience and his new perspective as pope might affect his approach. It's reasonable to suspect that the orthodoxy would be the same, but the affirmative tone more resounding.
Speaking for myself, I'd volunteer for the assignment.
* * *
Almost 900 Catholic policy activists and service providers who work with immigrants and refugees, along with an impressive phalanx of bishops, met in Washington, D.C., this week for a conference titled "Renewing Hope, Seeking Justice." Among other things, the gathering was designed to launch a major Catholic push in favor of comprehensive immigration reform heading into the 2008 elections.
I wrote a piece for the NCR Web site on the conference, which can be found here: Catholics call for 'fair and humane' immigration policies
I interviewed Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who delivered a keynote address at the conference, for the most recent issue of NCR. I also had the chance to speak with a couple of other bishops who took part: Bishop Jaime Soto, the coadjutor bishop of Sacramento, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City. The full texts of those interviews can be found here:
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
"...it's about putting the
"...it's about putting the Church's requirements first and purifiying the culture in which one evangelizes." One is required in good faith to assume good faith in posters but the allegation that Jesuit missionaries or any missionaries whose intellect and faith are opened wider because of their experience with people at the gut level of humanity and the culture that came before them, envellopes them, and gives them meaning are not putting Jesus and the Father's creation first is a statement of fundamental bigotry. Can one not recognize or at least not acknowledge the possibility that the encounter with other cultures is like an encounter with another face of God, an encounter that helps them (and vicariously us)reflect on the real fundamentals of our faith? How can we not be changed as we introduce our vision of Christ and are offered the face of God the father in return?
Catnip, "It's not about
Catnip,
"It's not about 'blending' cultures, it's about putting the Church's requirements first and purifying the culture in which one evangelizes."
How exactly does one go about "purifying" the culture of indigenous peoples? By introducing them to the "superior" nature of Western/European culture?
Fact is, anytime the gospel is preached it is filtered through a specific cultural lens. I don't see why one lens is somehow better, or more fitting, than another. Early on the Jewish lens was completely abandoned for a Greek one. Do you have any complaints about that particular devlopment, or do you attribute it to divine providence as Pope Benedict does? Why is it that the Hellenization of Christianity was the will of God, but the inculturation practiced by Jesuits in Central and Latin America was not?
I'm not even going to go
I'm not even going to go near the potential implications of a sentence such as "purifying the culture in which one evangelizes" at the moment, but, let me ask this: What is it that the Jesuits in Central and South America 'did just that'? Describe it to me like really slowly and clearly like I need help in understanding words and meanings. That would be helpful to me to understand your critique.
Catnip, should I assume that
Catnip, should I assume that your comments about the Jesuits were simply based on gossip, slander, calumny, or some such other bad thing? or do you have something real to say? I gather the Jesuits are just an easy target for neo-traditionalists because as an order they tend to think a lot (wow! they use God's gift of brainpower!), but there is a point where destroying reputations is...bad. The Jesuits happen to be in quite good standing in the Church, so I'm waiting to hear what they did in Central and South America. And what you know of the order's response to anything, and what you know of the bishop's who was involved. And what you know of the Vatican's. I'm all ears for something that sounds like more than gossip, slander, calumny or other such.
I've been a few rounds on this, and not one person can answer the question of what-it-is-they-are-talking-about, so I'm challenging the behavior from here on out when I see it. It seems the least I can do for those good men. If you have something to say, this would be a good time to say it. Oh yeah, and please note that they are in good standing in the Church while you consider your response. You don't get to call it; it's a question of authority that you don't have.
This was meant to reply to
This was meant to reply to Catnip below:
"while those of the "inculturation" mindset thought that Church dogma could be presented shorn of its history and allowed to develop according to the predilections of those in the mission territories."
Am guessing you think about these things a lot and so get lots of words and terms in there, but I would say that you know little of those in the mission territories. They usually spend most of their time doing funny things like raffling themselves off to cook dinners for people to raise money for the church, feeding people who come to their doors, praying with people when their babies die, and such. I've never met a mission person who threw out church anything, including its history, but they do have the interesting task of putting together symbols and structures in a way that engages people and blends cultures, including through the centuries much of the western european culture that we mostly live in on here and take for granted. It is one of our riches and skills as a church that goes beyond that of any other church. Pope Benedict XVI recently thanked the Jesuits for going where the church couldn't or wouldn't to take the faith to people. I don't think one-liners are that suited even to an armchair discussion of mission work, do you really?
Figured we would get some
Figured we would get some comments about the Vatican's recognito of English translation of the Roman Missal. :(
you comment: I interviewed
you comment: I interviewed Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who delivered a keynote address at the conference
I ask: Has anyone read the novel "about" Cardinal Mahony? Is it worth while? Does it lead to any valid reflection? I am curious.
The trouble with many of the
The trouble with many of the reformers of Vatican II was not that they appreciated much in the world outside the Church, nor that they were too critical of the many things that were wrong in the Church, but that they did not sufficiently articulate and ground themselves in all that was well in the Church as the center around which to build the future. They often left the Church with little firm direction after they had thrown out the old and welcomed the new.
The trouble with those who would reform the reform is that unless they before more affirmative like Benedict than critical like Ratizinger they too will simply dismantle some of the reforms, and bring back some of the antiques, but leave the Church with little firm direction of where to go in the future.
The world is changing and Church has to change, and the Church will change whether we want it to or not. The challenge is to provide a positive path forward that is consistent with all that we are and have been.
Jack Rakosky
votfcleveland.org
An excellent nostalgic look
An excellent nostalgic look at The Ratzinger Report, and the impact the publication had on both sides of the fence, from the mid 1980's onwards.
In a conclave, one has to be known, and love him or hate him, (as a result of the controversy over the book, in addition to running the CDF) Cardinal Ratzinger was the most well known participant in the one of 2005, a fact that no doubt contributed to his election as pope.
I keep being hard on our poor John, but hey the Synod of Bishops to review the decisions of Vatican II was held from November 25-December 8, 1985, not September.
As a journalist myself, it is very easy to mistake these finer details, and I know I have done that too.
With respect to Benedict XVI
With respect to Benedict XVI and Bressanone, I think the proper emphasis is not that Benedict now has "orthodoxy" and "affirmation" in sync now, but how right he was on the issues to which he spoke. The last 23 years have seen an endorsement of every topic covered by the Cardinal and his conclusions. If one has read the entire "Ratzinger Report," one also realizes that he was not a pessimist, but a realist and that it was time for some straight talk (20 years after the end of hte Council). The interview also revealed that Pope John Paul II was much more of a "Gaudium et spes" man, while Joseph Ratzinger was a "Dei Verbum" man. John Paul II also supported "inculturation," whereas Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of "interculturality," recognizing that the history of the Church in the world was something that had to be respected, while those of the "inculturation" mindset thought that Church dogma could be presented shorn of its history and allowed to develop according to the predilections of those in the mission territories. John Paul also thought a new "springtime" was about to erupt for Catholicism, whereas it is clear now that we're not there yet. John Paul also thought that evangelization was the answer (Gaudium et spes) whereas Joseph Ratzinger has always been more attentive to the ways in which one becomes CATHOLIC, rather than simply Christian. Hence his de-restriction of the TLM, the focus on traditional ways of being Catholic, such as devotions, traditional ways of evangelizing such as charity work (cf. Deus caritas est). It's no wonder that John Paul II was lionized by evangelical Protestants, with whom his evangelization programme had much in common, whereas Benedict XVI is seemingly breaking off those points of convergence by stressing traditional Catholic identity and practice.
Most of us didn't have the
Most of us didn't have the choice to become Catholic, we were born Catholics. I do think you are correct about Benedict. He is certainly stressing the Catholicism in which has was born, and then chose to be ordained in.
That doesn't make his personal experience of Catholicism universally applicable and absolutely valid.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com










AnnieO, It's not that
AnnieO,
It's not that missionaries aren't engaged in the "hard" work, while we "armchair" theologians must content ourselves with merely thinking about the issues, but we still have an opportunity to reflect on what goes on, even in mission territories. And we also have a right to call them out when they engage in syncretism or inculturation that leads to divorce from the proper meaning of the Catholic faith. And many missionaries, especially Jesuits in Central and South America did just that. And they SHOULD be criticized for that. It's not about "blending" cultures, it's about putting the Church's requirements first and purifying the culture in which one evangelizes.