First, let me reiterate that I'm always happy to receive
respectful reader feedback, which this missive definitely was, and this did
cause me to reflect and pray a bit more about what has been posted here over
the last 72 hours or so.
It should be remembered that my response was a delayed
response to begin with. Due to an illness and then having to write a couple
articles, I've had some distance from this news story, especially when it first
broke. It was only on Tuesday of this week that I finally got around to reading
what was available in the form of criticism and analysis. In a way this was a
good thing because I was able to see more of the forest.
What I found was that there is generally an overwhelming
majority of analysts and pundits that seem giddy with excitement over the
abdication. I immediately felt uncomfortable with this approach because the
body of my own work over the last few months has been a careful perusal of the
words and actions of Pope Benedict XVI over the last three years, and what I've found are extremely troublesome theological opinions proffered by the Holy
Father accompanied by an uncritical reception by mainstream “conservative”
Catholic analysts and journalists. My gut instinct told me from the first that
this abdication was yet another troublesome element of a pontificate that is at
best an enigma, and what I've seen so far indicates that "conservative" Catholics are once again accepting without question something that in nowise is good for the papacy or the Church, and this simply for no other reason than it comes from Benedict XVI who in their eyes can do no wrong.
It should be extremely evident that I'm completely
opposed to this recent move by the Holy Father. I understand the reasons
Benedict XVI gave for surrendering his office of Holy Roman Pontiff, and I
couldn't disagree with him more. By his admission Benedict's intellectual
faculties are fully intact, and according to the Vatican Press Corps, his
health is "generally good". The only reports about the Holy Father's
health that are floating around reveal that he is an old man. Geriatrics
problems have never stopped men from fulfilling their office of pope in the
past (neither did prison or exile, for that matter). So what are we to make of
his excuse that he is not physically or mentally up to the task of governing
the Church?
I draw three possible conclusions, which are probably not
all mutually exclusive, and none are good.
First, Joseph Ratzinger is a quitter. The Holy Ghost
sustains and guides not only the Church in general, but individuals in the
exercise of their offices, provided they
cooperate with the workings of the Holy Ghost. Ratzinger's abdication of the
Throne, therefore, when his health is generally good and his mentally faculties
intact, is an indication that he is no longer willing to cooperate. This may
seem harsh, but it is the Biblical standard set forth in 2 Cor 7:3. The
Apostles died in their service to the Church. This first conclusion, though, is
the one with which I'm generally inclined to disagree, though it certainly can
give that bad impression.
Second, the state of the Church is ungovernable for a man
of Joseph Ratzinger’s age. This very well could be the truth, but it says
nothing in favor of his pontificate, and in addition the previous pontificate,
that allowed the peace of the Church, and the Vatican in particular, to be so
upset that the current pontiff must do what no other has done before him. There
is, I strongly think, a lot of traction to this conclusion, especially in light
of the recent rumors regarding the “Report of the three Cardinals”, which supposedly
reveals a “homo-lobby” in the Vatican that approaches the degree of blackmail.
Where there is smoke, there is fire, and it’s rather difficult to ignore all
the signs of cultural Marxism having made significant in-roads in the Church
during the 20th century. Can there be any doubt that we are reaping
the rotten and poisonous fruits of that satanic infiltration?
As an aside, in regards to the possible ungovernable
nature of the Vatican and the Church Militant, in general, I've often been
frustrated with Benedict’s various distractions over the course of this
pontificate. Were the “Jesus of Nazareth” books so critical that they needed to
be penned by the Holy Roman Pontiff in such a time of grave crisis? If the “conservative”
Catholic pundits are justified in defending this abdication in light of the
ungovernable nature of the Vatican, they have to admit that Benedict, himself,
is largely responsible by failing to prioritize governance above what can at
best be described as a theological past-time. Herein lays the explanation of
the “Ars Orandi official position”.
Should a church leader, surrounded on all sides by corruption, dissension and
detraction, something that he, himself, termed “filth”, allow himself to be
distracted by something as puerile as “tweeting”? It’s absolutely comical when
seen in this light, and that is point of my sarcasm.
Third conclusion: the Holy Father is once again giving a nod of
approval to Neo-Modernists such as Hans Küng who are calling for term limits on
ecclesiastical offices as part of a radical “reform” of the Church toward a
more democratic model. Roberto di Mattei touches on this in his reaction to theabdication. Three years ago I would have opposed such a conclusion as impossible
for Joseph Ratzinger. However, my research into Ratzinger, and especially considering
the last three years of his pontificate, have opened my eyes to the possibility
Benedict XVI is still very much a disciple of his Neo-Modernist mentors and
early colleagues. I think that this is a move intended, at least at some level,
to diminish the monarchial nature of the papacy. This fits very well into the
goals of the Revolution that sought from its commencement centuries ago to
destroy hierarchy, nobility, and ultimately the image and likeness of God in
man.
If, as I suspect, the second and third conclusions are
valid and sound, then the horizon of the Church Militant’s future is one of
ever increasing struggle. We have seen a growing number of, and growth within,
traditional Catholic communities, and this in large measure is due to certain
policies of the Ratzinger Papacy. However, two things need to born in mind.
First, Benedict XVI isn't the first cause of this growth. Rather, it is the
nature of the Church to vivaciously grow when it is authentic. This is the case
with Catholic traditionalism where authentic Catholicism is flourishing. It must grow, and will grow, and this no matter
if the current policies from Rome are positive or negative to that growth. The only
thing that these policies affects is the rate of that growth. Second, the policies
themselves must be examined, and even criticized, in relation to their intent.
In this regard, few traditionalists seem willing to do so, perhaps because they
fear biting the hand that feeds them. If that is the case, however, then I fear
traditionalists won’t be prepared for the fight that lies ahead.
In closing, a quote from St. Robert Bellarmine:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29, Opera omnia, Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. 1, p. 418)
Mr Werling:
ReplyDeleteA perfect summation of the concerns many of us have over this episode. I, too, in conversations with friends and in the posts I offer on my little blog, have raised similar objections to the Pope's renunication of the See of Peter.
Like you, I am struck by the "giddiness" (a perfect word) shown by many, as if we were in the midst of a mere presidential election. I am troubled by the lack of seriousness found in the writings of so many Catholics. And I am surprised how quickly the official "party line" has been adopted and parrotted by too many people. That Party Line goes something like this: Benedict is a Saint, he is courageous, did the right thing, the Holy Ghost is in charge, etc. How shallow some Catholics have become, especially those of a traditional bent who should be above all this kind of thing.
In the recent (and, alas, final) issue of Anthony Fraser's fine publication APROPOS which just came out there is a fine article by Arnaud deLassus, who provides a brilliant summary of what Vatican II has wrought, and his thoughts are as fresh as they are unique. It is too long an article to quote here but one thing in it hits home like a bullseye, especially in light of recent events, and that is deLassus' observation that one of the worst things that this misguided Council wrought was the turning of the Church from a monarchy to an Aristocracy, an Aristocracy of Bishops calling the shots while the Pope remains a figurehead. I would urge everyone to visit the APROPOS website and order a copy of this issue.
I thank you for writing these words. We bloggers must do our part to show our readers how dire the situation in Holy Church is. Once they begin to realize it perhaps the whole blogosphere will change for the better. Your post was a vital corrective to all the unthinking hoopla found elsewhere.
The pope stepping down is an act of cowardice, IMHO. He is walking away from a serious crisis which is his problem to attend to. May God give us a leader who doesn't shirk his responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised that there isn't more being said about the Fr Oko reprort. Walking away from that is scandalous. On the other hand, JPII and Benedict appointed all these bishops - a sad, sad state.
Jerry
I would love to know who you would find acceptable to be the next Pope. I would guess whoever it is, you and those who think like you will just continue to sit back and continue to throw stones at another Pope who they think doesn’t understand the Church as well as they do. When it comes down to it you are saying you know better than Benedict XVI what is good for the Church and it’s people and it’s future. That is quite astounding when you think about it. It’s a common catch phrase but is true here – Are you more Catholic than the Pope?
ReplyDeleteEvery once in a while I allow a disrespectful or unreasonable comment through moderation as an example of what will not be allowed, generally. Nick's comment above is one such example.
ReplyDeleteFirst, notice that he took the time criticize me for throwing stones, while he, himself, throws a stone. Nick's comment is hypocritical, and hypocritical comments will not be allowed.
Second, notice that Nick doesn't like my argument, but provides no reasonable argument of his own. He merely throws thrones and unearths old, tired canards. Nick's comment provides nothing positive in the spirit of debate or the exchange of ideas. Such comments will not be allowed.
Third, Nick's comment is filled with confused analogies. One does not sit back to throw stones. Which one is it? Am I sitting back (and it usually means, doing nothing), or am I throwing stones? Confused analogies are allowed, but not when coupled with irrationality and stone throwing.
Nick, since you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, your comments are not welcome here.
God bless!