Who Was Pope Benedict XVI? An Exclusive Ars Orandi Series

Part One: Ratzinger's Dystopian Ecclesiology

Who Was Pope Benedict XVI?

An exclusive Ars Orandi series: an in depth and critical analysis of the Ratzinger papacy.

Introduction: The Ratzinger Enigma

The pontificate of Benedict XVI will be remembered, I’m convinced, as an enigma. It seems at every turn we come across one contradiction after another. Benedict is a theologian and churchmen highly respected in traditionalist circles. He is, after all, the Pontiff who courageously, in the estimation of the Society of St. Pius X and many other traditionalists, declared that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated, and gave all the priests of the Latin Church the freedom to offer the Immortal Mass. Michael Davies, that beloved icon of the Catholic traditionalist movement, was convinced that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was not only a friend to the Traditional Latin Mass, but, as Dr. John Rao recently recollected, was also “a man who had become very much aware of the havoc being wreaked by the doctrinal Revolution taking place within the Church and wanted to halt and reverse it through his labors at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”. In regards to this Pope, Rao continues,

Here was the pope who then, several years later, told the world openly what we Traditionalists desperately needed to hear from the voice of the Supreme Pontiff: that the Mass of the Ages could not be wiped from the face of the Earth. The Revolution was palpably being thwarted. Peter was awakening from slumber. The impossible was becoming possible.

There’s no doubt that Pope Benedict XVI has surrounded himself at least in the trappings of traditional Catholicism, that he has befriended those of a traditional mindset, and resurrected a certain traditional aesthetic. This cannot be overlooked, and they should be praised for what they are. However, at the same time Pope Benedict XVI has done and said things that go beyond the mere appearance of opposing the philosophical and theological underpinnings of authentic Catholic traditionalism. Dr. John Rao must admit,

Yes, I am fully aware that my fellow Traditionalists have all too justly pointed to a role both theological and pastoral, first as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and then as Pope Benedict XVI, that does not seem to fit the happy picture that I am painting. Yes, there has also been so much more that I wanted him to do that he could not seem to bring himself to carry to fruition.

Why it that there is so much that Benedict could have done, but could not bring himself to do? Why is there a role “both theological and pastoral” that Benedict has played that “does not seem to fit” as the Pope for traditional Catholics? There are many things that just don’t fit. In the process of freeing the Traditional Latin Mass, Benedict does so by constructing a legal novelty, radically changing liturgical law without so much as a flinch. A happy novelty is still a novelty; a convenient fiction is still a fiction. One moment the Pope is condemning the “hermeneutic of rupture”, and the next moment he is promoting, even giving the red hat, to rupturists of the Bologna school. One moment Benedict lifts the excommunications of the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, and then the next moment he appoints the Society’s greatest detractor to head up the Confraternity responsible for relations with the Society. One moment he proposes the infusion of traditional practices into the “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite”, and then the next moment he condones and endorses an organization such as the Neocatechumenal Way that has made liturgical abuse its institutional identity. One moment he promotes an authentic “Catholic identity”, and then the next moment he seems to endorse religious indifferentism and “a big tent” mentality that seeks to bend that identity to allow as many people as possible to claim “full communion”. This is a Pope who, as it would seem in one breath, paid lip service to subsidiarity, but at the same time called for a one world economic power.

The contradictions are too numerous to overlook, or to dismiss with a “well, at least we have Summorum Pontificum!” shrug of the shoulders. If traditionalists don’t, or aren't willing to, take a hard look at these contradictions, they very well could allow an inherent weakness in this Pope’s policies undermine all that has been achieved these past eight years. Likewise, it would be a very dangerous oversight not to look at Joseph Ratzinger’s theological and philosophical roots to gain a more complete, and revealing, picture of his policies as pope.

Joseph Ratzinger was one of many theological minds at the heart of the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology) of the 20^th century, which stood opposed to Thomism and, as a consequence, to the Church’s doctrinal formulations up to that point in time. Despite having been condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani generis, the Nouvelle Théologie was promoted by thinkers such as Joseph Ratzinger, and this New Theology unfortunately ended up shaping not only the “spirit of Vatican II” but much of the content of the Vatican II documents, themselves, most particularly the style and “method” of those documents. While Joseph Ratzinger came to represent the “conservative” camp of the Nouvelle Théologie, nevertheless the entire project, not only its liberal camp, but also its conservative camp, was a radical departure from Tradition, as well as from the philosophical and theological methodologies promoted by previous popes that were the basis of the Church’s doctrinal formulations. The New Theology was more than a departure from the Scholastic method; it was a departure from dogma, and with dogma, the faith; the Nouvelle Théologie was a departure from common sense, right reason, and, as Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. succinctly put it, “it revisits Modernism” (Where is the New Theology Leading Us?).

Does Pope Benedict XVI’s background as a theologian of the Nouvelle Théologie explain, at least in part, the contradictions of his papacy? I think that in large measure it does, and it also can help us understand Benedict’s teachings regarding ecumenism and ecclesiology, his “traditional” aesthetics and attitude toward the Traditional Latin Mass, and his often mind boggling appointments to bishoprics and dicasteries. It becomes clear, after taking into account this bigger picture, that contrary to the hopes of too many traditionalists, Benedict XVI never intended on fostering a restoration of Tradition. Rather, his vision is something entirely different, and it is important that we take this apart, dissect it, and hopefully come to realize that this vision, this something that doesn't seem "to fit", is really something quite dangerous.

Now that we have reached, in a rather extraordinary manner, the end of the Ratzinger papacy, it is time to ask the question: Who was Pope Benedict XVI? The current situation allows us to take a more thorough and critical approach to the Ratzinger pontificate. The current situation, in fact, demands a more critical look at Benedict’s life, thought and his governance of the Church, as his vision may very well shape the Church for years to come. There are many Catholics these days who style themselves as conservative, who believe, quite wrongly, that any criticism of a post-Vatican II pope is tantamount to heresy. Those “Neo-Cats” will not like these essays. Likewise, there are will be more than a few traditional Catholics who for various reasons will want to disavow themselves of any hard critical review of Pope Benedict XVI. Perhaps they fear the perception that they will appear to be looking a gift horse in the mouth (Beware New Theologians bearing gifts!), or they want to spin this pontificate as a complete turn-about of the Church Militant toward Tradition (which I don't think it has been). I suspect that those "moderate" traditionalists won't like these essays either. However, despite what these potential detractors might say, this is not an attempt to condemn the papacy of Joseph Ratzinger (I just lost the sedevacantists! my friends are becoming fewer and fewer!), or to belittle the gains made by the traditionalist critique during his pontificate; rather, it is an attempt to come to a deeper understanding, from a traditional Catholic perspective, of Pope Benedict XVI and how this papacy has changed the Church Militant and will continue to impact the progress of Catholic traditionalism. This is intended to be a critical study, without fear of asking the tough questions, about Ratzinger’s past, his thought, and his governance.