It seems to me that the current hullabaloo regarding the merciful gesture of Pope Benedict toward the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X is probably well deserved. This dialogue with the modern world, entered into at the Second Vatican Council is something that the various offices of the Curia have yet to really understand. Worse still, the utter incompetence in public communication is a sign of what seems to be a lack of inter-office communication as well. I'm not looking for Vatican spin-doctors, but it would be intelligent if the proposal was made in a reasonable fashion, trying to account for all of the factors involved in such an announcement, including public reaction. Even if they did not know Williamson was a holocaust denier (which as many have pointed out, a simple Google search would have resolved) there is still the fact that this type of gesture brings out the worst in the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd.
Still, the most acute evaluation of the reaction lies in the criticism levied at the pope that is symptomatic of the current cultural position toward the Church: it is stupid and deceitful and should be held accountable to an authority above (although decidedly below, in real authority) beyond itself: the "people". That this comes from outside the Church is hardly a surprise, although the vehemence from those at the highest levels of culture and political responsibility is troubling. However, when you see among (albeit liberal) theologians a call for the pope's resignation over such a mishandling should give everyone pause.
This position is what we are all tending toward in the way we look at the successor of Peter and the institutional apparatus that history has provided as a means for him to exercise his pastoral responsibility. To the world, and increasingly to us, he is a political head, a man in whom is vested responsibility and power, but not authority in the strict sense. Even among its own agencies ( Radio Vaticana in Germany) there are those who suggest that the pope resign to "maintain the credibility of the Holy See." Of course, what saddens me is that they do not have the courage to offer their own resignations for failing to diligently fulfill their own responsibility to help the Pope do his job well.
When Catherine of Sienna was pained by the Western Schism in 1376, she very acutely felt it was HER personal call to live a holier life, to travel to Avingon in 1376 and beg the pope to return to Rome. When she was unsuccessful she did not blame him, but rather deepened her desire that she be more certain of Christ so that she might communicate him more. She was intimately aware of the fact that the "problems" (in the Greek sense) of the Church were her problems.
This modern notion that everything can be cured by management, political restructuring, and new leadership is anti-Catholic, anti-Christian. It's as if we want to try to be good without Jesus, as if he is the result of our goodness, or worse yet, a symbolic figurehead of an organization that does good work, even the "best" work, in the world and that "good work" is what is most important and should be allowed to continue at all cost.
Bullshit!
This is really perfect, Stephen. Thanks for telling it like it is. I would like to copy this post into my blog, with your permission? Please?
Posted by: Suzanne | Feb 07, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Feel free, Suzanne.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 10, 2009 at 12:01 AM