Will Benedict XVI Be Different than Ratzinger?
Perhaps Ratzinger was elected as a “transitional Pope,” but the history of the papacy has demonstrated how often unexpected surprises have come from just such individuals. The hope – which the facts will be able to confirm or refute – is that Benedict XVI can find the courage to “abandon” his past as a “conservative” cardinal who denied theological pluralism within the Roman Catholic Church.
The 19th of April began the “reign” of Benedict XVI, the German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, dean of the College of Cardinals, and since 1981 – as appointed by John Paul II – prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the ministry of the Roman Curia that supervises the “orthodoxy” of the Catholics).
The age of the chosen one (78 years), is a sign that at least two thirds of the 115 voting cardinals decided that the successor to Karol Wojtyla (made Pope at the age of 58!) must have – humanly speaking – a short pontificate ahead of him. And, therefore, a transitional pontificate. A word that, in the language of the Roman Catholic Church, means: after a long and complex pontificate, what is desired is an interregnum, which basically carries on the line-set by the previous pope (without audacious innovations), so as to allow the Church “to rest” and to permit, in the successive conclave, the choice of a more unique candidate. This is, however, the theory. After the death of Pius XII (who had reigned for 19 years during the drama of the Second World War), the cardinals in 1958 did exactly the same thing and chose a transitional pope, John XXIII. We know how that went: the unexpected event of Vatican Council II (by his intent), which constituted a crucial watershed between a before and an after.
It was this custodianship, the interpretation and the actualization (“what actualization”) of Vatican II that formed the backbone of the Wojtylian pontificate, creating its non homogeneous evaluation (see the article on page 13). In choosing Ratzinger, the conclave – composed by a majority of cardinals reasonably distressed by the problems that weigh on the Roman Church, and by the task of its modernization – decided that he (who had been the great councilor for all doctrinal documents and pastoral letters emanating from John Paul II) had to be also his successor. In other words, in order to reassure themselves, the cardinals made the couple Wojtyla-Ratzinger indivisible.
Will Pope Ratzinger be the successor to himself – so to speak? That is, a replica of that strictest castigator of theologians and theology which was too conciliatory (according to him)? That sour messenger of doctrinal proclamations (“those of the Reformation are not Churches in the true sense”), and pastoral diktat (from the no to contraception and women-priests—to the no to homosexual civil unions and new weddings for those divorced) that many, even many in the Roman Church, refuse along theoretical lines as well as in their actual praxis? This eventuality is certainly plausible. If it were so, it would open up a dramatic polarization in the Roman Church, basically a latent schism, although not officially proclaimed but lived out inside their intimate consciences.
However there is also another possibility, and various signals have make us hypothesize that, at least to a certain degree, Ratzinger will choose this way (however, as an expert councilor, he was progressive. Then he changed his mind. Now… who knows!). As to the remaining issues, facing a Church divided from top to bottom along theological and pastoral lines, as well as on the understanding of Vatican II, will the new Pope be able, not only to win, but to want to overpower as “Mr. No?” In analyzing the situation it seems to us that, considering the state of the Church, the cardinals have entrusted a conservative with the realization of the desired reforms (asked for by very many of the faithful), with the aim of reassuring the doubtful and distressed that, if these are addressed, they will be entrusted to a person who will not make “reckless” or “dangerous” theological or pastoral choices.
What choices? First of all, the “collegiality.” Wojtyla spoke a lot about it, but put nothing into effect. We know that the cardinals, in the pre-conclave, demanded the actuation of the collegiality glimpsed by Vatican II, but it has remained on paper. In truth, in the encyclical Ut unum sint (1995), John Paul II proposed modifying the “application of the Petrine ministry,” while solidly maintaining its substance. Modification would have to mean ending the absolutist and monarchial papal style, by a Pope who, would basically, govern the Church collegially, by presiding over a Synod (of Bishops, but which is open also to the laity, both men and women) that would not be just a “council to the crown,” decorative and empty, like the Synod of Bishops is now, but would indeed become a deliberating body to the Pope and bishops which seriously listens to the “people of God.”
Evaluating the trend that led to the election of Ratzinger, we think that the new Pope will have to put into effect important reforms in the Roman Church. As to the rest, he made it clear in his first speech to the cardinals, on the morning of April 20th, “I want to assert the determined will to continue in the commitment toward the realization of Vatican Council II . . . The current successor of Peter is open to do as much as is in his power in order to promote the fundamentals of ecumenism . . . I assure the many who follow other religions that the Church wants to continue to weave with them an open and sincere dialogue, in search of the true good for humankind and society.”
Now, however, we await the incontrovertible facts which will demonstrate if there will be real discontinuity between the Pope and the prefect of the former Holy Office or, alas, substantial continuity. And – the main issue – the overbearingness of the North toward the South of the world (where the majority of Catholics live), will be questioned by the masses of impoverished. Best Wishes, Pope Benedict!
David Gabrielli