Benedict’s “wager”
It makes no sense to send reporters to cover the Vatican who know little about how the Catholic Church works, & are entirely out of sympathy with her cause. What they report will be consistently wrong; crawling with factual errors & silly misjudgements & missed points. In the whole press pool, only one reporter was able to understand Latin. She was therefore the one who broke the story — while her colleagues mulled about looking bored. Nice “irony” there, for if there is one thing every modern journalist knows, with absolutely smug certainty, it is that you don’t need Latin.
The shock attending Pope Benedict’s resignation — not to the public at large, but specifically among journalists — condemns their incompetence. He had openly discussed the possibility of resigning on several occasions over the last three years, & described the conditions in which it would be acceptable. There were two: a moment of relative tranquillity in the government of the Church; when the Pope feels physically unable to continue. These conditions were met. Almost all the banter I have seen in mass media, & all the speculation about “what really happened,” is painfully ignorant & implicitly malicious.
In a farewell to priests in the city of Rome, yesterday, Benedict touched directly on this situation, in its public & political dimension. He spoke of the misrepresentation of Vatican II through mass media that contributed hugely to the catastrophe of the Church in the 1960s. (Not just “progressive” journalists, but “progressive” churchmen using journalists & their media.) Benedict inherited the government of a Church still under siege. Much of what he did through his office was designed expressly to meet the needs of a Church under siege, with limited options. It is a mistake to think the “modern world” is indifferent to Catholicism. It recognizes the Church instinctively as an enemy that must be destroyed.
Reciprocally, the faithful increasingly recognize — more consciously than instinctively — the foolishness in appeasement of their most deadly enemy. It is not Islam, although the rivalry with Islam is ancient & again boiling. It is the quasi-religion that calls itself “secular humanism,” & by any number of other names, each of which implies the self-flattery & self-worship of man in his animal nature, “freed” alike from his supernatural nature, & from God.
Press & popular judgement often fails to grasp that the papacy has always been a multidimensional institution, & is most signally, now. I have noticed from my own mail, & through the Internet, that there is a remarkably sharp “gender divide” on this. Among believing Catholics themselves, women are characteristically blind to the governing function of the Pope; men are characteristically blind to his pastoral function. Both seem to miss what a much older Catholic (by decades, perhaps centuries) would identify as the mystical function: the role of the Pope in prayer.
One of several interesting exceptions is “The Anchoress” — Elizabeth Scalia, an American blogress whose speculations may be overlooked for the sake of focusing on this spiritual acuity: that given the actual existence of God, in the stated relation to His Church, the prayers of the Pope are of very great significance.
And in retiring to a life of prayer, this man elected Pope may be taking upon himself a Gethsemane that only he fully understands, in light of his direct experience of Church government. The weight of the malice directed towards Rome, from the world outside but also from within many Church quarters, is something that must be dealt with not only pastorally, & politically, but in a mystical way, & thus necessarily out of public view. Benedict discerns that all his waning physical powers must be concentrated on that task, leaving the governing, pastoral, & other functions (iconic, liturgical, &c) to a successor. He took the name “Benedict,” which belonged to the founder of European monasticism. It is entirely possible that he knows what he is doing.
I used the term “Gethsemane” with intent. Benedict’s direct experience of non-cooperation, within the Church’s own hierarchy, is telling. He issued very bold instructions to deal with the priestly sexual scandals, the banking scandals, the liturgical crisis — & has been stonewalled & bafflegabbed every step of the way. At the most intimate level, his own trusted butler stole important personal papers. I am not saying this so gentle reader may feel sorry for him. Rather, he has, with his extraordinary smile (something I once glimpsed with my own eyes from close: something truly unworldly), directly suffered the extraordinary evils now flourishing both outside &, more importantly, inside the Church.
The Church has always coped well with external persecution, & invariably benefited from it, however ghastly the experience. The enemy within is the real danger; & this has always been so. It is prefigured in the Gospel account of Judas. It is more complex than perfect good versus perfect evil: for Judas proved the ultimate “necessary evil,” through whose act the ministry of Christ was completed. These are not shallow waters.
Benedict is taking a grave risk which he clearly understands. The one point he added to the announcement of his own resignation, after the fact — & only this one thing — was an assurance that he understood the gravity of his decision. Sandro Magister, one of the few truly informed Vatican observers, described this in the Italian magazine L’Espresso as a “supernatural wager.” For just as John Paul II made possible the “miracle” of Ratzinger’s election by clinging on, Benedict XVI may by suddenly resigning have created the dynamic by which the College of Cardinals may choose a “miraculous” successor. That would be, I should think, someone other than any of the candidates who have been publicly touted, each of whom strikes me as fatally flawed. (I won’t go through the list with my reasons.)
Unfortunately the term “wager” will be misunderstood, as would my word “risk” — for this is not equivalent to rolling the dice, or flipping a coin. On the contrary, it has become a necessary wager, & its meaning is unmistakably bound in with this unprecedented act of resignation. Benedict is saying, in effect, “Lord you must act in these circumstances, which have passed beyond my power.” And praying thus, as he will continue to pray, with all the gravity of a man who has represented, as Priest before God, more than a billion living Catholics. He is taking the weight of this upon himself, as he has taken the weight of the consequences of his decision.
For his resignation is certainly unprecedented, given the circumstances of the modern world; appears more so to me, the more it is examined. It sets up an unprecedented election in the College of Cardinals, where no time was available for the usual offstage vetting, with the last Pope on his deathbed. In such a sudden gathering, with no “momentum” behind any of the “front runners,” it strikes me that the election of a little-known candidate is possible, even likely. That man might conceivably be the best, even the only suitable candidate. But we must leave this to the College & to God.
We are — we Catholics, & all Christians & other religious & even non-religious who recognize the unique role of the papacy in our world, as a power for good & an obstruction to evil — caught up in this. What can we do? The truth is we can do nothing but pray. But that is not a throwaway. If, as Christians must believe, the drama of this earthly life is real, & we are not random collocations of atoms, those prayers are also real. And God is indeed searching our hearts; & the prayers in question must be in very earnest.
Perhaps an interesting parallel may be found in Prof. Mark Moyar’s Triumph Forsaken: Vietnam 1954-1965, in which he lays out in quite extarordinary detail how several young and now well-known journalists, and members of the US State Department, allowed their own liberal prejudices (which meant they required that the South Vietnamese government become a liberal democracy like the US) to blind them to the realities on the ground in the 1960-63 period, both as to the progress of the Vietnamese government in suppressing the Communist insurrection, and the support that the government itself had from the people. On the latter, Moyar is especially interesting, seeming to point out that these gentlemen (unlike others in the State Department and the US military mission at the time) had no clue as to how an Asian society functioned and so thought, mistakenly, that the Diem government’s authoritarianism would cause it to lose popular support, when in fact the stronger the government acted, the more support it garnered. It seems that the press, in particluar, wish to make the same mistake of interpreting the Church through the lens of their liberal democratic political ideology.
This is, as I have come to expect from the author, the most insightful comment of all that I have read on Pope Benedict’s surprising announcement. We know that he did not come lightly to his decision; I am confident that God will bless him in his chosen path and that the Church willl surprise and bless us by its choice of his successor.
Without intending any disrespect, the church is as much a political institution as is is a religious one, which I am sure comes as no surprise to anyone. I am willing to concede that most cardinals (and popes) have had, what they thought, were best intentions. But that is not to say that they all agree. And when people disagree, you have politics, with all of its warts.
The pope, all popes, as much as people hate to admit it, are not infallible. They are human. Even the most “pure” of popes makes mistakes. But that shouldn’t be something that is a negative. It only becomes a negative when people, and the institution, deny this.
Even though the pope is, technically, the penultimate authority in the church, this can be both a strength and a weakness. And only history will determine which. Was he a tyrant or a forward thinker (I refer to all popes)? Only history can judge. In a “liberal” society, a pope may be perceived to be an autocrat at the time, only to be perceived as a defender of the faith in the future.
But David’s problem with the media shouldn’t be limited to the media covering the church. I have been at the fringe of several issues that have hit the media and I was always amazed at how many facts they got wrong. This isn’t a left/right issue either. It is just sloppy journalism.
We live in an age of unexpected developments. Only a subsequent Pope can judge a Pope, and I’m not inclined to even speculate about motives. It would be rich if the various modernist factions that hold sway, in the process of battering and outmaneuvering each other, created such a dustup that when the smoke finally cleared we discovered that the man they’d settled on in the turmoil was anathema to the liberals. One can hope. Along with hope and prayers, I wonder if the dry martyrdom that so many good Catholics are enduring today will become sanguine before the mess is straightened out. God’s will.
I’d address the silliness of Acartia’s assertion that the Pope is not infallible, but I’m of a mind that after his remarks were suitably trounced he’d again turn around and say that he’s merely trying to get a reaction with provocative comments in an effort to improve his education. This is the adult equivalent of pulling the fire alarm and running.
I was raised Lutheran, so most of the information about the papacy I was given or “taught” had more to do with political intrigue and skullduggery than religion. This Pope had to follow in the shoes of a veritable rock star, and in my opinion acquitted himself well. This man has the courage to say he’s at the point where he has done all he can do, and leaves it to God. The allusion to Gethsemane is quite appropriate. I thank the author for yet another insightful essay.
I was one that honestly thought it was impossible for a Pope to be infallible. Then I learned what the teaching of the Catholic Church was: that the Pope is infallible only in matters of faith and morals, and then only when he is speaking not as a private individual (like Benedict XVI is about to become on February 28) but when speaking ex cathedra, that is as a teacher and pastor of the Church in his official capacity. I hope I put it more or less correctly. In time I had a chance to read many documents signed by popes throughout history. Most of those documents are available to the public, some only to scholars but my surprise comes when I look at the volume of encyclicals, teaching and disciplinary documents of all kinds signed by men that held the office along twenty centuries.
I know some have looked hard at those massive collections of writings and have not found any glaring contradiction. There is nothing incongruous and furthermore one can see the integrity of the doctrine growing from the words of Our Lord and His apostles throughout the centuries, addressing trivial and serious problems and yet so in accord with itself. I constantly marvel at the fact that one can be catechized with St. Augustine’s “Confessions” (as I indeed was self-catechized once) and be perfectly in accord with the doctrine of the Church today. As a writer and editor I find that is no minor miracle. If these men were anything less than what the Church teaches they are … those documents should contain many, many mistakes. But they don’t.
I have no idea, given what has been going on in the world for the past fifty years, why we got a Benedict XVI in 2005, instead of another Paul VI. Perhaps it was because God wanted to show the few faithful Catholics that exist today, that they have not been totally abandoned.
People today really have no idea how far they have gone. The abortion killing rate in the United States alone every year is the equivalent of the Battle of the Somme. Every summer now, homosexual parades are celebrated in the streets of major cities as though a great victory over tyranny like the end of WWII had just occurred.
We always need prayers, especially from those who deserve to be heard by God. Perhaps the thing that should be prayed for, however, is an end to this sinful world before more millions of souls are born to live empty and disgraceful lives and ultimately be swept into hell.
Of course the pope is not infallible in all things.
If he was, he’d be Scrabble World Champion every year — and who could let that superpower go untapped?
Catino, you have the core of it. To be infallible is to be free of the possibility of error. An infallible papal decree is restricted to the domain of faith and morals; thus a pope who speaks on mathematics or astronomy can have a valid opinion, but it is not supernaturally certain to be true. The decree must be authoritatively stated in the pope’s official capacity — ex cathedra — and it must be declared to be binding on the conscience of all Christians, who are obliged to accept it as certainly true. The decree must also be in complete agreement with what the Church has done and taught for 2,000 years, understood in the same sense and in the same way. On this last point the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) declared “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.”
The concept of papal infallibility is often misunderstood and misused, including by Catholics. Infallibility does not rest with the person of the pope, but with his teaching authority. Thus, a pope can be a complete scoundrel or a public sinner, but because of his office (which is a Divine institution) he could still render an infallible decree: he would be preserved by God from the possibility of error in an official, solemn, dogmatic teaching. One must have reverence for the person of the Pope, who is a spiritual father to us all; we must avoid the excess of assuming that every word that proceeds from his mouth is probably infallible.
A pope can be immediately inspired of course, but the normal process of arriving at a teaching with dogmatic certitude is done in the sweat of the brow, with a great deal of prayer and study, checking and referencing the decrees of predecessors and other authorities, conferring with bishops, studying history, etc. In the process of doing all this, the will of God — which is not in the storm or the earthquake or the fire, but the gentle whisper, the small, still voice — can be discerned.
Popes who do not take the kinds of precautions and steps I’ve described can and in fact have personally taught error, but only as private theologians, not in virtue of their supreme Apostolic authority. An example is Pope John XXII (1244-1334), who publicly taught error about the Last Judgment and was rebuked by his own cardinals; the pope recanted on his deathbed.
Back in the good old days of the hanging chad and “Bush stole the White House!” (hmm, maybe we’re still in those times), Sandra Day O’Connor was rumored to have said that she’d hate to retire if there were a Democrat in the White House. I wonder if Benedict is aware of some looming retirements among the College of Cardinals that might tip the balance in favor of a more “progressive” church, and thus, eventually, a more progressive successor.
We received (up here in the High Doganate) a meandering email the other day from a self-announced Protestant gentleman expressing outrage at the infallibility of our Pope, who then unselfconsciously expressed faith in the infallibility of the United States Supreme Court when, but only when, correctly interpreting the Constitution & received Laws of the American Republic. It was odd. He seemed to understand almost perfectly just what he was refusing to understand.
It is, as I wrote in “Essay” above, this governing function of the papacy that eludes so many. The buck must stop somewhere, on this Earth, whether the buck in question will stop in Rome, or in Washington. (Paradoxically, it is only after grasping this function clearly that one may begin to distinguish other functions clearly, & shake off the modern “progressive” habit of seeing everything as politics.)
Alas, I don’t think I helped the man’s understanding, but rather irritated him further, by my own use of analogy, in which I referred to the U.S. founding acts & implements as the “American Scripture & Deposit of Faith.”
Meanwhile: the Vatican Radio website has published the transcript of Pope Benedict’s talk, delivered not ex cathedra but a braccio (off the cuff) to his clergy in the town of Rome. The title is, “Pope Benedict’s last great master class: Vatican II, as I saw it.”
It is instructive & very, very interesting. Once started, gentle reader should continue to the end. Benedict refers to not one but two Councils, the “Council of the Fathers” & the “Council of the Media.” The first considered itself to be wrestling with questions of Catholic faith. The second saw the whole thing as a power struggle:
“So while the whole council … moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics. It was a hermeneutic of politics. The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world.”
It would perhaps be invidious to identify the animating principle of the Media as being, “Ignorance in the service of Evil.”
Thank you Toma, Catino and, as always, David, for enlightening this neophyte.
Just curious about the knock on Paul VI. I’m so used to seeing him as the courageous last man standing in the defense of life and opposition to the liberal efforts to expunge it. In light of the fact that Humanae Vitae has stood the test of time, demonstrated the validity of papal infallibility, and put all who opposed him in their rightful place, I had never seen him as anything other than another gift.
I would make these observations:
Firstly, as the late Father John W. Mole used to note, the gift of infallibility is a negative one, that is, the Church is protected against false teaching that poses as authentic doctrine. There is no promise, though, that a Pope will actively teach when teaching is required. As Father Mole observed, Peter was asleep in the garden. One might consider in this regard how the controversy over Humanae Vitae was handled after the encyclical had been published.
My second point is that the original essay had little to do with formal and technical infallibility. To me, David seemed to focus on the role of the mystical in the life of the Church as exemplified by the papal resignation. The helpful points on infallibility seem to be leaving that topic less commented upon.
I would think that the mystical is understated in modern times because generally the third transcendent, beauty, has been threatened at least since the Reformation, when the sacramental dimension of reality weakened in modern thought. Most people readily grasp why goodness and truth are important, but the singular importance of beauty is not so easily comprehended. Yet “beauty is the cause of our salvation.” We were made to enjoy the beatific vision.
One sees the same kind of dogmatic assumption with Protestants who take the Bible as something that fell spontaneously out of the sky, ignoring the context in which it was authored and compiled. They imagine that these temporal considerations impede or limit proper understanding, when in fact they augment it. That Protestants of the various denominations differ on just about every point of the meaning of Scripture seems to be lost on them.
At the other extreme are the modernists, who say that the historical context in which the Scriptures were authored hopelessly conditions them, enslaving the ancient texts within their own epoch. The solution, the modernists claim with no awareness of the irony, is to use their own contemporary techniques — which are somehow, perhaps miraculously, spared from also being hopelessly conditioned by their own time — to re-cast and re-fit the Scriptures to better suit the modern milieu. The eternal is replaced with the materialistic and the evolutionist; the divine birthright has been exchanged for a pot of gruel.
Maineman is on target about the significance of Humanae Vitae. The mystery of Pope Paul VI is profound: he was a thoroughgoing liberal who still produced this thoroughly Catholic encyclical. The key, I think, is to understand that the liberal is a man of contradictions: he will say something that can be understood in a Catholic way, and in the next sentence say something that is entirely contradictory. Meanwhile the author of both remarks will be un-phased by the inconsistency (if he’s even aware of it).
With Humanae Vitae, Paul VI reinforced what the Church had always said and done after the liberals who were proposing a reversal by the Church had failed to make a valid case (note that Pope Paul did not authoritatively promulgate the document in a dogmatic manner, but otherwise all the materials for a dogmatic decree were present). Paul has asked the theologians to investigate the subject and see if a modernization of Church teaching could be justified. This they utterly failed to do: instead they trotted out canards about evolving social systems and the need to keep up with the times; the Pope essentially shrugged his shoulders, told them they’d missed their chance, and Humanae Vitae was born. To his credit, Pope Paul weathered a great deal of criticism after he published the encyclical; also, bishops around the globe ignored his direction and declined to tell their flocks about the encyclical.
How I wish Deacon Scheer would more often comment. How I wish all of the Commentariat would follow his example by signing their own names (correctly spelt & capitalized), & perhaps also occasionally supplying the location from which they write. I love an entertaining pseudonym, but the Internet conceit has come to encourage recklessness. Only those who must conceal their identities from their superiors need use them. Let me set an example myself, by revealing that I am David Warren, writing from the High Doganate, in beautiful downtown Parkdale (Toronto, Upper Canada), where everyone would live if they had the nerve & a licence to carry.
Now further to the good Deacon’s point, & since books are being recommended, let me call attention to a really wonderful summer’s read: the first part of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s trilogy on the development of Catholic theology. It is much the longest part of this trilogy (seven formidable volumes from the Ignatius Press). And it is entitled, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics.
Quite apart from its use in simply educating the reader, about the range & depth of formative Catholic thinking, the late Father Balthasar teaches by his constant emphasis upon the Gloria. We cannot begin to understand the Fathers & Doctors of the Church until we grasp the centrality of this; we reduce them to gnit-picking because we are chimpish gnit-pickers ourselves.
Let me go so far as to make the bold statement that nothing in Catholic Christian teaching makes full sense until seen in the light of this Gloria, which Father Balthasar devoted his life to explicating. For it is with this light of transcendent Beauty that he then proceeds through the rest of his trilogy, dealing successively with the Good, & the True.
To Mr Toma’s points above, let me add mention of an Englishman, who was also by chance an Anglican, & a vicar. He had just had an argument with a trans-Atlantic visitor in which he’d found himself defending Papal Infallibility; or at least, trying to explain it to the man. He found it “odd” that people who meekly greet tax auditors, & obsequiously surrender their most intimate personal documents, losing night after night of sleep to morbid anxiety for their fate when they know they have done nothing dishonest — become suddenly outraged by the tyranny of a Pope who claims to speak authoritatively on fine points of Catholic doctrine.
“It is so American,” he added.
My own recommendation is to avoid like the plague the pseudo-mystical and superficial writings of ex-Jesuit Hans Urs von Balthasar. He preferred Hegel, Scheler, Heidegger, Goethe, Holderlin, Nietzche, and Hofmannsthal to Aquinas and Augustine. His chief muse was modern music and literature, not classical theology — which he professed that he detested (along with Patristics and the work of the Scholastics) with an unspeakable rage.
“The fundamental assumption of my work Gloria, was the ability to see a ‘Gestalt’ (a complex form) in its coherent totality. Goethe’s viewpoint was to be applied to the Jesus phenomena (sic) and to the convergence of New Testament theologies” (Il nostro compito — Our Task – Jaca Book, p.29).
With a materialistic Hegelian sense of logic, von Balthasar — like modernists in general – did not avoid or try to reconcile contradictions, he embraced them. For him, contradictions even within one’s self were good because they brought about the thesis-antitheses conflict that somehow, almost magically, resulted in a synthesis. Thus, on the one hand von Balthasar attacked Catholic theology and even Catholic Rome; on the other hand he faulted Karl Rahner for an anti‑Roman complex. With no concern of the contradiction in his own position, von Balthasar ecumenically embraced even pagan and idolatrous religions and atheism while at the same time he decried the post‑conciliar assault on the Church. The Thomists recognize that opposites exclude one another; von Balthasar, meanwhile, thought it beautiful to believe everything without any effort at reconciliation because at the end of the day we will all be Catholics anyway.
Pope St. Pius X described modernist ecclesiastics of von Balthasar’s sort — those “who, by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines of the enemies of the Church and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not even sparing the Person of the Divine Redeemer, Whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man” (Pascendi).
I wonder if Lord Toma & I have been reading the same author. I must check, for I’ve noticed this other Balthasar condemned in similar ways by e.g. the SSPX. Indeed, I was subjected to quite the harangue by an SSPX priest, over a dinner table at Manning House a few years ago, when it was discovered that I had been reading some Balthasar. The poor man — who showed no evidence of having read my Balthasar — made as I recall almost precisely the same points as Toma, above; though his wrath was considerably enhanced by an infusion of alcohol.
I think there may also be some confusion about Thomas Aquinas. There would appear to be two of them, as well. The one I’ve been reading, in my desultory way these last forty years or so, commits all the sins of which the other Balthasar is accused. He delights in embracing contradictions, & in reconciling them; having first located the truth on each side. He casually embraces pagans & (for him) quite modern authors for what light they may cast on the subjects at hand. He is always shuffling for a new, & often audacious “angle” on the theological inheritance — in that same Balthasarian spirit of open-mindedness & charity & universal civility. My Thomas is also given to embracing new music & new art & new currents in the universities.
Many of those Dominicans were like that, back in the 13th century, there. They were young then, still a new Order, & they set about the same task: making Catholicism understood in new intellectual environments, for the sake of saving souls instead of condemning them to the Devil. And of course, my Thomas, like my Balthasar, was vastly learned; almost superhumanly erudite.
So I caution gentle reader to consult my Balthasar (& my Thomas Aquinas); & to avoid Toma’s Balthasar like the plague, for he sounds a very wicked fellow.
My old hero Ratzinger also strongly recommends my Balthasar. As he said of Balthasar’s works, at his funeral in Basel in 1988 (Balthasar died alas just as he was being elevated to the cardinalate by John Paul II):
“What the Pope intended to express by this mark of distinction, & of honour, remains valid. No longer only private individuals but the Church herself, in her official responsibility, tells us that he is right in what he teaches of the faith.”
“An infallible papal decree is restricted to the domain of faith and morals; thus a pope who speaks on mathematics or astronomy can have a valid opinion, but it is not supernaturally certain to be true. The decree must be authoritatively stated in the pope’s official capacity — ex cathedra — and it must be declared to be binding on the conscience of all Christians, who are obliged to accept it as certainly true.” (My italics.)
Here we see the exact nature of papal infallibility. He can make no mistakes in the domain of faith because no one is permitted to question the propriety or accuracy of his pronouncements.
That’s right, CTC. It is absolutely verboten. You’d better watch it, or we’ll burn you at the stake. You & a billion others who casually questioned the propriety & accuracy of papal pronouncements, not just recently but throughout the Dark & Middle Ages. We have a lot of catching up to do, to match proper Calvinist Genevan standards.
The present Pontiff has indeed spoken well of von Balthasar; meanwhile this loyal churchman is playing Cordelia to the Holy Father’s Act I Lear, who is still infatuated with his fair-seeming Regan and Goneril. To the extent that Popes are to be invoked, I suppose von Balthasar’s dismissal of Humani generis by Pius XII might be relevant. For my part, I’ll side with Pius et al.
If Aquinas was guilty of the faults of von Balthasar, I’m sure it was news to him. Aquinas reconciled apparent contradictions, while von Balthasar sought to reconcile opposites by doing violence to the facts.
> [Aquinas] is always shuffling for a new, & often quite audaciously new “point of view” in that same Balthasar spirit of open-mindedness & charity & universal civility.
Contra this are the words of the modernist himself. It is difficult to reconcile your description of the man with his own confessed “fierce and bitter struggle” and “infinite indignation,” of his being and possessed of “a “fury” that would “destroy a world by sheer violence.” See his Erde und Himmel (Earth and Heaven):
“All my studies in the course of my formative years in the Jesuit Order constituted a fierce and bitter struggle with the desolation of Theology, with what men had done to the glory of Revelation; I could simply not bear this expression of God’s Word. I would have wished to strike out left and right with the fury of a Samson, and with his awesome power I would have sent the temple crashing down on us all. But, since my mission was only beginning, there was no possibility of imposing my plans; I just had to live with my infinite indignation as long as things remained the way they were. I mentioned practically nothing of it to anyone. Przywara, however, understood everything even without openly revealing it in words; as for the rest of them, no one could have understood me. I wrote the Apocalypse with that fury which proposed to destroy a world by sheer violence, with the intention of rebuilding it at all costs from the ground up.”
Civil and open-minded in outlook and sentiment he was not, whatever tone he adopted. On this topic a fundamental difference between Aquinas and von Balthasar is that Aquinas always spoke with reverent affection for what had come before, even when there was a legitimate difference. Not von Balthasar, who demolished what had gone before and then tried to build it up again on false modernist principles – a house built on sand indeed.
> He is also given to embracing new music & new art & new currents in the universities.
You mistake my point, and von Balthasar’s. He sought to replace Patristics and the work of the Thomists with a foundation steeped in contemporary fads. Far from winning people to Catholicism, his thought undermined belief and helped usher in the modern naturalistic crisis in the Church.
Here we see the exact nature of Catholic infallibility.
CTC has part of it, but not all.
The Pope can make no mistakes in his statement when all of these conditions are met: 1) He speaks in the domain of faith or morals; 2) He acts in virtue of his successor as St. Peter and supreme Apostolic authority; 3) He solemnly exercises his full office as teacher of all Christians; 4) His proclamation is obliged be held by the whole Church; and 5) The teaching is consistent with what the Church has always said and done, understood in the same manner and the same way.
Absent one or more of those conditions, a Pope could err when speaking on faith and morals; the example of Pope John XXII illustrates this.
If such a thing were to happen, and if there was sufficient risk of public scandal, then it would be the obligation of the Pope’s clerics to correct him; if they failed in their duty, then the faithful would speak up. We’re all required to give witness to the truth, no matter what our station; refusing to do so out of an exaggerated sense of loyalty to authority or a false fidelity to a title would be the sin of servility. Sometimes silence isn’t golden; sometimes it’s yellow.
As per usual, the author goes directly to the heart of the matter while the journalists of the world run noisily around in circles ‘making the news’.
I am now more convinced than ever of the greatness and humility of Pope Benedict XVI, and the depth of his understanding of the problems from within his very human organization. The Church bureaucracy created more ex-Catholics in the 20th century than any other cause.
Acartia: “I have been at the fringe of several issues that have hit the media and I was always amazed at how many facts they got wrong. This isn’t a left/right issue either. It is just sloppy journalism.”
Otiosus: “It would perhaps be invidious to identify the animating principle of the Media as being, ‘Ignorance in the service of Evil’.”
Two different views of our media.
I would be more willing to accept Acartia’s opinion if every error of fact, every example of bias, every unwillingness to investigate did not tend to benefit the so-called “progressives” (really the enemies of all freedoms — religious and otherwise as well as Western civilization).
Just as government statistics, if revised, are almost always found to have distorted the situation to the benefit of the current government (with great fanfare) and are later changed to show a less flattering picture (when almost no one is watching), the media always make their “errors” on page one in large type to support the progressive worldview and when forced to correct them it is on the last page of the sports section in 4 font.
The media are almost certainly ignorant (and often stupid) but they are definitely a malign influence determined to lie, distort and obscure the truth in service of the greatest evil of our day.
As to why one must post under a pseudonym, it is wise to remember that the internet never forgets and while today the US government only asserts the right to kill (without due process) those that might “potentially” attack the US, the progressives constantly assert the need to kill anyone that dissents from their opinions (see the NRA, climate change skeptics, the Tea Party, etc. etc.). When might this become government policy? As soon as they can get away with it I fear.
There is much that is rather playful in the passage Lord Toma cites to condemn Balthasar in his own words. Much of the characteristic gentle humour, for those who knew Balthasar, will be evident in his pose as a young incendiary. Thomas Aquinas could, if we believe reports, be similarly playful & self-deprecating.
Notwithstanding, a serious point is made behind this pose. And it is just what Balthasar devoted his life to developing: the notion that our theological arguments fail to reflect the full truth, when the aspect of Gloria is subtracted from them — when the whole system becomes a hard & desiccated rote imposition, as it is in danger of becoming in any age.
Now, it is true that Balthasar, de Lubac, Maritain, & many others are frequently excoriated as exponents of the very “Nouvelle théologie” that was condemned in 1950 in the encyclical Humani generis, which the estimable Garrigou-Lagrange draughted for Pope Pius XII. The encyclical itself does not name names; Garrigou-Lagrange was happy to name his theological adversaries, both before & after. A “strict observance Thomist,” he made it his business to be an enforcer, & while his works are often valuable for their scholarship, I myself am conscious in reading them of a humourless & sometimes vicious disposition which I would normally associate with Puritanism.
The encyclical wisely restricts itself to identifying positions that could not be Catholic. I am not aware of Balthasar’s “dismissal” of it; I should imagine it had something to do not with Pius XII but with Garrigou-Lagrange.
The Catholic Church has generally & rightly offered independent theologians considerable latitude in developing their positions. Stalinist show trials are, after all, not the best way of getting at the truth.
We could get into a long, rancorous, & truly pointless debate, which I propose to forego & resolve in this way. Neither Balthasar himself nor his works were ever officially condemned by the Church. On the contrary, as we have seen, in the fullness of time both Balthasar & his works were officially honoured by the Church. Case closed.
On George Orwell’s remarks, there are a number of good reasons for manifesting a species of paranoia towards Nanny State, & certain classes of “progressive.” I have myself been several times in a position where prudence seemed to argue for concealing my identity, & to this day I don’t advertise my address. But if it comes to that, I’ve already said enough publicly to be hanged, drawn, quartered, octaved, sixteenth’d, & thirty-second-ized. In the end you just have to look your executioner in the eyes. He’ll take care of all the heavy lifting.
Perhaps the way to look at it is that it is the Church herself that is infallible when she proclaims what it is she believes. And how could she be wrong when she says of what she believes that this in fact is what she believes? And as the Church has been “organized for action in time” in such a way that it falls to the Pope to be her instrument of definitive expression when definitively expressing what it is she believes, how can he, when acting so, not be infallible?
Toma: I think Balthasar was not criticizing Thomas so much as taking issue with a style of scholastic theology that he found too statically rather than dramatically formulated. As to being irreverent of what came before him, my impression of Balthasar is that he was better and more widely read in the Tradition than anyone I’ve encountered. And what greater form of reverence to those that came before than to have actually sought them out to understand them?
And what does this mean: “With a materialistic Hegelian sense of logic, von Balthasar — like modernists in general — did not avoid or try to reconcile contradictions, he embraced them”?
Whatever about a “materialist Hegelian sense of logic,” Balthasar did not, like Hegel, attempt to collapse Being with consciousness: on the contrary (which is not, incidentally, the same as contradiction), the key to Balthasar’s whole approach was to maintain throughout the irreducibility of difference to identity. His thinking never lost sight of God’s gift of the freeness and otherness of creation, and the yet all-comprehending absoluteness of God.
And, further to Deacon Scheer’s beautiful point about beauty, it was Thomas who pointed out that while love is an effect of beauty, love is the cause of the experience of beauty. So beauty is an effect that is the cause of its cause. I don’t remember Thomas trying to reconcile that “contradiction,” materialistically or otherwise.
If we are truly to enjoy “considerable latitude,” then the words “case closed” should never be uttered.
The humble Garrigou-Lagrange was squaring off against inveterate liars and egoists in high places who knowingly abused facts and misrepresented their own position and objectives; von Balthasar was among them.
Swim at your own risk.
After my mother died last year, I became my disabled father’s primary caretaker. Dad — the profoundly democratic anti-monarchist — refuses to ring the hand bell beside his bed when he wants help. The grounds for his refusal are that summoning someone by bell has no place in a democratic society. His alternate solution is to shout at me across the house.
Moral: I’ll keep the “Lord Toma” moniker to myself.
“We have a lot of catching up to do, to match proper Calvinist Genevan standards.”
Now, now, David, I’m pretty sure men in the Catholic church have more than surpassed the body count of the Calvinists, having had an extra 1500 years to do so, and being made up of humans. You have plenty of good arguments for Catholicism, please don’t stoop to the humanist level of constantly shouting “Crusades! Inquisition!!” As far as I can see, in the one instance where Calvin was personally involved, the Catholic church had already condemned the man to death. … This of course excuses no one, but rather condemns all.
Toma, the point that, “Protestants of the various denominations differ on just about every point of the meaning of Scripture” is lost on only those who’ve wandered far down the path you identify as “modernist,” and thus lost all grounding in actual Scripture (to the point where differences lose importance because everything is relative). Meanwhile, the point that Catholics vary very nearly as widely as Protestants of all stripes seems lost on most Catholics. I can come here and read the comments and agree with very nearly everything David writes. I can assure you that the same is not so with Catholics in general.
Before I get told — I know, the dogmas of the Catholic church are the same, everywhere and in every time (and infallibly so, to tie in with the above discussion). Similarly with Protestants, there are many points of agreement, and the doctrinal standards are even identical between many different denominations. What is lacking is a hierarchy (bureaucracy?) to bind them together and overcome the historical and usually relatively small differences between them. To be clear, not all Protestants would or should fit comfortably under one roof — but there are some fairly general divisions that an outsider approaching the situation with some charity could easily make to group them together.
Amen, David.
It’s unfortunate that David would state in his dismissal of criticism of Balthasar by an SSPX priest at a dinner table, that “his wrath was considerably enhanced by an infusion of alcohol.” What is this supposed to mean? Did the priest have some wine with his meal like the guests at the marriage at Cana did after Our Lord performed his first public miracle? What is wrong with that? Catholics aren’t Puritans or Muslims after all.
I have the greatest respect for the SSPX and their good priests. The FSSP Latin Rite church that I attend would not have come about if it hadn’t been for the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. What the SSPX has written by way of criticism of Balthasar, de Lubac, and other such modern theologians is well researched, clear even to ordinary Catholics, and I think sound.
Some years ago I became a sedevacantist after growing thoroughly fed up with hearing things from the Vatican like the Jews are justified waiting for the Messiah, and seeing John Paul II kissing the Koran, Benedict giving Holy Communion to the Protestant Roger of Taize, and the bizarre ecumenical meetings like Assisi which were previously explicitly condemned by Pius IX. An article written by an SSPX priest condemning sedevacantism via the Gospel of Matthew brought me back from the brink of losing my faith.
I think we live in a time when it is very important to stay with tradition and reject the contradictory and senseless novelties that have arisen over the past fifty years in the Church. The SSPX remains at the forefront of preserving what Catholics had prior to Vatican II.
AGS, if your view is that von Balthasar was not criticizing Aquinas and the Schoolmen, then you’ve misunderstood him. Aquinas held that the principle of non-contradiction could not be violated. von Balthasar despised this law; he preferred his own spin on the Hegelian dialectic, embracing contradictions and looking for the synthesis produced by the collision between thesis and antithesis. To von Balthasar, the moderate realist views of Aquinas were anathema. Not that the two men were in the same league; von Balthasar got through his studies giving all the correct answers so that he could attain his degrees — but compared to, say, a Garrigou-Lagrange, he was an intellectual dabbler.
Sola Gratia, the standard by which to measure Catholics is their adherence to dogma and tradition; Protestants simply have nothing comparable. A faithful Catholic of today professes the same beliefs with the same meaning as his faithful ancestors. There are far too many Catholics in name who have lost their faith but still retain the name; a number of them are even serving in prominent positions in the U.S. federal government. It’s not up to me to decide what does and does not constitute real Catholicism; the Church Herself does that, in part in her infallible dogmatic decrees.
Professor Gratia, my apologies for the sort of sideswipe I just can’t resist. In hockey, the difference between a “clean” body check & any of about ten minor penalties is a judgement call, & of course, it’s worse when the referee does it.
I think it perfectly normal that Catholics, as Protestants, & Zoroastrians, will have a wide variety of views on almost anything, including the standard theological hobby horses. People, generally, are hard to take. I didn’t myself join the Catholic Church because I had any special liking for Catholics. (Well, okay, the girls are prettier.) I joined in spite of them.
And the tone of many “conservative” or “traditional” Catholics could not be better chosen to drive converts away. It presents the Church as something mean, narrow, hectoring, & almost entirely devoid of charity; as a kind of nasty old thing with a very long lifetime of scores to settle before she finally croaks.
I have incidentally received many emails from people who would like to leave comments on this very website, but won’t because they don’t especially fancy getting a theological whupping from one of the Team Catholic enforcers. And just now, a very “traditional” Latin-Mass priest wrote to express revulsion at the tone of some of the commenters, & disappointment that they engage with each other, & almost never with the topic raised in the “Essay” itself.
The best we can do, I suppose, is try to raise the tone ourselves.
It seems to me that papal infallibility is a mystery to many because they neglect to consider the essential role of faith in accessing what is true.
The scientist, after all, has faith in the infallibility of the order of the universe and without it could learn nothing of the truth.
Nothing on earth compares to the Catholic church as a repository of what is known in all realms, material and immaterial. It is extraordinarily fastidious in trying to resolve apparent contradiction so as to preserve the body of human knowledge.
But the truth is a person, and it is He upon whom the entire edifice rests, He who keeps it from veering off course. In this we have faith, and without that we would have nothing.
Apostolic succession, with the pope at the pinnacle, is the tether. Either he is infallible or, like science in a universe without order, there is no truth for anyone.
No more monikers, aliases or pen names?
I must admit that I had spent many a moment over the last few days trying to come up with a pithy call sign that I could use in this community. And now… all for naught. I shall now stick with my name. I suppose the upside to this could be that if anyone ever happens to take the trouble to Google me, perhaps they would be fooled into believing that I can hold my own among these eminent and learned thinkers.
Maybe if I patiently pay my dues long enough, David would be so kind to elevate me to the peerage as he did the Lords Acartia and Toma.
We’re Americans: our Constitution prevents us from accepting titles.
I’ll readily accept being labeled mean, narrow, hectoring, & almost entirely devoid of charity — a kind of nasty old thing who inspires revulsion — provided I get to take a few shots at the toxic notions of von Balthasar. Having said my peace on the subject, I’ll move on to other topics.
Pax Christi,
Sean Romer (a.k.a. Toma)
According to David, there are people who email him telling him they are afraid to post comments because they might get whupped by something called “Team Catholic” (presumably those who think the Catholic Church should be consistent in what it teaches from one pontificate to the next). Well, poor little them. Perhaps they might consider forming mutual support discussion groups in church basements where the electric guitars and tambourines accompanying the Novus Ordo Mass above are not too loud.
As for some traditional Latin Rite priest being disgusted with the tone of the comments, he should try reading what gets blurted forth in the secular media when any identifiable Catholic dares to speak out on any subject whatsoever. It doesn’t matter if one is a Dogan who kneels for Holy Communion or is a raving liberation theologian just back from Venezuela — the hatred verges on mass psychosis. (Believe me, I know.)
The comments I’ve read here are unusually civil, intelligent, and informative. There may be strong disagreements, and straying from the topic of the essay occasionally, but that is the nature of all discussions where people actually have something real to say.
This thread contains comments from Otiosus (read Zorro) who also appears in the same thread as one David Warren. Well, Don Diego, I am not as mercurial as all that and remain yours, faithfully,
Lord Jowls
This Robert Eady guy should be raised to the status of Viscount.
As to his Eady’s latest post, I agree and submit that traditional priests who lament the lively engagement of debates among guests, and prefer engaging the ideas of the host of the party, really do need to get out more.
That was very helpful, Lord Jowls.
I think I get it now:
The Pope is infallible in the religious sphere;
The Supreme Court is infallible in the judicial sphere; and
The Wife is infallible everywhere.
Thank you Lord Jowls. The trouble with being an aristocrat, however, is that I will be amongst the first to be sent to a termination camp when the liberal/left caring and sharing people really take full control. Right now, my file only includes the fact that I hold positions incompatible with permitting me to remain at large.
I think with this discussion we’ve seen in microcosm how even people of good faith can lose their bearings when they spend too much time in the modernized Church milieu. We’ve witnessed the saintly Garrigou-Lagrange likened to a Puritan; meanwhile the snake-oil salesman von Balthasar is swallowed whole (or is it the inverse?). In an interview Abp. Marcel Lefebvre was asked, if his faith was so fervent and strong, why he did not just say the new Mass for the sake of peace and retain his faith? “Because the new Mass is stronger than I am,” he humbly replied.
The smiling, glad handshake and back slap of the modernist theologians is a posture that belies the substance and distracts attention from the wreckage they’ve created in Holy Mother Church. An old axiom would have it that when a man’s words and actions are in disagreement, believe his actions.
Papal pronouncements are infallible because papal pronouncements declared them to be infallible.
“The weight of the malice directed towards Rome, from the world outside but also from within many Church quarters, is something that must be dealt with not only pastorally, & politically, but in a mystical way, & thus necessarily out of public view.”
This event seems to me not unlike Aquinas’ sudden cessation of his work. I wonder what Pope Benedict saw and whether we will have any more writings from him.
I’ll admit, the level of discourse here can be intimidating, and the food fight about Tom and Hans was quite beyond me. But this blog emanates, after all, from the High, not the Low Dogonate, I very much appreciate being able to read thinking at this level, even when I don’t really understand it.
There is also the matter, though, of what’s to be done when one of the “contributors” pontificates about that of which they know next to nothing. Anyone who says, in effect, “To accept papal infallibility is a form of idiocy,” deserves a deeply Christian, loving thrashing.
And there is a very big difference between venturing a contrary opinion and being a troll, the latter a form of nihilism that can be destructive to the community and is a favored tactic of liberals.
Robert is correct. There are some secular websites that beat up on Christians when they comment, and Christian web sites that beat up on atheists when they comment. Being the token atheist that comments here, I can say that I never fel that I am being beaten up on. I am called to task for some of my comments, but that is what debate is about. And most people have been civil.
But there is one trend that I have noticed, and maybe it is a biased observation, but the Christian websites tend to be far more likely to block a commenter because they disagree with the narrative than secular websites. And before anyone jumps on me, I am not including David in this.
Catino: you have it right, when you presume that it is not so much that the Pope is infallible, but Holy Mother Church’s doctrines and dogmas. I have a post regarding doctrinal infallibility on my blog, and I refer to it so often that I’ve put a link to it in a widget on the sidebar.
CTC: In the main, the basis for the doctrine of infallibility is that Christ promised the Church that the Holy Spirit would prevent her from falling into error. We must have some authority to tell us what we must believe and how we must live if we are to be saved, and also when we have strayed. As G. K. Chesterton says, the Church is a truth-telling thing. If you have any other candidate for truthfully telling us what we must believe and how we must live in order to be saved, I’d like to know. Bear in mind the prerequisites: Extant since the Ascension, or very shortly thereafter; entirely non-contradictory in its teachings; and accessible to the entire world.
> The weight of the malice directed towards Rome, from the world outside but also from within many Church quarters, is something that must be dealt with not only pastorally, & politically, but in a mystical way, & thus necessarily out of public view. Benedict discerns that all his waning physical powers must be concentrated on that task, leaving the governing, pastoral, & other functions (iconic, liturgical, &c) to a successor.
The Holy Father will neatly avoid being involved in the “canonization” of John Paul II and the beatification of Paul VI, which in this writer’s view are being foisted on the Church for reasons of political expediency. To what extent this issue factored into the decision to resign I have no idea, but the Pope is a smart man; I’m sure he thought about it.
Many thanks (I think) for the elevation to rank of Professor! Now to gain my tenure. I must admit, I had similar thoughts to the anonymous emailers when I read the bit about posting under my own name – I’m not invisible on the internet, and don’t have quite the trust level in all commenters (and those who read the comments) to put my name out here and extend the potential “battlefronts” off of these forums. My email address quite clearly has my name in it, and you yourself have access to that, but I will leave it at that for now. …
Perhaps I am slightly Catholic myself and enjoy the occasional whipping as a form of penance. I shall endeavour to keep my tone “up” there, and must say, the tone of this forum actually beats the tone of most forums on which I have commented by several degrees of magnitude. One must develop a thick skin indeed if one is to venture outside of one’s comfort zone into the thickets of the internets!
Like Maineman above, I can only look on in awe at the degree of perspicacity shown by many of the commentators. I am unqualified to enter the debate on von Balthasar, having very little knowledge of theology, but I would consider it very much a factor in favour of his rival Garrigou-Lagrange that I had not heard of the latter up to now. Relative anonymity in this age of fame and celebrity is itself to be celebrated, and I have a deep distrust of ‘trendy’ priests, as this von Balthasar seems to have been. Pope Benedict’s endorsement of him is an example of a pronouncement that is not covered by the doctrine of infallibility, I should think, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
Getting back to the essay, I agree that the former Pope will face a Gethsemane, as he directs his prayers against the “smoke of Satan” that contaminates the Church, and perhaps we should all attempt to back him up with prayers of our own. God Bless one and all.
“I am now more convinced than ever of the greatness and humility of Pope Benedict XVI, and the depth of his understanding of the problems from within his very human organization. The Church bureaucracy created more ex-Catholics in the 20th century than any other cause.”
I’m sorry but I suggest some study on the teachings of St Paul.
While retiring to a life of prayer is “great” I’d prefer a Pope to suffer physical martyrdom for the Mystical Body of Christ like many Popes have before. Look around at the state of our beloved Church, I’m ashamed at how the flock has been abandoned to the wolves.
At Fatima, Mary gave specific instructions to our recent Popes on what to do and what would happen to the Church. I think of the lives of suffering and example set by Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia with their prayers and sacrifices for the Holy Father and sinners and suggest we do the same especially during Lent.
For those of you who don’t please say the rosary every day. In the end Her immaculate heart will triumph.
God bless you all.