It is understandable that these days every Tom, Dick and Harriet - and every other cardinal who speaks to he media - pontificates about 'the Pope we need'. My main reproach is that almost to a man or woman, they all speak as though Benedict XVI's Pontificate had never taken place, as though Benedict XVI was the Pope we did not need but happened to come along, and now, let us have 'the Pope we need'.
Even if most of the criteria that they list for a new Pope happen to be criteria that were eminently met by Benedict XVI - other than the advantage of youth and full physical vigor - hardly anyone says that. They all speak as if these are criteria that the Church needs de novo, starting from zero. As though the criteria of 'holy, intelligent, competent, pastoral, able to communicate, capable of the New Evangelization' were not among Benedict XVI's qualities at all! Even the much-touted need for a Pope 'who can rule the Curia' is highly questionable because it is not for the Pope to do that, but for his Secretary of State.
And I must reiterate my now-overstated proviso that none of the Popes before Benedict had better control of their respective Curias - and have been documented to be worse, in fact - and yet, all the pundits and even many cardinals speak as if all the ills of the Roman Curia originated with Benedict XVI who was simply too incompetent to deal with them! With only Vatileaks and its whole leaky foundation of innuendo and scant fact as their basis for saying so.
In any case, although I have decided not to post any of the miscellaneous pontifications impliedly if not directly assailing Benedict XVI for the perceived ills of the Curia, I will post an article that I would consider typical of those 'the Pope we need' articles that have been proliferating in the media these days. It is written by someone who has a great reputation in the American media for having reported and commented on religion for the past two decades at least, having been once spokesman for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
But as we have seen from the typical reportage-and-commentary of Vaticanistas and so-called Vatican insiders, their familiarity with the Vatican newsbeat has not made their thinking any more informed than we, the ordinary folk. In fact, that familarity appears to have bred a contempt for the institution - the Vatican is a political institution legislated into existence by the Lateran pacts of 1929 to enable the Pope to govern as an independent sovereign, and it is different from the Church, an institution founded by Christ, though even the 'esperts' don't seem to make the distinction.
The Pope we need
by Russell Shaw
March 07, 2013
"I hope we get a nice Pope," a good Catholic woman told me soon after Benedict XVI announced his resignation.
"I don't care whether he's nice or not," I replied. "I just hope he's strong."
Actually, I'd be glad if the next Pope were nice, with a winning smile and a friendly manner.
But vastly more important than being nice is that he be a tough-minded realist, with a backbone of steel. That's what the Church needs now. [Which is to imply that Benedict - universally acclaimed even by the likes of Shaw before his retirement as a tough realist who was therefore very acute in his analysis of the contemporary world - was actually no realist at all, and that he had the backbone of a jellyfish.]
The problems that will face him are immense: the twin anti-Christian challenges of militant Islam in Africa and the Middle East and militant secularism in Europe and North America, very much including the United States; the apparent disarray within the Roman Curia that at times seemed to place it at odds with Benedict; and the continuing efforts of progressive Catholics, many operating from tenured positions of influence in Catholic academia, on behalf of their suicidal program of decentralization and decline.
[Without acknowledging that all of these problems = and more - were amply defined, underscored, and concretely addressed in Benedict XVI's brief Pontificate, so that the next Pope does not have to start from scratch on any of these!]
Unsurprisingly, there's been a torrent of chatter in the media concerning what Catholics supposedly want at the dawning of a new pontificate. Much of it, to be blunt, has been useless or worse.
In that category I would place with regret the Pew Research Center's recent survey of opinion among American Catholics. Its most interesting finding--just about the only one--was that Catholics are divided in their hopes for the next Pontiff, with 46% saying he should "move the Church in new directions" and 51% saying he should "maintain the traditional positions of the Church."
Significantly, support for maintaining traditional positions soared to 61% among Catholics who attend Mass weekly or more often. As for those who don't--consulting them on the direction the Pope should take is a bit like asking someone who doesn't follow baseball who will win next fall's World Series.
So what in fact should the next Pope do? Opinion polls notwithstanding, the answer to that one is not up for grabs. A Pope--any Pope--can and no doubt should do many different things, from naming bishops to flying around the globe making pastoral visits.
But underlying virtually everything that a Pope does or might conceivably be imagined doing is one fundamental duty: to preserve, teach, and transmit intact the body of revealed truth entrusted to the Church by God together with the body of authentic teaching drawn from and based upon that source.
The First Vatican Council (1869-70) made this point with commendable clarity in saying this: "The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by his revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by his help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."
Blessed John XXIII - "Good Pope John" - offered an interesting variation in his famous opening speech to Vatican Council II (1962-65).
He called on the assembled bishops to transmit the body of doctrine "pure and integral" while seeking ways to express it "through the literary forms of modern thought."
In other words: be faithful to the tradition, but teach it in ways people can understand.
[Re all the preceding four paragraphs: So, in Shaw's view, Benedict XVI did not quite come up to this standard??? The greatest teaching Pope in history, as even his part-time detractors like George Weigel and John Allen concede??? The person who was the Church's official - and always unequivocal - defender of the faith for 23 years before becoming its primary defender of the faith as the Successor of Peter???]
So by all means let the next Pope be nice--and a great deal more. Let him have the charm of John XXIII, the earnestness of Paul VI, the charisma of John Paul II, the intellectual brilliance of Benedict XVI.
But above all let him be a brave teacher of Catholic truth in the face of all the demands that he be something less. [Which is to say that none of the Popes he just named met that criterion! What would it have cost him to add the phrase "as we have had the grace to have with all our recent Popes" to his last sentence? ]
Apropos, Paul Badde of DIE WELT has this vignette in his report from Rome yesterday, which I have illustrated with the creative bumper stickers proposed by Fr. Z and CafePress in the days after February 11:
A ranking prelate from Lebanon has suggested that the cardinals should simply re-elect Benedict XVI as Pope. Then, he says, the Church would have a couples less major problems!
Benedict XVI would have to accept his re-election and come back right away from Castel Gandolfo. Much like Peter, he says, who on his way out of a burning Rome, met Jesus on the Via Appia, who asked him, "Quo vadis?" - Where are you going?
With his return, Benedict XVI would be able to take back the tiller stronger than ever, since with the mandate of a re-election, even the physically challenged octogenarian would become the most powerful Pope in history.
A fond fantasy, in which realm it will remain, unfortunately. Though I still maintain that the cardinals who truly loved Benedict XVI ought to write his name on the first ballot, when presumably, doing so wouldn't significantly affect the initial alignments which will certainly be split among more than a few candidates. And a pro-Benedict XVI alignment would be just as legitimate as all the rest.
And from Lella's blog, this videocaps by Gemma, starting from the last screen shot of Benedict XVI as he left the balcony of Castel Gandolfo, and showing the last views we will ever have of his papal coat of arms on display at any public event.
The poignant images that preceded the above:
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/03/2013 20:48]