COMMENTARY
Josef
Ratzinger the Progressive
What
follows is an excerpt from a message distributed by
Leonard Swidler to VOTF leadership.
Joseph
Ratzinger published an article in the first issue of
my Journal of Ecumenical Studies (1964) as a peritus
at Vatican II. He was a moderate progressive then. Also,
a little later he joined the faculty at the University
of Tubingen where I earlier got my degree in Catholic
theology (1959) and along with the rest of the faculty
signed a joint article arguing in favor of the election
and limited-term of office for bishops. Excerpts appear
below.
From Bishops
and People, Edited and Translated by Leonard Swidler
and Arlene Swidler, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia
Copyright © MCMLXX, Leonard Swidler
On
Authority:
Correctly understood, authority does not exclude criticism, but stands ready
for criticism. Criticism is a method of authentic conversation for the purpose
of greater effectiveness. But this says nothing about the criterion of criticism.
There is a method of criticism that on principle criticizes anything that
is decreed by an office-bearer. Such criticism cancels itself out; depending
on circumstances, it leads to anarchy or to dictatorship. This method of
criticism can simply not be regarded as a constructive contribution. For,
instead of making a critical-dialogic contribution, it sets up an extreme
interpretation as absolute. The authentic method of criticism demands that
regulations be considered carefully, and that it be possible in decisive
questions to enter into dialogue with those affected by such regulations;
those so affected demand today to be listened to in a decisive way and thus
to co-determine future regulations. A social structure that is determined
by the old model of master and servant is outdated.
4.
Contemporary man sees office as a function of society;
authority, it follows, is recognized only insofar as
it is prepared to justify itself through performance.
The man who makes any kind of regulations today must
always reckon with the fact that these regulations will
be criticized. He must offer convincing reasons for his
regulations. This is completely obvious to the politician
and the statesman. In many cases a constantly reconsidered
stance must replace custom-honored decisions. What seem
to be obvious routine affairs can suddenly become problematic.
A clear command will necessitate an explanation. A command
will make sense only within the frame of a well-considered
master plan. Dynamic guiding principles will achieve
more than a rigid order.
On
Church Structure:
It appears that social-political discussions on office and authority also
apply in the ecclesiastical area, that the Christian is indeed always a man
of this world and time. The structure of Christianity, like the structure
of the church, seems in many ways still shaped by the Middle Ages. Even in
modern times the outdated forms are adhered to as tightly as ever. Some political
concepts must be described as outdated, whether or not they may have been
justified at one time…. The person who does not matter-of-factly practice
tolerance of other faiths clings to a medieval concept of order and is out
of place in contemporary society…. In all this it is by no means necessary
to evaluate the development from late antiquity to the Middle Ages in the
negative way that is often seen. But we are confronted with the situation
that the framework of the church and its legal concepts are, in the context
of the contemporary image of society, part of a strange world of the past.
They are not authorized by the gospel or by the structure of the first Christian
congregations, but only by a tradition that arose later. This tradition,
however, has become dated and today no longer suitable in many ways. We are
not therefore concerned with establishing the utopia of a primitive church
congregation. It is rather our task to test new demands and possibilities
critically in the perspective of the Gospels. In this we must proceed beyond
minimal concessions. Genuine construction is the result of a projected program
and an entire overall plan that points to the future.
On
Bishops:
The question of the election of a bishop has been discussed recently-in connection
with the naming of bishops-with vehemence, though with no visible success.
Yet it apparently has still been widely assumed that a bishop-named or elected-should
remain in office the rest of his life. And yet, does not the decision to
assign such an office for a lifetime conceal enormous dangers for the vital
formation of the pastoral care of the diocese? Through such a regulation,
the pastoral care of an entire diocese can be determined or at least greatly
influenced in a very unilateral manner for decades…. The question of whether
the current law has always proved itself through the centuries, or whether
history has not rather demonstrated the problematic of such an institution,
should be set aside for now. Granted that such a view was self-explanatory
in late antiquity, in the Middle Ages, and even into modern times, for us
today this regulation is no longer convincing. We find it questionable not
out of a desire to criticize, but on objective grounds. That a different
regulation and indeed any other regulation always brings with it certain
disadvantages and is itself one-sided should not be disputed. The procedure
should be to see the greater danger and the greater one-sidedness and to
avoid them as much as possible.
We
take no position, therefore, on the custom of the past.
We do not say that the church was forced at the time
of Constantine into a social order that can only be condemned.
We see adequate sense throughout this historical development.
The historically minded person should not apply the criteria
of his time to other times. But he may demand that in
the area of ecclesiastical sociology no decisions that
are relative be given permanent, binding character.
3.
It cannot be disputed: The present regulation that bishops
be named for an undetermined time or for life conceals
grave dangers…. This is our suggestion: The term of office
of resident bishops should in the future be eight years.
Another term or a prolongation of the term is possible
only as an exception, and only for objective, extreme
reasons stemming from the political situation within
the church…. Against this suggestion will arise a series
of doubts that must be seriously discussed one by one.
ALFONS
AUER, GÜNTER BIEMER, KARL AUGUST FINK, HERBERT HAAG,
HANS KÜNG, JOSEPH MÖLLER, JOHANNES NEUMANN, JOSEPH RATZINGER,
JOSEPH RIEF, KARL HERMANN SCHELKLE, MAX SECKLER, PETER
STOCKMEIER with BISHOP JOSEF SCHOISWOHL and LEONARD SWIDLER
