|
Interview with David Gibson
Author of The Rule of Benedict: Pope Benedict XVI and His Battle with the
Modern
World, HarperSanFrancisco, 2006
[For a VOTF review of David’s book, read the next issue of In the
Vineyard on Nov. 16.]
How has Benedict addressed the clergy sexual abuse scandal?
One of the most encouraging aspects of Benedict’s papacy—and an
extension of the latter days of his tenure at the Congregation of the Doctrine
of the Faith—was his “conversion” from a conspiracy-minded
skeptic regarding clergy abuse to an appalled churchman who acted to discipline
abusers. That was most evident in his action—however ambiguous—that
forced the Mexican priest and founder of the powerful Legionaries of Christ
to retire. The chief problem in my view, however, is that Benedict typically
focuses on the sin of the abuser to the exclusion of the sins of the overseers—the
bishops—whose actions enabled those abuses to propagate like a virus.
Benedict has made it clear he is not open to reforms in the governance of the
Church.
What are the challenges facing the church? And how will Benedict address
them?
There are so many challenges facing the church, as there always are. But I
think the decline in religious vocations is truly perilous, endangering our
access to the sacraments and our ability to evangelize, to have a presence
in places where Catholics have so much to offer. Instead we are closing churches.
But Benedict shows no inclination to do anything except pray, which is always
a requisite. But contemplation must be followed by inspired action and imagination.
While I range across many of these related topics in The Rule of Benedict,
I think the fundamental challenge in the end is one of ecclesiology—of
making the Catholic Church a credible and desirable home for the faith of a
new generation. Benedict constantly wags a finger at the “secularized” West
which has “abandoned” the Church. But another way of looking at
it is to see the institutional Church as having alienated believers who will
go elsewhere, or nowhere. Exhorting people to greater piety can produce some
lovely sermons. But it is not an answer to the crisis of the Catholic Church,
except to the cadre of self-styled “orthodox” who feel welcome—and
unchallenged—in the Benedictine church.
What impact will Benedict have on the religious lives of American Catholics?
The pope’s greatest impact on the religious lives of American Catholics
is most likely to be in the appointment of bishops. Bishops are really the
ones who can make the most immediate impact “on he ground,” and
there are encouraging signs. The appointments of Archbishop Niederauer to San
Francisco and Archbishop Wuerl to Washington were well-received, and deservedly
so. But much remains to be seen. A “reform of the reform” in the
liturgy is coming, and that conservative shift will have an impact. And by
not addressing issues—the clergy shortage, the lack of transparency and
accountability, the role of women, and the like—Benedict will also be
affecting the American church by allowing problems to fester.
You note that the center of gravity in the Catholic Church is rapidly
shifting toward the Southern Hemisphere—to Africa and Asia and Latin
America and away from North America and Europe. Why then did the cardinals
elect
an elderly German theologian? And what does it mean for Catholicism in the
developing world?
The election of Joseph Ratzinger was seen by many as the West’s “last
chance,” and indeed it seems highly likely that the next pope will hail
from the Southern Hemisphere, probably Latin America. But by forestalling that
shift for who knows how long—Benedict could certainly live 10 or 15 years—and
by electing a pope with little engagement with the social justice issues that
are life or death for the majority of the world’s Catholics, the Church
is facing a real risk. The priest shortage is absolutely dire in Latin America,
Africa and Asia, and threats from Islam, inroads from Protestant proselytizers,
and the urgent problems of poverty and human rights should not have to wait
out a decade of a “stay-at-home” pope who gives erudite lectures
on the challenges of secularism.
Is there a danger that the Catholic Church could become too focused on internal
questions and lose sight of its mission to evangelize?
That is always a danger, and one I try to keep in mind. But the reality is
that internal renewal and outward evangelization go hand in hand. The Church
cannot propose itself as a moral beacon to society and to would-be believers
if it is also not a true community of faith and justice.
Why did the College of Cardinals choose Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope,
and why did it happen so quickly? Do you think the system for electing a pope
needs to be changed?
The short answer is that it came down to a choice between Cardinal Ratzinger
and Everyone Else. After the huge outpouring for John Paul II, the intense
pressure facing anyone who would take his place, and the relatively long time
the cardinals had already spent in Rome for the funeral, the cardinals wanted
to go with a sure and safe bet—a known quantity like Ratzinger. But that
also gets at the issue of the current conclave system. Despite the efforts
to ensure a truly deliberative conclave, there was actually little useful engagement
by the cardinals of the many challenges facing the church, and no time to consider
other options or possibilities. That gave the cohort of cardinals of the Roman
curia—predominantly conservatives—a major advantage in securing
a quick victory for their champion. That hardly seems like a good way to run
a papal election.
Have you been as surprised as some by Benedict’s relatively uncontroversial
first year?
I think the surprise registered by many—on both the left and right—was
perhaps a case of misplaced expectations due to Ratzinger’s reputation
as the “Bad Cop” of Catholicism. Many conservatives were disappointed
that he did not come in breathing fire and rooting out anything and anyone
tainted as “liberal.” Many liberals took his first, rather irenic
encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, and his slow, deliberative approach to changes
and breathed a sigh of relief thinking, “Well, he’s not as bad
as we thought.” In short, what you have in my view is a case of, “same
guy, different job.” Benedict is still Joseph Ratzinger, but as pope
he knows he has to be more of a pastor. Still, I think my analysis—and
subsequent events—show that he is also not going to allow anyone in the
church to “color outside the lines.”
Pope John Paul II was a “showman of God” and Pope Benedict
most certainly is not, how do you think this affects the way Catholics around
the
world relate to him, especially the younger generation that JPII focused on?
John Paul was in many respects the perfect pope for our Age of Celebrity,
and that worked enormously well in making him extremely popular. But that popularity
also masked many of the persistent problems that worsened during his reign,
and which need to be addressed. But also, John Paul made us realize again that
whatever the perils of celebrity, it is also important to have a convincing
evangelizer as pope—a Saint Paul as much as a Saint Peter. Benedict will
certainly be popular, as he is a sympathetic, avuncular figure to many. But
will they follow him? When Ratzinger was elected pope, it was said that John
Paul filled the piazzas and Benedict will fill the churches. It cannot be a
case of one or the other, but both. There must be a free flow between those
two arenas in order to renew both the church and the world.
In the chapter titled Pontifex Maximus, Pontifex Minimus, you state that
John Paul was a philosopher and Benedict is a theologian. Can you explain
why this is important to consider and how the enduring split affects the
future of the Catholic Church?
John Paul’s passionate, never-ending engagement with the world and with
people was so typical of his approach, that of the philosopher asking questions
and going wherever he could to inform himself through experience, and then
to provide the answers he found in the light of the Faith. Benedict remains
a theologian, the academic he has been all his life, interested less in engagement
than with teaching the answers he has been given, the basics of the Faith.
It is evangelization as catechesis. That can produce some very interesting
discourses. But what will that mean to a generation that insists that lovely
words must be matched by deeds, and that the experience of the faith—the
heart as much of the head—is their gateway to holiness? Catholicism will
remain a vibrant and viable choice for many, but for the near future that will
be due to the efforts of those in charge of great parishes and ministries.
|
