In the often heated (and sometimes
self-referential) debate surrounding the continuities and
discontinuities between Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, people are often
so hasty to draw contrasts and point to the differences in style and
focus of the two Popes, that they risk creating caricatures out of both
figures.
A series of artificial clichés end up being attached to
Ratzinger’s person, as if his teachings were entirely about the
strenuous and tireless defence of non-negotiable values in the public
arena.
On his first visit abroad for World Youth Day in
Cologne, in the summer of 2005, Benedict XVI chose not to speak about
chastity, premarital sex etc. Instead, he concentrated on the
beauty of Christianity. He followed a similar approach a year later when
he visited Spain, the cradle of “Zapaterian relativism” and the home of
same-sex marriage.
Benedict XVI met families who had come to the city
of Valencia from all corners of the world to testify the beauty of their
experiences. On this occasion he chose not to launch any criticisms
against the Spanish government, focusing on positive aspects instead.
The courageous and evangelical response Ratzinger
gave in 2010, when the Church was right in the thick of the paedophilia
scandal is another case in point. Instead of pointing the finger at the
Church’s external enemies, he said that the biggest threat comes from
inside the Church, from the sin that exists within it.
Newspapers that
are now pro-Ratzinger did not like this move. Ratzinger’s “penitential
Church”, became a slogan used to express a nostalgia and yearning for
Ratzinger to adopt stronger public stances.
Then there were the words Ratzinger pronounced on
his last trip to Germany (Freiburg) as reigning Pope in 2011.Words which
disappeared into a vortex self-interested silence. He talked about a
Church “that is satisfied with itself, makes itself at home in this
world, that is self-sufficient, adapting to worldly principles.”
A
Church that tends to lend “greater importance to organization and
institutionalization than it does to its calling to be open to God, and
to open this world up to its neighbours.”
“Free of burdens, and material
and political privileges, the Church is able to better devote itself,
and in a way that is truly Christian, to the entire world; it can truly
be open to the world,” Ratzinger said.
But there are two more aspects of Ratzinger’s
magisterium that have been neglected or twisted.
The first involves his
comments on ecclesiastical careerism (here everyone can draw their own
conclusions as to how little his words were taken seriously). The second
is to do with the liturgy.
Benedict XVI’s motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”
aimed to reconcile the majority of faithful who follow the ordinary
Roman Rite and the few who still follow the Old Rite. His intention was
to ensure the two forms of celebrating mass were mutually enriching.
His
message was very often ignored and instead of offering an enriching
experience, liberalisation ended up polarising the Church and creating
deeper divisions.
Greater care needs to be taken, therefore, to ensure that the
richness of Ratzinger’s magisterium is not diminished or squeezed into
ideological cells, making it fit into a pre-set framework.
A mildly
liberal reply Ratzinger gave to a question regarding condoms, in his
interview with Peter Seewald (published in a titled “Light of the
World”), in November 2010, provoked a strong response from the guardians
of sexual ethics who thought they would teach Ratzinger himself how to
be truly “Ratzingerian”.