Posted on 03/12/2009 1:46:49 PM PDT by NYer
Not that it's the least bit surprising or even inaccurate, but here is how the Pope's letter is being presented by many media outlets (from Google):
The Detroit News comes up with the most misleading headline that I've seen so far: "Pope's letter expresses 'deep regret' over bishop reinstatement." But that, in fact, is quite contrary to what Benedict actually wrote in the letter, which the piece admits somewhat in its opening lines: "In a letter to Catholic bishops released publicly today, Pope Benedict XVI admits mistakes and expresses his "deep regret" for portions of the process by which he reinstated a bishop who has denied the Holocaust." Thankfully, the newspaper also printed the Pope's letter.
Anyhow, I'm not so interested in whatever media bias may or may not be showing through as I am in what seems rather obvious: the media and many others are missing the bigger story, or stories. Of course, if you think papal infallibility means being free of any and all error in all situations ("It's official. The papacy is NOT 'infallible'" crows a poster on the Democratic Underground site), you might logically fixate on Benedict's admission that matters weren't handled well. But knowledgeable observers have been saying that for weeks now. What is much more interesting about the letters, at least to me, are the following points:
• The tone and approach of Benedict, which once again reveals an obvious humility, a willingness to accept responsibility, an ability to make meaningful changes, and—not least—a clear-eyed vision of the deeper, bigger problems within the Church.
• Willingness to accept responsibility: It would have been easy for Benedict to remain quiet, which would have added fuel to the stereotyped image of a distance, detached, aloof, out of touch, etc., etc., etc., pontiff. But this letter was hardly a political move, but an expression of pastoral concern, addressed, it should be noted, to the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, those who refuse to pay close attention to the life and writings of Ratzinger/Benedict will remain clueless about this supposedly cold and even ruthless scholar/Church leader is first and foremost a priest and pastor.
• The meaningful change: "In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." George Weigel writes of this decision: "As for ensuring against such problems in the future, the pope made the necessary bureaucratic move: the Ecclesia Dei Commission, established as an independent agency by John Paul II after the Lefebrvist schism in 1988, and charged with reconciling Levebvrists and others who wanted to return to full communion, has been put under the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There will be no more free-lancing from Ecclesia Dei, which had become a loose cannon careening around the ecclesial deck."
• The deeper, bigger problems in the Church: In a nutshell, all Catholics need to understand and accept Vatican II for what it was—not a radical beginning or a cataclysmic ending: "The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life." Key word: obedient. Why? Because it is the common issue for those who reject some or all of the Council, and those who rework or completely remake it to undermine authentic Church authority, doctrine, and practice.
• In addition, Benedict reiterates the mission of the Church: to evangelize and to call all Christians into communion with Jesus Christ and His Church: "Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers." Evangelization and ecumenism go hand in hand; one without the other is lacking. Unfortunately, there are some who wish to proclaim the Gospel but who think ecumenism is contrary to that task; there are also some who talk endlessly about unity but never want to address essential differences and difficulties. Neither approach is fully Catholic. True ecumenism leads to real witness, while those who are secure in what the Catholic Church teaches are able to engage in serious, fruitful dialogue with Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
• True reconciliation, Benedict reminds readers, is rooted in love for God and man, and is aimed at communion with God and man. The Pope's "quiet gesture of extending a hand" was not the move of frightened ultra-conservative, but the action of the vicar of Christ who is, first and foremost, a disciple of Christ: "But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation?" Benedict recognizes something that Chesterton (and many others, of course) have spoken of: that schismatic or heretical tendencies or stances are best corrected by moving those embracing them closer to the heart of the Church, not by simply ostracizing them. Obviously this is a delicate and trying task. But the irony is that Holy Father, in seeking to be open-minded and open-hearted (in the most Christian sense of those terms), has been repeatedly attacked as being exclusive and close-minded. It follows the same pattern seen after his motu proprio, when he was regularly criticized for being rigid and conservative when, in reality, his action was liberating and liberal (again, in the best sense of those often abused terms). Benedict, put simply, is living out what he spoke of in Deus Caritas Est, which is true charity: "Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?"
• The message to those who have been unduly critical—even hysterical and blatantly cruel—about Benedict's dealings with the SSPX is a rather blunt one: "At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint." And: "But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love?"
Yes, the Holy Father is indeed a scholar and a theologian. But those are hardly the words of a scholar, at least not of the modern-day variety, who is usually incapable of blunt, clear language. They are the words of a pastor and a Papa (see this passage for some biblical background).
The media speak a different language.
He was speaking to the Pharisees; he could just as easily have been speaking to today's MSM.
THEY are the new gods, infallible in their edicts. Unswayed by interest groups and political agendas.
I read it, and I like PapaBenXIV more and more. I read the excerpts from the newsies, and I couldn’t like them less.
This stuff with SSPX bishop is getting old, enough already! Not speaking about your post, the media needs to let it go!
The use of the word "mistake" is not a mistake by the left, it is a deliberate attempt to undermine the moral authority and infallibility of the Holy See.
It’s not a different language.
It’s deliberate malicious deception.
Unfortunately, the media, and others, have managed to pick out and emphasize the negative in the most powerful, beautiful and poignant section of what the Pope wrote.
The clear message is one of restoration - acknowledging the wounds and fostering healing:
Instead of seeing the true light of the merciful heart of what is written (emphasized above) people have pointed at the last sentence of that section, wrestling it entirely out of context and distorting the message.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.