The other "revolutionary" Pope of 2013.

John Allen writes:

Equally notable is the way he's handled his departure. In his final address to the cardinals Feb. 28, Benedict pledged "unconditional reverence and obedience" to his successor, and he's held up his end of the deal. Other than a private letter he sent to an Italian atheist that was leaked by the recipient, Benedict has only been seen or heard in public when Francis has come calling or invited him to something.

Despite well-documented umbrage among some about the new direction under Francis, Benedict has done nothing to encourage a "loyal opposition" or to legitimize dissent from the new regime.

In effect, Benedict has gone from infallibility to near-invisibility, and entirely by his own choice. If that's not a "miracle of humility in an era of vanity," to invoke Elton John's Vanity Fair tribute to Francis back in June, it's hard to know what would be.

At a substantive level, several of the reforms for which Francis is drawing credit, including his cleanup of Vatican finances and his commitment to "zero tolerance" on sex abuse, amount to continuations of policies that began under Benedict.

Even if that weren't the case, the point remains that the "Francis effect" might have been lost to history without Benedict taking a step no pope had taken in 600 years -- and given the markedly different circumstances, one could argue it's a step no pope had ever taken in quite this way.

No question about it, Francis is shaking up the Catholic church and offering it a new lease on life. For the record, however, he wasn't the only maverick, the only revolutionary pope, of 2013.

Remember a few months ago, when so many people were convinced that Pope Benedict XVI was resigning because of an "indictment" by the International Criminal Court.

Well, those idiots were punked by an obvious publicity stunt.

Blaming the Pope.

Atheists are in a tizzy this week about a publicity stunt from a private entity with an official sounding name that claims to have issued an indictment of Pope Benedict. The fact that these yahoos believed this nonsense ought to put an end to their claim of being "skeptics" and "free-thinkers" for all time.


Moreover, blaming Ratzinger for the minor abuse scandal is like blaming the SEC for not taking a stronger stand on bank robberies. The "case" against Ratzinger consists of a major misunderstanding of how the Vatican works.  I've been in debates this last week on this subject so I am going to post an excerpt of my response to one of those debates.

This one involves the so-called smoking gun of a document known as "Crimen Solliciationis" which is supposed to have shown that Ratzinger ordered the cover-up of minor abuse scandal. What many people don't understand is that Crimen Sollicitationis applied only to "solicitations" - adult or minor - in the context of confession, which virtually none of the child abuse accusations involved.

Here is my post:

2.0 Crimen Sollicitationis

2.2 What you and others are doing with Crimen Sollicitationus (“CS”) is a classic trap for the unwary in statutory interpretation. You are running with assumptions about how the statute works without first determining whether it applies in the first place.

2.3 By its terms, CS applies only to the sacrament of confession. Hence the first paragraph reads:
“1. The crime of solicitation occurs whenever a priest – whether in the act itself of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or even apart from confession [but] in a confessional or another place assigned or chosen for the hearing of confessions and with the semblance of hearing confessions there – has attempted to solicit or provoke a penitent, whosoever he or she may be, to immoral or indecent acts, whether by words, signs, nods, touch or a written message, to be read either at that time or afterwards, or he has impudently dared to have improper and indecent conversations or interactions with that person (Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, §1).

2.4 Outsiders to Catholicism are undoubtedly tempted to slide over that language because it is largely meaningless to them. To a Catholic – who is immersed in Catholicism and not trying to score points by equivocation – however, this language is obvious and immediate. The regulation only applies to situations involving confession. Confession is a distinct event. Confession is delimited by things like privacy, confidentiality, isolation and a sacredness stemming from its sacramental nature. A Catholic will not confuse confession with other things.

2.5 Anyone with pertinent historical knowledge will know that the Inquisition – the predecessor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (“CDF”) which Ratzinger headed – was charged with policing “solicitation” in the confessional because confession was a sacrament. The Inquisition was not charged with policing priests generally, that kind of thing was left to “Ordinaries”, i.e., the local bishops. (See e.g., Helen Rawlings, The Spanish Inquisition, )

2.6 The reason for this historic distinction is that Confession is a sacrament. It therefore is inherently sacred and pertains to the faith, unlike molestation, which is not and does not, in part because under Catholic doctrine, in confession the priest is acting “alter Christus,” i.e., it is Christ who gives absolution.

2.7 Because confession is involved there are safeguards to protect the privacy of the confessional. (See (“Virtually all of Crimen Sollicitationis concerned the investigation and prosecution of complaints of sexual solicitation of penitents by priests in confession.10 Such procedures are difficult and sensitive because the seal of confession cannot be violated; a priest cannot break the seal even to defend himself against an accusation.11 The same policies and procedures were to be adapted and applied to the "worst crimes," including sexual aggression against minors.12)

2.8 This confidentiality of Crimen Solicitationis is nothing new but goes back hundreds of years. The fact that anyone would think this is an innovation is more than a little bit surprising in light of the fact that the Inquisition is normally criticized for its secrecy. Let me point out how this kind of forgetfulness seems all too convenient. (See also this link.)

2.9 Crimen Sollicitationis also is not directed to child molestation. By its own terms it applies to all “solicitation” in a confessional context. This includes adults, obviously. The idea that CS was drafted to “cover-up” child molestation is risible.

2.10 In fact, I suspect that the gravamen of the CS proceeding is more focused on the spiritual offense – the misuse of the sacrament – than it is with the physical harm. From the Catholic perspective, as bad as “solicitation” is by any person in power, and of a child by an adult, the abuse of the confessional and the priest’s role as the altus Christi is worse, since it is blasphemy against God.

3.1 Is Crimen Sollicitationis a smoking gun of a worldwide cover up?

3.2 CS was not secret as Canon law expert Ed Peters notes:

“Anyway, more than a year ago, when another British press organ, The Observer, tried to hype the alleged cover-up angle of this very same story, I blogged on it (27 April 2005), pointing out that Cdl. Joseph Ratzinger's so-called secret document was published in the official journal of the Holy See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 93 (2001) on pp. 785-788; for that matter, it was available on the Vatican website for at least several months before The Observer thought it broke the story in April of 2005. Now c'mon: it's bad enough the BBC and the Standard don't read the Acta Apostolicae Sedis; don't they even read The Observer?

Anyway, as I said back then, apparently Pope Benedict has a lot to learn about how to keep documents secret: like not publishing them in journals distributed around the world. What surprises me (though only mildly; this is main-line British journalism we're dealing with) is that I get to say it all again.
Discuss the CDF document, if you wish, O Media Elites; debate it even; but don't pretend that it was some sort of dark secret all this time, or portray yourself as valiant crusaders in search of the hidden truths, braving Vatican fury to inform the ignorant masses. Cuz it wasn't, and you're not.”


3.3 Media reports have misrepresented the significance of CS. From the same source
“Update, October 19: Fr. Thomas Doyle, the main on-camera expert in the Panorama hit-piece against Benedict XVI, is distancing himself from the Vatican-conspiracy claims he made, or came across as making, for the BBC. In a letter to NCRep writer John Allen posted Oct 13, Doyle writes "Although I was a consultant to the producers of the documentary I am afraid that some of the distinctions I have made about the 1962 document have been lost. I do not believe now nor have I ever believed it to be proof of an explicit conspiracy. . . ." Fascinating.”

3.4 This is from an Australian atheist blogger:

“Doyle is a ferocious critic of the US hierarchy and, as my previous post makes clear, it is inconceivable that he would do them any favours. 17 Whilst it could be reasonably argued that he is biased against the hierarchy and therefore his anti-hierarchical claims should be viewed with caution, his public comments on Crimen sollicitationis (baring one exception) run counter to his biases and are in agreement with “the hierarchy.” He states his view of Crimen sollicitationis:

The 1962 document [Crimen sollicitationis] and its predecessor from 1922 are not proof of an explicit world-wide conspiracy to cover up clergy sex crimes.18

Doyle set the fire when he released the document and fanned the flames of controversy through his appearance on the BBC. He is not someone I would usually consider to be a reliable expert but given on this occasion his biases run in the other direction, I feel that it’s not unreasonable to rely upon him in this instance. He is the best, and only, hope that “smoking gun” theorists have of proving their claims, but he does the exact opposite.

Of course, other experts in canon law, such as John Beal19, Francis Morrisey20, Ladislas Orsy21 and Edward Peters22 dispute the “smoking gun” theory as well. Every expert who has expressed a view on the matter, including the “anti-hierarchy” Doyle, agrees that Crimen sollicitationis is no smoking gun.”

4.0 Conclusion - So, I repeat, blaming Ratzinger in some fashion for covering-up or enabling sex abuse against minors because of Crimen Solicitationis is misguided.

It is like blaming the Securities and Exchange Commission for not taking a firm enough stand against bank robbery.

Pope Benedict to Resign.

Not exactly unprecedented but close:

In a speech in Latin to cardinals, the 85-year-old German pontiff, who has been in office since April 2005, said that leading the world's 1.2 billion Catholics was a job that required strength of both mind and body. But the pope said his strength had "deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me."

A papal spokesman added during a briefing with reporters that Pope Benedict had been thinking about the move for some time, saying it wasn't due to an illness. Father Lombardi, the spokesman, said the pope would retire to a life of prayer and writing. He also said the pontiff had "no fear" of any potential schism in the church as a consequence of the pope's resignation.

We will miss him.

For the "Media Malpractice" File - Remember that speech where Pope Benedict told the world that gay marriage was one of the threats to humanity?

Alternative title - "Homosexuality, not everything is about you."

Dan Savage mentioned it in his diatribe in order to accuse the Pope of claiming that the only thing standing between himself and sodomy was a piece of paper.

Then there is the Huffington Post and Reuters:

VATICAN CITY, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday that gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined "the future of humanity itself".

The pope made some of his strongest comments against gay marriage in a new year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Vatican in which he touched on some economic and social issues facing the world today.

He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper "settings" and that "pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman."

The funny thing is that the Pope didn't say any such thing, and nothing even close.

Andrew Brown at the Guardian points out:

On Monday, Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech to the diplomatic corps at the Vatican at which he didn't say a single word about gay marriage. You can read the whole thing here. So why is it news? Because Reuters and, following them, many other people reported that he had denounced gay marriage as a threat to western civilisation. Philip Pullella, who is one of the very best and most experienced Vatican correspondents, led his story: "Pope Benedict said Monday that gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined 'the future of humanity itself'."

So far as I can see, Pope Benedict just didn't. He did speak in favour of the family "based on the marriage of a man and woman". He did say that "policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself". But there was no suggestion that gay marriage was the most important of these and he didn't mention it at all, whereas he did take up several other sexual issues.

He went out of his way to praise a recent European court ruling that outlawed patents based on human stem cells. He said that "legislative measures which not only permit but at times even promote abortion for reasons of convenience or for questionable medical motives compromise the education of young people and, as a result, the future of humanity". That may be right or wrong. But it's not an attack on gay marriage, or even on homosexuality.

Here's the speech. I've read it. Here's the only passage that could get Savage's knickers in a twist:

Education is a crucial theme for every generation, for it determines the healthy development of each person and the future of all society. It thus represents a task of primary importance in this difficult and demanding time. In addition to a clear goal, that of leading young people to a full knowledge of reality and thus of truth, education needs settings. Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and States; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue. It is in the family that we become open to the world and to life and, as I pointed out during my visit to Croatia, “openness to life is a sign of openness to the future”.[3] In this context of openness to life, I note with satisfaction the recent sentence of the Court of Justice of the European Union forbidding patenting processes relative to human embryonic stem cells, as well as the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe condemning prenatal selection on the basis of sex.

Can you just feel the call for violence against cringing homosexuals in schoolyards across America?

Brown is right. There is not the slightest basis for the headlines that read "Pope Benedict XVI: Gay Marriage A Threat To 'Future Of Humanity."

So, where does this nonsense come from? Are we at the point of post-modernism that there is no longer a felt need to attach one's truth claims to reality.

Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist.

Pope Benedict covers a variety of topics in his Christmas address to the Roman Curia:

We were all the more dismayed, then, when in this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime.

And:

In the vision of Saint Hildegard, the face of the Church is stained with dust, and this is how we have seen it.
 
Her garment is torn – by the sins of priests. The way she saw and expressed it is the way we have experienced it this year. We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again. This is also the moment to offer heartfelt thanks to all those who work to help victims and to restore their trust in the Church, their capacity to believe her message. In my meetings with victims of this sin, I have also always found people who, with great dedication, stand alongside those who suffer and have been damaged. This is also the occasion to thank the many good priests who act as channels of the Lord’s goodness in humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the unforfeited beauty of the priesthood.

And:

We are well aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our corresponding responsibility. But neither can we remain silent regarding the context of these times in which these events have come to light. There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society. The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times. From Bishops of developing countries I hear again and again how sexual tourism threatens an entire generation and damages its freedom and its human dignity. The Book of Revelation includes among the great sins of Babylon – the symbol of the world’s great irreligious cities – the fact that it trades with bodies and souls and treats them as commodities (cf. Rev 18:13). In this context, the problem of drugs also rears its head, and with increasing force extends its octopus tentacles around the entire world – an eloquent expression of the tyranny of mammon which perverts mankind. No pleasure is ever enough, and the excess of deceiving intoxication becomes a violence that tears whole regions apart – and all this in the name of a fatal misunderstanding of freedom which actually undermines man’s freedom and ultimately destroys it.


In order to resist these forces, we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations. In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today. Against them, Pope John Paul II, in his 1993 Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, indicated with prophetic force in the great rational tradition of Christian ethos the essential and permanent foundations of moral action. Today, attention must be focussed anew on this text as a path in the formation of conscience. It is our responsibility to make these criteria audible and intelligible once more for people today as paths of true humanity, in the context of our paramount concern for mankind.