Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Father R.J. Neuhaus' Outlook on Benedict XVI
Zenit News Agency ^ | June 6, 2005

Posted on 06/06/2005 4:39:21 PM PDT by NYer

"Remarkable Gentleness, Combined With a Keen Intellectual Curiosity"

NEW YORK, JUNE 6, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI has modest expectations for ecumenism and expects the path to unity to involve an unforeseen initiative of the Holy Spirit, says Father Richard John Neuhaus.

The editor in chief of First Things shared with ZENIT his views about the new Pope and what could be expected in his pontificate.

Q: Would you share some of your personal experiences with Cardinal Ratzinger, and what special gifts you think he brings to the papacy?

Father Neuhaus: I have known Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, for more than 20 years, and we have been in conversation about many things.

As everybody knows, he is a master theologian and, I think, might have been recognized as one of the theological giants of the last 100 years if he had not offered the prime of his life to serving John Paul the Great as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

As everybody should know, he is a person of remarkable gentleness and serenity, combined with a keen intellectual curiosity in engaging alternative viewpoints.

As for personal experiences, in 1988 I invited him to deliver our annual Erasmus Lecture here in New York, which was followed by a conference of several days with Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theologians.

The public lecture, held in midtown Manhattan, was rudely disrupted by gay activists who waved their pink triangles while screaming pleasantries such as "Sieg Heil!" "Nazi Ratzy!" and "Inquisitor Go Home!" I finally had to call the police to clear the protesters and restore order.

Throughout, the cardinal was the very picture of tranquility. When he got a chance to speak he prefaced his lecture, which was on the subject of biblical interpretation, with a moving reflection on the 1968 student rebellion in Europe that helped him to understand more deeply the indispensability of civility in human relations.

On this and other occasions, it was obvious to me that his tranquility is rooted in a tried and tested faith. The next day the tabloid headlines blazoned, "Gays Protest Vatican Biggy." He chuckled at his new title of Vatican Biggy.

Q: Benedict XVI has emphasized ecumenism as a priority. Does that surprise you at all?

Father Neuhaus: No, not at all. This has been among his constant concerns and interests, and he has written extensively on the subject of ecumenism. As a German he has had extensive experience with the traditions coming out of the 16th-century divisions, especially Lutheranism and Reformed, or Calvinist, Christianity.

He has a sympathetic appreciation of what Martin Luther got right, and an incisive but non-polemical analysis of what he got wrong, and why. As head of CDF, he was responsible for the doctrinal aspects of all the ecumenical dialogues in which the Church is engaged, and will continue to exercise that responsibility.

Although he would of course admit nothing, I see clear evidence of his hand in key passages of the 1995 encyclical on Christian unity, "Ut Unum Sint." In this pontificate we will, I expect, see a very clear line of authority as the Pope, the chief doctrinal officer of the Church, employs CDF to coordinate other offices dealing with matters of doctrine. CDF was, for instance, intensely involved in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic declaration on justification.

Q: What does the emphasis on ecumenism say at a time when there are so many concerns about pro-life issues?

Father Neuhaus: There is a strong connection. The Baptist theologian Timothy George speaks about "the ecumenism of the trenches," referring to the ways in which Catholics and evangelical Protestants in this country have come to know and trust one another in the pro-life cause.

This was also critically important to the continuing project called Evangelicals and Catholics Together, ECT, which Charles Colson and I launched in 1994. I have over the years been in contact with Cardinal Ratzinger on developments in ECT, and he has been entirely supportive. To be sure, as a European he has had relatively little firsthand experience with American evangelicalism, which is very different from what "evangelical" means in Germany.

But he is very much aware of the explosive growth of evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity in the Southern Hemisphere, and that is undoubtedly comprehended in his ecumenical vision. The Church's oft-repeated understanding is that the commitment to ecumenism is "irrevocable," and the goal of ecumenism is the establishment of "full communion."

On the latter point, Pope Benedict's expectations are markedly modest. In his writings he has insisted that the only unity we can seek, the only unity pleasing to God, is unity in the fullness of truth. He has said that our 16th-century Catholic and Protestant forebears who were at one another's throats were, in an important way, closer to one another than is sometimes the case with contemporary theological dialogues because they both understood that what was at stake was the truth that God intends for all his people.

He has also emphasized that the way toward unity is not a matter of our programs and schedules but of faithful waiting upon a new initiative of the Holy Spirit which we can neither control nor anticipate. This does not mean that there is less urgency in his ecumenical devotion than was the case with, to cite the obvious instance, John Paul the Great. The ecumenical commitment is irrevocable and every possible step is to be carefully nurtured, including increased cooperation with other Christians in contending for the culture of life against the culture of death.

Q: Coming from Germany, does he bring a special viewpoint about ecumenism?

Father Neuhaus: While I have already addressed that in part, it is noteworthy that some of the first statements of Pope Benedict have strongly affirmed the quest for reconciliation with Orthodoxy.

For John Paul, being a Pole, the Orthodox reality was more pressingly immediate, but I have no doubt that Benedict shares his yearning for the time when the Church will once again "breathe with both lungs, East and West."

I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion, and I do not think Pope Benedict would disagree with that. Sometimes being close neighbors makes things more difficult. In that sense, it is possible that the Orthodox will be less uneasy in dealing with a German rather than with a Pole. Admittedly, that is a "non-theological factor," but God also uses non-theological factors in achieving his purposes.

Q: What has struck you the most about the new Holy Father so far?

Father Neuhaus: There are several things, but perhaps I should mention first his modesty. He has said in several different ways that he does not want to impose his person or his personal views, but to be a faithful servant of the received tradition.

We now have another pope who is a high-powered intellectual. Under John Paul some worried that his distinctive theological-philosophical perspective was making too strong an imprint on magisterial teaching.

Benedict seems to be anticipating the same concern in his case. After all, he has a "paper trail" a mile wide and miles long, having registered his views on so many questions. He seems to be saying that he is well aware that the responsibilities of Joseph Ratzinger the theologian and Joseph Ratzinger the prefect of CDF are significantly different from his responsibilities as Pope Benedict, and that is surely right.

Another subtle signal since his election, which I expect will become more explicit, is that he wants it understood that the Pope is "the servant of the servants of God," and especially of his fellow bishops.

His earlier strictures regarding national conferences of bishops have, I believe, been seriously misunderstood. He is, in fact, a great champion of episcopal collegiality and doesn't want national conferences or other institutions getting in the way of bishops being bishops, which means, above all, being authentic teachers of the faith in their local churches.

Q: How did non-Catholic Christians generally view Cardinal Ratzinger?

Father Neuhaus: The indications are that he is being very well received by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. He does not have, and I expect is not likely to develop, what is called the "star quality" surrounding John Paul. That has a lot to do with different personalities. And it has to do with very different life stories.

John Paul's biography could hardly have been more dramatic: life under Nazism and Communism, the early loss of his mother and brother, the successful challenging of the Soviets' "evil empire," and on and on. His life made great material for producers of admiring comic books.

I suppose there will be comic books about Benedict, but they will be less exciting. Compared with John Paul, his has been a life of remarkable step-by-step continuity.

Despite the Hitler years, his was a happy Bavarian childhood, an early discernment and fulfillment of a priestly vocation, a very successful career as theologian, followed by elevation to cardinal archbishop and then on to Rome. And now he is Pope. It is a life within the Church for the Church.

In the quiet warmth of his personality, the excitement is in the vibrancy of his faith and the profundity of his thought. I mentioned at the outset his gentleness of manner and serenity of soul. Those are not bad qualities to have at the center in a time when gentleness and serenity are in short supply.

I need only add that it would be a serious mistake to think gentleness and serenity mean weakness or lack of firm resolve.


TOPICS: Activism; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Orthodox Christian; Religion & Culture; Worship
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 06/06/2005 4:39:22 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...

"Warm and fuzzy, yet sharp as a razor" ... would be my assessment.


2 posted on 06/06/2005 4:41:16 PM PDT by NYer ("Love without truth is blind; Truth without love is empty." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Thank you for posting this.


3 posted on 06/06/2005 4:43:51 PM PDT by trisham ("Live Free or Die," General John Stark, July 31, 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I just got my Zenit news and clicked onto here before reading it.

The Church and the World are blessed to have a man of such stature as Pope Benedict XVI.

He is awesome and I can think of no better person to follow JPII than he.


4 posted on 06/06/2005 5:10:48 PM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (http://auntiecoosa.blogspot.com and http://inthecompany.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I chuckled when I saw the part about the "Vatican Biggy."
Little did they know exactly how true that would prove to be.

Interesting the emphasis we're seeing of late on the Orthodox churches.


5 posted on 06/06/2005 6:34:49 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Rumors of the demise of the conservative Democrat have been greatly exaggerated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I just love Father Neuhaus. He's always very insightful and witty and -- especially in this interview -- right on about the Holy Father.


6 posted on 06/06/2005 6:37:46 PM PDT by padfoot_lover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Agrarian
I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion,

With emphasis on the word is.

7 posted on 06/06/2005 6:53:39 PM PDT by NYer ("Love without truth is blind; Truth without love is empty." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Kolokotronis; Agrarian

I'm interested in your esteemed opinions on this subject, so let me ask the question: what at this point is preventing full communion between the Catholic church and the Orthodox churches?


8 posted on 06/06/2005 7:17:59 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Rumors of the demise of the conservative Democrat have been greatly exaggerated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Agrarian; Tantumergo; gbcdoj; Vicomte13; Hermann the Cherusker; GipperGal
"I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion"

Full communion means we believe the same things completely. From various ongoing discussions on other threads, I am convinced that at least some Latin Catholics here on FR sincerely believe we believe the same things and that others here insist we believe the same things by asserting that we Orthodox don't understand the Eastern Fathers and our own hierarchs of the past and if we did, we'd rush into Rome's embrace, while still others are convinced that we're just the first Protestants and aren't even part of The Church. I fully reject the latter two.

For myself, I don't think we do believe the same things on some very fundamental matters, or at least at the level of educated and catechised lay people we don't. What the theologians may say could be different. Even with those differences, though, I do believe that we are far closer on matters which at least I thought separated us since these discussions. I have noticed that when Latin theology is presented in a more patristic fashion (and by that I do not at all mean selective quoting of the Fathers; in fact in all honesty that's simply wasting time. We can do that too, and better than the Latins when it comes to the Eastern Fathers. We also don't ascribe any dogmatic absolutism to the writings of any individual Father anyway, though many give us good examples of the consensus patrum). When Latins speak to us in "our language", instead of from the "Magisterium" of Rome, or the non-ecumenical councils or from a scholastic stand point, Latin theology becomes much clearer and understandable to us.

Even there, though, it seems as if when the Latins speak our language, there's still a strong Latin accent. It gets in the way even if it isn't surprising.

Here's the hope I, as an Orthodox Christian, have; that this marvelous new pope, this patristics scholar who sits on the seat of +Peter, knows exactly how to speak with us and that he will teach you how to do the same. Because he is your central authority and within the tradition of the Latin Church, he can do that. We don't have such a person, nor do we have a resource in Orthodoxy like the Latin Church has in its Eastern Rite Churches which are in communion with it. The burden falls on Rome, but that has happened in our shared past, often with happy results.
9 posted on 06/06/2005 7:27:34 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I just read this wonderful interview(taken from C-span's extensive interview with Father yesterday)before I came over here. Thanks for posting it.


10 posted on 06/06/2005 8:51:13 PM PDT by Lady In Blue (Pope Benedict XVI: THE CAFETERIA IS NOW CLOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
We also don't ascribe any dogmatic absolutism to the writings of any individual Father anyway, though many give us good examples of the consensus patrum).

We only differ on this in so far as the teachings of western synodal Councils (such as those of Carthage or Orange or Rome) were directly affirmed by the Pope for the whole Church, or where the Pope himself wrote to clarify or lay down the line on a matter, such as St. Damasus, Leo and Agatho's Tomes to the 2nd, 4th, and 6th ecumenical councils, or where a specific Father was essentially endorsed by Rome in a conflict, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria.

We don't have such a person

From my own reading of history, I would tend to listen to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who seems most often to be on the side of Orthodoxy, and who, the most recent incumbent aside, seems to have enormous moral prestige throughout your communion. The list is certainly illustrious enough with men such as Sophronius and Dositheos. I can't see him reconciling with Rome if the rest of Orthodoxy was not, nor the rest of Orthodoxy doing so without him.

nor do we have a resource in Orthodoxy like the Latin Church has in its Eastern Rite Churches which are in communion with it.

What about the Antiochean Orthodox groups of former Protestants?

11 posted on 06/06/2005 8:55:34 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat; Kolokotronis

Kolokotronis gave a very nice summary in his #9. There might be bits and pieces that I would frame slightly differently (hey, what kind of Orthodox Christian would I be if *that* weren't true?), but I basically agree with every point.

Depending on whom we are talking to on FR, we seem to encounter people whose articulation of Catholic belief is very close to ours, or as far away as ever. This extreme variability in a church with a supposedly monolithic Magisterium, authoritative Catechisms, etc... frankly make some Orthodox nervous, since it is easy to make the assumption that we are being told whatever it is we want to hear on one hand, and are being told what is really believed on the other. This may not be fair, but Orthodoxy has many centuries of history of "simultaneous warfare and dialogue" with Rome that is hard to overcome in the "collective consciousness."

At this point, the real question is what the reforms of Vatican II really mean. I lay claim to being the founder of the Orthodox branch of the Ratzinger fan club here on FR -- Kolokotronis is the Vice President, I think... :-)

This doesn't mean that I think he's an Orthodox Christian in Roman clothing or anything, but it does mean that I connect with his writings in a way that I haven't with most other Catholic writings I've encountered. He speaks our language to an extent we haven't encountered in a Pope since the Schism (I don't think that's an exaggeration.)

A fundamental requirement for Orthodoxy to consider restoring communion with the Roman Catholic church is for the latter to decide, in practice and from top to bottom, what it believes. As I have pointed out on other threads, I can say with certainty that if Catholics where I live were to choose the church that is closest to them in belief and practice -- it certainly wouldn't be the Orthodox.

I think that B16 has what it takes to combine reform with a return to tradition (and is there really ever a difference?) in a way that could allow Catholicism to develop into an understanding of the faith that we recognize as being the same as ours.


12 posted on 06/06/2005 10:47:31 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; RKBA Democrat; GipperGal; Agrarian
Here's the hope I, as an Orthodox Christian, have; that this marvelous new pope, this patristics scholar who sits on the seat of +Peter, knows exactly how to speak with us and that he will teach you how to do the same.

And vice versa :-)

The Latins are beginning to discover the East. It began with John XXIII and VCII

ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM

and has moved forward through each of the succeeding popes. Actions speak louder than words. With God's blessing, we need to work at this as well.

13 posted on 06/07/2005 3:30:12 AM PDT by NYer ("Love without truth is blind; Truth without love is empty." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker; RKBA Democrat; NYer; Agrarian; Tantumergo; gbcdoj; Vicomte13; GipperGal

"We only differ on this in so far as the teachings of western synodal Councils (such as those of Carthage or Orange or Rome) were directly affirmed by the Pope for the whole Church, or where the Pope himself wrote to clarify or lay down the line on a matter, such as St. Damasus, Leo and Agatho's Tomes to the 2nd, 4th, and 6th ecumenical councils, or where a specific Father was essentially endorsed by Rome in a conflict, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria."

Ah, well, there's one rub. I am not saying, by the way, that the Popes were wrong in these instances.

"From my own reading of history, I would tend to listen to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who seems most often to be on the side of Orthodoxy, and who, the most recent incumbent aside, seems to have enormous moral prestige throughout your communion."

Trust me on this one, HC, the last crowd Orthodoxy is going to listen to is the group in Jerusalem, in great measure because of its sorry modern history, but equally so because it has been a bot suspect for a very long time given its nature as a sort of wholly owned subsidiary of Greece to the consternation of the actual Faithful on the ground. The other four patriarchates will play the big roles, especially Constantinople and Moscow, though Antioch has certainly "showed the way" in ecumenical matters for the past 25 years or so in a quiet way.

"What about the Antiochean Orthodox groups of former Protestants?"

Good question. If anything they will be at best a footnote, at worst a hinderance to any reunion because of what appears to be at a minimum a history of old fashioned Protestant anti-Catholicism. On the one hand they can be more Orthodox than the EP both theologically and socially (some of them, as someone on these threads once said, seem to want to pretend they are Balkan or East European peasants of the 19th century, complete with ethnic blood hatreds!) and on the other thoroughly Protestant in their phronema, Protestants swinging the theemeeato (the censor) as one priest once said. To be fair, most converts have brought a lot to the Church, but in this area the Antiochian group you refer to will have little influence.


14 posted on 06/07/2005 4:20:25 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer; RKBA Democrat; GipperGal; Agrarian; Tantumergo; gbcdoj; Vicomte13; Hermann the Cherusker

" And vice versa :-)"

Yes and we will teach him too! :) Actually, your comment is a fair one. You understand that there is a great and deep reservoir of distrust among the Orthodox towards Rome. That's just a fact. I do think that more talk in a patristic fashion about the Faith and the role of the pope in the appropriate exercise of the Petrine Office will begin to dry up that pool of suspicion and as that happens, what the Latins say may become more clear to us. As Agrarian points out, the way that conversation has been going on in the past has gotten us nowhere. Once we speak the same language, we may, we may, find we believe almost totally the same things. Personnally, I don't think we do, but perhaps the dividing issues are such that they can be resolved by an Ecumenical Council.


15 posted on 06/07/2005 4:27:27 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Agrarian

""I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion"

Full communion means we believe the same things completely."

Good grief, it can get quite embarrassing when a Catholic priest makes such woefully deficient statements. It really does misrepresent the reality because there are serious and substantial theological differences, and I almost feel like I need to apologize for him!

Kolo, you are quite right when you say that full communion is dependent upon agreement in faith. I suppose to someone like Fr. Neuhaus who has been primarily involved in discussions with evangelicals where the differences are so much more obvious (to us), then by comparison Catholicism and Orthodoxy are much closer.

To the casual observer, we are very close, but that is only on a superficial level. As far as we can speak the same theological language, Latins are always going to speak with a Latin accent and Greeks are always going to speak with a Greek accent. It would be unrealistic, and probably unworthy, for either of us to expect that to change.

I think the best we can hope for at the human level is for both sides to start getting beyond the post-schism baggage that has been acquired in phronema as well as theology so that the important issues may be discussed in a spirit of friendship and without rancour.

I suspect that some of these issues may simply be different ways of looking at the same thing - a case of complementary approaches rather than opposing approaches. But, I also agree with you that some issues may well not be resolvable in this life. I suppose the task of theologians on both sides is to come to a decision about what is complementary and what is insurmountable, but its probably beyond our scope on this forum to advance that cause.

Agrarian makes this point:

"Depending on whom we are talking to on FR, we seem to encounter people whose articulation of Catholic belief is very close to ours, or as far away as ever. This extreme variability in a church with a supposedly monolithic Magisterium, authoritative Catechisms, etc... frankly make some Orthodox nervous.."

..which made me smile somewhat! From the outside, Rome can often appear like a monolith, but again this is a rather superficial impression. We have huge problems with poor catechesis of the faithful (clergy included!) regarding the content of the faith and this is one cause of the "extreme variability".

Another cause is that many issues have never been settled, defined, finally wrapped up or whatever you want to call it! There are legitimate areas of debate in Catholic theology and you will come across heavily contrasted views which are seemingly incompatible. Partly this is due to the Latin phronema of "If it moves, codify it - and if you can't codify it, systematise it!".

A case in point is the recent discussion about purgatorial fire and whether it is material or spiritual/ temporary or eternal. While people may have their strong views, and different schools of theology will take different positions, you will probably find that there has never been anything definitive said about it!

However, I do think that Benedict XVI has a much more patristic view of his role than some of his predecessors, and this can only help in making communication easier between east and west. I just hope he gets long enough to make a difference - Please, God!


16 posted on 06/07/2005 5:19:36 AM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker; Kolokotronis
What about the Antiochean Orthodox groups of former Protestants?

I may be wrong, but I think Hermann is referring to the fact that the Antiochian has a tiny "Western Rite" segment, in which there are (as I understand) two main Western liturgies in use. Most are former Anglicans.

The question thus would be whether those in that rite would be able to play a role within Orthodoxy similar to the potentially positive role of Eastern Catholics in dialogue with the Orthodox.

I say potentially, since at this point, the existence of at least the largest Eastern Catholic "Uniate" groups have hindering factors that at least cancel out the helping factors. *For now.*

The positive role is that to the extent that Eastern Catholics have retained or are recovering an Orthodox phronema, this gives an internal patristic witness within Catholicism that cannot be written off, even by anti-Orthodox partisans.

So, again, would the "Western Rite Vicariate" be able to play a similar role in Orthodoxy? I would say no, for many reasons that I don't have time to go into. Fundamentally, I think that the idea of the Western Rite Vicariate is flawed, and many share that view, including, seemingly, many of its own people, who often transition on into mainstream Eastern Rite Orthodoxy. The patristic, theological, spiritual, and liturgical tradition of the pre-Schism West needs to be recovered in order to Orthodoxy to draw closer to Catholicism, but I personally think that this can only be done by Rome itself.

17 posted on 06/07/2005 5:50:46 AM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson