Thursday, May 28, 2020
In the encyclical Ut Unim Sint, given twenty five years ago, the late pope wrote about “the necessary purification of past memories,” a consistent and urgent theme of his pontificate.
Deville uses both Taft and John Paul II for a discussion of the healing of memories. That certainly is a necessary part of reconciliation.
Nevertheless, there are more recent and more hopeful signs. These have increased with Constantinople’s granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church last year. With Russia thereby losing control over much of Ukrainian Orthodoxy in 2019, the latter remains free to deepen the healing in its already amicable and often co-operative relationship with Ukrainian Catholics.
Whether what is going on in Ukraine is a helpful development or not remains to be seen. The jockeying between Moscow and Constantinople needs to end (and recognition of Roman primacy is not the quick solution that Latin polemicists would make it to be); this may require further humbling of both historic sees by God. There needs to be ecclesial reform happening in many churches, but not the changes that liberal progressives want.
Well, folks, I just finished @AP_Davison’s truly excellent book on participation. It is comprehensive and clear and readable. I learned a great deal from it and so I have no doubt that it will be *the* major resource on the subject for the foreseeable future. pic.twitter.com/vIShgk5FHn— Matthew Rothaus Moser (@M_Rothaus_Moser) May 28, 2020
"I was also unaware that Ratzinger’s role in the Second Vatican Council isn't marginal but enormously significant. He himself always played it down, but alongside Cardinal [Josef] Frings, he was basically the definitive Vatican spin doctor" — Peter Seewald https://t.co/aOyYn1FFsB— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) May 28, 2020
You mention that relations between Benedict and Pope Francis are good, but there are some Catholics who wish that Benedict had not resigned, who contend that he would never agree with some of the decisions of this pontificate. What do you say to this view?
The former and the current pope have different temperaments, different charismas, and they each have their own way of exercising the office. We see from the popes of previous centuries that a more intellectual pontiff is usually followed by a more emotional one. That was never a disadvantage. Undoubtedly, there can be different views between Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. But that does not matter. The pope is the pope.
Ratzinger promised obedience to his successor before he even knew who would follow in his footsteps, and he has been scrupulously careful all these years to first of all ensure that no accusation of interference could arise. Many of the later questions I asked him, for example, he refused to answer. One answer, he said, would “inevitably constitute interference in the work of the present Pope. Anything that goes in that direction I must, and wish to, avoid.” Moreover, in my book he literally says: “The personal friendship with Pope Francis has not only remained, but has grown.”
Understandably, besides his loyalty and obedience, Ratzinger would never openly rebuke or question Bergoglio because of the confusion and scandal that would result.
The problem, though, is not this actually happening, but the ultramontanist monarchical conceptions of the papacy that would make such an act scandalous.