QUESTION : P. John

Pope Benedict XVI was a very enlightened theologian who was the expert with the Cardinal J. Frings and was a very active and progressive theologian of the Vatican II council. Can you tell us what his contribution was?

Answer: Jacob Parappally MSFS

Pope Benedict XVI was known as a theologian both by vocation and by profession. Unlike his predecessor Pope John Paul II who had a doctorate in philosophy, Pope Benedict XVI did both his doctorate and habilitation or a second doctorate in theology and taught theology more than two decades. After his licentiate in theology in 1957 he taught theology at the Theological College of Freising near Munich and then at Bonn (1959 – 1969) and also taught at the Universities of Muenster (1963 -1966) and Tuebingen (1966 -1969) and from 1972-1977 at the University of Regensburg. He was a peritus (or expert) who accompanied Cardinal J. Frings, then archbishop of Cologne, to the Second Vatican Council as his consultant on theological matters and even wrote some of his speeches.

Some theologians consider that there are two phases in his theological contributions: a liberal phase and traditional phase. Others see continuity in his theological thinking and articulations spanning almost fifty years. According to me, Pope Benedict XVI’s theological thinking and contributions have been influenced by the three offices he held. Therefore, one may find three phases in his theological thinking. One can detect certain differences in Ratzinger’s theological reflections as a professor of theology, as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and finally as Pope Benedict XVI.

If in the first phase of his life as a theologian he was progressive in the sense that he was influenced by the New Theological movement (La Nouvelle Theologie). Originated in the Jesuit School of Studies in Lyons, France with Henry de Lubac and others, the theologians of this movement interpreted Thomas Aquinas from the perspective of Augustine. In a way it was a reformation of neo-scholastic thinking that would pave way for a synthetic understanding of Scripture, tradition, liturgical renewal, spirituality, Christian charity and so on. Going beyond theologians of the New Theology Ratzinger was more interested in re-capturing the Augustinian theological perspectives and spirituality. Probably, the influence of Augustine along with other theologians of the New Theology movement was both the strength and weakness of his theological contribution.

In his self-introduction at the meeting as a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Ratzinger said, “My doctoral dissertation was about the notion of the people of God in Saint Augustine; in this study, I was able to see how Augustine was in dialogue with different forms of Platonism, the Platonism of Plotinus on the one hand and of Porphyry on the other….. At the same time, Augustine was in dialogue with Roman ideology,…and so it was very fascinating for me to see how in these different dialogues and cultures he defines the essence of the Christian religion”. Further, he says, “My postdoctoral work was about St. Bonaventure, a Franciscan theologian of the thirteenth century. I discovered an aspect of Bonaventure’s theology not found in the previous literature, namely, his relation with the new idea of history conceived by Joachim of Fiore in the twelfth century. Joachim saw history as progression from the period of the Father (a difficult time for human beings under the law), to a second period of history, that of the Son (with more freedom, more openness, more brotherhood), to a third period of history, the definitive period of history, the time of the Holy of Spirit. According to Joachim, this was to be a time of universal reconciliation, reconciliation between east and west, between Christians and Jews, a time without the law (in the Pauline sense), a time of real brotherhood in the world”.

Perhaps, in Pope Benedict’s life too one may see this three phases of history as Abbot Joachim of Fiore outlined. The first phase was the time of his youth during the Nazi time in which he was compelled to join the Nazi youth group at the age of 14 and then conscripted into the army and later imprisoned at the end of the World War II. It was a time to be under harsh laws. Then in the second phase was that of a priest and a professor of theology with freedom to think and be open to new theological movement and finally in the third phase as a pope with commitment to dialogue and reconciliation on his own terms.

Influences on Ratzinger as a Theologian

Every theologian is influenced by those masters who have gone before him/her and who have made a lasting impact on his/her theological vision and thinking. Besides the theology of the Fathers of the Church, the theological thinking and the passionate search for truth concerning the matters of revelation found in Augustine, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas had a lasting influence on the theological vision of Ratzinger. The same passion for truth seen in the writings Henri Newman and Romano Guardini influenced his theological reflections. So too was the influence of his own contemporaries like Henri de Lubac and Hans von UrsBalthasar. It was his collaboration with Balthasar that reinforced his conviction about a “kneeling theology” that makes theological reflections a spiritual experience.

“The historians of theology may recognize his contribution to theology as the re-capturing of the spiritual theological insights of the Fathers of the Church and his integration of spiritual and theological insights about the mystery of Christ.”

Perhaps, the negative anthropology of Augustine that humans are vitiated, corrupted, lost and dead through original sin and therefore the cultures and religions which are created by such corrupted humans cannot be the channels of God’s revelation might have influenced Ratzinger’s theological understanding of revelation, nature and grace, dialogue with other religions and so on. He could not accept Rahner’s understanding of the possibility of God’s revelation in different ways in other religions and also through the evolution of human consciousness and his idea of “anonymous Christians”. For Ratzinger, God’s revelation is only through Scripture, Tradition and through the inspiration of the legitimate authorities in the Church articulated in their magisterial teachings.

Ratzinger’s theological understanding of many aspects of Christian doctrines is influenced by Augustine especially at the beginning of his intellectual exploration. In 1969 he wrote, “Augustine has kept me company for more than twenty years. I developed my theology in a dialogue with Augustine, though naturally I have tried to conduct this dialogue as a man of today.” Even though, Bonaventure influenced his thinking about history and salvation history, the unity of creation and redemption, it was the influence of Augustine that inspired his understanding of Christ, Church, grace, eschatology and so on in dialogue with other contemporary theologians

Ratzinger as a Professional Theologian

Ratzinger was a professor of theology in various universities in Germany at a time when secularization and anti-Church movements were becoming wide-spread in Germany and all over Europe. It was also a time when the Church was going through various crises immediately after the Vatican II. Many priests and lay people were leaving the Church because of their opposition to the reform and renewal brought about by the Second Vatican Council. Some could not accept the reform of liturgy, recognition of non-Catholic Churches and other religions as having “rays of truth”, “watering down” of the exclusive claims of salvation only through Jesus Christ by being a member of the Church and so on. Ratzinger was convinced of the fact that the Church must regain its role in the world as its conscience by holding firmly on its foundation the Scripture and Tradition.

Though he was formed in those years when historical-critical method was used in interpreting the Scriptures he went beyond this method and argued for the need for a hermeneutic context that has its roots in the faith of the Church. The Word of God needs to be understood and interpreted from the context of the faith of the Church. On account of this, he followed the tradition of the Fathers in interpreting the Scripture passages. This is very evident in his three “Jesus-books”. Ratzinger approached the question, “But who do you say that I am?’. In developing an answer to this question in his Jesus-books Ratzinger emphasizes the fact that Christian faith is about the reality of a person. It is about God becoming human in history. Therefore, history is also salvation history and not just a succession of events. It is history in which God is involved. As Jesus Christ revealed God in history so too the Church must reveal Jesus Christ concretely in history. Therefore both Scripture and Tradition are essential to interpret the meaning of Jesus Christ. Ratzinger’s Christology is a spiritual Christology. It is a meditation on the person and mission of Christ based on the Scripture, Fathers of the Church, Saints as well as on the present day Christological reflections of a few theologians.

Perhaps, Ratzinger’s contribution to Christology is his new thinking about the resurrection of Christ as a ‘a leap in the evolution’ of materiality. In explaining the creedal statement about Jesus’s decent to the dead (hell) in his book, Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger says, “Through [Jesus’s] risen bodylines, matter has been elevated to a final, transformed state that goes far beyond the bodylines we presently experienced in this world.” The connection between cross and resurrection is a linear movement forming the entire Christ-event reveals also the continuity of history with trans-history and the connection between empirical with trans-empirical.

Ratzinger’s theological vision of relationship between culture and Christianity is like that of nature and grace. Grace challenges and critiques nature though it perfects nature because the cross of Christ was also a consequence of a particular culture. So grace needs to critique culture. According to F. Fiorenza, one of Ratzinger’s students, evaluating his theological positions says that in Ratzinger’s view, “Christian faith is not something that exists simply as a set of propositional doctrines; nor does it exist as sheer abstract religion. Instead, religion and culture are concretely intertwined and cannot be separated. Therefore, one cannot simply think of Christianity independent of culture… Christianity exists as a social and cultural community called the people of God. Such a community is its own distinctive culture whose beliefs and values stand in tension with other cultures”.

While accepting in principle the relationship of Christian faith with culture as a valid and important theological position, one can raise a question about the distinctive identity of this Christian culture. Unfortunately, it looks as if Christian culture were identified with European culture. It seems that he was basking on the past glory of Christian faith expressed in the European culture that spread to other continents especially to Asia and Africa through colonization. Due to the spread of Christian faith with European culture gave an impression to the people who embraced Christ and Christian faith that they had to adopt European culture in order to be a true Christian. Therefore, for the people of these continents who have not accepted Christian faith consider Christianity as a foreign body in its own cultural life. Later, when Ratzinger became the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) his approach to contextual theologies of other continents and the emergence of Liberation theologies in South America, Asia and other places was influenced by his predilection for European-culture and nostalgia for the euro-centric Christian tradition which he wanted to revive even though Europe was becoming increasingly de-Christianised.

Cardinal Ratzinger as the Prefect of CDF

Pope John Paul II appointed Cardinal Ratzinger in 1981, then Archbishop of Munich-Freising, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) which he held till he was elected Pope in 2005. It was a recognition of his love for the Church and its tradition, theological erudition and pastoral experience. There were negative comments about his elevation as the head of the CDF. Some called him, “Cardinal Panzer” (tank) or “Cardinal bulldozer” and even as “theological neo-con” or neo-conservative. Some considered him a progressive theologian who became conservative or traditionalist. He did not bother about what he was called by his critics but was firm in his conviction that he was given the duty by the Church to defend and re-affirm the official Catholic doctrine. His theological positions concerning Catholic doctrines as articulated in his various books and articles as Christo-centric and ecclesio-centric following from his understanding of Scripture, tradition, patristic and contemporary theological reflections of those who share their vision influenced his judgement about issues like inculturation, liberation theology, birth-control, homosexuality, ordination of women etc. As he wanted to be certain that his judgements on these matters to be right he relied on the traditional doctrine without any regard to the “living tradition” of the Church or “the evolution of religious consciousness” which did not seem to have any place in his theological thinking.

As the head of the CDF he took disciplinary measures against liberation theologians in Latin America and condemned liberation theology in 1984 and 1986. In 1998, the books of Anthony D’Mello were banned saying that some of his views on God are “are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause harm.” Some theologians, including some Indian theologians’ were called to Rome to appear before the CDF to explain if it was found that in their writing they were open to new ways of theological reflections on any Catholic doctrine in dialogue with their cultural, religious and philosophical contexts and are not in line with official Catholic position. They were asked to withdraw their positions and to make a profession of faith. The greatest danger to the Catholic faith, according to Cardinal Ratzinger as the head of the CDF, was the “tyranny of relativism” which he mentioned in his last talk as the head of the CDF to the cardinals before the conclave which elected him.

What made Cardinal Ratziner as the prefect of the CDF most unpopular was the two documents published by the CDF, namely, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation (1984) and Dominus Jesus (2000). Liberation theology was condemned for using Marxist analysis for the socio-economic situation of the oppressed people especially in the Latin American countries. The document Dominus Jesus, effectively thwarted the movements of ecumenism and inculturation that took impetus from the Second Vatican Council.

Some consider his ecumenical achievement as the head of the CDF was the joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification with the Lutheran Federation in 1999. Following the wish of Pope John Paul II he worked for the bringing out the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Theological Contribution of Pope Benedict XVI

In his theological reflections, whether as an academic theologian, the prefect of the CDF or as Pope Benedict, he had consistent theological position. He had a strong certainty about the truth of Catholic faith traditionally communicated through the Church and its self-sufficiency. Therefore, for him liberation theology was more a political ideology and not an expression of Christian faith. Inter-religious dialogue may be pursued but on Catholic terms. He was convinced that faith must be reasonable therefore any dialogue with other religions need to be based on reason. His well-known Regensburg Lecture at the University of Regensburg in 2006 affirmed this when he spoke of Islam. Quoting one of the last Christian emperors before the fall of Constantinople Manuel II who said, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”, he emphasized that dialogue must be based on reason and truth. When there was serious protest against in the Muslim countries against him, he clarified that it was not his personal view about Islam but he stands on the principle that faith must be reasonable.

The theology of Pope Benedict XVI as a pope is well expressed the three encyclicals he brought out during his pontificate. The first one is Deus Caritas est or God is Love. In this encyclical he explains both the theological understanding of God’s Love and the practical response to it. In the speculative theological part he says that he focuses on “the intrinsic link between that Love and the reality of human love”. To consider about the infinite love of God for humans is important in our context of life because “the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence.” But for us, we have experienced the love of God in and through the person of Jesus Christ. When we speak of God’s love as John says in 3:16, it is not about an ethical choice but a transforming encounter with this person of Jesus Christ. Jesus united the precept of love in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:8) and his new commandment of Love (Mark 12:29-31) which is not a “command’ but a response to the love of God one experiences and which draws one to God.

In the present day situation of the world in which human body and sex are treated as commodities and exploited, Benedict XVI challenges the degradation of human dignity and presents a positive view of body, sex and eros. The pope acknowledges that in the past the “Church, with all her commandments and prohibitions” was seen as having been “opposed to the body”. Love between man and woman are to be seen and experienced as gift of God and he corrects the view that sex is purely for procreation. The self-less love or agape purifies all forms of human love.

In his second encyclical SpeSalvi (2007) or Hope and Salvation Benedict XVI explains what is hope that is based on faith in a God who as love manifested in Jesus Christ. He challenges two wrong notions about hope. The first one is too much focussed on future eternal salvation and the second is the hope of those who concentrate on science, rationality, freedom and justice for all without God. The real hope is a “performative” hope that transforms us like that of those Christians of the early Church who did not give up their hope in the midst of persecutions and suffering and like that of St Bakhita, an African slave girl, who did not lose her hope in the midst of her suffering and became a Christian and a nun to dedicate her life for Christ.

Jesus was not a political liberator and he did not preach the message of social revolution but brought hope to the suffering world by his suffering and death on the Cross so that one could encounter the living God through him. Thus he transformed the world from within. Every upright human conduct is hope in action. Though we are pilgrims on earth and we do not have a permanent home here on earth, a Christian lives in the present which grows into future. The performative hope gives a realistic understanding of suffering from which one cannot run away. One cannot eliminate it either. But in this suffering one can still reach out to help others and grow in Christian maturity. In suffering one can still hold on to one’s hope in union with Christ who suffered because of his infinite love.

In his third encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” or Love in Truth (2009), Benedict XVI argues for the need of a “world authority” to govern the world economy and for more regulations to manage national economies to pull the world out of economic crisis. All nations, whether rich or poor, are affected by the unbridled capitalism and unregulated market economy. The present globalization with emphasis on free flow of capital letting market forces to control everything without any regulations is “thoroughly destructive”. It is a grave deviation, failure and abuse of system. Pope argued that every economic decision has moral consequences and therefore, it demands for a re-distribution of wealth directed by governments so that the most affected by the present economic system can be helped.

Pope Benedict’s three encyclicals deal with the three important aspects of human life, namely, spiritual, social and economic. If in the second encyclical he was critical of Marxism in the third he was critical of capitalism. As the head of the CDF he was suspicious of any new theological thinking and dialogue with other religions, as the Pope, he spoke of the need for dialogue and seemed to have tolerated new theological reflections. In liturgical matters he was more traditionalist than Pope John Paul II who did not object to the integration of African and Indian dances and other cultural elements into the liturgical celebration. Though Pope Benedict XVI would have loved to celebrate mass in Latin with traditional ornate and heavy vestments he would not insist on it. For him, the unity of the Church, the Body of Christ was more important than the uniformity of expressions. Though some critics of Pope Benedict XVI acclaim him only for his bold decision to resign from his office as the Pope of Catholic Church, the historians of theology may recognize his contribution to theology as the re-capturing of the spiritual theological insights of the Fathers of the Church and his integration of spiritual and theological insights about the mystery of Christ.