Since Benedict XVI resigned from the papacy and began his retirement in seclusion, he has said nothing publicly.
There’s a very good reason for that, and that’s why the most recent thing he’s written is so amazing.
He’s just publicly weighed in on Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to give Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.
Here’s the story . . .
1) Why is Benedict XVI so silent these days?
To give his successor a free hand. If a pope emeritus continued to speak out and play a substantial role as a public figure, it could cause all kinds of problems for his successor.
If the two were perceived as being in opposition to each other, it could be extremely traumatic for the Church. Hypothetically, it could even create a schism.
That’s why, when St. Celestine V resigned, his successor kept him imprisoned in a castle until he died.
By choosing to live in a monastery at the Vatican and staying out of the public eye, Benedict is deliberately staying out of Francis’s way.
He’s also setting a precedent for future popes emeritus.
2) What has Benedict said since retirement?
Very little. We know that he has been writing letters. In one letter, he took an atheist mathematician to the woodshed, and the mathematician later published the letter.
He also wrote a speech that was read at a Roman university by his aide, Archbishop Georg Ganswein.
But, in general, he has written very little that has come to public light.
And none of what he has written has dealt with controversial issues in the Church.
Until now.
3) What does Benedict think of “the Kasper proposal”
Over the last year, the Church has been wracked by a revival of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal to give Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in some circumstances.
Cardinals have been publicly debating each other in the press.
We don’t need to rehash the whole, sad history of that here.
As we’ve watched that situation play out, I’ve repeatedly wondered what Benedict must be thinking—and doing.
Since Pope Francis allowed public discussion of this subject to continue, and since it’s a source of controversy in the Church, you wouldn’t expect him to speak out publicly on the subject.
That would be precisely the kind of interference in his successor’s affairs that he set out to avoid by going into seclusion.
But this issue is so important, with such high stakes, that it’s also precisely the kind of situation that would test that resolve.
I thought, perhaps, he would play a background role—giving advice to Pope Francis off the record at an opportune moment. We know that kind of thing happens.
But he’s now done much more than that.
He’s told us what he thinks.
And it happened through an unusual chain of events that seems providentially structured.
4) What happened?
Back in 1972, when he was still a theology professor, Joseph Ratzinger wrote an essay on the indissolubility of marriage in which he tentatively floated a variation of the Kasper proposal.
This was one of several ideas that Prof. Ratzinger tried out in the days of theological experimentation after the Council but later abandoned.
Indeed, he became a leader in the opposition to the idea that Holy Communion could be given to the divorced and civilly remarried.
Thus, when Cardinal Kasper and two other German bishops floated the proposal in 1993, Cardinal Ratzinger—as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—wrote a paper forcefully rejecting the idea.
But that 1972 essay was still out there, and when he revived his proposal last year, Cardinal Kasper started quoting it.
I can only imagine that this deeply displeased Benedict.
Nobody likes having his words thrown back in his face—particularly when they are words that one has disowned.
For Cardinal Kasper to publicly cite the 1972 essay in an effort to associate Benedict’s name with and thus promote a position that Benedict has rejected must really come across as twisting the knife.
And yet it would seem that Benedict’s hands were tied by his seclusion.
Only they weren’t.
5) Why not?
Because, for the last few years, there has been an effort underway to re-publish collected editions of all of Benedict’s theological writings. (His private ones, that is; not his magisterial documents.)
This effort has been led by Cardinal Gerhard Muller.
And now they’ve published—in German—a volume of Benedict’s writings that includes a revised version of the 1972 essay.
The publication of this series of volumes thus allowed Benedict, from one perspective, to yank the rug out from under Cardinal Kasper’s use of the 1972 essay.
From another perspective, it allowed him to weigh in on the present controversy without having to make a new, public statement that could be perceived as deliberately interfering in the affairs of his successor.
The fact that this set of volumes was underway, and that that particular essay had not yet been republished when Cardinal Kasper started using it for his own purposes, is a providential blessing.
And what Benedict said is extremely encouraging.
6) What did he say?
You can read the full text of the part of the essay that changed—and the 1972 original—at Sandro Magister’s site (ht: Fr.Z).
Of course, the initial variation of the Kasper proposal is gone. There is no trace of it.
Benedict says a number of very interesting things, and the section dealing with divorce, remarriage, and Holy Communion reads as follows:
The 1981 apostolic exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” of John Paul II . . . states: “Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church […] Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.”
This gives pastoral care an important task, which perhaps has not yet been sufficiently incorporated into the Church’s everyday life. Some details are indicated in the exhortation itself. There it is said that these persons, insofar as they are baptized, may participate in the Church’s life, which in fact they must do. The Christian activities that are possible and necessary for them are listed. Perhaps, however, it should be emphasized with greater clarity what the pastors and brethren in the faith can do so that they may truly feel the love of the Church. I think that they should be granted the possibility of participating in ecclesial associations and even of becoming godfathers or godmothers, something that the law does not provide for as of now.
There is another point of view that imposes itself on me. The impossibility of receiving the holy Eucharist is perceived as so painful not last of all because, currently, almost all who participate in the Mass also approach the table of the Lord. In this way the persons affected also appear publicly disqualified as Christians.
I maintain that Saint Paul’s warning about examining oneself and reflecting on the fact that what is at issue is the Body of the Lord should be taken seriously once again: “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11:28 f.). A serious self-examination, which might even lead to forgoing communion, would also help us to feel in a new way the greatness of the gift of the Eucharist and would furthermore represent a form of solidarity with divorced and remarried persons.
I would like to add another practical suggestion. In many countries it has become customary for persons who are not able to receive communion (for example, the members of other confessions) to approach the altar with their hands folded over their chests, making it clear that they are not receiving the sacrament but are asking for a blessing, which is given to them as a sign of the love of Christ and of the Church. This form could certainly be chosen also by persons who are living in a second marriage and therefore are not admitted to the Lord’s table. The fact that this would make possible an intense spiritual communion with the Lord, with his whole Body, with the Church, could be a spiritual experience that would strengthen and help them.
He thus proposes pastoral care for those in this situation and finding ways to further involve them in the life of the Church—including allowing them to serve in church associations and perhaps as godparents.
However, he recommends no change on the question of administering Holy Communion.
Instead, he asks us all to engage in serious self-examination and not to receive Communion unthinkingly.
And he recommends the custom of approaching the minister for a blessing when—as with the divorced and civilly remarried—one is not able to receive Communion.
7) How significant is this?
Benedict’s revision of his 1972 essay is extremely significant.
It makes the general lines of his thought publicly known, and this is bound to be a great encouragement for those who wish to see the Church’s traditional teaching and practice maintained.
It also makes it harder to use Benedict’s name in association with the contrary proposal—as Cardinal Kasper and others have been doing.
It’s a net gain. It’s a gift from God. And, with the former pope weighing in on the issue publicly, it may even be a game-changer.
Thank you for this piece, Jimmy. It is very timely during a period of confusion and concern for many of us trying to make sense of what is printed in the secular press.
reading this from my non-Catholic, reform Protestant/Mennonite background..
(I read to better understand my daughter-in-laws parents). I didn’t even realize how complicated the debate was. Thank you.
Praise God and thank you.The clarity of what he wrote, though not yet all read at the moment, and our Emiritus Benedict XVI stated on his writings that goes back right from the gospel of our Lord Jesus.I would like to say personally, Not one small written law will be abolish.If I may be correct.The respect I have and his humble appearance in hidden life and his brilliant gift given by the H.Spirit is strong words from our Lord.May God continue to bless us with the clear guidance of H.Spirit right from those chosen by God accordingly that gives light to many and who wish to follow the words of God that was ever written before them.We are not above the written words of God.Rather may we be humble to accept and obey them.
Such an interesting, informative article. I miss Pope Benedict and love reading anything about him. I love the picture you’ve selected for us as well. As a divorced and remarried Catholic (who has received an annulment), I KNOW that I could have never lived without receiving the Lord in the Holy Eucharist and thank God that I can. My husband converted in 2011 (most faithful Catholic I know, personally) and we were married in 2013. We love our Church (the true Church that Jesus, Himself, established), and there is nothing that can ever change that. Thank you, Jimmy, for all the work you do for us!!! Blessed Advent to you!
Again, I for one, thank you Jimmy for giving me a better understanding of the current synod controversy.
I have always wondered, Prayed about this, and with no small thought about the divorced Catholic and the frustration of feeling X communicated. “I know they are not, but no one can deny that they are treated as such”. Or that they feel so inclined.
I think of the woman accused of adultery/prostitution who was not condemned by Jesus. I know what He told her, but does anyone believe she was able to survive without this way of making a living? The point is she was Forgiven. The Church forgives some real horrible sins and we do know this. So my point is this perhaps someone is divorced against their will and still wants to remain in the Church? Being divorced is no worse than murder, Rape, and Pedofilia. i will go on record to say being divorced is not even close to those other sins that are Forgiven! “We better find a way to keep our Brothers and Sisters in the Church instead of driving them away by Sanctimonious thinking!
The woman accused of adultery (NOT prostitution) was told by our Lord: “Go and sin no more.”
Being divorced is not a sin at all. But it is grave matter to live as husband and wife with someone who is not a spouse. Whether or not this grave matter is more or less grave than other grave matters, I don’t know; but ANY unrepented grave sin can punch your ticket to hell.
These words of Emiritus Benedict XVI are so heart warming. Too bad our local diocese are not up to date. My daughter did indeed marry a baptized catholic pagan, but to no avail. She received her annulment and was tagged as “immature”. This was very painful for her and her family and friends, who knew her well. She continues to follow our Catholic steps to annulment now matter how difficult. My only consolation for her is the Our Father in Heaven knows the truth and that is all that matters.
These words of Emiritus Benedict XVI are so heart warming. Too bad our local diocese are not up to date. My daughter did indeed marry a baptized catholic pagan, but to no avail. She received her annulment and was tagged as “immature”. This was very painful for her and her family and friends, who knew her well. She continues to follow our Catholic steps to annulment now matter how difficult. My only consolation for her is the Our Father in Heaven knows the truth and that is all that matters.
Back in the day, before Vatican II, there was a lot of building going on by church pastors. The most jealous of the builders were facetiously said to have an “edifice,” complex. The German Church has suffered from it for a long while. Drawing on the church tax. they built a lot of new buildings after the way. They contended to do so even as attendence at mass dropped way off. Recently, they have tried to excommunicate Catholics who to avoid the tax have formally declared themselves no longer church members. Now here comes Kaspar trying to recruit more tax payer among the divorced to replace the tax dodgers. To put a cynical reading on the whole matter.
It had not seemed to me that the doctrine was subject to question at all. That there should have been any sort of publicized “conversation” indicating that the doctrine was subject to modification or reversal itself served to confuse lay persons. Thus, to the extent to which the doctrine is not, in fact, subject to change, then Card. Kasper has done a grave disservice to the Church by raising the question at all, much less doing so publicly.
It is difficult to see how Pope Francis himself should not have been complicit in the strewing of confusion and discord by passive silence. It is the Pope’s responsibility to speak out, and Pope Francis did not do so during the weeks & months leading up to the Synod.
Is it wrong to suppose that Pope Francis himself needs strengthening, as Jesus indicated to Peter after the Resurrection? From Luke chapter 22: verse 31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
My take-away from the whole sorry episode is that there is some sort of struggle going on for Pope Francis’s mind and will. Of course, likely, the same could be said about all of us, and indeed about all Popes. But in the case of Francis, it seems to me that this struggle is playing out rather more publicly than what we are accustomed to.
So… Let us pray, as in the Confiteor: “I ask …. you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.”
Pope Francis needs our prayers. The “guarantee” of the Holy Spirit — that the Holy Father will not teach in error — is realized, in part, through our own prayers, strengthening each other, and especially our Bishops & Priests, and especially our Pope.
I wonder if Archbishop Blasé Cupich (?) of Chicago, who recently noted in a TV interview that pro-abortion politicians should not be refused Communion, would benefit from Benedict’s thoughts on receiving the sacrament unworthily. It was shocking to hear the archbishop suggest that Communion might help give these politicians a change of heart.
Wow.
Let us pray that all of our Catholic leaders use their ministries under the leadership of
The Holy Trinity
Now we have a more difficult and historically deeper question. The nature of this so called “infallabily”. Why was it “instituted” and why is to this date defended.My quest is to see if the truth of history from the roman catholic persective can be supported. Many protestant folks who seem to my heart know this truth can be respected for these “opinions”. Ray
I’ve read this 4 or 5 times, and still don’t understand what you are talking about.
Will it be the end of the world if we change how we deal with the divorced and remarried? Will the church cease? Will it be a catastrophe? Times change, and sometimes pastoral practices changes. And, as Vatican II clearly demonstrated, doctrine develops. As the Body of Christ, can we not afford to be generous in our assistance to Catholics who are divorced and remarried?
“…doctrine develops.”
But it doesn’t contradict.
Jimmy,
So grateful for Pope Benedicts wisdom. I was in that situation myself. It took ten very long years to get it all resolved. It made me appreciate was I was missing and made me long for the day I would be able to receive our Lord. I watched as others cases were resolved faster than our own. In the end it turned out it was just different priests dropping the ball. It worked out the way God intended. I’m grateful for that journey!
Micki
Dear Ray,
Where does infallibility factor into this discussion at all? No one, even Pope Francis, has declared anything said has been infallible. This is a discussion. Opinions are valued; reasons discussed. Some of the opinions and reasons many Catholics from all walks, will not agree with.
As for infallibility being historical, I think you might enjoy both Steve Ray’s “Upon this Rock” and Jimmy Akin’s “The Fathers Know Best”. Both can show you how the earliest Christians understood the Primacy of Rome and the Bishop of Rome.
Infallibility is a necessity otherwise those “opinions” become a particular denominations “infallible” statement of belief. Hence we have 30,000+- denominations when God wants just one – His.
God bless,
Nate
Hi Jimmy
I think I remember hearing an argument that to be unworthy was not so much about being in mortal sin but about receiving without really believing that you were consuming the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
For me the mortal sin is the clincher but can you tell me if my memory serves me correctly about the other.
Have you any knowledge or opinion on this?
Yours sincerely
Joe