The Winds Of Karma Rock The Ivory Tower

Strong karmic winds are blowing the lid off this papacy. Can any of Benedict's trusted hands really catch it?

As Archbishop, Benedict Focused on Doctrine
By KATRIN BENNHOLD and NICHOLAS KULISH New York Times - March 27, 2010

MUNICH — When Pope Benedict XVI was archbishop of Munich and Freising, he was broadly described as a theologian more concerned with doctrinal debates than personnel matters. That, say his defenders, helps explain why he did not keep close tabs on a pedophile priest sent to his archdiocese in 1980 and allowed to work in a parish.

Yet in 1979, the year before Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, approved the Rev. Peter Hullermann’s move to Munich, the cardinal blocked the assignment to the local university of a prominent theology professor recommended by the university senate. And in 1981, he punished a priest for holding a Mass at a peace demonstration, leading the man to ultimately leave the priesthood.

Pope Benedict’s four-and-a-half-year tenure as archbishop is among the least-examined periods of his life, but his time presiding over 1,713 priests and 2.2 million Catholics was in many ways a dress rehearsal for his present job tending to the Roman Catholic Church’s more than one billion members worldwide.

As archbishop, Benedict expended more energy pursuing theological dissidents than sexual predators. Already in the early 1980s, one could catch a glimpse of a future pope preoccupied with combating any movement away from church tradition. Vatican experts say there is little evidence that Benedict spent much time investigating more than 200 cases of “problem priests” in the diocese, with issues including alcohol abuse, adultery and, now under the microscope, pedophilia.

“His natural habitat was the faculty lounge, and he hadn’t even been a faculty chair,” said John L. Allen Jr. of The National Catholic Reporter. “He would be the first to concede he was much more interested in the life of the mind than the nuts and bolts of administrative work.” (The life of the mind can be a much safer place to spend time relative to the challenges of actually spending time with people.)

Andreas Englisch, a leading German Vatican expert and the author of several books on Benedict, said that Cardinal Ratzinger “was never interested in bureaucratic stuff,” and noted that when he was first asked to be archbishop of Munich, he considered turning down the post because he did not want to work as “a manager.” In his autobiography, Benedict described taking the post as “an infinitely difficult decision.” (That's an interesting statement. No mention of working as a shepherd, of guiding people--just managing things. I bet it was a difficult decision, but let's face it, Archbishops have a much brighter future in the Church than plain old theologians.)

His management decisions are now the central focus of the widening scandal in the church in Germany. His supporters say that although he approved Father Hullermann’s move to his archdiocese, they assume that he may not have paid attention to a memo informing him that the priest, who had sexually abused boys in his previous posting, was almost immediately allowed to resume parish duties.

“He certainly would not have realized anything; he was in a different sphere,” said Hannes Burger, 72, who covered the church, including during Benedict’s time as archbishop, for the Munich-based daily Süddeutsche Zeitung.

“He held beautiful sermons and wrote beautifully, but the details he left to his staff,” said Mr. Burger, who interviewed the future pope several times before he went to Rome. “He was a professorial bishop, with Rome as his goal.”

Three decades ago it was common practice in the church to ignore or cover up incidents of molestation, or, in severe cases, to transfer priests to faraway parishes. Even outside the church, both victims and law enforcement authorities were less likely to take decisive steps to expose and combat abuse.

But Benedict’s track record in handling such cases under his direct control has assumed new relevance because he presides over a church troubled by scandal. He has to weigh whether and how severely to punish bishops who failed to act to deal with abuses in their domains.

In fact, in his efforts to combat child abuse in 2010, Benedict faces a dilemma over how to handle the same kind of institutional secrecy that was practiced by his own archdiocese in 1980. The future pope himself chose “co-workers of the truth,” as the motto for his time as archbishop. (Someone should really sit down with Benedict and dialogue with him about his notion of love in truth. First it's the other way around, and secondly the kind of truth one finds is not a list of rules from the catechism. Like Aquinas, if Benedict ever has a true spiritual experience, he may find his total life work appears to be 'so much straw'.

The case is alarming, wrote the German newspaper Die Zeit last week, not “because Ratzinger was guilty of an exceptional offense.”

“It is the other way around: It is significant because the archbishop acted as probably most other dignitaries in those years,” it wrote. “In 1980 Joseph Ratzinger was part of the problem that preoccupies him today.”

Benedict was a stern disciplinarian on the issue that propelled him up the church hierarchy. An early enthusiast for reform in the Catholic Church in the early 1960s, he soon changed his mind and joined the ranks of those trying to put the brakes on the liberalizing forces unleashed by the counterculture movement. (Was it an event or a person, who got to Benedict?)

His time in Munich was marked by confrontations with the local clergy, theologians and priests who worked there at the time.

Cardinal Ratzinger ruffled feathers almost upon arrival in Munich by ordering priests to return to celebrating First Communion and first confession in the same year, rather than having the first confession a year later, a practice that had become established over the previous decade, and which its advocates considered more appropriate for young children.

One priest, the Rev. Wilfried Sussbauer, said he wrote to the archbishop at the time questioning the change, and said Cardinal Ratzinger “wrote me an extremely biting letter” in response.

After receiving the letter, Father Sussbauer and other priests asked for an audience with their archbishop in 1977. They did not get one. But the visiting sister of President Jimmy Carter did. When the priests found out, they called Cardinal Ratzinger’s office. “We asked, ‘Who is more important, your own priests or the sister of the American president?’ ” Father Sussbauer, 77, recalled. “Then suddenly we got an appointment.”

Cardinal Ratzinger was already something of a clerical diplomat, traveling as the official representative of Pope John Paul I to Ecuador in 1978. And with two conclaves to select a new pope in 1978, it seemed at times as if the archbishop already had one foot in the Vatican.

“His predecessor as archbishop was simply more aware of the practical problems of pastoral work,” said Wolfgang Seibel, a Jesuit priest and editor of the Munich-based magazine Stimmen der Zeit from 1966 to 1998. “He didn’t have enough time to leave his mark.”

How closely he would have watched personnel decisions, especially with an administrative chief, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, who had been in his post since 1968, is an open question. But the transfer of Father Hullermann from Essen would not have been a routine matter, experts said.
Mr. Englisch, the Vatican expert, said that transferring a problem priest was “such a difficult decision” that it would necessarily have required his opinion.

“I think the guy who handled it would have gone to his archbishop and said, ‘This case of transferring a priest is not common, and we should really have an eye on him,’ ” Mr. Englisch said. Referring to Benedict, he added, “I don’t think that he really knew the details; I don’t think he was really interested in the details.”

“As they say in the legal profession, you either knew or you should have known,” said the Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, who once worked at the Vatican Embassy in Washington and became an early and well-known whistle-blower on sexual abuse in the church. “The archbishop is the unquestioned authority in that diocese. The buck stops there.”

***************************************************

I could maybe cut Benedict some slack if he was falling back on the age old pastoral notion of belief in the healing efficacy of a true confession, but that's a pastoral justification for his lack of action in Munich. It would be out of character for someone who saw his position as one of 'managing', enforcing truth, and staying in the pristine world of his thoughts. That person would be inclined to delegate both authority and responsibility and claim he knew nothing, was not responsible, was tied up in other concerns. This is exactly what Benedict is claiming concerning Fr. Hullerman.

I also find it interesting that one of the self perpetuated views Benedict promotes about himself is that of the reluctant leader. We read he didn't want his position in Munich, he wanted to retire from the CDF but JPII wouldn't accept his resignation, he was not keen on being Pope as he preferred retirement with his brother in Bavaria. And yet, he never acts on these longings, instead taking positions with even more 'managerial' responsibilities, in which he doesn't do much managing. He continues to read, write, and act primarily as an academic theologian who just happens to wind up in situations in which he has all the authority he needs to make his theology a virtual doctrinal system. We now have a situation in which the academic Ivory Tower is synonymous with the Papal Throne.

This is not a good situation. There are very good reasons brilliant academics who live in their head are not put in charge of Universities. The first reason has to do with the fact these brilliant people do not do day to day responsibility well at all. They don't prioritize in the same way a real managerial type does, and they do not deal well with situations which fall outside their comfort zone--which tends not to be a very big zone. For all of Einstein's brilliance, he was never President of Princeton.

Another reason, a kind of stereotype which has some truth, is that channelized academic brilliance tends to be lacking in common sense and wisdom. Wisdom is an intelligence which is a product of both head and heart--literally, but that's another post. Heart intelligence is relational intelligence. It's about relationship with people, not ideas. If this papacy has a signature flaw at this point, that signature is all about priority of ideas and ideals over people. It is not a papacy whose hallmark is pastoral wisdom and this is a trait which is pronounced on all levels of heirarchical authority. There is no voice of pastoral wisdom at this point in the Church. Those voices have been silenced or choose to be unheard whispers. This is what's killing the heart, and therefore, the soul of this Church.

Bill Lyndsey has written a very important post about the karmic cycle Catholicism finds itself in at this point. He makes the point that the Church's karma is Benedict's karma. What Benedict has set in motion, even as far back as Munich, is coming home to roost. Jesus made this same observation about the religious authorities of His time. He pointed out that in destroying Him they would set in motion the energy which destroyed them. This is perhaps a point Benedict might want to meditate on this coming week. Perhaps then he would stop blaming everyone and everything else for his current travails.