Pope Benedict XVI's U.S. Visit

Reflections on Benedict XVI's Visit to the U.S.

By Joseph F. O'Callaghan

The visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United States is an historic occasion that prompts a diversity of thoughts about the present and future status of the Roman Catholic Church. I want to reflect on just four issues, namely, the importance of dialogue within the Church; the Eucharist as the center of Catholic worship; restoration of the election of bishops; and the recovery of our conciliar tradition.

Dialogue with the Faithful

During his visit Benedict XVI will attend a number of events in Washington and New York, meeting with the president, 350 bishops, heads of Catholic colleges and universities, representatives of other religions, members of the United Nations, and young Catholics. On each occasion he will give a homily or a formal address. The faithful will hear him, but will he listen to them? He could learn much about the state of the Church in the United States by participating in informal listening sessions with ordinary laymen and laywomen and rank-and-file priests. He would hear first hand people’s worries about parish closings, the lack of parish priests, and the divergence between episcopal pronouncements on sexuality and the lived experience of the faithful. By listening, by engaging in real dialogue with the people in the pews, Benedict XVI would show himself to be a true pastor. He would also show other bishops how it’s done.

If the pope and his theologians can engage in dialogue with Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Muslims, and Jews in Catholic venues, he should ask our bishops: “why do you refuse to meet with faithful Catholics with whom you don’t agree and prohibit them from meeting on church property? Why do you deny members of Voice of the Faithful the right to gather in their parishes to discuss the scandal of priestly sexual abuse and the attendant cover-up by the bishops? Why do you deny them the right to gather in their parishes to discuss financial embezzlement by pastors and negligence in episcopal oversight? Why do you refuse to permit distinguished leaders of the American Catholic community, such as Bishop Thomas Gumbleton and Richard McBrien, to speak on church property if the events are hosted by Voice of the Faithful? Why do you not extend a warm welcome to survivors of priestly sexual abuse and encourage them to meet in parish churches to tell their stories if they wish to do so?”

Dialogue between the faithful and their leaders is essential if the bishops are ever to recover the credibility thrown away by their handling of the crises of priestly sexual abuse and financial embezzlement. Benedict XVI could further that goal if he instructed our bishops not to be afraid of the faithful they are appointed to lead, but rather to open the doors of parish churches to them and to welcome their assistance in restoring the good name of our Church.

The Eucharist as the Center of Catholic Worship

Benedict XVI also has the opportunity to assure Catholics everywhere that the Eucharist will always remain the central act of Catholic worship. At the Last Supper Jesus gave his disciples a very clear command. After giving them his Body and Blood to eat and drink, he told them: “Do this in memory of me.” Ever since then the Eucharistic celebration has been the heart of Christian life, but in our time its continued existence is under serious threat. The documented aging of our priests; the shortage of active priests; the precipitous decline in the ranks of seminarians; and the scant number of newly-ordained priests confront the Church with a grave crisis. As a consequence, parishes in town and country are being closed or clustered with slight regard for the spiritual life of the faith communities so affected. In many places the Eucharistic celebration is being replaced by communion services in the absence of a priest.

In dialogue with Benedict XVI, Catholics might ask: “Given the traditional role of the ordained priest as the presider at the Eucharist, what will happen to the Eucharistic liturgy in our parishes if there is no priest? Will a communion service in the absence of a priest become the norm of Catholic worship? Is that what Jesus had in mind when he told us to ‘do this in memory of me?’”

As the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium 37) emphasized the right of the faithful to receive the word of God and the sacraments from their pastors and to express their opinion on matters pertaining to the good of the Church, Catholics ought to call upon Benedict XVI to address the crisis of the Eucharist at once. This is the most pressing issue in the Church today. Lest the Eucharist be lost altogether, Benedict XVI should act on the many proposals that have been put forward to alleviate this problem, namely, making celibacy voluntary; ending the ban on married clergy; allowing priests, currently inactive because they chose to marry, to return to ministry; and opening the priesthood to women, who are equally made in God’s image. These are possible solutions to the crisis of the Eucharist.

Restoration of the Election of Bishops

Benedict XVI could make history if he announced that the papacy is restoring the right of electing bishops to the clergy and people of each diocese. The papal claim to appoint bishops was first incorporated into the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (c. 329) and affirmed in the revised Code of 1983 (cc. 377-80). The tradition of the Church from the earliest times is quite different. The faithful of the diocese freely elected their bishop, a principle emphasized by two fifth-century Popes, Celestine I and Leo I, the Great. Celestine stated emphatically: “no one who is unwanted should be made a bishop; the desire and consent of the clergy and people is required.” Just as strongly, Leo I declared: “the one who is to be head over all should be elected by all.” He added: “it is essential to exclude all those unwanted and unasked for.” Over the succeeding centuries bishops were regularly elected (and deposed) in synods, that is, assemblies of provincial bishops meeting under the presidency of their archbishop. Only in modern times did the papacy begin to intervene in episcopal elections. In concordats with such dictators as Napoleon, Mussolini, and Hitler, popes allowed the secular power either to appoint bishops subject to papal approval or to veto papal appointments of candidates deemed politically unacceptable.

Papal appointment of bishops and their transfer from see to see has had unfortunate effects. To many of the faithful the bishop is merely a papal representative whose primary allegiance is to the pope and to furthering his own career rather than to the people whom he governs. Catholics might ask Benedict XVI: “Would not restoration of the ancient practice of election by clergy and people in a provincial synod presided over by the archbishop give new life to local churches? Would that not establish a firm bond of loyalty between the bishop and his people?”

Recovering the Conciliar Tradition of the Church

If Benedict XVI encourages our bishops to convene diocesan, provincial, and national councils or synods at regular intervals to act upon all issues relating to the Catholic faith, he will take another historic step in conformity with the long-standing tradition of the Church. By declaring that provincial councils should be held twice yearly, the Council of Nicaea (c. 5) in 325 recognized the important role that councils could and did play in the life of the Church. In the sixteenth century the Council of Trent, acknowledging that councils could further the reform of the Church and counteract the Protestant Reformation, decreed that diocesan councils should be summoned every year and provincial councils every three years. Frequent councils served to encourage cooperation among the bishops and also provided opportunities for fraternal correction.

In many ways the American Church in the nineteenth century was a conciliar church, as the bishops met with surprising frequency in provincial and later in plenary councils held at Baltimore. The 1917 Code of Canon Law required the convocation of diocesan synods every ten years (c. 356) and provincial councils every twenty years (c. 383). In the wake of Vatican II, many bishops convened diocesan synods, but the revised Code of Canon Law in 1983 ruled that provincial councils (which could include lay representatives) should be held whenever a majority of the provincial bishops determined that the moment was opportune (cc. 439-446, esp. 440). That has not become a consistent practice.

Catholics might pose these questions to Pope Benedict: “As the Church cries out today for new structures that will hold bishops accountable to the priests and people they lead, why should not the canons of Nicaea and Trent be implemented? Would not a return to the earlier conciliar tradition give new life and vigor to Christ’s Body? As all the members of that Body have their own special gifts that are essential to the well-being of the whole, should not these councils be fully representative of the whole body of the faithful, namely, bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and laymen and women? Should they not possess deliberative authority on every issue affecting our spiritual lives? Would not deliberation concerning doctrinal, liturgical, disciplinary, administrative, and financial issues by a diversity of councils communicating regularly with one another develop a true sensus fidelium?”

The recovery of the conciliar tradition of the Church would do much to revitalize local churches and to animate the bishops to take real responsibility to lead their people, rather than to wait for the latest directive from Rome.

If Benedict XVI prompts our bishops to engage in an open dialogue with the faithful; if he takes significant steps to preserve the Eucharist as the core of Catholic worship; if he restores the right to elect their bishop to the clergy and the people of each diocese; and, if he fosters the regular convocation of diocesan and provincial synods and councils, he will infuse the faithful with a new sense of purpose that will enable the Church to preach God’s message with vigor and authority.

Joseph F. O'Callaghan is professor emeritus in the department of history at Fordham University. He is past president of the American Catholic Historical Association and is the author of several books, notably Electing Our Bishops: How the Catholic Church Should Choose Its Leaders; Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain and Alfonso X and the Cantigas de Santa Maria: A Poetic Biography. 

Praying for the Jews: Two Views On the New Good Friday Prayer

by John T. Pawlikowski

On February 5, the Vatican published Pope Benedict XVI’s updated Tridentine-rite Good Friday prayer for the Jews. “Let us also pray for the Jews,” it reads in Latin. “May the Lord our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men.” It continues, “All-powerful and everlasting God, you who want men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that with the fullness of peoples entering into your church all of Israel may be saved. Through Christ our Lord, Amen.”

The controversy over an appropriate prayer for the Jewish people in Catholic liturgy has been with us since the time of John XXIII. Even prior to the Second Vatican Council, he removed the term “perfidious” from the Good Friday prayer. Then in 1965, just before Vatican II’s “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church and Non-Christian Religions” (Nostra aetate), John’s successor, Paul VI, eliminated the nega-tive language about the Jews (the reference to their “blindness,” for example) from the Good Friday lit-urgy, while leaving the call for conversion intact.

The 1970 Missal, the definitive response to the liturgical changes mandated by Vatican II, further re-vised the 1965 prayer. It acknowledged the Jewish people’s faithfulness to God, but left open the eschato-logical resolution of the apparent conflict between Christ’s universal salvific action and the Jews’ ongoing covenantal commitment. The 1970 prayer is clearly in the spirit of Nostra aetate, which totally rejected almost two millennia of Christian theological perspectives on the Jews, but failed to offer a definitive re-placement. That task was left to subsequent generations of theologians and biblical scholars, work that has in fact been taking place since the end of the council. Two such ongoing efforts are the Christ and the Jew-ish People consultation, jointly sponsored by Boston College, the Pontifical Gregorian University, the Catholic Theological Union, and the Catholic University of Leuven with the encouragement of Cardinal Walter Kasper; and the multiyear study project on Paul and Judaism at the Catholic University of Leuven.

In an official international Vatican-Jewish dialogue in Venice in 1977, Tomaso Federici, a lay scholar highly respected in Vatican circles, proposed that in light of Nostra aetate Catholicism should formally renounce any proselytizing of the Jews. The official published version of his paper, which appeared sev-eral years later, was altered to call for a rejection of “undue” proselytizing.

A few years ago, Cardinal Kasper wrote that there is no need to proselytize Jews because they have au-thentic revelation and because, in the understanding of Vatican II, they remain in the covenant. But he did add that Catholicism must also retain a notion of Christ’s universal salvific work. Unfortunately, he never pursued how these two theological affirmations might be integrated.

The controversial 2002 statement, “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” which was released as a study document by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs and the National Council of Synagogues, called for an end to proselytizing Jews. It drew praise from Cardinal Edward I. Cassidy, Kasper’s predecessor at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, but was strongly critiqued by Cardinal Avery Dulles in America (October 14, 2002). The month before, an ecumenical scholars’ group on Christian-Jewish relations published “A Sacred Obligation.” It also called for an end to proselytizing.

The discussion about the new prayer for the Jews began last summer, in the context of Pope Benedict’s motu proprio on the Latin liturgy (see Commonweal, August 17, 2007). Groups long associated with ef-forts after Vatican II at Christian-Jewish understanding—such as the Committee of German Catholics and Jews, the International Council of Christians and Jews, the Austrian Coordinating Council on Jewish-Christian Relations, and the North American Council of Centers on Christian-Jewish Relations—sent messages to the Vatican urging that the Latin version of the 1970 Good Friday prayer be inserted into the 1962 Missal. Important Roman Catholic leaders like Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Germany and the U.S. bishops’ conference weighed in, along with several Jewish groups, including the Vatican’s official Jewish dialogue partner, the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations and the Chief Rabbis of Israel. Concern over the prayer was shared equally by Christians and Jews. It was not, as the popular press has frequently suggested, a one-sided Jewish protest.

In late August, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone publicly acknowledged the con-cerns and suggested that making the 1970 prayer the common text for both missals might be the best solu-tion. But something happened to push that proposal off the table. Pope Benedict, it was announced, would compose a new prayer.

The new prayer has engendered much controversy. Protests have come from many countries and groups. The Italian rabbinical association has decided to suspend any Catholic-Jewish dialogue. While the pope’s new prayer removes the most offensive language from the 1962 Missal, it calls on Jews to acknowledge Jesus Christ as savior.

In reflecting on the controversy, four points need to be made. First, interreligious dialogue is an encoun-ter of people, not merely an academic theological exercise. In the spirit of the Vatican’s own 1974 docu-ment “Guidelines on Catholic-Jewish Relations,” it is vital for Catholics to understand why the issue of conversion strikes such a raw nerve in the Jewish community, particularly in light of the long history of Christian anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. In fairness, Jews must also appreciate that mission is at the core of Christian identity. In the end, authentic dialogue and understanding must involve mutual learning. The new prayer has no sense of this.

Second, Jews need reassurance that the use of the prayer will not generate new programs aimed at proselytizing Jews. Cardinal Kasper and others have attempted to set the prayer in an eschatological con-text, particularly in light of Romans 11. Whether such a reading will be convincing remains an open ques-tion. There is little hope of changing the prayer itself at this point. But it is possible to leave the issue as strictly a matter of a prayer, rather then using it to initiate a new missionizing program.

Third, a prayer on Good Friday, especially given that historically this day often provoked Christian vio-lence against Jews, should not become the occasion of a new theological understanding of the relationship between the church and the Jewish people. Unfortunately, the new oration could have been written before Vatican II. The 1970 prayer is superior because it affirms Jewish faithfulness without settling the question of how this might affect Christian notions of salvation. The theology behind this not-so-new prayer does not take into account what Gregory Baum, one of the drafters of Nostra aetate, called the council’s radical transformation of ordinary Catholic teaching on the Jews, the most striking turnabout to emerge from Vatican II.

Finally, at this critical moment we need to recommit to the Christian-Jewish encounter. Silence will get us nowhere. Various Christian and Jewish groups, including the USCCB, have called for continued dia-logue, despite the pain the papal prayer has caused. Two special opportunities present themselves in the near future. The October synod of bishops in Rome will focus on the Bible and has placed the issue of Jewish-Christian relations on its preliminary agenda. And the upcoming jubilee-year celebration of St. Paul, which begins June 28, offers the possibility of bringing popular attention to the emerging view of Paul as someone with a quite positive understanding of Judaism, not merely as an opponent of Jewish law. Both avenues need to be pursued in earnest as a countermeasure to the negative impact of the new prayer.

The situation regarding the prayer for the Jews in the 1962 Missal has been handled badly from start to finish. But the controversy may still open the possibility of new learning and renewed commitment to Catholic-Jewish reconciliation.

John T. Pawlikowski, OSM, is director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies Program at the Catholic Theo-logical Union in Chicago, and president of the International Council of Christians and Jews. He is the author of Two Faiths, One Cove-nant? Jewish and Christian Identity in the Presence of the Other , Reinterpreting Revela-tion and Tradition: Jews and Christians in Conversation, and Ethics in the Shadow of the Holocaust: Christian and Jewish Perspectives.