Wednesday, April 20, 2005 AD
Being contemporary by being anti-contemporary
Well, I guess I called it right yesterday with my predictions as to the general tone of media coverage (The Independent: "perhaps the most controversial, divisive and reactionary of all the plausible candidates". You've got to love that "perhaps").
Listening to the Today Programme on Radio 4 this morning (too early to hear their interview with the new Pope), you could be forgiven for thinking Pope Benedict XVI had already proved something of a flop. I'm always a little hazy at that time in the morning, so my recollection may not be wholly reliable here, but the words "tepid" and "lukewarm" seemed to come up an awful lot in reports on the reaction to his election.
It was therefore something of a shock to read the Telegraph's front page report this morning and to find that its reporters had clearly been in a different St Peter's Square to some other journalists:
Charles Moore then contributes an opinion piece that is well worth reading in its entirety. He begins:
But Moore argues persuasively that the choice owes more to St Benedict, founder of Western monasticism, whose Rule "laid the foundations, Ratzinger believes, for the methods of democracy", and whose "spiritual spark kept the light of Christianity alive through centuries of darkness":
Listening to the Today Programme on Radio 4 this morning (too early to hear their interview with the new Pope), you could be forgiven for thinking Pope Benedict XVI had already proved something of a flop. I'm always a little hazy at that time in the morning, so my recollection may not be wholly reliable here, but the words "tepid" and "lukewarm" seemed to come up an awful lot in reports on the reaction to his election.
It was therefore something of a shock to read the Telegraph's front page report this morning and to find that its reporters had clearly been in a different St Peter's Square to some other journalists:
To tumultuous cheers and applause, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, one of the most controversial figures in the modern Church, emerged on to the balcony of St Peter's yesterday as the 265th Pope.And so on.
In extraordinary scenes, the new leader of the world's one billion Roman Catholics immediately won the hearts of the tens of thousands of flag-waving pilgrims packed into the square by anointing his predecessor, John Paul II, as "great".
Speaking tearfully to chants of "Viva il Papa", he said: "Dear brothers and sisters, after the great John Paul II the cardinals have chosen a simple and humble worker in the vineyard of Our Lord."
Charles Moore then contributes an opinion piece that is well worth reading in its entirety. He begins:
For the past 25 years, a meeting took place each week which defied the history of the 20th century. A Pole and a German met in peace to discuss the will of God. Every Friday, Pope John Paul II, the Pole, sat with Josef Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, alone. Now the Pole is dead, and the German is Pope.He goes on to discuss why "this learned man, the theologian who debated with John Paul, the philosopher" has chosen the name Benedict. The choice has been most immediately linked with the previous Pope Benedict, who reigned during the First World War.
But Moore argues persuasively that the choice owes more to St Benedict, founder of Western monasticism, whose Rule "laid the foundations, Ratzinger believes, for the methods of democracy", and whose "spiritual spark kept the light of Christianity alive through centuries of darkness":
"Think of late antiquity," Ratzinger once told an interviewer. "Where St Benedict probably wasn't noted at all. He was also a dropout who came from noble Roman society and did something bizarre, something that later turned out to be the 'ark on which the West survived'."A further quote from Ratzinger is one that all Christians, particularly Lutherans (with our temptations to succumb to "generic evangelicalism" on one side and theological liberalism on the other), should take to heart:
The answer to the question of our time, the new Pope believes, may be to challenge the spirit of that time: "The Church can be contemporary by being anti-contemporary." He is stern, yes; obscurantist, no.Moore also has some wonderful insights into Ratzinger the man, for which you'll just have to read his article. He closes with a description of how Ratzinger "takes inspiration from the chance that he was born on Easter Eve":
"I find that a very good day, which... hints at my conception of history and my own situation; on the threshold of Easter but not yet through the door."
