The Virtual Abbey

Called to Communion, written in the early 1990s by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now, of course, Pope Benedict XVI), is a short work on the topic of ecclesiology. Like all of Joseph Ratzinger's arguments, it is scholarly, well-researched, polite and considerate of other views, Scriptural, and, ultimately, an educational experience. It is a series of lectures compiled into a book that makes a solid Catholic argument for a traditional, hierarchical understanding of the Church, and which discusses the meaning of Apostolic Succession, the primacy of Peter, and the sacrificial priesthood. In the course of the work, Cardinal Ratzinger also takes on Libertaion Theology, and two competing models of ecclesiology -- a congregational model and a model that sees the Church as being self-contained under a bishop -- which could be construed, in a shorthanded way, as arguments against the ecclesiology of much of Protestantism and of Eastern Orthodoxy. As always, though, Cardinal Ratzinger is non-confrontational and generous in his approach.

I am deeply impressed by the Pope's theological works, though one senses, in all of his short books, written when he was overseeing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a great frustration in that he simply does not have the time to go into greater detail. I truly believe that he wanted to retire and just write books in 2005, when he was instead chosen to be Pope. But I think that he was chosen Pope for a greater reason -- and in reading his works of theology, I am beginning to appreciate why. Unlike a lot of modern theologians, Pope Benedict writes in a way that demonstrates that a) he is deeply respectful of tradition, and b) his writing is informed by faith. While his arguments are clever, there is no sophistry in them. He also demonstrates that while he is very knowledgeable of the modern historical-critical methods of Scriptural interpretation, he does not subscribe to the notion that one can "deconstruct" the Bible. He accepts some of the somewhat archaeological character of modern Scriptural criticism, while simultaneously also holding onto the concept of Scripture as a divinely written book, and while having a thorough understanding of typology and the use of recurring themes in Scripture. He thus demonstrates a flexibility and depth of mind that few modern writers have.

I would describe his style as being "Augustinian" rather than "Scholastic" -- if you handed me a work of his in a brown-paper wrapper and told me that he was a conservative Lutheran theologian, I would have no trouble believing it in most of his writings (though naturally, Called to Communion would definitely reveal his identity as a Catholic). I think his work is very approachable by Protestants, especially because he always tries to work in a Scriptural angle to buttress his arguments. He seldom, if ever, argues from the edifice of Catholic theology, and his arguments have very much of a human face and scale to them.

I think a lot of people regard Benedict's election as Pope regard the election as a working of the Holy Spirit; but I think as with all workings of the Spirit, while we can sometimes see the surface reasons, we do not see and cannot understand the Spirit's full depth of motives. I think that one of those motives may well be a desire to give Benedict's theological writings a wider audience than they might otherwise receive. If you told me, two centuries from now, that Benedict was canonized as a saint and named a Doctor of the Church, based on my small exposure to him so far, I'd have to say I wouldn't have much difficulty believing it.