![\"Share](\"https:\/\/static.hupso.com\/share\/buttons\/dot.png\")
<\/a>Assessing a pontificate is no easy task. Assessing Benedict\u2019s pontificate (2005-2013) is even more difficult. The caliber of Ratzinger as a theologian, the muddy state of present-day Vatican affairs, and the complexity of global religious and moral trends, \u2026 these are all factors that call for careful consideration, although his pontificate will perhaps be remembered more for the shocking way it<\/p>\n
ended than for what it achieved. Our task here will be more modest. It will take as parameters the main bullet points that characterized Evangelical perceptions of Benedict\u2019s pontificate. It will be an exercise to see to what extent they match reality.<\/p>\n
\n
Orthodox<\/i><\/p>\n
A recurring comment is that Benedict XVI has been an \u201corthodox\u201d pope. In this case, orthodox means maintaining Nicene Christianity, i.e. the Trinitarian and Christological confession of faith of the early church. In itself, being orthodox is not a distinct feature of any single Pope because it is part of his service. The pope, or any pope, is to be orthodox. Bonifacius VIII, the pope that<\/p>\n
introduced the papal tiara in 1300 (indicative of the temporal power), was orthodox. Pope Leo X, the one who excommunicated Martin Luther in 1521, was orthodox. The best and the worst popes were orthodox. Indeed, all 265 Popes since Peter have been orthodox. The business of the Pope is to be orthodox in this Nicene sense.<\/p>\n
It may be true that Benedict put a special emphasis on orthodoxy, but he has interpreted his orthodoxy in a Roman Catholic way, like all previous Popes. He has been praying daily to Mary, he has granted indulgences, he has canonized new saints, he has maintained the church-state profile of the Vatican, etc. Contrary to what C.S. Lewis believed, there is no \u201cmere orthodoxy\u201d out there. Nicene Christianity is always colored by subsequent developments in Christian doctrine and practice. It never stands in isolation nor does it exist in an abstract way. Benedict\u2019s pontificate has been a peak of Roman Catholic orthodoxy.<\/p>\n
\n
Biblical<\/i><\/p>\n
It is true that in his catechetical efforts, Benedict has been dealing with the Bible much more than his immediate predecessors. His speeches have largely been Biblical meditations and his recent writings on Jesus have defended the historicity of the Gospel accounts. Much of his reading of Scripture, however, was driven by post-biblical presuppositions that come out of ecclesiastical tradition rather than Scripture itself. The heavily sacramental interpretations of Gospel stories and the over-arching interpretive grid that sees the relationship between Biblical teaching and Roman Catholic practices in terms of linear continuity, are only two examples of \u201chow\u201d Biblical Benedict\u2019s magisterium has been. During his pontificate, the point that distinguished Roman Catholicism from the Protestant tradition was no longer whether or not the Bible is accessible to the people, but \u201chow\u201d it is to be read and lived out.<\/p>\n
There is still another aspect to bear in mind. The Pope\u2019s most famous (and criticized) speech, i.e. the 2006 Regensburg lecture, was not about Islam, but revolved around the need to keep the Hellenized combination of \u201cfaith and reason\u201d which Thomas Aquinas refined at its best and which the Roman Catholic Church holds onto. In denouncing the threats to the \u201cclassic\u201d synthesis, Benedict indicated the \u201csola Scriptura\u201d of the Reformation as a major breach that eventually caused theological liberalism and present-day relativism. It is interesting that a \u201cBiblical\u201d Pope would have such a low view of the Reformation\u2019s formal principle that brought the Bible back to the center of the life of the Church.<\/p>\n
\n
Public Truth<\/i><\/p>\n
Benedict has courageously stood for basic Judeo-Christian convictions about life, the family, and the welfare of society characterized by freedom and solidarity, even in the midst of criticism from secular intellectual circles. Like his predecessor, John Paul II, Benedict was commended by Muslim and other religious leaders for his tenacious defense of traditional morality in the global world. His Church, however, did not perform well in terms of public transparency and integrity with regards to the sexual abuses scandals, the opaque financial maneuvers, and the appalling intrigues within the Vatican. During Benedict\u2019s reign the distinction between the standards of the official Church and those of the world has been thin if not impalpable. He is not to blame for all this, yet this poor \u201cpublic\u201d performance sheds light on the overall picture. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Benedict came to the almost unprecedented conclusion to resign from the papal office.<\/p>\n
The Pope spoke of Christians as a \u201cminority\u201d and encouraged the Church to re-think its identity accordingly. The fact that he did not take any action to move his Church beyond the privileged status it has in many countries where Catholics are majority puts his record as a \u201cpublic truth\u201d teller in perspective. Would it not be a \u201cpublic truth\u201d argument to say that the Church wants to be the church only and not a religious agency with a built in state with its own politics, bank, army, etc., like any other state of the world?<\/p>\n
\n
New Evangelization<\/i><\/p>\n
The New Evangelization was an idea of John Paul II, but Benedict XVI started implementing it by creating a Vatican office dedicated to it and by making it the central theme of the 2012 Synod of Bishops. Pope Ratzinger has come to terms with the idea that the West is largely post-Christian and is in need of being evangelized again by a reinvigorated Church.<\/p>\n
The future will tell what the New Evangelization will bring about in terms of spiritual renewal. Yet, so far there has been little self-criticism on the Church\u2019s part as to why the West became more secularized. Does the Church have any responsibility in the secular \u201cschism\u201d that has taken place? No clear answer has come from Pope Ratzinger who has instead blamed the modern world for it.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, Benedict has continued calling \u201csects\u201d those that are engaged in evangelism, including Evangelicals in the Global South, not making the distinction between New Religious movements and Evangelical Christianity.<\/p>\n
\n
Beyond extremely positive assessments based on selected aspects of Benedict\u2019s pontificate, Evangelicals have food for thought in order to come to a more nuanced and perhaps realistic view of his office as a Pope.<\/p>\n
\n
Leonardo De Chirico<\/p>\n
leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org<\/p>\n
\n
Rome, 25th February 2013<\/p>\n