Benedict XV: A Pope in the World of the ‘Useless Slaughter’ (1914–1918)

Practices of branding, promotion, and persona have become dominant influences structuring identity formation in popular culture. Creating an iconic brand identity is now an essential practice required for politicians, celebrities, global leaders, and other public figures to establish their image within a competitive media landscape shaped by consumer society. This dissertation analyzes the construction and circulation of Vivienne Westwood, Barack Obama, and Pope Francis as iconic brand identities in contemporary media and consumer culture. The content analysis and close textual analysis of select media coverage and other relevant material on key moments, events, and cultural texts associated with each figure deconstructs the media representation of Westwood, Obama, and Pope Francis. The brand identities of Westwood, Pope Francis, and Obama ultimately exhibit a unique form of iconic symbolic power, and exploring the complex dynamics shaping their public image demonstrates how they have achieved and maintained positions of authority. Although Westwood, Obama, and Pope Francis initially were each positioned as outsiders to the institutions of fashion, politics, and religion that they now represent, the media played a key role in mainstreaming their image for public consumption. Their iconic brand identities symbolize the influence of consumption in shaping how issues of public good circulate within public discourse, particularly in regard to the economy, health care, social inequality, and the environment. Westwood, Obama, and Pope Francis are also texts used to promote the institutions they represent, and it is this aspect of their public image that illuminates the inherent contradictions between individual and institution underlying their brand identities. Interrogating the iconic identities of Westwood, Obama, and Pope Francis reveals how it is the labour and strategy behind the brand that creates meaning in consumer culture. Westwood, Obama, and Pope Francis are important figures for analysis because their iconic brand identities transcend the foundations of fashion, politics, and religion, and more significantly, demonstrate how branding as a promotional strategy is not unique to any particular realm or institution but a technique utilized by public figures regardless of the celebrity or elite status associated with their position.

Pope Benedict XVI on the Postconciliar Liturgical Reform: An Essay in Interpretation William H. Johnston Fifty years ago the Second Vatican Council, in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, “launched the most extensive renewal of the Roman Rite ever known.”1 What was Pope Benedict’s assessment of and response to that renewal and the way it was carried out in the Church in the years since the Second Vatican Council? Many see that assessment as fundamentally negative. Shortly after Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI) published in 2000 his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, John Baldovin described it as a “powerful indictment of the last thirty-five years of Roman Catholic liturgy,” finding that “almost no aspect of liturgy escapes his wrathful pen.”2 More recently, Massimo Faggioli portrayed Pope Benedict’s establishment of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite through the 2007 Motu proprio on the liturgy, Summorum Pontificum, as “not far from renouncing Vatican II as such, stopping every pastoral effort aimed at receiving the liturgical reform and Vatican II through the liturgy.”3 James Sweeney also interpreted Summorum Pontificum as an action “reversing the thrust of the liturgical renewal.”4 Helen Hull Hitchcock held that Cardinal Ratzinger (and John Paul II) 1 Benedict XVI, Video Message for the Closing of the Fiftieth International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin (June 17, 2012), available at http://www. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/pont-messages/2012/documents /hf_ben-xvi_mes_20120617_50cong-euc-dublino_en.html. 2 John Baldovin, “‘Lo, the Full, Final Sacrifice’: On the Seriousness of Christian Liturgy,” Antiphon 7 (2002) 10–17, at 13. 3 Massimo Faggioli, True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2012) 144. 4 James Sweeney, “How Should We Remember Vatican II?” New Blackfriars 90 (2009) 251–260, at 254. Antiphon 17.2 (2013): 118–138 119 Pope Benedict XVI on the Postconciliar Liturgical Reform: An Essay in Interpretation judged “the post-Conciliar liturgical reform” in need of “a thorough re-evaluation.”5 The list could be lengthened. Are these views sound and accurate? It is certainly true that various of Joseph Ratzinger’s writings and statements, especially before but also after becoming pope, communicated a critical judgment regarding the liturgical reform. In his memoirs, for example, he described “the crisis in the church” in the postconciliar era as due “to a large extent…to the disintegration of the liturgy.”6 A search through his body of work for words describing results of the liturgical reform or features of its implementation can produce a strikingly negative lexicon, ranging from “banality,” “superficiality ,” and “deficiencies” to “fragmentation,” “frightening impoverishment ,” “wretchedness,” “deformation,” “disintegration,” “destruction,” “devastation,” “anarchy,” “chaos”—and the like.7 Many strong words, all pointing in the same direction. 5 Helen Hull Hitchcock, “Pope Benedict XVI and the ‘Reform of the Reform,’” in Benedict XVI and the Sacred Liturgy, ed. Neil J. Roy and Janet E. Rutherford (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2010) 70–87, at 81. 6 Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones: Memoirs 1927–1977 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1998) 148. 7 For “banality,” see Joseph Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986) 100, 120–121; idem, A New Song for the Lord: Faith in Christ and Liturgy Today (New York: Crossroad, 1996) 39, and elsewhere; “superficiality,” idem, New Song, 198; “deficiencies,” idem, “The Spirit of the Liturgy or Fidelity to the Council: Response to Father Gy,” Antiphon 11 (2007) 97–102, at 99; “fragmentation,” idem, “Assessment and Future Prospects,” in Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger, ed. Alcuin Reid (Farnborough: Saint Michael’s Abbey Press, 2003) 145–153, at 148; “frightening impoverishment,” Joseph Ratzinger and Vittorio Messori , The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985) 128, also Joseph Ratzinger, “Zur theologischen Grundlegung der Kirchenmusik,” in idem, Theologie der Liturgie: Die sakramentale Begründung christlicher Existenz, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 11 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2008) 501–526, at 503; “wretchedness,” idem, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000) 130; “deformation,” idem, New Song, 174; “disintegration ,” idem, Milestones, 148; “destruction,” idem, “Assessment and Future Prospects...

232 Antiphon 16.3 (2012) Nicola Bux Benedict XVI’s Reform: The Liturgy between Innovation and Tradition. Translated by Joseph Trabbic San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012 165 pp. Paperback $14.95. Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum has often been interpreted as part of a larger project of “dialing back” the renewal of the Church that was enacted at the Second Vatican Council. Fr. Nicola Bux’s Benedict XVI’s Reform advocates for another reading of this motu proprio, one consonant with Benedict XVI’s liturgical theology, both in his writings as Cardinal Ratzinger and as pontiff. The argument of Benedict XVI’s Reform is fairly straightforward. Leading up to the Council, liturgical scholars sought to understand the theological nature of liturgical prayer. The result of this liturgical turn in theology flowered in Pius XII’s Mediator Dei and the reforms promulgated in light of this document. Sacrosanctum Concilium, proceeding from Mediator Dei, sought fundamentally to reaffirm the liturgical doctrine of Mediator Dei. In the postconciliar period, in light of the advocacy of the Consilium, liturgical reforms were carried out not according to the “spirit of the liturgy” or the desires of the people of God but “the critical and intolerant spirit toward the Holy See, [and] the rationalism in the liturgy without any concern for true piety” (64). The result of this approach to liturgical reform, according to Bux, led to the deformation of the liturgy into “a community affair, an affair of the ideas and personal experiences of its members, in which, through its creativity, the community represents itself to itself and the purpose of divine worship—the encounter with the Lord in the Church—disappears ” (74). Those attracted to the divine worship according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 have been further relegated in the Church, dismissed as mere traditionalists by bishops and priests alike. Indeed, there are critiques to be made regarding this narrative (cf. J. Baldovin, Reforming the Liturgy, 2008, 45-51), but such critiques are not damning of the rest of the argument. Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum is a response to liturgical disunity and the elimination of transcendence in liturgical prayer. According to Bux, the wider use of the 1962 Missal of John XXIII allowed for in Benedict’s motu proprio: sets the old rite alongside the new. It does not replace it; it is optional, not obligatory. It does not take away but adds. Thus it expresses unity in variety. It is an enrichment that must heal the wounds caused by the fracture in that communion and lead to reconciliation within the 233 Book Reviews Church, overcoming the interpretations of the Council that favored liturgical deformations. Finally, the osmosis between the old and the new rite will avoid individualism with respect to the former and communitarianism with respect to the latter if in each person it incites the memory of Christ from whom the communion of all flows (85). Fundamentally, then, Bux explains, there are four reasons for fostering wider celebration of the 1962 Missal. First, the 1962 Missal still expresses the faith of the Church, and those that desire to celebrate the liturgy according to this form have a right to do so. Second, the mutual influence of the old and new rite would result in an organic development over time of both rites, especially relative to the direction of liturgical prayer, music, and architecture. Third, such mutual influence would foster the liturgical dispositions necessary to participate in the sacrifice of divine worship. Fourth, the use of the 1962 Missal corresponds more closely to Eastern liturgical practice, thus fostering unity with Orthodox Christians. The contribution Fr. Bux makes in this book-length essay is to situate Summorum Pontificum in the broader liturgical, ecclesiological, and pastoral concerns of Benedict XVI. Liturgical prayer is fundamentally a transformative encounter with the Triune God, who manifests himself in the liturgical signs of the Church. Pope Benedict seeks the renewal of the liturgy not because of ideology, but in order that our encounter with the Triune God in worship might transfigure all creation in love. Though Fr. Bux could not address Anglicanorum Coetibus in the original Italian book in 2008, a close reading of the...

Reviewed by: Joseph Ratzinger and the Healing of the Reformation-Era Divisions ed. by Emery de Gaál and Matthew Levering Emil Anton Joseph Ratzinger and the Healing of the Reformation-Era Divisions, edited by Emery de Gaál and Matthew Levering (Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2019), xxvii+371 pp. When George Smith first deciphered the Mesopotamian account of the Flood and realized he was the first person to read it in a couple thousand years, he started running around the room in excitement and taking his clothes off. Without the undressing part, I experienced the same impulse while reading Joseph Ratzinger and the Healing of the Reformation-Era Divisions, a collection of seventeen priceless chapters by both Catholic and Protestant scholars, coming out of a conference held in 2017 to celebrate Joseph Ratzinger’s ninetieth birthday and to commemorate the five-hundred-year anniversary of the Reformation. This wonderful book takes its place as clearly the leading volume on Ratzinger and Catholic– Protestant ecumenism. Based on his media image, recently reinforced by the Netflix movie [End Page 675] The Two Popes, one would not think that Joseph Ratzinger / Benedict XVI would prove a relevant figure in overcoming the centuries-old Catholic–Protestant divide. All one remembers about Benedict XVI and ecumenism, based on news coverage, is that he said Protestant churches are not really churches. Fortunately, the scholars contributing to the present volume dig deeper, look behind the scenes, and uncover Ratzinger/Benedict’s “history-changing contributions” (22), such as saving the Catholic–Lutheran Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and making “The Thames flow into the Tiber.” (Talk about an ingenious chapter title!) In order, the topics covered in this volume include papal primacy, principles of ecumenism, exegesis and liturgy, secularism, Mariology, public theology, Christology, Luther, love, Eucharist, creation, conscience, missiology, justification, Radical Orthodoxy (John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, Graham Ward, et al.), and the relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Church. Space does not permit me to review all of the articles; instead, I will highlight only some points that I found particularly illuminating. As editor, Matthew Levering opens the introductory chapter with a comparison of Karl Rahner’s and Joseph Ratzinger’s views on attaining Christian unity. Rahner presents what Thomas A. Baima calls “a Pelagian view of ecumenism” (23), a rash manmade institutional unification which might be a marvel of pragmatic skill but could not account for its structures in terms of God’s instituting Word (xix). Ratzinger’s model is more theological and patient: respecting our differences, accepting the good reasons both sides have for them, and thus learning from each other, “will in the end deepen our unity and, in God’s time, will allow for the ‘must’ of division to give way to a doctrinally articulated unity-in-diversity” (xxi). But what should this unity-in-diversity look like? In his article on the principles of ecumenism, Baima makes a helpful distinction between the Church’s structure and its institution. For example, in communist Ukraine there was no Catholic ecclesial institution, but the sacramental and apostolic structure of the Church remained. The two terms are often confused; distinguishing between them helps to clarify that the goal of Christian unity is not necessarily a common institution, but it does include a common sacramental structure. Baima also notes that Ratzinger rejected “the return model used by the Council of Florence” when he famously said that “Rome must not require more of the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium” (28). Baima raises the very pertinent question as to how this might “inform dialogue with the communities of the Reformation” (29). Would it not [End Page 676] mean, for example, that Rome should not demand that Protestants accept the dogmatic definitions of 1854, 1870, and 1950 as such, but simply admit that they are not heretical doctrinal developments? (The next question would be whether Catholics could also legitimately think so.) The question is very much connected to the relationship between Scripture and the Church, treated by Douglas A. Sweeney in his important contribution. While acknowledging rapprochement between Evangelicals who are “sinking...

Pope Benedict XVI: an unexpected legal philosopher? During his pontificate pope Benedict XVI held five important speeches on democracy and law. In a new study, edited by Marta Cartabia and Andrea Simonici, it is argued that these speeches constitute a papal legal philosophy on the foundation of law. This book review explores that claim. Did emeritus pope Benedict XVI have a distinctive legal philosophy? May be, but the material covered in the book might not be enough to fully support the status of pope Benedict XVI as a legal philosopher. What is needed is a more integral study that includes other papal statements on the principles of law (for instance to the Roman Rota) on the one hand, and the work of the theologian Joseph cardinal Ratzinger before he became pope Benedict XVI on the other hand.

Benedict XVI, the present pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, published Caritas in Veritate in June 2009. This third papal encyclical of his is distinguished from his others that dealt with the area of theology commonly known as “constructive” or “systematic.” In this most recent publication, Benedict XVI moves his writing into a rich historical arena known as Roman Catholic social teaching. Building upon a solid tradition of popes tackling political, social, and economic issues, Benedict XVI tackles acute contemporary concerns. The key areas Benedict XVI addresses in this encyclical are globalization, the economy, technology, and the environment. Germane to this text, this chapter will seek to explain how globalization is described and critiqued by Benedict XVI in this pivotal letter of his pontificate. While globalization will be the primary focus, because of the interrelationship between the aforementioned topics, attention obviously will also to be given to the other primary areas.

Reviewed by: Anthropology and Culture: Joseph Ratzinger in "Communio", vol. 2 by Pope Benedict Jeffrey L. Morrow Anthropology and Culture: Joseph Ratzinger in "Communio", vol. 2. By Pope Benedict XVI. Edited by David L. Schindler and Nicholas J. Healy, Jr. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013. Pp. viii + 199. $30.00 (paper). ISBN: 978-0-8028-6417-8. Joseph Ratzinger has proven one of the most insightful cultural critics of our time. One of the founders of the scholarly theological journal Communio, Ratzinger published a number of articles therein. The present volume is the second in the series dedicated to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's writings, Joseph Ratzinger in "Communio." This volume is devoted to Ratzinger's Communio essays regarding anthropology and culture. It contains fourteen essays originally published between 1972 and 2005. In what follows, I will cover some of the volume's highlights. One of the early themes that arises in the volume is the importance of conscience. This is a topic that Ratzinger has come back to again and again, as his slender 2007 volume On Conscience indicates. Using the example of Bartolome de Las Casas (20-26), Ratzinger reflects on how "the kernel of the necessary control and limitation of power in this world consists in the courage to follow conscience" (20). Going back to the New Testament and the early Christians, he likewise underscores how "Christianity does not begin with a revolutionary, but with a martyr" (23). He forcefully communicates the radical nature of the Christian vision of conscience, so necessary in our own times and in all times: It is part of the inherent greatness of the Christian faith that it can lend conscience its voice, that it can inexorably oppose the world which believers have built for themselves and which they justify on grounds of faith, that it has room for the prophetic No, and in general that it gives birth to prophets, men who are not the voice of some particular interest but the voice of conscience against chicanery. (25) [End Page 147] Another important theme which comes early in the volume is that of hope. There is a glimpse in the essay "On Hope" (28-41) of the seeds of Ratzinger's later papal encyclicals Deus Caritas Est (especially on 30-32) and Spe Salvi (throughout the essay, but especially on 28-29), as well as the apostolic letter Porta Fidei (especially on 32-35). As with so many of his other writings, he takes Nietzsche and Marx as dialogue partners. Here, Ratzinger finds insights and responses in 1 John, St. Bonaventure, and the Franciscan tradition. He emphasizes how hope is inextricably bound up with faith and love. In a passage drawing on St. Bonaventure, he writes, "We can remain people of hope only if our life is not contentedly grounded in the everyday but is solidly rooted in 'substance.' The more we recollect ourselves, the more hope becomes real and the more it illumines our daily work. Only then can we perceive the brightness of the world which otherwise withdraws farther and farther from view" (38). A small but important theme which comes up again and again in a number of Ratzinger's publications—for example, his 1994 A Turning Point for Europe? and his 2007 Spe Salvi—pertains to the "dialectic of Enlightenment." He here relies in part on a very interesting positive use of the agnostic, Jewish, neo-Marxist philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno and in particular their Dialectic of Enlightenment, which they penned as the Second World War was drawing to a close. These philosophers from the Frankfurt School help Ratzinger think through challenges to the Enlightenment from within, as it were. Within this context Ratzinger argues for responsibility and the value of human labor. In the end, as he makes crystal clear, "to be set free from morality is not freedom, but rather the unlocking of the forces of destruction" (51). Perhaps one of the most important essays in the volume is "Freedom and Liberation: The Anthropological Vision of the Instruction Libertatis conscientia" (52-69). It deals with the issue of liberation theology. Much of the essay pertains...

The Church and the Secular Establishment:A Philosophical Dialog between Joseph Ratzinger and Jürgen Habermas Virgil Nemoianu Abstract Virgil Nemoianu is William J. Byron Distinguished Professor of Literature and Ordinary Professor of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. He is the author or editor of over fifteen books and has published approximately six hundred scholarly articles, reviews, and presentations on four continents. He is a member of the European Academy of Arts and Sciences. Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. January 19, 2004: Professor Jürgen Habermas speaking with then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the Bavarian Catholic Academy in Munich. Used by permission. © Katholische Akademie in Bayern 2004. [End Page 16] Dialogs between leading thinkers of the Roman Catholic Church and other philosophies, theologies, or bodies of opinion and power are not a novelty. In fact, it would be correct to say that they have been a characteristic of the Catholic tradition over centuries or millennia, and that they constitute a salient difference between Catholicism and most other confessions or religions. Intersections and combinations with Platonism and Aristotelianism date from the very beginnings of Christianity. The Catholic Church or some of its leading intellectuals have responded in nuanced and complex ways to philosophies such as rationalism (Descartes), the classical and romantic movements, phenomenology, and even extreme left- and right-wing ideologies. One small example of such a dialog was a very few years ago the exchange of public letters between Archbishop and Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini and the semiotic critic and philosopher Umberto Eco. Some of these dialogs have proved to be highly fruitful and enriching, while others turned out to be dead ends or even deleterious. We can leave history the privilege to make detailed judgments on each of these, but we can also agree, I think, that this incessant [End Page 17] process maintained the healthy liveliness of Catholic intellectual life. That is why the discussion between Jürgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger (as the future Pontiff Benedict XVI was called at the time and as I shall call him throughout this presentation) stirred unusually high waves in European intellectual life. It is perhaps redundant, but I will nevertheless introduce the two figures by short summaries of their careers and views. Overview of the Work of Joseph Ratzinger and Jürgen Habermas Joseph Ratzinger's academic career covered the period 1953–77. In 1977 he became archbishop of Munich and Freising, soon thereafter cardinal, and by 1981 he moved to Rome in the high position of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which he held for twenty-four years, although he continued to write, publish, or give public lectures and scholarly papers, over and beyond the production of official doctrinal documents and statements. During his years of doctoral and post-doctoral studies (doctorate and "Habilitation" under the German university rules), between 1953 and 1959, he worked on Saints Augustine and Bonaventure. He taught at the universities of Bonn, Münster, Tübingen, and Regensburg, and he was also one of the cofounders of the extremely important quarterly theological journal Communio. This journal was the brainchild of Hans Urs von Balthasar, arguably the greatest Catholic theologian of the twentieth century, and continues to appear in twelve languages and variants. It is somewhat difficult to assess accurately the number of publications by Ratzinger, since some of them tend to overlap and the versions in different languages are not always identical. Nevertheless, we can speak about approximately twenty-five books. It is clear that Ratzinger's thinking derives from that of Hans Urs von Balthasar: a mode of thought that is extremely difficult to assign to either ecclesiastical "conservatives" or "liberals," a thinking that goes back to the Patristic sources of Christianity, beyond its medieval [End Page 18] structures and somewhat distanced from the pre-Vatican II neo-Thomism (though not necessarily hostile to it), and a mode of thought that admits the importance of the Beautiful at the level of the True and of the Good. However, unlike Balthasar, and even his close counterpart the Jesuit priest (and eventually cardinal) Henri de Lubac, Ratzinger was more decisively steeped...

From the Editor Uwe Michael Lang Lord, I love you"—these were reported to be the last words of Pope Benedict XVI before he died on December 31, 2022.1 The words echo the threefold profession of faith the Apostle Peter made to the Risen Christ in John 21. Both Joseph Ratzinger's warm personal faith, which he had treasured since his childhood in Catholic Bavaria, and his profound theological work were animated by his friendship with Christ. It is no easy task to render justice to the immense legacy of Benedict XVI, whose lifework stands out in so many ways. In the first place, we must be truly grateful for his loving service to God and the Church, as a theologian and pastor. Having had the grace of knowing Joseph Ratzinger personally, I have always found it painful to see how a man of such gentleness, humility, and openness in listening to others was often met with anticipated hostility from the wider public, and with thinly veiled obstruction from some even inside the Catholic Church. So many assaults on him were personal, manifestly unjust, full of verbal abuse and intended to distract from the real reasons why the opinion makers of our time intensely disliked him. Joseph Ratzinger was a Catholic thinker who explained the faith in a luminous and attractive way and intelligently questioned the assumptions of the relativism that has dominated the public square in the Western world for some time and is now showing increasingly totalitarian features. Throughout his long life and ministry that led him to the See of Peter, he strove to put God first and ensure that Christ was at the [End Page 1] center of the Church's mission. Since his early years of formation, he found in the New Testament "the soul of all theology."2 As cardinal and pope, he challenged the hubris of historical-critical exegesis and called for a rediscovery of what it means to read the Bible in the tradition of the Church. In the three volumes of his work Jesus of Nazareth, written during his pontificate, Benedict XVI invited us to join his search for the face of Christ, which he has now completed. Even though his university career focused on fundamental and dogmatic theology, Joseph Ratzinger considered the liturgy central to his academic and pastoral work and hailed it as the "living element" of theology, "without which it would necessarily shrivel up."3 Divine worship brings us into the right relationship with God and with one another, and its true meaning and relevance far exceed the actual liturgical celebration. As Joseph Ratzinger concludes from his reading of the Exodus narrative: the worship to which the people of Israel—and, by extension, all the nations—are called "embraces the ordering of the whole of human life."4 Joseph Ratzinger lived and worked at a time when the form and expression of the Church's faith in the sacred liturgy had become a highly controversial topic. As a theologian and bishop, he did not shrink from entering this contested arena with admirable lucidity. He was convinced that infelicitous choices have been made in the actual implementation of the sound principles of the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. With his election to the See of Peter, Benedict XVI found himself in a position to shape the future of the Catholic liturgy, a position he could only approach with misgivings, because he strongly held that genuine liturgical renewal does not happen by decrees and instructions. Instead, he [End Page 2] intended to create favorable conditions and open perspectives for an "organic" development of the liturgy that would avoid the discontinuity that had done so much damage to Catholic ritual in the post-conciliar period. The Society for Catholic Liturgy is indebted in a particular way to the liturgical vision of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Authentic liturgical renewal needs to be grounded in scholarship that is academically rigorous, faithful to the Church's perennial teaching, and guided by charity. The various activities of the Society, above all its annual conference and its journal Antiphon, promote such scholarship in the service of liturgical formation. It is rewarding...

The Farnés and Ratzinger Dialogue on The Spirit of the Liturgy Neil Xavier O’Donoghue (bio) In the fifty years since the Second Vatican Council many books have been written on liturgy and the merits of the revised liturgical books. Few of these match Cardinal Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy published in German in 1999. This work now forms the centerpiece of Volume 11 of Joseph Ratzinger’s Collected Works.1 At the time of its publication, the work was understood by most observers to be a highly significant contribution to the debate on the current state of Catholic liturgy. Many welcomed the book’s call for a new “liturgical movement,”2 but the work did not meet a lot of acceptance from “professional” liturgists and those who teach liturgical studies at many universities. In particular, Cardinal Ratzinger’s support for the tradition of celebrating the Eucharist ad orientem met with a lot of disagreement. Pope Benedict would later comment on this in his preface to the volume of his collected works, Unfortunately almost all of the reviews jumped on a single chapter: “The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer.” Readers of these reviews must have concluded that the whole work dealt only with the direction in which Mass is celebrated; that it was all about trying to reintroduce Mass celebrated by the priest “with his back to the people.” Given this distortion, [End Page 75] I thought for a while about omitting this chapter—nine pages out of a total of two hundred—so that finally a discussion could begin about essential things in the books about which I had been and am concerned.3 When he wrote The Spirit of the Liturgy Cardinal Ratzinger did not it write as a document of the Magisterium, but in his capacity as a private theologian. As a scholar and a pastor Joseph Ratzinger has always been marked by a gentleness and respect for other opinions, while at the same time not being afraid of expressing his own opinion, even when he knew it would be strongly disagreed with. When he was appointed as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, it was very important to him that he be allowed to continue writing as a private theologian.4 In his introduction to the first volume of his Jesus of Nazareth trilogy, after his election to the Petrine office, he summed up his place as a theologian: It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face of the Lord” (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free then to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for the initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.5 Cardinal Ratzinger may have been surprised by the vigorous reaction to the publication of The Spirit of the Liturgy by the liturgical establishment. But he did not ignore all of the criticisms he received. In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger did answer a number of the book reviews on The Spirit of the Liturgy. One such exchange has been published in an earlier issue of Antiphon and his response to another Protestant scholar can be found in his Theology of the Liturgy.6 Here we present a translation of an exchange from the [End Page 76] pages of the Spanish liturgical journal Phase between Canon Pedro Farnés and Cardinal Ratzinger. Farnés is not very well known outside the Spanish-speaking world, but, as a disciple of Dom Bernard Botte, he was a very influential liturgist in the years after Vatican II working as a seminary professor and as one of the founders of the Center for Pastoral Liturgy (Centro de Pastoral Litúrgica) of the Archdiocese of Barcelona. He was also involved in editing the Spanish language vernacular version of some of the ritual editions of the liturgical books in use in Spain and Latin America. Farnés published a review of The Spirit of the Liturgy in Phase (the journal of the Center for Pastoral Liturgy) in 2002. He forwarded a copy of his review to Cardinal...

In 1990, Pope John Paul II highlighted the responsibility of Christians towards nature and the Creator. In his January 2001 General Audience, he noted, “humanity had disappointed the divine creator” (para. 4) through a reckless use of resources. Pope Benedict XVI was equally forthright on this matter. Since his election, Pope Francis has been proactive in his statements regarding ecological responsibility. This chapter examines ways in which religious education teachers can take up the challenge so eloquently framed by these three discerning Catholic leaders. It does so by exploring the practices of religious education teachers in early childhood, primary and secondary education within Western Australian Catholic schools. Specifically, these teachers were surveyed as to ways they attempt to develop a sense of sustainable living as part of their overall religious education programme. The findings of the research are then interrogated in the light of current educational literature on sustainability. The chapter concludes by proffering a number of suggestions as to how teachers of religious education can support Pope Benedict XVI’s call to “appreciate and defend nature” (Caritas in veritate: encyclical letter of Pope Benedict XVI. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf _ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html, Pope Benedict XVI, 2009, para. 26).

Response

Quotes on Brain Death From Estol Incorrectly Attributed to Pope Benedict XVI

For centuries the dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox churches has been marked by disputes and conflicts. It was impossible, and still remains troublesome, to clearly identify the reasons for this. Some tend to blame the Vatican for its excessively ‘obtrusive’ intention to establish its hierarchy in the East. Others tend to claim that it is the Russian Orthodox Church that has triggered conflicts in its pursuit to unify the Orthodox churches and ‘dethrone’ the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic and Orthodox denominations have mainly been clashing in Central and Eastern Europe, where new factors generating conflicts are constantly emerging, whether religious or – more frequently – political (e.g. the historical conflict between Catholic Poland and Lithuania and Orthodox Russia; or the establishment of Catholic dioceses in the Russian Federation, which the Moscow Patriarchate considers to be the canonical territory of the Eastern Church). Sometimes it may even seem that the dissenting denominations do not even try to communicate. The pontificate of John Paul II was ecumenical, but it did not produce the results the Vatican would consider desirable with respect to the Orthodox Church. At present we can observe slow changes in the behavior of religious leaders – Benedict XVI and the Patriarchs of Moscow (Alexii II, followed by Cyril I). The authors of the paper present selected issues in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue during the pontificate of John Paul II and the present Pope – Benedict XVI, and they attempt to answer the question of what changes have recently taken place in the mutual relations of the two denominations, and whether the steps taken stand a chance of resulting in a permanent conciliation.

Pope Benedict XVI often uses the concept of the dignity of the human person in his discourse. This article firstly attempts to present a synthesis of Benedict XVI's understanding of human dignity. The result is a multidimensional understanding of human dignity based on the belief that the human person is created in the image of God. Human dignity is constituted by the given-ness of human existence, the capacities inherent in being human—freedom, reason, love and community—and the telos of human existence, namely, spiritual union with God and the practical realisation of a peaceful and mutually edifying human coexistence. Based on this understanding of human dignity, Benedict XVI develops a normative morality. The second part of this article asks whether interpretations of this normative morality that would claim that some of these norms are absolute moral norms are in fact correct. Particular attention is paid to the apparent equation or reduction of human dignity to the dignity of life. The conclusion is, though it is possible to read Benedict XVI's normative morality as advocating absolute moral norms, such an interpretation would be usually incorrect in light of Benedict XVI's more comprehensive understanding of human dignity.