Liturgical and set to rites

Published by The Australian, April 23, 2005

(The Australian, April 23, 2005) A FEW months ago, in a piece that some stern sub-editor headed "A conservative daydream", I predicted that Joseph Ratzinger would be the next pope. Now seems as good a time as any to hazard a few more guesses about the direction of his pontificate.

The ABC news and current affairs coverage immediately ran with the line that it was a divisive choice. Many other local media followed suit. But is it true? Certainly it was an unwelcome decision in some newsrooms, where anyone with an orthodox position on sexual ethics, gay marriage or female ordination would be thought unsuitable on the grounds of narrow-mindedness. Do the overwhelming majority of practising Catholics in the First World, let alone the Third, share that view? All the signs suggest they don't.

How significant a constituency is there among women who want to be priests or Catholic gays who want their unions blessed and their church-going supporters? Statistically speaking it's negligible, although they are noisy and some, especially among the clergy, are not without influence.

Disaffected clerics who would like to reinvent the church in their own image now have two basic options. They can remain inside the edifice, subverting its official teachings as best they can, while paying a measure of lip-service.

Alternatively, they can leave and kiss goodbye to their jobs and all the other perquisites of office.

A new pope who maintains an orthodox line on questions of faith and morals throws down a fresh gauntlet to the temporisers. They either have to display the courage of their convictions and make their own arrangements or else make some concessions to duly constituted authority now in the hope that the next pope or the next but one will share their reservations.

In the meantime, the most delinquent can expect to be removed from any position of importance and pensioned off. It may sound harsh, but these are the rules by which this particular voluntary association, this club, has generally worked. It would be far more divisive for the institution if its head were to announce that the rules had suddenly changed, or that he was revising them so as to embrace the brave new world envisaged by a bunch of journalists, or that there were no rules to speak of nowadays.

While the metaphor of a club obviously doesn't capture the essence of the universal church, it nonetheless has its uses. More than two-thirds of the governing council of this association have just elected, in near-record time, a president who has a proven track record, was always acknowledged as the frontrunner and says he didn't want the job. These are not the hallmarks of a divided institution. Nor should we fail to note that, on any reading of the numbers, Ratzinger was the Third World's preferred candidate.

Talking of the numbers leads me to a few predictions. The new Pope Benedict XVI will quite soon convene a consistory and name about a dozen new cardinals to replace those who are about to turn 80 and lose the right to vote for his successor. This will ensure a substantial continuity during at least the next two reigns.

Firm papal control over the selection of bishops and their preferment to important sees will be a further guarantee of continuity. The cardinals who have been long-term allies of the Pope will gain further clout by virtue of his election. In Australia, for example, George Pell will have an even greater say in vetting candidates for promotion outside his own archdiocese. The sermon delivered at the new Pope's first mass was a harbinger of things to come in several ways that have yet to register in the commentariat. The most significant was an unequivocal commitment to pursuing the reunification of the church. Are we to conclude from this that a once-fierce critic of women's ordination in the Anglican Communion has softened his stance or that he's preparing to cobble together unexpected compromises with the Protestant churches?

I don't think either option is conceivable. What is likely is that the Traditional Anglicans, the opponents of women's ordination whose global head is an Australian, Archbishop John Hepworth, will soon be reconciled with Rome. This coup, involving a substantial, dissident chunk of the Anglican world, was mooted in this column more than a year ago. It was scheduled for announcement in late January, until last-minute hitches and John Paul II's declining health deferred matters.

The other front on which there is some prospect of change is among the Eastern Orthodox. The doctrinal differences are so minor that they've long been seen as more of an excuse for separateness than a reason. Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, made some unfortunate remarks about the Orthodox, likening them to "a withered arm of Christendom". More recently he has taken, when in Rome on a Sunday, to attending mass in the eastern rite at the church attached to the Russicum, the Russian College. There are still tricky issues of diplomacy, notably on proselytising in rival jurisdictions, but if there's no progress I expect it won't be for lack of trying on Rome's part.

There was another clue to the new pontificate in the fact the Pope chose to deliver his homily in Latin. He's an eloquent enthusiast and celebrant of the old Latin rite who describes the loss of a universal liturgical language as "a tragic breach". As the man in charge of John Paul II's funeral, he chose the most conservative options in the new rite and its Latin version.

These are not matters of anachronistic personal preference. It was a way of sending unmistakable messages through mass media. To those dissident followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in the Society of Pius X, it was a renewed invitation to return to a church that promises to be more accommodating towards the rite they observe. To the much larger group of traditionally minded adherents of the old rite, who've remained within the church, it was a reminder of Benedict XVI's longstanding sympathies.

To liberal-authoritarian bishops, especially in the English-speaking world, it was an early warning that priests and congregations who prefer the old rite can no longer be marginalised at will. To timid clergy, who long to say the old mass but have been deterred by the humiliations meted out to so many of those brave souls who do, it will be heartening.

This Pope is liturgically minded in ways that his predecessor was not. I think that we have seen the last of those papal masses in which bare-breasted tribesmen and women assisted at the offertory. They may still be allowed to perform traditional dances, but the jazz ballet troupes in black leotards and the liturgical dance routines involving nuns aren't likely to survive long in this pontificate. It may be too soon to bid farewell to rock masses, to priests in clown suits and nuns wielding guitars or chalices or both, but I suspect they too will go the way of all fads.

Finally, while this Pope and his predecessor loved one another dearly, I doubt that the new one will follow precedent and submit to wearing a Rastafarian beanie with an Aboriginal flag motif, no matter how earnestly entreated.



Volume 7 Number 17 - Tuesday, April 26th, 2005	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY