VIEWPOINT

Parsing the Pontiff

To understand the pope's visit to the Holy Land, start with his view of Scripture.

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

No matter how much the Vatican rightly insists that the primary purpose of Benedict XVI's journeys outside Rome is to "strengthen the brethren"—as Christ instructed Peter to do—papal travel is inevitably political travel. Especially when that travel is to the Holy Land.

Wherever a pope visits, local interest groups and politicians will lobby for their pound of pontifical flesh, seeking to advance their causes or their ambitions through access to the man in the white simar. Moral credibility is particularly at stake whenever a pope visits a conflicted part of the world: Leaders may not really care what Ban Ki-moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations, thinks of them, but just about everyone short of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants it known that the pope thinks that he or she is on the side of the angels.

So it is that Pope Benedict XVI's May 8-15 visit to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority has dredged up all the usual controversies and questions. What leaders from what groups will the pope see, and what will that mean? What will this German pontiff say about the Holocaust? What will his visit do to advance or retard the "peace process," the position of Israel, the prospects for a Palestinian state? This is inevitable. It's also unfortunate, in that it tends to deflect the world's attention from the most salient personal fact about the pope's journey—that it's a pilgrimage by a man of the Bible to the land of the Bible. While pundits and partisans will interpret Benedict's comments and actions according to the varying political winds and their own agendas, a real understanding of his pilgrimage must start at the true source of Benedict's own thinking: Scripture.

Lingering stereotypes about Benedict XVI's theological "conservatism" notwithstanding, the fact is that, as a seminary student and doctoral candidate in postwar West Germany, Joseph Ratzinger was a theological innovator who insisted that theology begins with Scripture and must always return to Scripture as a crucial reference point. Finding the cold logic of the theology of his day dull and inhuman, Ratzinger was drawn to the theological approach taken by those men of the first millennium known as the "Fathers of the Church": intellectual and pastoral giants like Ambrose, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa and Ephrem the Syrian, for whom theology was, at bottom, a matter of explicating the Bible. Young Joseph Ratzinger thought that a return to the Bible and the Fathers would re-energize theology after the catastrophes of the first half of the 20th century. To that project of revitalization he has dedicated more than a half century of his scholarly life.

Interestingly enough, Benedict's basic approach to Scripture could almost be described as Protestant: for Joseph Ratzinger, the Bible is "first and foremost God's word to the Church," as Father Thomas Rausch of Loyola Marymount University writes in a new book on Benedict's theological perspective. Put another way, the Bible is not, for Benedict, simply a text. The Bible is an integral part of God's search for us, in this case through a sacred literature that remains the "word of God," millennia after its words were first recorded. Where Benedict differs from some Protestant interpreters is that he is not a biblical literalist; where he differs from the older Catholic theology he disliked in the 1940s and 1950s is that he doesn't treat the Bible as a library of proof-texts to be ransacked in order to buttress abstract theological points. Rather, as Father Rausch puts it, Benedict's biblical commentary is built on a "finely tuned sensitivity to biblical themes and images, which he traces effortlessly through both testaments."

Following St. Bonaventure, on whom he wrote his second doctoral thesis, Benedict insists that Scripture is personal as well as literary. The Bible, properly understood, is an encounter between the living God and the people He wills to bring to the fullness of life—people who lived millennia ago and people alive today. Thus to reduce "the Bible" to a matter of letters arranged on a page is to empty it of its personal dimension, which is both divine and human.

This conviction about the personal dimension of the Bible—combined with his settled skepticism about certain forms of modern intellectual life—undergirds Ratzinger's longstanding critique of what is known as the "historical-critical method" of biblical interpretation. Benedict XVI is no fundamentalist or literalist. He is quite prepared to let what scholars have learned about the origins and evolution of biblical texts shape his own reading of the Bible. What he is not prepared to do is to reduce the Bible to an archaeological specimen. Historical criticism of the Bible can tells us a lot of things, Ratzinger believes. But, as Father Rausch puts it, it "cannot really tell us what the text means for us today."

Ratzinger's intense encounter with the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament over more than half a century has given him both a deep reverence for the Bible and a theologically grounded reverence for living Judaism—which is the most solid basis possible for genuine friendship and mutual regard. Benedict knows that the Hebrew Bible is integral to Christianity. As he once wrote, "the New Testament is not a different book of a different religion that, for some reason or other, had appropriated the Holy Scriptures of the Jews as a kind of preliminary structure. The New Testament is nothing other than the interpretation of 'the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings' found from or contained in the story of Jesus."

Finally, Benedict is also something of a biblical populist. As one of the theologians who helped draft a critical document of the Second Vatican Council, the Constitution on Divine Revelation, Joseph Ratzinger wanted to restore the Bible to the people of the church, so that the Bible would be, once again, a font of Christian prayer and understanding. Thus one facet of his critique of the hyperventilated historical criticism in which some scholars engage is that it takes the Bible away from the people of the church, by suggesting to ordinary believers that this complicated ancient text can only be read by the experts.

During his visit to the land of the Bible, Pope Benedict XVI will say and do many things. Just about all of those things will be sifted through the media filter and dissected for every nuance of political meaning. But underlying everything he says and does will be his profound reverence for the Bible. He is firmly convinced that these ancient books speak words of truth and light today. He will say that, in many variations on a great theme. It remains to be seen who will be listening.

WEIGEL, who holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic studies at Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a NEWSWEEK contributor.

© 2009

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution

Using emotion to convince people to change.

Heaven Can Wait
Heaven Can Wait

A new book promises proof of eternal life.

The World's Biggest Foods
The World's Biggest Foods

Monster edibles from around America.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 05/13/2009 2:51:48 PM

    BruceDavid,

    Your posting lack validity of any kind because you didn't specify what the pastor had said and what scripture he aligned to say that the bible said this all along. Thus making your ranting one-sided IMO.

    Provide something other than a strawman argument in which simple ones like sms29s66 falls so fast for.

  • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 05/13/2009 8:09:23 AM

    BruceDavid, very well put. I lhave thought for some years now that the truths of the Bible are thruths of mankind because we are the ones who intuited them, thought them out, wrote them down, and try to live by them. It frustrates and angers me that people take what is finest in ourselves and "give it away" by ascribing it to God. Your take on it, that we realign "Christ" to suit the prevailing image of virtue. is great. Before long, I'll convince myself that I knew it all along.

  • Posted By: BruceDavid @ 05/08/2009 11:51:16 AM

    There is something irritating about the message that "there is a simple truth in the Bible for simple people." It is true that the Bible can be interpreted in a way that correctly picks out how attitudes like humility, forgiveness, love, or wisdom-seeking can 'save' a person from a miserable life or relationship. But the Pope's message fails to give credit to the psychologists, brain researchers, social workers and therapists who have worked tremendously hard to figure out what these attitudes are, how they work and how to communicate them to someone whose brain's fear circuits are on overload.

    A local pastor recently began to read about some of this amazing research and he told me "I'd love to tell them that this was in the Bible for thousands of years." Perhaps it was, but that is probably not how he got it. Most likely he received it (through the media) from the people workers who discovered it. Then he re-interpreted the Bible to match. This is evidenced by the gradual change of "biblical' definitions from abusive, manipulative meanings to meanings that match what the research has shown actually works.

    There is also a trend to bypass this problem and say that while there is a lot of psychological advice in the Bible, its real message is "Christ" (Whatever that means.) But the problem doesn't go away because as our understanding about the important attitudes increases, we retro-actively ascribe them to "Christ." When we definitively learn that our parent's picture of "Christ" was actually that of an abusive male, pastors slowly change the picture to incorporate the new research. Thus, we do not learn about how to live a meaningful life by watching "Christ", though it can seem that way. In reality we learn about "Christ" though long, hard research into how to improve as people. Once we understand that, it makes sense that "Christ" would embody those principles

    What the Pope, and those who hold the Bible as the only guide to life do that can be irritating is that they are not giving credit to the real discovers of how to "be saved." They take that hard-won message, claim that they already knew it, and that anyone who does not use them as a source is somehow deficient.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now