Home
THE TRIAL OF POPE BENEDICT
Promotional material supplied with The Trial of Pope Benedict: Joseph Ratzinger and the Vatican's Assault on Reason, Compassion, and Human Dignity
Q & A with Daniel Gawthrop
You've described The Trial of Pope Benedict as being inspired by a retroactive letter of resignation from the Catholic church, and as a kind of conscientious objection. What you mean by this?
The "letter"; idea was inspired by a former colleague of mine: Alexandre Boulerice, now the NDP Member of Parliament for the Montreal-area riding of Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie. In 2010, Alex and another Quebecois colleague and I were having breakfast in Ottawa during one of our branch meetings. We were talking about the latest clerical sex abuse scandals in Europe when the subject turned to our respective Catholic upbringings. Then Alex said something that really floored me: he had recently "resigned"; as a Catholic by writing a letter to his bishop. His account of the "exit interview";-his bishop invited him out to lunch, so that Alex could explain his decision-was brilliant. He was resigning, he said, as an act of conscientious objection to all the evil the Church was perpetrating: the sex abuse, the treatment of women and gay people, the crushing of liberation theology-everything. When Alex told me this story, I wished I had written such a "resignation"; letter myself 23 years earlier, when I walked away from the church. So I decided to do it, retroactively. But to whom would I send this letter? Not my bishop: Remi De Roo was one of the true progressives, so a letter like this would only have saddened him all these years later. Then it hit me: Ratzinger-the man whose Inquisition had chased me away from the church-had to be the one. Of course, the narrative voice for a letter approach was difficult to maintain convincingly over the course of an entire book. But I'm thinking of actually writing Ratzinger a real letter when I send him a copy of The Trial.
You are the first openly gay man to write a book about the troubled papacy and Vatican. What's more, you're a self-identified lapsed Catholic. Since you began work on this book three years ago, have you experienced any resistance to your arguments because of your background? Do you foresee further objections once the book is published?
I am not the first openly gay man to critique the church. Irish novelist Colm TóibÃn, who as a young man considered entering the priesthood, is one who has written extensively about scandal in the Vatican. But I'm probably the first to confront a pope so directly and challenge him, in effect, to justify his existence. To be honest, I haven't had a lot of resistance so far because most of the people I associate with don't go to church any more, or never did. I do have one or two relatives or friends who are still devout and think I am attacking the church, but they have difficulty with the idea of criticizing the leadership. I think most of the resistance will happen once the book is published. There will be some, I am sure, who will be very angered by the fact that a lapsed Catholic-and a gay one at that-has written such a book.
Do you intend for this book to galvanize Catholic laypeople to action?
What I would really like this book to do is force Catholics of all kinds to step back and think about their church and what has become of it since the 1980s. Of course, there are a lot of people fed up with the right-wing revolution who walked away and will never come back, no matter what happens under Pope Francis. Those people have moved on. But there's a whole other, large number of people who have left but would come back if there was some sign of willingness to engage with the modern world. And there's another group: those still inside the church who are struggling and either have difficulty articulating the pain they're experiencing or lack the courage to speak out about it. I hope this book gives them that courage.
What is your opinion of North American mainstream media's coverage of Pope Benedict XVI's papacy and papal legacy? Do you think it has been too lenient?
In fairness to the media, part of the problem is that memories are short while the destruction of the church has taken a very long time. I mean, Joseph Ratzinger arrived in Rome in 1981. By the time he became Pope Benedict, the war for the soul of the church had been declared, fought, and won decades earlier. So while it's true that he had a degree of political notoriety when he became supreme pontiff, I think that many people in the media saw him as a clerical figure of some gravitas, a curial sage who had paid his dues and deserved the benefit of the doubt. Still: mainstream news outlets did a pretty good job during his pontificate of raising questions about his role in the cover-up of clerical sex abuse, his antagonism of other religions, and his out-of-touch views about sexuality. But I think the media's biggest challenge has been the shock, as a result of the abuse scandals, of treating such a venerated figure as the pope like any other person who has been accused of a crime. By proving to be a terrible communicator, Benedict as pope lowered the dignity of his office. A lot of reporters must have found that very difficult to deal with. Then there's the whole idea of Vatican statehood, the pope's position as a head of state, and the diplomatic immunity that comes along with that. All of this can be very intimidating.
You write about Vatican II (the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65) as an historic opportunity for church relevance. What major events/church decisions forestalled Vatican II's potential?
It really was an historic opportunity. Change, if it happens at all in the church, doesn't happen often-progress has always been a centuries-long kind of thing. But with Vatican II, you had a pope in John XXIII, and conciliar "Fathers"; who were willing for the first time to review the church's relationship to the modern world and make serious changes in a short time. Vatican II got rid of anti-Semitism and promoted interfaith dialogue and harmony, making the church an open tent. It revamped the liturgy to allow new forms of expression, making it easier for people to understand the gospels, and it gave laypeople- especially women-a voice in their church. It also created a climate for dialogue about things like mandatory celibacy-which, if pursued, would have led to married priests and women as priests. And, for the first and only time, it looked at birth control as a valid option for Catholics of conscience. The first major event to forestall Vatican II's potential was Humanae Vitae, the encyclical by Pope Paul VI in 1968, which rejected the majority report of the papal commission and maintained the Church's opposition to birth control. The next was the death in 1978 of Pope John Paul I, who by all appearances was prepared to overrule Humanae Vitae. The third, I would say, was Pope John Paul II's appointment of Joseph Ratzinger, in 1981, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. From there, it was all downhill for Vatican II.
In the book, you argue that Joseph Ratzinger, long before he became Pope Benedict, played a key role in destroying the potential for a progressive movement in the church. Can you share one or two examples?
One of the more infamous examples was his clampdown on liberation theology, from the mid-to-late 1980s. Ratzinger was threatened by a movement of priests and bishops who made common cause with the poor against right wing dictatorships and their corporate masters in Latin America. In these countries, he saw liberation theology and its "base communities"; as a direct threat to Rome's authority. And so, he defrocked several progressive clerics or otherwise made it impossible for them to publish and, thus, spread their influence. The other example, in the largest sense, was Ratzinger's multi-faceted campaign against a women-friendly church. It wasn't just abortion and birth control, or even women as priests, that he made his target: even the notion of inclusive language in church texts came under his microscope. Ratzinger believed that feminist theory was a form of cancer that had to be wiped out, so he actually censored or edited (or commissioned others to do so) several church documents-including the catechism-that reeked of inclusive language.
Do you believe that the global community of practicing Catholics is somehow complicit in Pope Benedict's crimes? Who, besides Joseph Ratzinger himself, must share the blame?
The liberal theologian Matthew Fox, in an open letter to Ratzinger (which I quote in the book), mentions a famous argument by the Soviet poet Yevtushenko. He said that the Russian people shared the blame for the horrors of Stalinism because too many people allowed the ruling clique to do what it wanted. Comparing this to the Catholic church, Fox told Ratzinger in his letter that there comes a point in history where people have to stand up and be counted. I see his point, and
confronting an authoritarian church is a lot easier than confronting an authoritarian government. But I really think that most Catholics who have remained in the church since 1981 didn't have a clue-and still don't-about the extent of Pope Benedict's involvement in covering up sexual abuse. His office protects him, so I think he is that removed from the body of believers. But there are many, many other clerical figures in the Roman Curia and elsewhere who must share the blame with Ratzinger. Three of them are named in a complaint to the International Criminal Court: Camerlengo (and former Secretary of State) Tarcisio Bertone, Dean of the College of Cardinals Angelo Sodano, and Ratzinger's replacement as CDF prefect, William Levada.
Do you think that the Catholic Church will become more progressive on issues such as homosexuality, contraception, and female clergy under the new pope, Francis I?
Under Pope Francis, any progressive change on these issues is unlikely. The former Cardinal Bergoglio is a doctrinaire conservative who is on record as being opposed to gay marriage and adoption, as well as contraception, abortion, and euthanasia. (And he has shown, from his response to questions about his role in Argentina's 'dirty war' of the late-1970s and early '80s, that for all his love of the poor his first loyalty has always been to the church.) However, due to the recruitment and retention crisis in the priesthood-not to mention the sex abuse crisis-I would not rule out the possibility of a papal commission to examine the church policy of mandatory celibacy happening under Pope Francis. This would open up the church to the possibility of married priests, if not women priests, indicating that Rome is open to taking advice from certain Anglican prelates it has welcomed into the fold. Due to his personal charm and humility, and his ability to communicate with the flock, Pope Francis cannot possibly be worse than his predecessor. So, for what it's worth-and I don't think it's worth a lot, given the monumental problems that this church faces-he may turn out to be an improvement on Benedict, should his papacy last more than a few years.
[2013] "Interview"
Q & A with Daniel Gawthrop
You've described The Trial of Pope Benedict as being inspired by a retroactive letter of resignation from the Catholic church, and as a kind of conscientious objection. What you mean by this?
The "letter"; idea was inspired by a former colleague of mine: Alexandre Boulerice, now the NDP Member of Parliament for the Montreal-area riding of Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie. In 2010, Alex and another Quebecois colleague and I were having breakfast in Ottawa during one of our branch meetings. We were talking about the latest clerical sex abuse scandals in Europe when the subject turned to our respective Catholic upbringings. Then Alex said something that really floored me: he had recently "resigned"; as a Catholic by writing a letter to his bishop. His account of the "exit interview";-his bishop invited him out to lunch, so that Alex could explain his decision-was brilliant. He was resigning, he said, as an act of conscientious objection to all the evil the Church was perpetrating: the sex abuse, the treatment of women and gay people, the crushing of liberation theology-everything. When Alex told me this story, I wished I had written such a "resignation"; letter myself 23 years earlier, when I walked away from the church. So I decided to do it, retroactively. But to whom would I send this letter? Not my bishop: Remi De Roo was one of the true progressives, so a letter like this would only have saddened him all these years later. Then it hit me: Ratzinger-the man whose Inquisition had chased me away from the church-had to be the one. Of course, the narrative voice for a letter approach was difficult to maintain convincingly over the course of an entire book. But I'm thinking of actually writing Ratzinger a real letter when I send him a copy of The Trial.
You are the first openly gay man to write a book about the troubled papacy and Vatican. What's more, you're a self-identified lapsed Catholic. Since you began work on this book three years ago, have you experienced any resistance to your arguments because of your background? Do you foresee further objections once the book is published?
I am not the first openly gay man to critique the church. Irish novelist Colm TóibÃn, who as a young man considered entering the priesthood, is one who has written extensively about scandal in the Vatican. But I'm probably the first to confront a pope so directly and challenge him, in effect, to justify his existence. To be honest, I haven't had a lot of resistance so far because most of the people I associate with don't go to church any more, or never did. I do have one or two relatives or friends who are still devout and think I am attacking the church, but they have difficulty with the idea of criticizing the leadership. I think most of the resistance will happen once the book is published. There will be some, I am sure, who will be very angered by the fact that a lapsed Catholic-and a gay one at that-has written such a book.
Do you intend for this book to galvanize Catholic laypeople to action?
What I would really like this book to do is force Catholics of all kinds to step back and think about their church and what has become of it since the 1980s. Of course, there are a lot of people fed up with the right-wing revolution who walked away and will never come back, no matter what happens under Pope Francis. Those people have moved on. But there's a whole other, large number of people who have left but would come back if there was some sign of willingness to engage with the modern world. And there's another group: those still inside the church who are struggling and either have difficulty articulating the pain they're experiencing or lack the courage to speak out about it. I hope this book gives them that courage.
What is your opinion of North American mainstream media's coverage of Pope Benedict XVI's papacy and papal legacy? Do you think it has been too lenient?
In fairness to the media, part of the problem is that memories are short while the destruction of the church has taken a very long time. I mean, Joseph Ratzinger arrived in Rome in 1981. By the time he became Pope Benedict, the war for the soul of the church had been declared, fought, and won decades earlier. So while it's true that he had a degree of political notoriety when he became supreme pontiff, I think that many people in the media saw him as a clerical figure of some gravitas, a curial sage who had paid his dues and deserved the benefit of the doubt. Still: mainstream news outlets did a pretty good job during his pontificate of raising questions about his role in the cover-up of clerical sex abuse, his antagonism of other religions, and his out-of-touch views about sexuality. But I think the media's biggest challenge has been the shock, as a result of the abuse scandals, of treating such a venerated figure as the pope like any other person who has been accused of a crime. By proving to be a terrible communicator, Benedict as pope lowered the dignity of his office. A lot of reporters must have found that very difficult to deal with. Then there's the whole idea of Vatican statehood, the pope's position as a head of state, and the diplomatic immunity that comes along with that. All of this can be very intimidating.
You write about Vatican II (the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65) as an historic opportunity for church relevance. What major events/church decisions forestalled Vatican II's potential?
It really was an historic opportunity. Change, if it happens at all in the church, doesn't happen often-progress has always been a centuries-long kind of thing. But with Vatican II, you had a pope in John XXIII, and conciliar "Fathers"; who were willing for the first time to review the church's relationship to the modern world and make serious changes in a short time. Vatican II got rid of anti-Semitism and promoted interfaith dialogue and harmony, making the church an open tent. It revamped the liturgy to allow new forms of expression, making it easier for people to understand the gospels, and it gave laypeople- especially women-a voice in their church. It also created a climate for dialogue about things like mandatory celibacy-which, if pursued, would have led to married priests and women as priests. And, for the first and only time, it looked at birth control as a valid option for Catholics of conscience. The first major event to forestall Vatican II's potential was Humanae Vitae, the encyclical by Pope Paul VI in 1968, which rejected the majority report of the papal commission and maintained the Church's opposition to birth control. The next was the death in 1978 of Pope John Paul I, who by all appearances was prepared to overrule Humanae Vitae. The third, I would say, was Pope John Paul II's appointment of Joseph Ratzinger, in 1981, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. From there, it was all downhill for Vatican II.
In the book, you argue that Joseph Ratzinger, long before he became Pope Benedict, played a key role in destroying the potential for a progressive movement in the church. Can you share one or two examples?
One of the more infamous examples was his clampdown on liberation theology, from the mid-to-late 1980s. Ratzinger was threatened by a movement of priests and bishops who made common cause with the poor against right wing dictatorships and their corporate masters in Latin America. In these countries, he saw liberation theology and its "base communities"; as a direct threat to Rome's authority. And so, he defrocked several progressive clerics or otherwise made it impossible for them to publish and, thus, spread their influence. The other example, in the largest sense, was Ratzinger's multi-faceted campaign against a women-friendly church. It wasn't just abortion and birth control, or even women as priests, that he made his target: even the notion of inclusive language in church texts came under his microscope. Ratzinger believed that feminist theory was a form of cancer that had to be wiped out, so he actually censored or edited (or commissioned others to do so) several church documents-including the catechism-that reeked of inclusive language.
Do you believe that the global community of practicing Catholics is somehow complicit in Pope Benedict's crimes? Who, besides Joseph Ratzinger himself, must share the blame?
The liberal theologian Matthew Fox, in an open letter to Ratzinger (which I quote in the book), mentions a famous argument by the Soviet poet Yevtushenko. He said that the Russian people shared the blame for the horrors of Stalinism because too many people allowed the ruling clique to do what it wanted. Comparing this to the Catholic church, Fox told Ratzinger in his letter that there comes a point in history where people have to stand up and be counted. I see his point, and
confronting an authoritarian church is a lot easier than confronting an authoritarian government. But I really think that most Catholics who have remained in the church since 1981 didn't have a clue-and still don't-about the extent of Pope Benedict's involvement in covering up sexual abuse. His office protects him, so I think he is that removed from the body of believers. But there are many, many other clerical figures in the Roman Curia and elsewhere who must share the blame with Ratzinger. Three of them are named in a complaint to the International Criminal Court: Camerlengo (and former Secretary of State) Tarcisio Bertone, Dean of the College of Cardinals Angelo Sodano, and Ratzinger's replacement as CDF prefect, William Levada.
Do you think that the Catholic Church will become more progressive on issues such as homosexuality, contraception, and female clergy under the new pope, Francis I?
Under Pope Francis, any progressive change on these issues is unlikely. The former Cardinal Bergoglio is a doctrinaire conservative who is on record as being opposed to gay marriage and adoption, as well as contraception, abortion, and euthanasia. (And he has shown, from his response to questions about his role in Argentina's 'dirty war' of the late-1970s and early '80s, that for all his love of the poor his first loyalty has always been to the church.) However, due to the recruitment and retention crisis in the priesthood-not to mention the sex abuse crisis-I would not rule out the possibility of a papal commission to examine the church policy of mandatory celibacy happening under Pope Francis. This would open up the church to the possibility of married priests, if not women priests, indicating that Rome is open to taking advice from certain Anglican prelates it has welcomed into the fold. Due to his personal charm and humility, and his ability to communicate with the flock, Pope Francis cannot possibly be worse than his predecessor. So, for what it's worth-and I don't think it's worth a lot, given the monumental problems that this church faces-he may turn out to be an improvement on Benedict, should his papacy last more than a few years.
[2013] "Interview"
Submitted on June 10, 2013 in By David.
