Fr. Z's Blog

• Benedict XVI at Westminster Hall to civil authorities
• Benedict XVI’s address to Anglican Archbp. Williams at Lambeth
• Benedict XVI’s address for Vespers in Westminster Abbey

The phrase that comes to mind is "Nixon goes to China".

Day 2 Benedict’s trip has blown John Paul II’s trip out of the water.  I don’t mean that John Paul’s trip wasn’t important or that the crowds weren’t as big.  But we have to consider who the players are, and what is taking place and where.  What John Paul did was great, but what he did, didn’t matter as much as what Benedict is doing.  John Paul’s  effort was a continuation of what Paul VI and John XXIII had done.  Benedict builds on that, but his project is something quite different.

It is probable that quite a few people are not fans of all the people involved.  This isn’t just any Pope, it is a German Pope with the reputation of saying "No" all the time.  That in itself makes what he is doing more impressive.  Also, this is taking place at Lambeth Palace, Westminster Hall and, Westminster Abbey, which three places tie together the separation of the Church of England, the Crown from the Catholic Church.

What we got today was rapprochement with the state and with the C of E at the same time.  Of course, the two go together.  This was clear from today’s events.  Had a Pope addressed a joint session of Congress would not been nearly as significant as what happened today.

Rapprochement is not communion.  No one takes it for that.  But in a sense Pope Benedict, and the Crown, and the Church of England, have found some closure today.

Today it was as if a treaty has been signed.  The treaty is in the symbolism, rather than on a piece of paper.  The essential element of the treaty states: we are over it.  We may have a long way to go to be emotionally over it, and we still have a lot to digest.  But we recognize that there is no going back. 

There may not be a way of going forward either.  In concrete relations between the Cof E and the Catholic Church, we may actually be stuck.  But we cannot go back to the way things were before in our relations.  Something new has transpired in between the Crown, the C of E, and the Church.  Do achieve this, Pope Benedict had to give something up.  At the same time, he didn’t give up anything essential.

Symbols are important.  Today’s rapprochement is symbolic, but not less real for that.  The Vicar of Christ, Peter, went to England in a state visit.  Perhaps John Paul II would have made a state visit back when, had there not been the tension over the Falkland Islands.  But the fact is, his was not a state visit.  That had to wait until today. 

Benedict gave up something in giving symbolic recognition to the Church of England.  He has shifted the way they will talk.  That doesn’t mean Benedict thinks that they are on an equal footing.  I refer you to Dominus Iesus.  Run, don’t walk, to read it again.

Think about this, as well.  Benedict is not liked by liberals and secular humanists, and probably by many of Archbp. Williams colleagues.  The fact that he is not liked, he is in fact reviled by many in England, made his words and gestures more effective.  Had a liberal done this, the symbol would not have made as much difference.  People would have shrugged and said, "Well, he’s a liberal.  What do you expect?"  But this is Papa Ratzinger, and not some theoretical future Papa, say… Ravasi.  This Pope went to England. 

Who this Pope is is one of the reason why this Pope is the Pope of Christian Unity.

It is interesting to watch and listen to Pope Benedict.  He doesn’t show signs of doubt. 

No matter what happens at the Newman beatification on Sunday, I don’t think today can be overshadowed.  No documents were signed, but this sealed something in Anglican Catholic relations.

As I have argued before on this blog, when Pope Benedict engages in ecumenical relations he gives things up.  But he never gives up anything that is essential.  Anzi as the Italians say.  On the contrary, he affirms what is essential.  This is why Pope Benedict’s ecumenical gestures, and his relations with academia and civil authorities, are markedly different from those of his predecessors.  He wins real common ground.

Again, something was given away today, but nothing essential.  As a matter of fact, the essential was affirmed.  Benedict said there are still problems in relations with the Crown and the Church of England.  We have done as much as we can and now we will put them before the Lord.  That’s what Pope’s do.

A couple more notes:

Anglicanorum coetibus played no role in today’s high-stakes churchcraft.  I imagine that Rowan Williams has the sense of this.  Pope Benedict’s visit will help the Anglicans get over Anglicanorum coetibus. As a matter of fact, AC assumed the place which Rome thought it had all the time.  Anglicans today had the opportunity to view AC through Benedict’s lens.

Moreover… looking back at Archbp. William’s words and Pope Benedict’s words, you had a strong sense from Pope Benedict of Apostolic Tradition.  You don’t get that from what William’s said.  History of Europe, okay.  The other part?  Not so much.

Rowan Williams is clearly smart and eloquent. You have the sense in listening to him that he is so smart and eloquent that he doesn’t have to rely on anything other than his eloquence.  Anglicans don’t have teaching authority. They are left with being persuasive, eloquent, charming.  The C of E is lucky to have him right now.  If they didn’t, if they had someone who wasn’t eloquent, they would be flying apart even faster than they are.

On the other hand, Pope Benedict, who is clearly able and willing and happy to rely on the authority of his office, doesn’t have to worry about the sound of his mellifluous tones floating back to him, or seeing the rapt attention in the faces of his listeners.  All he does is deliver his straight forward message, eloquent in its authority and force, if not in its delivery.  Pope’s have an advantage that way.

Williams today spoke of the need to be persuasive through the example of lifestyle, etc., and not through political organization or clout in the public square.  He seems to shy from clear articulation of what Pope Benedict is perfectly comfortable with saying in the public square.  I am open to correction if I am wrong about this, but this is my impression.

In that speech at Lambeth Palace, Benedict said "we Christians must never hesitate to proclaim our faith in the uniqueness of the salvation won for us by Christ".  In the paragraph before Benedict was taking about pluralism and other religions.  In making his interfaith point, he points to what secularist humanists do (deny the transcendent, holiness, the true grounds of human dignity, etc.).  Then Benedict did something that, it seems to me, Williams won’t do.  Benedict said, I repeat…: "At the same time, "we Christians must never hesitate to proclaim our faith in the uniqueness of the salvation won for us by Christ."  Williams’ talk does not say anything like that. 

I am not saying that Archbp. Williams doesn’t believe in Christ.  I am not saying or hinting at all that he is shy about naming Christ.  It is just that when it comes to the issue of the Christian voice in the public square, the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t talk at all like the Bishop of Rome. He will name Christ, truly, but he won’t make Benedict’s claim.

In that Vesper’s address Williams presented Christ as a model of service.  We meet Christ’s almighty power in Christ’s service.  Yes.  But, in reading it again, does he make any strong claims about faith in Christ over against other humans?  He just doesn’t talk about that.  The pastor in the Church "bows down in reverence before each human person".  Fine.  Silence about certain dimensions of Christ doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe in them.  He just doesn’t say much about those things.  Why might that be?  It may be that if you are interested in your discourse being picked up by Jews and Muslims, and every other group in a pluralistic society, you won’t stress Christ in speaking as being more than example.  Don’t emphasize what gets in the way.  I am not suggesting that there is something lacking in his faith in Christ.  I am restricting myself to his style.  I hope I am not being unfair, but there was something missing from his discourse today and I was intent on hearing it.

Benedict is, on the other hand, fearless. Salvation comes only through Jesus, and he says it. 

On the airplane heading to Scotland Benedict said: "Where there is anti-Catholicism I will go forward with great courage and joy."

Benedict has gone to Westminster. 

I think he has changed the conversation there.

I am eager to read also what the good analysts in England have to say about today, which was certainly the high point of the state visit.  I know that my friend Fr. Finigan will have good insights.  These are some thoughts, after watching the three important events today at Lambeth Palace, Westminster Hall, and Westminster Abbey.

This is a speech I have really been waiting for. 

Remember, this is a state visit.  This is where the point is made.

In a sense, this brings some closure to the gulf which opened since the time of Henry VIII.

I will update with thoughts.

Mr Speaker,

Thank you for your words of welcome on behalf of this distinguished gathering. As I address you, I am conscious of the privilege afforded me to speak to the British people and their representatives in Westminster Hall, a building of unique significance in the civil and political history of the people of these islands. Allow me also to express my esteem for the Parliament which has existed on this site for centuries and which has had such a profound influence on the development of participative government among the nations, especially in the Commonwealth and the English-speaking world at large. Your common law tradition serves as the basis of legal systems in many parts of the world, and your particular vision of the respective rights and duties of the state and the individual, and of the separation of powers, remains an inspiration to many across the globe.

As I speak to you in this historic setting, I think of the countless men and women down the centuries who have played their part in the momentous events that have taken place within these walls and have shaped the lives of many generations of Britons, and others besides. In particular, I recall the figure of Saint Thomas More, the great English scholar and statesman, who is admired by believers and non-believers alike for the integrity with which he followed his conscience, even at the cost of displeasing the sovereign whose "good servant" he was, because he chose to serve God first. [Primacy of God in public affairs.  Belief in God is not merely a matter of the "private" sphere.] The dilemma which faced More in those difficult times, the perennial question [starting point] of the relationship between what is owed to Caesar and what is owed to God, allows me the opportunity to reflect with you briefly on the proper place of religious belief within the political process.

This country’s Parliamentary tradition owes much to the national instinct for moderation, to the desire to achieve a genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government and the rights of those subject to it. While decisive steps have been taken at several points in your history to place limits on the exercise of power, the nation’s political institutions have been able to evolve with a remarkable degree of stability. In the process, Britain has emerged as a pluralist democracy which places great value on freedom of speech, freedom of political affiliation and respect for the rule of law, with a strong sense of the individual’s rights and duties, and of the equality of all citizens before the law. While couched in different language, Catholic social teaching has much in common with this approach, in its overriding concern to safeguard the unique dignity of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, and in its emphasis on the duty of civil authority to foster the common good.

And yet the fundamental questions at stake in Thomas More’s trial continue to present themselves in ever-changing terms as new social conditions emerge. Each generation, as it seeks to advance the common good, must ask anew: what are the requirements that governments may reasonably impose upon citizens, and how far do they extend? By appeal to what authority can moral dilemmas be resolved? These questions take us directly to the ethical foundations of civil discourse. If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident – herein lies the real challenge for democracy.

The inadequacy of pragmatic, short-term solutions to complex social and ethical problems has been illustrated all too clearly by the recent global financial crisis. [This is new.  Natural law argument here?] There is widespread agreement that the lack of a solid ethical foundation for economic activity has contributed to the grave difficulties now being experienced by millions of people throughout the world. Just as "every economic decision has a moral consequence" (Caritas in Veritate, 37), so too in the political field, the ethical dimension of policy has far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore. A positive illustration of this is found in one of the British Parliament’s particularly notable achievements – the abolition of the slave trade. The campaign that led to this landmark legislation was built upon firm ethical principles, rooted in the natural law, and it has made a contribution to civilization of which this nation may be justly proud.

[NB] The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. [Not to impose, but rather to speak from within the public square.] This "corrective" role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed, though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves. And in their turn, these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. [Here is an echo of what the Pope has spoken of in his 2006 Message for Peace and in the Regensburg Address, at al.]  It is a two-way process. [Note my thoughts on inculturation when it comes to liturgy.  This is a different dynamic.] Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. [The problem of the secular humanist.] Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization.

Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. [In other words here in England.] There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere. There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. [This is also appropriate for the political discourse in the USA when it comes to "health care".] These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life.  [Framed as a civil rights issue.]

Your readiness to do so is already implied in the unprecedented invitation extended to me today. And it finds expression in the fields of concern in which your Government has been engaged with the Holy See. In the area of peace, there have been exchanges regarding the elaboration of an international arms trade treaty; regarding human rights, the Holy See and the United Kingdom have welcomed the spread of democracy, especially in the last sixty-five years; in the field of development, there has been collaboration on debt relief, fair trade and financing for development, particularly through the International Finance Facility, the International Immunization Bond, and the Advanced Market Commitment. The Holy See also looks forward to exploring with the United Kingdom new ways to promote environmental responsibility, to the benefit of all.

I also note that the present Government has committed the United Kingdom to devoting 0.7% of national income to development aid by 2013. In recent years it has been encouraging to witness the positive signs of a worldwide growth in solidarity towards the poor. But to turn this solidarity into effective action calls for fresh thinking that will improve life conditions in many important areas, such as food production, clean water, job creation, education, support to families, especially migrants, and basic healthcare. Where human lives are concerned, time is always short: yet the world has witnessed the vast resources that governments can draw upon to rescue financial institutions deemed "too big to fail". Surely the integral human development of the world’s peoples is no less important: here is an enterprise, worthy of the world’s attention, that is truly "too big to fail".

This overview of recent cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Holy See illustrates well how much progress has been made, in the years that have passed since the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations, in promoting throughout the world the many core values that we share. I hope and pray that this relationship will continue to bear fruit, and that it will be mirrored in a growing acceptance of the need for dialogue and respect at every level of society between the world of reason and the world of faith. I am convinced that, within this country too, there are many areas in which the Church and the public authorities can work together for the good of citizens, in harmony with Britain’s long-standing tradition. For such cooperation to be possible, religious bodies – including institutions linked to the Catholic Church – need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles and specific convictions based upon the faith and the official teaching of the Church. [Catholic schools] In this way, such basic rights as religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of association are guaranteed. The angels looking down on us from the magnificent ceiling of this ancient Hall remind us of the long tradition from which British Parliamentary democracy has evolved. They remind us that God is constantly watching over us to guide and protect us. And they summon us to acknowledge the vital contribution that religious belief has made and can continue to make to the life of the nation.

Mr Speaker, I thank you once again for this opportunity briefly to address this distinguished audience. Let me assure you and the Lord Speaker of my continued good wishes and prayers for you and for the fruitful work of both Houses of this ancient Parliament. Thank you and God bless you all!

More later as I think about this.