Good marks... in the rough draft

In 1963 American newspaper publisher Phil Graham delivered a speech to overseas correspondents in which he suggested the task of journalists was to ‘provide every week a rough draft of history that will never be completed about a world we can never really understand’.

Judging by the commentaries published since his resignation, Benedict XVI is not getting good marks in the first draft of history. A consensus is emerging that resignation may be his most significant modernising action. Many would agree with Diarmaid MacCulloch’s conclusion that he may have been a good theologian but was a disappointing and undistinguished pope.

Will this first draft of history offered by one of our most distinguished contemporary church historians be the accepted view of Benedict XVI in 50 years’ time? Maybe not. Benedict is unlikely to be viewed as a great pope but he is a much more interesting figure than his critics allow.

Even his theological stance is remarkable for a Roman Catholic. Often written off as hopelessly conservative, few appreciated his originality. As one of the most incisive commentators on his work, the Australian theologian Tracy Rowland, has pointed out, his love of the Church fathers and Newman and his interest in history, hermeneutics and tradition give him an affinity with Lutheran and Anglican theologians and it is no surprise that he got on so well with Rowan Williams. For Benedict, Augustine rather than Aquinas is the greatest Catholic theologian.

During his period as Pope, the media has focussed on a string of PR disasters that are likely to look less significant in the perspective of history than some of the moves Benedict made in response to them.

An unintended insult to Islam in the notorious Regensburg address led to a significant and important debate between Catholic and Muslim scholars. Outrage at Benedict’s suggestion that condoms could make the problem of HIV/AIDS worse in Africa gave way to astonishment at his statement that the use of a condom to prevent infection by a male prostitute might be ‘the first step in the direction of moralization, the first assumption of responsibility’. One UN blogger describes that as ‘a very big deal for the health community, an opening health workers needed to reach Catholic communities with high HIV rates’.

Benedict’s handling of the abuse scandal before and after he became pope has been widely condemned but informed observers like John Allen have suggested the real villain was John Paul II. John Paul’s experience of communism had taught him to disbelieve accusations against priests and at the end he was too old and frail to discipline the likes of Marcial Mecial. It fell to Benedict to deal with the scandalous Mexican priest and remove him from office. His great mistake as head of the CDF was not to instruct bishops to inform the civil authorities of cases known to them but he was operating under the authority of John Paul II.

Critics are probably right to say that Benedict should have removed Cardinal Sodano from positions of power and influence. There is good reason to suspect that the man who remains Dean of the College of Cardinals gave Marcial protection. But this illustrates the problem Benedict has had in reforming the Vatican. When the ‘VatiLeaks’ scandal broke, the media paid more attention to the butler and his actions than it did to the contents of the documents that showed infighting and power plays among Vatican bureaucrats.

The man Benedict had appointed to run Vatican City complained of the way his work was being frustrated. His enemies engineered his transfer to America as nuncio. But the pope did issue a decree that has led to greater transparency in Vatican finances and the vetting of accounts by outside inspectors.

Against this background Benedict’s resignation can be seen as the latest move in a long battle he has waged to reform the Vatican administration. Having seen how the long decline of John Paul II weakened papal governance, he has struck a shrewd blow for reform. Long-term his resignation is going to lead to a view that sees the papacy not as a special office above the rest of the Church but as a ministry like any other that needs to be exercised effectively for the good of the Church.

Benedict’s liturgical changes were probably those closest to his heart. His love of tradition made him high church, which is probably why he was so ready to welcome disaffected Anglicans. He once said the strongest arguments for the truth of the Catholic Church were the saints it has nurtured and the beauty it has inspired.

Enthusiasm for the pre-Vatican II extraordinary rite is limited and unlikely to grow but Benedict was probably right to see the need to recover dignity and beauty in Catholic worship.

It is just a pity that the new translation of the mass produced on his watch is so poor.

Even distinguished historians writing as journalists can only offer the first draft of history. It is too soon to assess Benedict’s papacy. My guess is that he will be seen as a fascinating and complex figure of undeniable importance in the history of the church but about whose achievement as theologian and pope there will continue to be debate.