A consistent pope

Since Pope Benedict was elected to the papacy in April 2005, he has often perplexed those who had fixed expectations of his pontificate.

There can be no mistake that on the spectrum of Catholic thought, Pope Benedict can be located on the conservative side of things, certainly on matters such as liturgy, bioethics and the family.

But those who expected the former Joseph Ratzinger to clear out the Church of so-called dissenters (a loaded term which inappropriate overuse has rendered almost meaningless) have been disappointed by a pope who is not unwilling to listen, within certain limits, to those who differ with him.

Those who expected Pope Benedict to be a doctrinaire hardliner, sternly inflexible and defensive on “progressive” issues, will have encountered a pope whose application of nuances sometimes broadens Catholic discourse in unexpected ways.

The secular media has shown itself to be baffled by these nuances, finding it difficult to make sense of Pope Benedict when he fails to conform to the public stereotype they created in the first place.

The pope’s recent comment on condoms—the use of which, he said in a book-length interview with journalist Peter Seewald, can be justified under certain circumstances as a means of preventing HIV infection—was one of those times when Pope Benedict played against that stereotype.

The secular media, which increasingly employ the services of journalists unacquainted with the religious milieu, were perplexed, headlining the condom story with terms such as “conversion” and “about-turn”, as though Pope Benedict had previously ruled out the use of condoms under any circumstance.

The pope may have helped create that image himself when on his way to Cameroon in March 2009 he made a brief comment that was critical of the promotion of condoms in HIV/Aids prevention. The comment was incomplete and set the pope up for a hysterical reaction among his critics, who accused him of saying things he had, in fact, not said.

The pope’s very qualified endorsement of condom-use in the Seewald interview does not contradict his 2009 statement. Then he talked about condoms as a strategy; in the interview he referred to particular circumstances before reaffirming his 2009 statement. It can be said that in 2009, he spoke as a pastor, and in 2010 as a theologian.

There is nothing in what the pope said that can be described as a “conversion” (other than his willingness to state his view publicly, which in itself is significant). What he said is entirely consistent with Church teaching and grounded in moral theology.

The pope’s statement, even though it is a private opinion that Catholics are free to disagree with, will require of some Catholics a mind-shift. Those who fling about terms such as “pro-condom bishops” in dismissive reference to members of the hierarchy who have long said much of what the pope now has publicly stated, will  have to consider whether, for the sake of consistency, they will likewise label Pope Benedict a “pro-condom pontiff”.

Of course, the condom issue was just a small part of the Seewald interview. In it, the pope also addressed the abuse crisis in the Church candidly, acknowledging mistakes the hierarchy has made along the way, and expressing his horror at the crimes that were committed. In doing so, Pope Benedict validated critical self-examination. He also affirmed that the forthright assessment of the abuse scandal, internally and externally, and the media reports on the subject are not intrinsically anti-Catholic or anti-clerical.

Pope Benedict also spoke with empathy about abuse survivors who had left the Church, again negating a persistent stereotype.

Pope Benedict may surprise and even confuse some people, critics and admirers alike.

Closer inspection, however, reveals a man of predictable consistency, genuine openness and sometimes an unexpected tolerance for alternative viewpoints.