More on Martini

Yesterday we looked at the rather stinging critique that Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, retired archbishop of Milan and a favored alternative to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the 2005 conclave that was after three days to elect Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, left has his final legacy before dying last Friday, August 31.  Some have wondered why John Paul II named this progressive Jesuit to be a bishop, and indeed Archbishop of one of Italy’s premier sees, in the first place.

For one thing consideration must be given to the fact that in the first years of his reign John Paul had not yet fixed on the conservative direction in which he was determined to steer the Church for the greater part of the almost 27 years of his pontificate.  John Paul was never a liberal and probably had determined from the moment of his election to “correct” the course that the Second Vatican Council had set for the Church, but he seemed at first to want to build a consensus among Church leaders to recentralize the papal power that the Council had shared out with the bishops in the Decree Christus Dominus.  It was only after the enthusiasm for a non-Italian pope had waned and he seemed not to be achieving his objectives that John Paul abandoned the consensus-building model for a more heavy-handed approach.  In this first bloom of optimism he named a number of progressives to key sees around the world—Americans Roger Mahony and Joseph Bernardin, Belgian Godfried Daneels, French (and Jewish) Jean-Marie Lustiger, French Henri deLubac among others.  (de Lubac, a theologian, was made a Cardinal in recognition of this theological contributions—for which contributions he had been silenced by Church authorities in the years before Vatican II—but he was not given a Diocese.) Of course, not all John Paul’s choices were progressives, but as I wrote, John Paul seemed to have thought initially that he could move the Church to the right without fracturing it—what is proving to be a tragic misassumption.  We will examine this subject of John Paul’s initial attempts at building a consensus in a future post, but there was a second reason why the Pope was anxious to specifically name Martini to a See and that was that Martini’s own scholarship was threatening some Vatican conservatives. 

As I mentioned yesterday, Martini served as Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute from 1969 and then to this post was added two more influential positions: Rector Magnificus and Chancellor of the Pontifical Gregorian University.  In other words, he was skipper, not just of one but of the two most important academic posts in the Catholic World.  This made some very unhappy. Martini’s theology was very liberal but as his field was Sacred Scripture he was not easily assailable.  While the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is very quick to go after moral theologians, and won’t hesitate to go after Systematic theologians if they cross certain lines, they have great anxiety in attacking Scripture Scholars.  The reason is that since scripture studies are founded in the biblical languages (and corresponding cultures) of Greek and Hebrew, with Aramaic, Syriac, Chaldean, Akkadian, Sumerian, and Ugaritic lingering in the background the only people who can go after Biblical Scholars without making fools of themselves are other Biblical Scholars.  Ever since Pius X was left with egg all over the pontifical face in the Henry Poels affair a hundred years ago and more, men who are smart enough to know their limitations have been leery about going after Scripture scholars.  (I could swear that I had done an entry on the Poels affair but looking through my back entries, I think I have missed that.  Need to catch up on it.)  So what do you do with a scholar like Martini who could make mincemeat out of a Ratzinger, much less the not-so-bright lights that have sat in the chair of the Grand Inquisitor over the years?  The best way to silence a theologian is to make him a bishop—it takes up time that he would otherwise devote to scholarship, publishing, and teaching.  It certainly didn’t silence Martini as his final interview demonstrates but it did effectively remove him from the active role of scholarship he had pursued through the years before becoming a bishop.  However, on the bright side, it added one very smart cookie to the hierarchy where he did much good by his intelligent observations, his fearless speaking out, and a holy life.  We need more like him. 

A Voice Cries in the Wilderness

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, retired Archbishop of Milan, died this past week at age 85.   Martini, a Jesuit, was a noted biblical scholar who held two doctorates from Roman Universities—the Doctorate in Systematic Theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University and the Doctorate in Sacred Scripture from the Biblical Institute.  He was to serve as the Chancellor of the Gregorian University and as the Rector Magnificus of the Biblical Institute at points later in his life.  John Paul II named him Archbishop of Milan in 1979—Martini had not previously served as a bishop—and in 1983 he was named to the College of Cardinals.  An impeccable scholar (he was, after all, a Jesuit), he often advanced ideas that challenged more narrow Catholic teaching on such issues as the use of condoms to prevent transmission of HIV-AIDS, admitting divorced and remarried to the sacraments, and the right of the terminally ill to refuse treatment.   He advocated the admission of women to the Diaconate.  A 2007 talk that he gave was interpreted by many commentators as undermining Pope Benedict XVI’s efforts to insist that Catholic legislators oppose civil recognition for same-sex unions.  He was particularly outspoken in his criticisms of John Paul II and Benedict XVI for not taking the collegiality of bishops—defined at Vatican II as the right and duty of the bishops to share with the Pope in the governance of the Church—seriously.  Despite his regular criticisms of Vatican policy and teaching he was never challenged by those further up the ladder—which, of course, would be only the Pope himself.  Pope John Paul II did, however, accept his resignation immediately upon his 75^th birthday.  Like the American Cardinal McCarrick—another papal critic—Martini was not invited to stay on in his diocese a few extra years after the mandatory age for submitting retirement.  Nevertheless, at the time of the 2005 conclave upon the death of John Paul II, Martini was still eligible to participate in the conclave and was initially a strong candidate to succeed John Paul. (According to some sources he received more ballots in the first round than did Cardinal Ratzinger who would eventually be elected.) Martini, like John Paul II, suffered from Parkinson’s disease and the prospect of another pope who was as physically disabled as had been John Paul in his final years was daunting.  In any event the coalition of progressive cardinals who were trying to prevent the election of Joseph Ratzinger soon fell apart in the face of the inevitable.   (By the way, I think the election of Benedict, while he has been somewhat of a “Jimmy Carter Pope,” will prove to have been beneficial in the long-term picture, but I will have to do an entry on that someday.)  In his retirement, Martini moved to Jerusalem for several years to continue his research, teaching and writing on scripture, and then returned to live in a Jesuit fraternity in northern Italy.  Less than two weeks ago he granted a final interview to be released after his death which was a final blast against the restorationism that has marked the Church during the reigns of the current and previous Popes.  According to Reuters, Martini in claiming that the Church was “200 years behind the times,” declared "Our culture has aged, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous."  (Of course I have been saying this in the year and a half I have been doing this blog and does anyone listen to me?  No!  But then I have neither the prestige of a Cardinal nor the scholarly integrity of a Jesuit, so I gladly accede: YOU GO, CARLO!).  I suspect that Pope Benedict was very sincere in his prayers for the Cardinal and, as a scholar himself, regrets the loss of a critical but perceptive voice in the Church.  On the other hand, I am sure that many a curial head lies more easily on the pillow at night knowing that one more person who sees through the charade of their pompous but inane domination has left the stage.  Requiem Aeternum Dona Ei, Domine.