Post by hibernicus on Jul 22, 2013 22:45:37 GMT
Have now finished the (abridged and revised) version of Peter Hebblethwaite's biography of John XXIII. A few impressions:
Hebblethwaite certainly knows a lot about Vatican and Italian politics, much of it unedifying.
The central dynamic of the book concerns ecclesiastical politics, rather than John's inner life. (It is also noticeable that he downplays John's continuing links to his family in Sotto del Monte, though he visited them every year. When he is describing John's presence at the funeral of his favourite sister Ancilla, who lived her life as an unmarried member of the household, Hebblethwaite speaks of her "wasted life". John might have thought of her life as marked by sorrows, but I do not think he saw it as "wasted".) About half the book is given to the pontificate, and the formative experiences are correspondingly downplayed (though admittedly this is an abridged text, and the original may go into more detail.)
This is very definitely the book of a committed partisan on the liberal side of the debates within the Church. It is noticeable, for example, that he treats Modernism as being an entirely imaginary construct, which is clearly not the case. (Anyone with a basic knowledge of Fr George Tyrrell knows, for example, that however some of his attitudes may have sprung from genuine and sincere response to pastoral problems, by the end of his life he had developed views which are pretty much incompatible with classic Christianity or with any idea of a revelation.) This makes a great deal of difference in how one assesses the anti-Modernist reaction, just as one's response to the post-1945 American Red Scare (which certainly involved a great deal of hysteria, slander, guilt by association, and unsavoury political attitudes) will differ if you refuse to admit that there were real communist spies operating within the American government, or that Stalin's USSR was genuinely oppressive and dangerous. Similarly, Teilhard is lauded as a great theologian without the slightest reference to the accusations of charlatanism made against him by eminent scientists as well as theologians, and the idea that the worker-priest experiment, even if it was treated over-harshly, might have raised legitimate concerns is brushed aside with scorn. (I note that it was marked by anti-intellectualism on the ground that book-learning divides priests from the faithful - this sounds all too familiar, and I might add -as Hebblethwaite does not - that it is also uncomfortably reminiscent of the right-wing anti-intellectualism which marked and marred the old-style French lower clergy of peasant origins and which contributed to some of the unhappier aspects of anti-modernism.
It is noticeable that whenever he speaks of St. Pius X, Hebblethwaite does not merely think he was mistaken - he treats him with utter contempt. Similarly, he never considers the possibility that the curial conservatives might have been right on some points; they are just seen as obsolete and to be superseded.
In the same way, while he acknowledges the conservative side of John (for example, he notes that John read the preparatory schemae which were discarded when the Council met, and his annotations make it quite clear that he generally liked and approved of them - which contradicts the liberal view that they were imposed on him by the curialists and that his willingness to have them set aside when they met significant opposition meant he had really been hostile to them all along) his attitude is basically a Whiggish one - that the post-Vatican II liberalism represented by someone like Hans Kung is the endpoint towards which Catholicism should "naturally" evolve, and that John should be seen as instinctively or unconsciously groping towards it, whereas conservative statements and actions - whose existence Hebblethwaite is too honest to conceal - are treated implicitly (without the point ever being argued) imposed on him from outside, or being hangovers based on his formation, or on his habit of treating the Popes of his earlier life as oracles - he plays down John's expressions of admiration for Pius X and Pius XII as much as he can. (Hebblethwaite makes it quite clear, for example, that John was personally responsible for crushing the suggestion that the Council should consider limiting or abolishing clerical celibacy.)
We see this dismissive attitude, for example, in Hebblethwaite's remark that John would have supported the post-conciliar liturgical changes since he placed a strong emphasis on the catechetical role of the liturgy, which is emphasised by the OF. Now Hebblethwaite does show that the liturgy was quite extensively debated in the first session of the Council, over which John presided, and that it seems clear that John was in favour of an increased use of the vernacular and spoke about legitimate liturgical variety (John of course had had extensive dealings with the Eastern rites, though oddly enough Hebblethwaite does not mention his strong interest in the Use of Lyons, which he had celebrated on occasion even before he became a bishop.) What this does not mean, of course, is that JOhn would have favoured the type of liturgical reform which was actually introduced - his remarks would be quite compatible, for example, with vernacular Propers and the Canon in Latin, which is what many of the Council bishops seem to have expected; and I also suspect he would have been more tolerant of continued celebrations in the EF than Paul VI was. Hebblethwaite is assuming, and expecting his readers to assume, that the actual outcome was the only one possible and that it is unthinkable that matters might have taken a different turn.
(I also note that Hebblethwaite remarks that John's attachment to Latin reflected the fact that for him the Latin theologians of past ages, and the Latin Bible, were living sources of inspiration; but he doesn't note that this raises the question of whether the postconciliar abandonment or suppression of Latin as the church's language was a mistake, and one which John would ultimately have opposed.)
One possible reading of the events described in the book is that the Council was really Pope Paul's Council - according to Hebblethwaite John wanted a free-for-all discussion insofar as it could be managed, but it was Montini who laid down an agenda (with John's support/acquiescence) and Montini took much more interest in the nouvelle theologie and its potential application than John did. This is an unpalatable thought both for trads and for liberals, because it suggests that Paul's implementation of the Council is much more closely bound up with the Council than would be the case if John had exercised a detailed supervision over it. I have acquired a second-hand copy of Hebblethwaite's biography of Paul and while this will obviously have its own axes to grind I think it will be useful.
A couple of little details: There seems to be circumstantial evidence that Roncalli was sent to Bulgaria because he was seen as too close to the PPI (Christian democrats) suppressed by Mussolini, at a time when the Church was building bridges to the Duce. [I notice BTW when contrasting Pius XI and XII's willingness to make treaties with the fascists but not with the communists, he neglects to mention that they spent much of the 1920s trying to do precisely that, and their experience of dealing with the Soviet regime shaped their subsequent attitudes.)
Roncalli originally expected to spend only a short time in Bulgaria, and then to be sent to Argentina. That would have had significant implications for his development, given how deeply he was affected by his lengthy work with the Eastern Churches.
Pius XII specifically denied that Roncalli was chosen as a second-rater in protest over the removal of the previous Nuncio to France(though he was his second choice); he said he personally chose Roncalli and given the intense attention Pius gave to such matters there is no reason to doubt him. It is also the case that Roncalli was unusual (and aware of it) in that he held such a high diplomatic post without having attended the Diplomatic College.
Hebblethwaite also makes it quite clear that John had a tendency to self-deception - for example, although he despised the NAzis, when he was in Istanbul his reports to Rome show that from his conversations with the German ambassador Franz von Papen he had more optimism about potential Church influence within a surviving Reich than his better-informed superiors, and he also persuaded himself that he had received the idea of holding a Council in a sudden burst of inspiration when the contemporary documents (including his own writings) make it clear that he had thought and talked it over for some time. H does not, of course, consider the possibility that his optimism for the Council contained a similar element, though of course it cannot be reduced to it.
LAstly, Hebblethwaite acknowledges that John genuinely would have liked to canonise Pius IX, though he claims that John's statements to that effect at the end of the first conciliar session should be treated as a sop to the defeated curialists rather than an attempt to balance the boat. (He does make it quite clear BTW that claims that in the end John despaired of the Council are quite unfounded and owe much to MAlachi Martin's fantasies, which H treats with the contempt they richly deserve.)
This book does have its uses, but it's very one-sided, and the one-sidedness is particularly insidious because it lies beneath the level of analysis and rests on a bed of unstated assumptions which the reader is expected to absorb without being fully aware of them. I remember an account of Morley's LIFE OF GLADSTONE which notes that because Morley sees Gladstone's life in terms of inevitable evolution from conservatism to radicalism, he ignores the significance of evidence - even when he himself describes it, even when Gladstone himself spoke of it to him - which outlines the ways in which to the end of his life Gladstone retained many very conservative attitudes. This is another such case.
Hebblethwaite certainly knows a lot about Vatican and Italian politics, much of it unedifying.
The central dynamic of the book concerns ecclesiastical politics, rather than John's inner life. (It is also noticeable that he downplays John's continuing links to his family in Sotto del Monte, though he visited them every year. When he is describing John's presence at the funeral of his favourite sister Ancilla, who lived her life as an unmarried member of the household, Hebblethwaite speaks of her "wasted life". John might have thought of her life as marked by sorrows, but I do not think he saw it as "wasted".) About half the book is given to the pontificate, and the formative experiences are correspondingly downplayed (though admittedly this is an abridged text, and the original may go into more detail.)
This is very definitely the book of a committed partisan on the liberal side of the debates within the Church. It is noticeable, for example, that he treats Modernism as being an entirely imaginary construct, which is clearly not the case. (Anyone with a basic knowledge of Fr George Tyrrell knows, for example, that however some of his attitudes may have sprung from genuine and sincere response to pastoral problems, by the end of his life he had developed views which are pretty much incompatible with classic Christianity or with any idea of a revelation.) This makes a great deal of difference in how one assesses the anti-Modernist reaction, just as one's response to the post-1945 American Red Scare (which certainly involved a great deal of hysteria, slander, guilt by association, and unsavoury political attitudes) will differ if you refuse to admit that there were real communist spies operating within the American government, or that Stalin's USSR was genuinely oppressive and dangerous. Similarly, Teilhard is lauded as a great theologian without the slightest reference to the accusations of charlatanism made against him by eminent scientists as well as theologians, and the idea that the worker-priest experiment, even if it was treated over-harshly, might have raised legitimate concerns is brushed aside with scorn. (I note that it was marked by anti-intellectualism on the ground that book-learning divides priests from the faithful - this sounds all too familiar, and I might add -as Hebblethwaite does not - that it is also uncomfortably reminiscent of the right-wing anti-intellectualism which marked and marred the old-style French lower clergy of peasant origins and which contributed to some of the unhappier aspects of anti-modernism.
It is noticeable that whenever he speaks of St. Pius X, Hebblethwaite does not merely think he was mistaken - he treats him with utter contempt. Similarly, he never considers the possibility that the curial conservatives might have been right on some points; they are just seen as obsolete and to be superseded.
In the same way, while he acknowledges the conservative side of John (for example, he notes that John read the preparatory schemae which were discarded when the Council met, and his annotations make it quite clear that he generally liked and approved of them - which contradicts the liberal view that they were imposed on him by the curialists and that his willingness to have them set aside when they met significant opposition meant he had really been hostile to them all along) his attitude is basically a Whiggish one - that the post-Vatican II liberalism represented by someone like Hans Kung is the endpoint towards which Catholicism should "naturally" evolve, and that John should be seen as instinctively or unconsciously groping towards it, whereas conservative statements and actions - whose existence Hebblethwaite is too honest to conceal - are treated implicitly (without the point ever being argued) imposed on him from outside, or being hangovers based on his formation, or on his habit of treating the Popes of his earlier life as oracles - he plays down John's expressions of admiration for Pius X and Pius XII as much as he can. (Hebblethwaite makes it quite clear, for example, that John was personally responsible for crushing the suggestion that the Council should consider limiting or abolishing clerical celibacy.)
We see this dismissive attitude, for example, in Hebblethwaite's remark that John would have supported the post-conciliar liturgical changes since he placed a strong emphasis on the catechetical role of the liturgy, which is emphasised by the OF. Now Hebblethwaite does show that the liturgy was quite extensively debated in the first session of the Council, over which John presided, and that it seems clear that John was in favour of an increased use of the vernacular and spoke about legitimate liturgical variety (John of course had had extensive dealings with the Eastern rites, though oddly enough Hebblethwaite does not mention his strong interest in the Use of Lyons, which he had celebrated on occasion even before he became a bishop.) What this does not mean, of course, is that JOhn would have favoured the type of liturgical reform which was actually introduced - his remarks would be quite compatible, for example, with vernacular Propers and the Canon in Latin, which is what many of the Council bishops seem to have expected; and I also suspect he would have been more tolerant of continued celebrations in the EF than Paul VI was. Hebblethwaite is assuming, and expecting his readers to assume, that the actual outcome was the only one possible and that it is unthinkable that matters might have taken a different turn.
(I also note that Hebblethwaite remarks that John's attachment to Latin reflected the fact that for him the Latin theologians of past ages, and the Latin Bible, were living sources of inspiration; but he doesn't note that this raises the question of whether the postconciliar abandonment or suppression of Latin as the church's language was a mistake, and one which John would ultimately have opposed.)
One possible reading of the events described in the book is that the Council was really Pope Paul's Council - according to Hebblethwaite John wanted a free-for-all discussion insofar as it could be managed, but it was Montini who laid down an agenda (with John's support/acquiescence) and Montini took much more interest in the nouvelle theologie and its potential application than John did. This is an unpalatable thought both for trads and for liberals, because it suggests that Paul's implementation of the Council is much more closely bound up with the Council than would be the case if John had exercised a detailed supervision over it. I have acquired a second-hand copy of Hebblethwaite's biography of Paul and while this will obviously have its own axes to grind I think it will be useful.
A couple of little details: There seems to be circumstantial evidence that Roncalli was sent to Bulgaria because he was seen as too close to the PPI (Christian democrats) suppressed by Mussolini, at a time when the Church was building bridges to the Duce. [I notice BTW when contrasting Pius XI and XII's willingness to make treaties with the fascists but not with the communists, he neglects to mention that they spent much of the 1920s trying to do precisely that, and their experience of dealing with the Soviet regime shaped their subsequent attitudes.)
Roncalli originally expected to spend only a short time in Bulgaria, and then to be sent to Argentina. That would have had significant implications for his development, given how deeply he was affected by his lengthy work with the Eastern Churches.
Pius XII specifically denied that Roncalli was chosen as a second-rater in protest over the removal of the previous Nuncio to France(though he was his second choice); he said he personally chose Roncalli and given the intense attention Pius gave to such matters there is no reason to doubt him. It is also the case that Roncalli was unusual (and aware of it) in that he held such a high diplomatic post without having attended the Diplomatic College.
Hebblethwaite also makes it quite clear that John had a tendency to self-deception - for example, although he despised the NAzis, when he was in Istanbul his reports to Rome show that from his conversations with the German ambassador Franz von Papen he had more optimism about potential Church influence within a surviving Reich than his better-informed superiors, and he also persuaded himself that he had received the idea of holding a Council in a sudden burst of inspiration when the contemporary documents (including his own writings) make it clear that he had thought and talked it over for some time. H does not, of course, consider the possibility that his optimism for the Council contained a similar element, though of course it cannot be reduced to it.
LAstly, Hebblethwaite acknowledges that John genuinely would have liked to canonise Pius IX, though he claims that John's statements to that effect at the end of the first conciliar session should be treated as a sop to the defeated curialists rather than an attempt to balance the boat. (He does make it quite clear BTW that claims that in the end John despaired of the Council are quite unfounded and owe much to MAlachi Martin's fantasies, which H treats with the contempt they richly deserve.)
This book does have its uses, but it's very one-sided, and the one-sidedness is particularly insidious because it lies beneath the level of analysis and rests on a bed of unstated assumptions which the reader is expected to absorb without being fully aware of them. I remember an account of Morley's LIFE OF GLADSTONE which notes that because Morley sees Gladstone's life in terms of inevitable evolution from conservatism to radicalism, he ignores the significance of evidence - even when he himself describes it, even when Gladstone himself spoke of it to him - which outlines the ways in which to the end of his life Gladstone retained many very conservative attitudes. This is another such case.