Post by hibernicus on Aug 31, 2013 20:56:35 GMT
I recently read Peter Hebblethwaite's biography of Paul VI, entitled THE FIRST MODERN POPE. It came out in the early 1990s. Mr Hebblethwaite, as those of you with long memories may recall, was an English ex-Jesuit who produced regular polemics and reports on Vatican matters from a "liberal" viewpoint. His later years were spent waiting with ill-concealed impatience for Pope John Paul II to die. (I picked up one of his effusions - an analysis of the College of Cardinals, entitled THE NEXT POPE - and was amused to find the statement "Not even his most admiring students would say Ratzinger is papabile".) The Paul VI book is fairly explicitly aimed at presenting John Paul II as an aberration and Paul VI as the "normality" to which the Church must return.
There is quite a bit of interesting data on Paul's background and career. (One interesting detail is that Paul told Jean Guitton, his Boswell, that people who blamed him for pulling back from the radicalism of John XXIII failed to realise that John had actually been far more traditionalist and conservative than Paul.) One or two features are unpredictable - Hebblethwaite defends Pius XII's wartime record, presumably because examining Paul's participation in it brought home to him the constraints on the Vatican and what was actually done under the circumstances.
The book is really disfigured and overshadowed by a relentless slant whereby "liberal" actions by Paul are presented as authentic and forward-looking while "conservative" ones are invariably the result of diplomatic tacking and to be dismissed as temporary expedients. (He does not actually say that this was Paul's intention; he just presents himself as having privileged access to "the spirit of Vatican II". His book on John XXIII tries the same trick but on a less extensive scale, because John died so early in the process.)
The big irony is that while Hebblethwaite presents the least setback for the forces of liberalism as oppression and tyranny, when it comes to trads/conservatives he becomes more ultramontane than the Pope. His line on Vatican II is that it was very wicked for the "conservative" minority to criticise or oppose the majority, that concessions to them were mere pointless appeasement as they continued to oppose, and that the proper thing to do would have been to bulldoze over them. This is a funny definition of collegiality, especially given that General Councils are supposed to work by consensus not simple majority rule - his view of how the Council should have been handled is much more oppressive than the treatment of the minority at Vatican I, which liberals have traditionally denounced.
When Humanae Vitae is criticised, Hebblethwaite treats this as proof it should have been rejected. When intellectuals of the calibre of Jacques Maritain (whom Hebblethwaite dismisses as having gone senile), Marshall McLuhan and Evelyn Waugh criticise post-Vatican II developments, they are accused of "whingeing" and "not even trying to understand the Council". There is no suggestion that their position might be intelligible, even if mistaken - they are just to be ignored.
The unpleasant arrogance and self-regard which mark the book are particularly conspicuous in a long footnote in which Hebblethwaite boasts somewhat ruefully that some articles he wrote presenting Cardinal Benelli as an arrogant and authoritarian gatekeeper blocking access to Paul VI kept Benelli from being elected Pope. Although H admits his view of Benelli was mistaken, and implies that he would rather have had Benelli as Pope than John Paul II, he cannot keep from smirking over the extent of his own influence.
Hebblethwaite also disingenuously complains at one point about a papal intervention to keep celibacy from being discussed at Vatican II on the grounds that opening the discipline to debate would unsettle priestly vocations. He dismisses the possibility of such unsettlement when in fact it is clear (and he says so later in the book in connection with post-Vatican II crises) that such unsettlement was precisely what he wanted.
Some of his remarks are quite laughable in retrospect. He praises the bishops appointed in the US under the influence of Nuncio Jadot as a glorious new dawn, when they have been revealed (not least through their mishandling of the abuse issue) as probably the worst crop of US bishops ever produced. He tells a story of Archbishop Rembert Weakland introducing his mother to the Pope; after listening to the Pope praising her son's sanctity and competence, she remarks to Rembert that she used to have a high view of papal authority but now she's starting to doubt. Given Rembert's subsequent misdeeds one can only say that it is Hebblethwaite who looks funny in a black comedy way.
One little detail - Hebblethwaite has a long lament over how Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, seen as leader of the liberals and liturgical reformers, after submitting his resignation on age grounds and having it put aside, suddenly found out that it had been accepted. This is presented as uniquely arbitrary, but given that it is exactly what happened to John Charles McQuaid I would say it has more to do with Vatican bureaucratic methods of asserting power.
Another revealing comment is where Hebblethwaite remarks apropos SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM that while useful it is a "conservative" early document, and that if it had come later what H regards as the retrograde statement that the liturgy is central to the church's existence would and should have been removed.
There is a thread of theological opinionation running through the piece, but there is never any challenge to the assumptions of secular/secularist readers (as compared to liberal Catholics) whereas conservatives and trads are assumed to be utterly beyond the pale.
So far as Hebblethwaite is concerned, it's all about power politics.
There is quite a bit of interesting data on Paul's background and career. (One interesting detail is that Paul told Jean Guitton, his Boswell, that people who blamed him for pulling back from the radicalism of John XXIII failed to realise that John had actually been far more traditionalist and conservative than Paul.) One or two features are unpredictable - Hebblethwaite defends Pius XII's wartime record, presumably because examining Paul's participation in it brought home to him the constraints on the Vatican and what was actually done under the circumstances.
The book is really disfigured and overshadowed by a relentless slant whereby "liberal" actions by Paul are presented as authentic and forward-looking while "conservative" ones are invariably the result of diplomatic tacking and to be dismissed as temporary expedients. (He does not actually say that this was Paul's intention; he just presents himself as having privileged access to "the spirit of Vatican II". His book on John XXIII tries the same trick but on a less extensive scale, because John died so early in the process.)
The big irony is that while Hebblethwaite presents the least setback for the forces of liberalism as oppression and tyranny, when it comes to trads/conservatives he becomes more ultramontane than the Pope. His line on Vatican II is that it was very wicked for the "conservative" minority to criticise or oppose the majority, that concessions to them were mere pointless appeasement as they continued to oppose, and that the proper thing to do would have been to bulldoze over them. This is a funny definition of collegiality, especially given that General Councils are supposed to work by consensus not simple majority rule - his view of how the Council should have been handled is much more oppressive than the treatment of the minority at Vatican I, which liberals have traditionally denounced.
When Humanae Vitae is criticised, Hebblethwaite treats this as proof it should have been rejected. When intellectuals of the calibre of Jacques Maritain (whom Hebblethwaite dismisses as having gone senile), Marshall McLuhan and Evelyn Waugh criticise post-Vatican II developments, they are accused of "whingeing" and "not even trying to understand the Council". There is no suggestion that their position might be intelligible, even if mistaken - they are just to be ignored.
The unpleasant arrogance and self-regard which mark the book are particularly conspicuous in a long footnote in which Hebblethwaite boasts somewhat ruefully that some articles he wrote presenting Cardinal Benelli as an arrogant and authoritarian gatekeeper blocking access to Paul VI kept Benelli from being elected Pope. Although H admits his view of Benelli was mistaken, and implies that he would rather have had Benelli as Pope than John Paul II, he cannot keep from smirking over the extent of his own influence.
Hebblethwaite also disingenuously complains at one point about a papal intervention to keep celibacy from being discussed at Vatican II on the grounds that opening the discipline to debate would unsettle priestly vocations. He dismisses the possibility of such unsettlement when in fact it is clear (and he says so later in the book in connection with post-Vatican II crises) that such unsettlement was precisely what he wanted.
Some of his remarks are quite laughable in retrospect. He praises the bishops appointed in the US under the influence of Nuncio Jadot as a glorious new dawn, when they have been revealed (not least through their mishandling of the abuse issue) as probably the worst crop of US bishops ever produced. He tells a story of Archbishop Rembert Weakland introducing his mother to the Pope; after listening to the Pope praising her son's sanctity and competence, she remarks to Rembert that she used to have a high view of papal authority but now she's starting to doubt. Given Rembert's subsequent misdeeds one can only say that it is Hebblethwaite who looks funny in a black comedy way.
One little detail - Hebblethwaite has a long lament over how Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, seen as leader of the liberals and liturgical reformers, after submitting his resignation on age grounds and having it put aside, suddenly found out that it had been accepted. This is presented as uniquely arbitrary, but given that it is exactly what happened to John Charles McQuaid I would say it has more to do with Vatican bureaucratic methods of asserting power.
Another revealing comment is where Hebblethwaite remarks apropos SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM that while useful it is a "conservative" early document, and that if it had come later what H regards as the retrograde statement that the liturgy is central to the church's existence would and should have been removed.
There is a thread of theological opinionation running through the piece, but there is never any challenge to the assumptions of secular/secularist readers (as compared to liberal Catholics) whereas conservatives and trads are assumed to be utterly beyond the pale.
So far as Hebblethwaite is concerned, it's all about power politics.