The legendary student circle meetings with Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo were essentially advanced seminars with the unique features of brevity and leadership by Prof Dr Pope. At the end, however, there was always half an hour in which the teacher became a friend who gave a little insight into his very personal thoughts. In 2009, shortly before the meeting, he had completed his first trip to Africa. A hurricane broke out in the world press: he had reaffirmed that the Church absolutely forbade condoms, even in view of the highly dangerous AIDS threat on the black continent. He now told the students this. All at once, his head sank to his chest. Barely audible, he mumbled: "But maybe you can't do without condoms in these situations".
I.
For me, this moment revealed the personality of Joseph Ratzinger - Ratzinger in a nutshell. There is the astute, clearly analysing thinker, the loving pastor for people in need, the sober judge. And there is also the merciless advocate of the magisterial position, which has been maintained without exception since Pius XI ("Casti connubii") up to his predecessor John Paul II, the actual author of the encyclical Humanae vitae (Paul VI, 1968) and now also by him - without realistically focussing on the weaknesses of the position that have become apparent in the meantime.
This paradox, this contradiction of positions, has been evident time and again and undisguised since he took on responsibility for the whole Church - first as Prefect of the Faith, then as Summus Pontifex. There was his concern for the faith of what he always called the "little people", the sincere kindness with which he was able to treat people - but there was also a rigid traditionalism that cared little for the real concerns of these very people, and there was also the harshness with which he destroyed many theological existences through his doctrinal sanctions. The list can be extended with numerous examples. Perhaps those Italians who gave him the nickname
Pastore tedesco. This can be translated as "shepherd from Germany", but also as "shepherd dog". He was both.
But how can we explain this simultaneity of incompatibilities? This is by no means an academic question. Since Ratzinger set the theological line of the Polish Pope as head of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981, he has held a position relevant to the history of the Church, from which - nolens volens - he had to have a lasting and emphatic influence on the fate of the contemporary faith community, but also on the future Church. Who was he and what did he achieve? The answer to these questions is also the answer to the question of what can and will remain of this man, this pontiff.
We must therefore first look at his biography. The gendarme's son from Marktl am Inn had absorbed values such as trustworthiness, basic honesty, the forms of old Bavarian piety - all of which can be summarised as naivety - in the original sense of the word, i.e. as originality, uneducatedness, goodwill. This also included a far-reaching generosity in dealing with deviations from one's own position. As it turned out, it was anything but the attitude of "anything goes". Ratzinger remained true to the basic sensitivities of his nature. He always insisted on this. However, it later led to decisions, primarily in personnel policy, which proved to be counterproductive to his actual goals. It is also behind the paradoxical nature that we have identified as a characteristic of Ratzinger.
During his university education (in Freising and Munich), he never really came into contact with the mainstream theology of neo-scholasticism as it was taught at Roman universities at the time, nor with modern philosophical discussions, which was not the case in Rome either. On the other hand, he was strongly attracted to the theology of antiquity, which did not begin with Thomas Aquinas, but with the church fathers of the first post-biblical period. He was more closely fascinated by St Augustine, with whom he had many similarities: power of thought, broad horizons, episcopal responsibility, rigour against dissenters and pastoral passion. With the ideology of the Bishop of Hippo, he also absorbed his Christianised Platonism, i.e. dualistic, idealistic, detached philosophising and theologising.
To many of his contemporaries, Ratzinger therefore seemed like an inhabitant of another star who somehow misjudged the problems of our planet. He also shared Augustine's focus on ecclesiology - but the church they both reflected on was not the church of the 20th century, which was exposed to many storms. Church was above all hierarchy, infallibility, clerical regiment. Significantly, the laity barely feature in his extensive work. The index of the bibliography edited by Vinzenz Pfnür lists 9 references, but none of these works deal with them in recto, but only (and sometimes very much) in obliquo. The lemma Bischof (with derivations) has 53 titles, including many with direct treatises on the subject. In this light, the so often invoked "little people" appear more as paternalistically cared for than as independent subjects in the Church, for whom the common priesthood and the sensus fidelium as an instance of faith are their own. At least this is the view of the Second Vatican Council.
This church assembly is nevertheless an important milestone in Joseph Ratzinger's life. After completing his doctorate on Augustine's doctrine of the Church (People and House of God, 1953), he was quickly appointed to his first professorship - in 1954, i.e. at the age of 27 - a theological teenager, as Michael Schmaus later smugly remarked. In 1959, Pope John XXIII announced the Council: Ratzinger was appointed to the Chair of Fundamental Theology in Bonn in the same year. His reputation as a brilliant teacher had spread like wildfire. It had also reached Cardinal Frings, the senior pastor responsible for Bonn.
He took him with him to Rome as an expert on the Council (peritus) when the church assembly finally started in 1962. The young professor and the old bishop were on the same wavelength: they supported the Pope's motto: Aggiornamento - the Church can only fulfil its task if it is on a par with the currents of thought of the time. The Cardinal of Cologne was almost blind. He had his expert write out the speeches he wanted to give in the assembly hall in Latin, memorised them and recited them - and, together with Cardinal Liénart of Lille, changed the general conciliar climate thoroughly and fundamentally. The fact that Vatican II became the impetus for radical reforms is something the Church ultimately has to thank Ratzinger for or, depending on one's position, blame him for. He contributed essential ideas above all to the documents concerning the Church. This is where his special expertise lay. In particular, he argued in favour of greater independence for the episcopate vis-à-vis the primacy.
II.
The German faculties began to virtually clamour for the illustrious theologian. 1963-1966 Münster, full professor of dogmatics and history of dogma. In 1966, from the winter semester onwards, he was called to the venerable Tübingen; however, the call was easily broken. Many faculty colleagues did not want him at all. However, another young scholar threw all of his equally considerable academic weight behind him. His name was Hans Küng. His intention was to familiarise students with as wide a range of theological positions as possible, not just those of the Swiss. He came.
But Ratzinger's hour of destiny was approaching. In 1967, he was dean and organised the 150th anniversary of the return of the Catholic faculty to the Neckar (it had been relocated to Ellwangen at the time). He wasn't expected to do it, but he skilfully tapped the barrel of celebratory beer like the Lord Mayor of Munich - as if he had never done anything else. But, little did anyone realise, the old university glory was already coming to an end. The watershed year of 1968 was approaching - a synonym for the collapse of the established world order. The troops of the Warsaw Pact occupied Prague and, unwillingly and without realising it, brought about the end of the Soviet empire. Paul VI published Humanae vitae and initiated the break with the absolutist church order that had been dominant since the First Vatican Council (1869/70).
And then there was the student revolution, which manifested itself in all its radicalness in Tübingen. For years, the students had modestly called for a renewal of the encrusted university structures. Then they could take it no longer. With a revolutionary attitude, they exposed the power discourses of the professors. Every authority is critically scrutinised and, if necessary, overthrown. Institutional criticism becomes a principle. Freedom and equal rights for all, self-realisation and becoming a subject are the slogans used to storm the fortresses of the establishment. Seen in the light of day, the students are driven by the same impulse as the majority of the Council Fathers: aggiornamento. But how differently it is being realised!
Today, we can hardly imagine what the position of a German full professor at university was like. To put it bluntly: he was of almost god-like dignity, de facto infallible, indisputably almost omnipotent. But now the audience (!) chanted: "Under the gowns, the mustiness of a thousand years". They lay down on the steps of the stairs leading to the professors' offices; they shouted down the lecturers in the lecture theatre, humiliating them in every conceivable way.
For the fine-nerved, delicately built, sensitive Bavarian dogmatist, who was committed to aesthetic order, this was pure apocalypse. "I saw the cruel face of this atheistic piety," he noted in his memoirs. While his colleague Küng tried to understand the real concerns of the young people, Ratzinger took flight. The brand new Regensburg Faculty of Theology still had a vacant chair. It was actually supposed to be filled by a Judaist. Now it was rededicated as the second chair of dogmatics - and was proud to be able to offer the famous young theologian asylum in this way. He seemed to be saved! That was in 1969.
So much for the external situation. For Joseph Ratzinger, it was the impetus for a complete reorientation of his thoughts and actions. It was not only the changes on the façade that worried him. He was plagued by the idea that he himself had contributed significantly to the revolution with his liberalism, even though he detested nothing as much as the revolution itself. In any case, he saw it as his duty to make amends, i.e. to resolutely defend the old, the pre-conciliar order in genere et in singulari, in short, what he had always lived and taught in Bavarian traditionality.
As mentioned, he always emphatically insisted that he had not changed in Tübingen either, as people liked to try and prove with comparative quotes of a contradictory nature. But the reality was somewhat different. The truth is: He still understood the Catholic faith as a wide open space. Anyone who moved within it could count on his tolerance. He didn't care whether someone was on the far right or far left, as long as the boundaries of the space were not violated. This attitude continued to inspire him after Tübingen - in fact, he never changed in this respect. But the space for tolerance was smaller.
The boundary markers had changed and the new ones were reinforced with high walls. Suddenly, theologians who had always been "inside" found themselves "outside". And that is where Ratzinger's sword struck them hard - Johann Baptist Metz, Edward Schillebeecks, his colleague Küng and many others. The sword now no longer consisted of mere words, but in the almost absolute potestas of the supreme guardian of the faith in the Vatican. The good shepherd became the sheepdog who worked restlessly for his master, the equally traditionalist John Paul II. The man who could be so warmly overflowing with kindness became the "armoured cardinal".
When he succeeded the Polish pope on 19 April 2005, he continued the old programme with new power. Until 1968, he had been rather critical of Rome, sceptical of the fullness of power of the supreme pontiff in accordance with Vatican I. Now, however, this seemed to him to be the only real guarantor of the preservation of the substance of the Roman Church. Now, however, this seemed to him to be the only real guarantor of the preservation of the substance of the Roman Church. This was associated with a reserved attitude towards ecumenism. He was actually in favour of it: Only a few people know that the famous Declaration of Convergence on the Doctrine of Justification of Augsburg (1999) would not have materialised without his commitment right up to the last minute. But he is also the author of the document Dominus Jesus from the year 2000, in which he insists with harsh words on the Pope's claim to sole representation and, above all, denies the Reformation church communities any real ecclesiological significance.
In 1968, he had changed track, so to speak. From the theological shaper of the reformist Second Vatican Council, he now became its - to put it mildly - critical companion. As pontiff, he consciously joined the long line of partisans of the First Vatican Council. Cautiously at first, then more and more bluntly, he criticised the open-mindedness of the 1962/65 Church Assembly, as can be seen from his attitude to its first approved document, the Constitution on the Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium.
From the outset, Ratzinger took a reserved view of the reform initiated there. His aesthetic feeling played a not insignificant role in this: it was no longer beautiful; it seemed banal to him. "The liturgy has ... an inner connection to beauty", he wrote in the post-synodal letter Sacramentum unitatis from 2007, but the new design is a "darkening of God", the "extinguishing of the splendour of truth", he added in the preface to the Russian edition of volume 11 of the "Collected Writings". This may also explain his excessive leniency towards the Pius brothers, who radically reject the liturgical reform. He cancels almost all restrictions in this regard.
He declares the Tridentine Mass an "extraordinary rite" and the Vatican Mass an "ordinary rite". The word extraordinary, however, has two meanings according to the Duden dictionary: It can mean deviating from the ordinary ("an extraordinary situation") and going beyond the ordinary, outstanding ("an extraordinary gift"). What did the measure mean for the Pope? In any case, it made him very sad when his successor cancelled it in 2021.
III.
I think that the attempt to analyse Ratzinger's character has automatically led us to the question of the lasting significance of his time in office. At the latest, the investigations into the abuse scandal have made it abundantly clear that the Roman Catholic Church suffers from systemic deficits. In most cases, the perpetrators were not sex monsters. Rather, they were concerned with maintaining and demonstrating power by means of what Pope Francis calls "clericalism", i.e. the humiliation of lay people who are seen as subjects, as little people (in every respect).
Furthermore, relevant studies have also clearly shown that this attitude was actually first conceived at the Council of 1869/70. This was an unprecedented demonstration of the Church's power vis-à-vis the growing secular powers and authorities. All the power of the Church was centred on a single person. This person now had to do everything in his power to retain it. Within the Church, this resulted in a doctrinal and disciplinary relentlessness on the part of the ministers at all levels.
The long shadow of the First Vatican Council also lies over the ministry of Benedict XVI. His Platonic idealism, his simple piety, his uncritical trustfulness, his extensive ignorance of the background to current trends have prevented the analytical power of his thinking, his theological brilliance and the official confrontation with many forms of thought from gaining the upper hand. He could have powerfully initiated the turning point that - as is becoming increasingly clear - is inevitable for the existence of the faith community. The contradictory nature of his character prevented this and ultimately caused him to fail.
You could say that Ratzinger/Benedict is a tragic figure cat'exochen. Perhaps his true vocation lay in the study of theology - something he never actually had time to do, when viewed from close up. Most of his post-qualificatory writings are occasional writings; strictly academic works are quite rare in his bibliography. From the outset, he was burdened with many other tasks in the church ministry, especially the one for which he was not really suited: leadership. What theological treasures have we missed out on because of this? Perhaps an epochal analysis of the topic of faith and reason, which had preoccupied him since his time in Bonn, but never comprehensively
was treated.
But has he really failed? The decisive factor is the naive honesty (in the best sense of the word) of his character. It allowed him to make the decision that will undoubtedly go down in the history books. When he realised that he lacked the strength to govern, he resigned. That much can be said with certainty, even if it is not entirely clear what events and happenings as a whole de facto prompted him to do so. However, it should not be overlooked that it took courage unimaginable to most.
The last pope before him to resign (more or less) voluntarily was Cölestin V, the simple-minded hermit Pietro da Morrone from Abruzzo, in 1294. His term of office lasted six months. Six years later lies Dante's journey to the afterlife, which he created in the Divina Comedia. This was written between 1307 and 1320, just a few years after the end of Celestine (1296 in Fumone). In the Inferno, the poet encounters the abdicated pope. In hell? Yes, because he was (Inf. 3.59 f.) "Colui che fece per viltà il gran rifiuto", i.e. the one "who cowardly rejected the great commission" (translation by Karl Vossler).
This verdict of the great poet has never been completely forgotten - not even after Ratzinger's resignation. The former secretary of John Paul II and later Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow (appointed by Benedict), Stanisław Dziwisz, could not refrain from commenting: Jesus had not come down from the cross either. Il gran rifiuto - Benedict XVI was well aware of these associations. He did not allow himself to be swayed.
So what will remain of this great Christian in everything? It is still impossible to say with any degree of certainty. The history of a personality's impact always includes the subsequent history, which in this case has barely begun. Nevertheless, some pieces of the puzzle can be provided that are permanently valid and therefore also belong in the final picture. In any case, this includes the 2013 decision, which incidentally has its own irony.
The man who was the protagonist of the thinking of 1870 for almost half a century, who tirelessly emphasised the sublimity and excellence of the Petrine office in those years, was the one who demystified and demythologised the Pope. The Te Deum was rewritten in the wake of the First Vatican Council: "Te papam laudamus, te Dominum confitemur - Great Pope we praise you...". The Roman bishop is godlike. That seemed genuinely Catholic! From now on, however, the pontiff is a man who can fail, who can be overwhelmed, who can no longer conceal any dimension of frailty. This is of great benefit to the Church. The Pope can be true to himself - he is neither dependent on grey eminences nor does he have to go to the trouble of covering up his illness and decline. He is thus placing himself at the service of that truthfulness which the Church has largely lost in the turmoil of recent decades.
Seen in this light, Benedict XVI broke the disastrous chain of modern papalism once and for all and opened up new perspectives for the Petrine ministry. In comparison, many other beneficial decisions made during his term of office pale into insignificance. However, one package of measures should be mentioned: These are the three encyclicals on the so-called divine virtues of faith, hope and charity, primarily the first one with the Initium Deus caritas est from Christmas 2005 - his inaugural encyclical, in which popes usually outline a kind of programme for their term of office. Unlike any previous document of a comparable kind, he not only honours spiritual love (agape) under this heading, but also explicitly the physical Eros. This had never been done before.
IV.
And one last thing: a completely forgotten but very significant decision: in 2007, he declared that the limbus puerorum, the afterlife location of unbaptised deceased children, which had been regarded as dogmatic for centuries, was only a non-binding doctrine. This decision has significant consequences for the understanding of dogmatic doctrinal development in the Church, a main point of contention in current internal Church discussions, such as the Synodal Way.
Ratzinger lived for almost a decade after his term of office. It was not outshone by the evening sun after a long working day. Here are just two examples. Firstly, conservative-traditionalist circles repeatedly tried to pull the Emeritus in front of their own cart. He has not always resisted and has thus, certainly not deliberately, jeopardised the agenda of his successor. The mutual declarations that no sheet of paper would fit between them could do little to change the facts.
Benedict's outward demeanour was also irritating in this context: simple minds at least could not help but get the impression that there were two popes after all. Secretary Gänswein fuelled this when he lectured, unenlightened, that there was one pope for the spiritual - Ratzinger - and one for the rough stuff - Francis. The Vatican should urgently adopt a regulation in which the lifestyle of a resigned pontiff is moderated.
The second example is the handling of the unfortunate allegations of abuse. What is often overlooked: Benedict was the first high-ranking church representative to take a firm and robust stance against the church's previous tactics of cover-up and minimalisation. Under his aegis as the supreme guardian of the faith, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a vade mecum on dealing with abuse in 2001: all cases were no longer to be dealt with and decided at diocesan level, but at Vatican level. The statute of limitations was also extended. In 2010, as Pope, he then tightened the regulations and extended the time limits once again. Nevertheless, the massive accusation of his own cover-up of victims during his time as Archbishop of Munich and Freising haunted him until his last days. He died as a defendant in a civil trial initiated in Traunstein. Despite his death, this is not yet over. New accusations are pending.
Ratzinger was, all in all, a highly significant, but also a deeply tragic figure. In the end, his physical powers declined rapidly - sight, hearing, speech, movement. Death took him into its redemptive hands on 31 December 2022. It was the feast day of Pope Silvester I, who is remembered for his fear and anxiety (frescoes in the Silvester Chapel near the Roman church of SS. Quattro Coronati). On the eve of Epiphany 2023, the Feast of the Epiphany of the Glory of the Lord, the Pope Emeritus was bid farewell from this world in St Peter's Square with a requiem led by his decrepit successor. It was a completely new liturgy with which der keeper of the old was given over to the mercy of him who said: "Behold, I make all things new" (Acts 21:5).
