The changing of the guard.
The passing of John Paul II last week revived the discussion about the universality of the Catholic Church. The charisma shown by the last Pope was one of the reasons that the church, in some way, helped him to deal with several issues, such as the sexual predators priests, which did put the Roman Curia in a difficult position.
Moreover, in the last 20 years or so, John Paul II was seen as a gifted benevolent ruler and possessor of that diplomatic tact that is known in the ecclesiastic circles as “romanitas”. He was able to preserve the moral ground that people might expect from the Church, especially among the faithful. Indeed, he gained political capital after surviving the murderous attempt by a KGB operative almost at the beginning of his pontificate, serving him in his political standing against the communist governments, in particular in his native Poland. For the rest of his reign as Vicar of Christ on earth, he was maintained that charismatic clout of being a fighter against injustice, and an orthodox in matter of faith.
This coming Sunday, the recently elected Pope Benedict XVI, called a doctrinal ally of the late pope, will officially begin his Papacy and speculation begun on how his pontificate would be because he is considered as orthodox as the late Pope.
Because of all this, the political pundits and theologians have been talking in the past days about, among other things, the universality of the church. As expected, some have begun to analyze how the church has arrived to this point after the Reformation. Furthermore, the whole Reformation has been depicted as the doings of Luther along which is not the case. Historical revisionism is practiced nowadays with impunity; and the so called historians are just trying to insert today’s political agendas onto yesterday’s events.
Let’s summarize the process that permitted that an obscure Agustinian monk in Germany, in sixteenth century, was able to produce such an earth shattering revolution that produced the schism of the otherwise powerful Papacy.
Europe at that time was expanding swiftly; escalating its powerful presence in the Americas as well as strengthening its foothold in parts of Asia and Africa. This expansion was made possible by all the economic and socio-cultural changes that allowed, or were favorable, to the development of new techniques that facilitated navigation, exploration, and so for.
This growth enriched all the emerging European nations; and in Germany, the ruling class began to feel that the less oppressive and excessive the central monarchy was, much better for them.
On the other hand, Charles V’s desire to give a practical meaning to the word empire, called for an intensification of his Holy writ. The loose confederacy of European nations, known as the Holy Roman Empire, should be, according to Charles V and his advisors, closely managed in order to make stronger the whole empire.
The Germans princes began to rebel against these imperials ideas of Charles, and, in times where religion and politics were not clearly delineated, the figure of Martin Luther, and his theological ideas, was used by the oppossitors. Luther’s ideas were not new; for decades now innumerable objections have been raised, against the corruption of the papacy, and the decision that the final judgment of who was able or not to gain God’s favor belonged to the cleric alone, by figures such as Wycliffe and Meister Earckhart, among others. When Luther nailed his theses, there was an extensive bibliography on that regard.
Luther was used as the figure necessary to achieve the political goals in dissuading Charles of his hemonogenism and bringing down the robust influence of Rome.
Therefore, it was not so much about an ideological quarrel, inasmuch an economical conflict. And with it, Europe embarked on the worst struggle of its history. For little more than a century the continent was ravaged with blood and dreadful civil disorders, which culminated with the Treaty of Westphalia.
This treaty gave birth to what has been called the Europe of Nations. Moreover, new legal concepts were created, although in a very sketchy way, such as “international community” and “respect for national sovereignty”. Another feature of this agreement- signed by all the European nations- was the stripping down of the political power enjoyed by Rome; this treaty was the end of the roman cleric as international arbiter. What is more, each state was responsible of the kind of religious observed on its realm, therefore, even though to be relegated to a mere overseer on religious matters, it lost the universality that had had since the fifth century.
Nonetheless, the papacy had always commanded certain kind of respect by the secular powers- even Stalin, an anecdote goes, asked how many divisions the Pope had-, and with the passing of times nations have sought its support for the implementations of different policies with worldwide implications, and a few have won that support expressed by the complicit silence of the church in front of barbaric practices.
The church itself plus the economic, cultural and social conditions of those times were the cause that Rome lost its power, as it had been known, and not the mere historical presence- dogmatic and anti-Semitic, I should add- of Martin Luther.
The church had faced many challenges since its creation. Today the challenges, different in nature to the ones faced centuries ago, need to be addressed not in order to appease the faithful but to reach to those of us that, been non-Catholics, still look at the church as allied of just causes and as supporter of sound and, why not, divine principles. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, and so forth need to continue to be denounced by the Roman church.
Moreover, in the last 20 years or so, John Paul II was seen as a gifted benevolent ruler and possessor of that diplomatic tact that is known in the ecclesiastic circles as “romanitas”. He was able to preserve the moral ground that people might expect from the Church, especially among the faithful. Indeed, he gained political capital after surviving the murderous attempt by a KGB operative almost at the beginning of his pontificate, serving him in his political standing against the communist governments, in particular in his native Poland. For the rest of his reign as Vicar of Christ on earth, he was maintained that charismatic clout of being a fighter against injustice, and an orthodox in matter of faith.
This coming Sunday, the recently elected Pope Benedict XVI, called a doctrinal ally of the late pope, will officially begin his Papacy and speculation begun on how his pontificate would be because he is considered as orthodox as the late Pope.
Because of all this, the political pundits and theologians have been talking in the past days about, among other things, the universality of the church. As expected, some have begun to analyze how the church has arrived to this point after the Reformation. Furthermore, the whole Reformation has been depicted as the doings of Luther along which is not the case. Historical revisionism is practiced nowadays with impunity; and the so called historians are just trying to insert today’s political agendas onto yesterday’s events.
Let’s summarize the process that permitted that an obscure Agustinian monk in Germany, in sixteenth century, was able to produce such an earth shattering revolution that produced the schism of the otherwise powerful Papacy.
Europe at that time was expanding swiftly; escalating its powerful presence in the Americas as well as strengthening its foothold in parts of Asia and Africa. This expansion was made possible by all the economic and socio-cultural changes that allowed, or were favorable, to the development of new techniques that facilitated navigation, exploration, and so for.
This growth enriched all the emerging European nations; and in Germany, the ruling class began to feel that the less oppressive and excessive the central monarchy was, much better for them.
On the other hand, Charles V’s desire to give a practical meaning to the word empire, called for an intensification of his Holy writ. The loose confederacy of European nations, known as the Holy Roman Empire, should be, according to Charles V and his advisors, closely managed in order to make stronger the whole empire.
The Germans princes began to rebel against these imperials ideas of Charles, and, in times where religion and politics were not clearly delineated, the figure of Martin Luther, and his theological ideas, was used by the oppossitors. Luther’s ideas were not new; for decades now innumerable objections have been raised, against the corruption of the papacy, and the decision that the final judgment of who was able or not to gain God’s favor belonged to the cleric alone, by figures such as Wycliffe and Meister Earckhart, among others. When Luther nailed his theses, there was an extensive bibliography on that regard.
Luther was used as the figure necessary to achieve the political goals in dissuading Charles of his hemonogenism and bringing down the robust influence of Rome.
Therefore, it was not so much about an ideological quarrel, inasmuch an economical conflict. And with it, Europe embarked on the worst struggle of its history. For little more than a century the continent was ravaged with blood and dreadful civil disorders, which culminated with the Treaty of Westphalia.
This treaty gave birth to what has been called the Europe of Nations. Moreover, new legal concepts were created, although in a very sketchy way, such as “international community” and “respect for national sovereignty”. Another feature of this agreement- signed by all the European nations- was the stripping down of the political power enjoyed by Rome; this treaty was the end of the roman cleric as international arbiter. What is more, each state was responsible of the kind of religious observed on its realm, therefore, even though to be relegated to a mere overseer on religious matters, it lost the universality that had had since the fifth century.
Nonetheless, the papacy had always commanded certain kind of respect by the secular powers- even Stalin, an anecdote goes, asked how many divisions the Pope had-, and with the passing of times nations have sought its support for the implementations of different policies with worldwide implications, and a few have won that support expressed by the complicit silence of the church in front of barbaric practices.
The church itself plus the economic, cultural and social conditions of those times were the cause that Rome lost its power, as it had been known, and not the mere historical presence- dogmatic and anti-Semitic, I should add- of Martin Luther.
The church had faced many challenges since its creation. Today the challenges, different in nature to the ones faced centuries ago, need to be addressed not in order to appease the faithful but to reach to those of us that, been non-Catholics, still look at the church as allied of just causes and as supporter of sound and, why not, divine principles. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, and so forth need to continue to be denounced by the Roman church.
posted by O. Azkue at 9:50 AM
0 comments
