Catholic Online Forum

Pope Benedict's sudden resignation has triggered an all-too-predictable avalanche of assertions about his alleged arch-conservatism and his stubborn refusal to drag Roman Catholicism into the twenty-first century.

The turmoil surrounding Benedict's papacy, such as that caused by the sexual abuse scandal, reinforced all the usual stereotypes about the Vatican: that it is a medieval theocracy ruled by an absolute autocrat who condemns the modern world while criminal clergy act with impunity. This ridiculous rhetoric is not just bandied by militant atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Apart from these usual suspects, prominent Catholic theologians and public figures have used any number of pretexts to attack the pontiff - whether liberals like the Swiss theology professor Hans Kung or conservatives like Michael Novak or Romanus Cessario, O.P.

In an open letter to Catholic bishops published in April 2010, Kung blamed Benedict for the "Church's worst credibility crisis since the Reformation." Essentially, Kung accused the pope of restoring a reactionary vision of Catholicism that betrays the progressive reforms of the Second Vatican Council, at which both Ratzinger and Kung acted as periti, or young theological advisors to the Cardinals.

Similarly, conservatives have berated Benedict for not being hard-line enough on theological and political-economic questions. They are suspicious of his insistence that Christianity is inconceivable without the European synthesis of biblical revelation with Greco-Roman Antiquity. This critique barely masks their neo-conservative defence of American, exceptionalism which they view as the highest expression of Christian universality.

What often goes unnoticed is that, behind the facile categorisation of progressive versus reactionary, there lies a much more fundamental contest about the future direction of the Catholic Church, and indeed a struggle for the soul of global Christendom. The authentic Catholic Christian tradition that Benedict has sought to uphold has been under mounting attack from both "conservative" and "liberal" forces, whose apparent opposition barely conceals their deep complicity:

•Theologically and philosophically, "conservatives" and "liberals" both divorce natural immanence from supernatural transcendence and view the natural end of humanity as completely separate from our supernatural finality. Ultimately, this gives rise to a collusive oscillation between an increasingly crass materialism and an increasingly esoteric spiritualism.

•"Conservatives" and "liberals" share a common commitment to a narrow form of rationality that sunders faith from reason and paradoxically fuses rationalism with fideism - naked, unmediated reason and blind, irrational faith.

•Politically and economically, both "conservatives" and "liberals" champion the Baroque scholastic emphasis on the primacy of nations and peoples over the universal communion of the Church. In contemporary debates on the merits of Benedict's social encyclical Caritas in Veritate, this pre-eminence of the Westphalian system over the three pillars of Christendom - the city, the empire and the Church - is variously more State-centric (as for European liberals and Latin American liberation theologians) or more market-driven (as for Anglo-Saxon neo-liberals and neo-conservatives).

The Pope has consistently argued for the orthodoxy of patristic and medieval theology and its development by the early German Romantics and, more recently, by the proponents of nouvelle theologie. At the heart of this vision lies an attempt to outline an alternative modernity - one that overcomes the modern division between human artifice and unalterable nature. So, instead of viewing man as the measure of all things, Benedict develops the tradition of integral humanism and an organic unity of mankind with the cosmos and God. Likewise, rather than the social contract that is imposed on the violent "state of nature," the Pope calls for new covenant that corrects human sinfulness, protects the dignity of the person and promotes human flourishing.

It is this Romantic tradition that has helped sustain and create the high culture which the Pope champions. This is what ultimately underpins his defence of traditional liturgy (including the Tridentine Mass) against the onslaught of "sacro-pop" - "parish tea party liturgies and banal 'cuddle me Jesus' pop songs," to use the wonderful description of Tracey Rowland in her book Ratzinger's Faith.

Similarly, conservatives have berated Benedict for not being hard-line enough on theological and political-economic questions. They are suspicious of his insistence that Christianity is inconceivable without the European synthesis of biblical revelation with Greco-Roman Antiquity. This critique barely masks their neo-conservative defence of American, exceptionalism which they view as the highest expression of Christian universality.

Exceptionalism is the perception that a country, society, institution, movement, or time period is "exceptional" (i.e., unusual or extraordinary) in some way and thus does not need to conform to normal rules or general principles.

The term "exceptionalism" can imply criticism of a tendency to remain separate from others. For example, the reluctance of the United States government to join various international treaties is sometimes called "exceptionalist"...

Can exceptionalism be reconciled with Catholic Social Teaching? How does exceptionalism sit with solidarity?

Considering that groups who support UN treaties will always hurl epithets at anyone who is in disagreement with their assertion that their treaty is a GOOD thing. A person standing firmly in a sound application of Catholic Social Teaching and in equal solidarity with the dignity of all human persons could very easily be considered exceptional, and his belief that his position is worthy of being held might be accused of being exceptionalism.

I do not see how the standards of the world can be used as a measure of whether or not Catholic Social Teaching and solidarity in its true meaning is being held by a person or group.

The ratification of international treaties is accomplished by filing instruments of ratification as provided for in the treaty. In most democracies, the legislature authorizes the government to ratify treaties through standard legislative procedures (i.e., passing a bill).

United Kingdom

In the UK, treaty ratification was a Royal Prerogative, exercised by Her Majesty on the advice of her Government. But, by a convention called the Ponsonby Rule, treaties were usually placed before parliament for 21 days before ratification. This was put onto a statutory footing by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

United States

In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate , but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.

In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.[1] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.[2] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is the Treaty of Versailles, which was part of the resolution of the First World War.

Australia

In Australia, power to enter into treaties is an executive power within Section 61 of the Australian Constitution. Thus the Australian Federal Government may enter into a binding treaty without seeking parliamentary approval. However, implementation of treaties does require legislation by Federal parliament, following Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution and signed by the Governor-General of Australia.

I think the problem is more than just getting it through the Senate. I think there seems to be a cultural aversion in the US to international co-operation in general.

Can exceptionalism be reconciled with Catholic Social Teaching? How does exceptionalism sit with solidarity?

To address James' question, I think you might want to address what is asking about. Exceptionalism has a specific definition in this case. Colloquially, it might be summed up as "America is just better than other countries, so it doesn't have to be constrained by the same rules."

I think the problem is more than just getting it through the Senate. I think there seems to be a cultural aversion in the US to international co-operation in general.

Ah, so your conclusion is that American exceptionalism, at least as James defines it, is not a valid position to take?

Is it acceptable for the USA to hold other nations to standards which the USA is not held to?

I've come to the conclusion this topic is not addressable in the abstract; it would be more productive to identify one or even a couple of topics in which the global community desire US co-operation. It would be foolhardy for the US to cede its sovereignty over to the likes of the mob controlling the UN.

It is not a matter of International Co-operation, it is a matter of some other nation, or in the case of the UN some organization, interfering with the internal governance of the our Nation, we are not going to let it happen at least very often.

Similarly, conservatives have berated Benedict for not being hard-line enough on theological and political-economic questions. They are suspicious of his insistence that Christianity is inconceivable without the European synthesis of biblical revelation with Greco-Roman Antiquity. This critique barely masks their neo-conservative defence of American, exceptionalism which they view as the highest expression of Christian universality...

Politically and economically, both "conservatives" and "liberals" champion the Baroque scholastic emphasis on the primacy of nations and peoples over the universal communion of the Church.

It is this Romantic tradition that has helped sustain and create the high culture which the Pope champions. This is what ultimately underpins his defence of traditional liturgy (including the Tridentine Mass) against the onslaught of "sacro-pop" - "parish tea party liturgies and banal 'cuddle me Jesus' pop songs," to use the wonderful description of Tracey Rowland in her book Ratzinger's Faith.