Two pope pieces:

John Allen on Benedict as a "pope of surprises," using Limbo and the Motu Proprio as his starting points:

So, what do these two very personal touches of Benedict XVI have to teach us about his papacy?

At first blush, they seem mutually contradictory. One has been taken as a sign of moderation and openness to change, the other as an effort to roll back the clock. Do they simply cancel each other out? Perhaps they illustrate the pastoral wisdom once articulated by John XXIII, that he had to be pope “both for those with their foot on the brake, and those with their foot on the gas.”

Maybe there’s also a deeper lesson.

Perhaps what these two seemingly incongruent moves actually suggest is that Benedict XVI is his own man, beholden to no party or faction, and hence capable of making decisions that alternately delight and confound all the existing tribes that currently dot the Catholic landscape. They suggest that the pope is not an ideologue, and hence difficult to pin down according to partisan logic. He makes decisions based upon his judgment of the merits of a case, rather than how that decision is going to play in any given quarter.

If that’s the right reading – and it seems difficult to explain these moves in any other way, especially with one coming so hard on the heels of the other, and especially since both are the culmination of decades of theological reflection – then Benedict too may shape up, like his predecessor, though in much less splashy fashion, as a “pope of surprises.”

I think there is a better way of understanding and presenting this rather than implying an image of, say, a set of baskets in front of Benedict, in which Basket A is "Conservative Positions" and B is "Liberal Positions." I think we do better to try to look for deeper continuities in the priorities that Benedict seems to be embracing. It’s not something I’m equipped to do because I don’t have the theological expertise, but it seems to me that there is a deep continuity, when you read what Benedict has said about Limbo (Allen cites it in the piece) and you read what he has said about the changes in liturgy. What Allen seems to miss in the latter discussion is Benedict’s conviction that the only proper way to make liturgical changes is slowly, incrementally – organically (as much of a minefield as that phrase is), and that the promulgation of the 1970 Missal was not consistent with that type of process at all. The conclusion we are left with from Allen’s comments here is that the MP is basically about Benedict’s affection for the pre-Vatican II Mass.

Again, there are deeper points of unity in all of this, I think. Drawing from the grab bag in my head, I’d say those points have to do with the Church as the repository of the Faith, a Faith that is gift, that exists in the world. The core of that faith is the profound love of God, and the Church exists to embody that love, as the Body of Christ. It is embodied in a way that is both timeless and timely, that is clearly incarnational of God’s love, in a way that is understandable and clear. When certain contexts change, our expressions of that reality may subtley change as well, but that must be a gradual, careful process, always profoundly respectful of the core truths at stake, and most importantly, of the Church’s responsibility to so clearly and transparently image the love of Christ to each individual believer. How that all applies, I’m not sure. But maybe it’s a start.

Then, turning to Magister, who looks forward to the Latin American trip:

Joseph Ratzinger displayed flashes of passion for this continent in the first months after his election as pope.

He was the one who chose, for July 7, 2005, the theme of the fifth general conference of the bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean: “Disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ.” It is the fifth after the meetings in Rio de Janiero in 1995, in Medellín in 1968, in Puebla in 1979, and in Santo Domingo in 1992.

It was he who wanted that the other phrase of the title – “That all may have life” – should end by specifying: “in Him.” And that the statement of Jesus himself should be added: “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

He was the one who established the date and the place. In October of 2005, during the synod of bishops, meeting with some of the South American cardinals he asked them point blank what was the most frequented Marian shrine in Brazil. “L’Aparecida,” they answered him. And the pope: “That’s where you will meet. In May of 2007. And I’ll be there.”

But he then completely delegated the preparatory phase to others: in the curia to cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the congregation for the bishops and president of the pontifical commission for Latin America, and across the Atlantic to cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, archbishop of Santiago, Chile, and the current president of CELAM, the Latin American episcopal council.

Cardinal Re has been for years the chief architect of the appointment of new bishops in Latin America, with this pope and the previous one. So it is due in large part to him if the Latin American episcopate is so sorely lacking today in outstanding figures and reliable, visionary guides. The exceptions are rare. Argentine cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is one of these: but since the beginning of preparations for the conference in Aparecida, he has kept his distance and has put up insurmountable opposition to Benedict XVI’s own request that he move to Rome to become head of a curia dicastery.

Last October, the pope brought to the Vatican the archbishop of Sao Paolo, Brazil, cardinal Cláudio Hummes, as prefect of the congregation for the clergy. But this has had no visible effect so far.

Hummes knows from direct experience that the clergy is one of the critical points for the Church on that continent. Except in Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Argentina, there are very few native priests – one for every fifteen thousand baptized persons – ten times fewer than in Europe or North America.

Apart from being very few in number, the priests are poorly educated. Concubinage is a common practice in the rural areas and in the Andes. In many churches and parishes, the Sunday Mass is celebrated rarely, and typically in a haphazard manner: this explains the low rates of regular participation at Mass on the continent, even though it is so thoroughly Catholic.

The seminaries are also very uneven in quality. In the places where vocations to the priesthood are on the rise – in some of the more vibrant dioceses, in some of the Charismatic communities – the greatest difficulty for the bishop or head of a community is that of finding a trustworthy seminary.

All of this is very well known, but in the preparatory documents for the conference in Aparecida, and even in the draft of the lengthy concluding document, already in secret circulation in the Vatican offices, there is only the faintest trace of these issues.

Update: I have two reader comments on the first entry, on the Limbo/MP issue – one pulled from the comments, and the other from an email. Both are very perceptive. First, from the comments:

I actually see a strong similarity between the  mp and limbo. Both are a retreat from a position that says, "This way and no other" to one that says "Legitimate diversity and organic development in non-dogmatic areas is good."  In other words, the Limbo statement says that rather than supporting Limbo, the Church is comfortable in something more vague, because it simply can’t be more specific. We hope for the salvation of the unbaptized by mechanisms unknown to us.

Similarly, the MP shows that rather than seeking to stamp out a legitimate liturgical practice and force people to one particular model, the Church is comfortable allowing a wider use of the pre-conciliar litugy.

Both show that Benedict is not afraid of ambiguity and not afraid that legitimate diversity in thought will undermine his authority. Both are movements toward inclusion and true catholicity.

Then, from an email:

Could one make the argument that his positions on both are related to organic development? Clearly, he feels that the Novus Ordo, its development and implementation, did not respect the idea of organic development. Conversely, "doing away" with Limbo is also a part of organic development.

St. Augustine put the fine touches on the first stage. By the Middle Ages, it was not considered just that infants with no personal guilt should suffer the torments of Hell. So, limbo. In the last century, and perhaps longer, there has been growing disaffection with this solution, and theologians have sought out various solutions, and the liturgy itself makes an allowance for this. (While one can lament aspects of the new liturgy, it cannot be understood to undermine faith and morals; ergo, it must in some way ennunciate and aspect of our faith.) This disaffection with traditional possibilities is also felt on the part of many lay people. Taken together, this is, I believe, a development within the sensus fidelium, and so is also a sort of organic development.

Does it seem reasonable? It is only quickly put together, but perhaps …