But it’s spring! Sorry, must be done. I declared I would respond to the Michael Sean Winters piece on "Benedict the Ecumenical" in The New Republic, so let’s have a go at it.

As I do so, I’m going to borrow from astute comments below. So consider yourself credited!

The piece seems rooted in a few assumptions:

1) Benedict has surprised everyone, including Weigel, Neuhaus, et al, with how "pastoral" he is, and how he has not made homosexuality the centerpiece of his papacy.:

On the issue these American Catholic conservatives seem to care about most–the fight against societal acceptance of homosexuality–Pope Benedict XVI has been far less strident than Ratzinger the cardinal, and that has sent the right-wingers into unexpected fits of apoplexy. 

As someone pointed out, the only pundit who has been apoplexic about Benedict is Andrew Sullivan.

This conviction that homosexuality is at the center of the right-wing Catholic agenda (whatever that is, and whoever represents it) is repeated several times in the article:

And yet, unlike many conservative Catholics in the United States, Benedict does not see combating the acceptance of homosexuality in society as the most important piece of his agenda.

Benedict’s unwillingness to crack down on homosexuality has caused consternation across the right.

Right there, you have a big old straw man. Who says that the "crack down on homosexuality" (!!) is the centerpiece of the agendas of these two men?  – because, really, that’s what it all comes down to in this piece. Where’s the evidence that this is so? The issue looms large in all Christian churches, and is threatening to divide the Anglican Communion. The issue is being pushed from one direction, and when it’s pushed, there’s a response. Context, brother, context.

Let’s look at God’s Choice – George Weigel’s excellent book on the election of Benedict. In the end of the book, Weigel presents his view of the most pressing issues facing Benedict. We might not agree with all of them, just as we might not agree with, say, all of John Allen’s list of same.

By the way, "homosexuality" is not even an index entry in God’s Choice. FYI.

Anyway, here’s Weigel’s list:

Europe: to go beyond "the silence"

Reconceiving Vatican diplomacy

Strategic interreligious dialogue

The Reform of the Roman Curia

Reforming the episcopate

The Latin American Church

The pursuit of sanctity (And within this there are some subtopics: The liturgy and the Church’s life; The Movements and Religious Orders; The Young; Catholic Universities)

Now. Let’s all stop and study that list. Winter suggests that Weigel and company are surprised and dismayed by Benedict’s agenda over the past year. I’m looking at Weigel’s list. I’m thinking about the issues Benedict has addressed over the past 12 months. I’m thinking…most of the Benedict’s priorities seem to be on Weigel’s list. I’m thinking Weigel isn’t the one who’s surprised by Benedict’s priorities – Winter is.

You know what? I think that just about says it all. So – that says it all.

Well, not quite: Here’s Fr. Neuhaus’ response:

He takes note of my expressing concern in a recent issue of FIRST THINGS about public statements by Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco. He writes, “Niederauer told the San Francisco Chronicle he had seen Brokeback Mountain and found it ‘very powerful.’ Smelling salts for Father Neuhaus.” Clever. In fact, in the May issue of FT, the archbishop and I have a very civil exchange in the continuing discussion of the Church’s teaching and practice with respect to homosexuality.

“It is a new day at the Vatican,” Mr. Winters writes. “A curial official told me that [George] Weigel’s access to the papal apartments is no more, and, insult to injury, he is also no longer welcome to stay at the American seminary while visiting Rome. [Father Joseph] Fessio recently had to admit in The Washington Times to misrepresenting Benedict’s remarks. And Neuhaus is ranting in the pages of First Things.”

Oh dear. Mr. Winters needs to find himself a new curial official. It is no secret that the Holy Father, for perfectly sensible reasons, does not run the open house that was the life-long style of his venerable predecessor. Some years ago, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he explained to me his rigorous daily regimen and at age 79 he is not likely to change that. It is simply false that Weigel is not welcome at the Pontifical North American College. As for Fr. Fessio, he has indeed clarified his remark about Benedict’s view of the unchangeability of Islam, and that is discussed in the forthcoming FT. But then the lowest blow: I am ranting? At the risk of seeming discourteous, let me suggest, very gently, that if one is looking for rants, he would find the pages of TNR ever so much more satisfying.

Later: Just to clarify, I want to make sure folks understand that I don’t disagree with the statement that there has been criticism of  – or better – questions about – Benedict from the "right."  Where I differ is in the evaluation of these questions. Quite simply, it is not a big deal. Why? Because as noted elsewhere,aspects of  the pontificate of John Paul II was routinely and vigorously questioned by those on the "right" and even by some who would give him the title "John Paul the Great." Winter’s failure to understand how this works points to his incomplete grasp of the dynamics and the extent of the conversation among all kind of Catholics. Catholics of the "right" or orthodox strip criticized John Paul for…let’s get started: papal liturgies; Koran-kissing; praying with African pagan priests; bishop selection; the Vatican’s statements on Islam and terrorism; the lack of clarity on various foreign policy issues – the Iraq War – coming from the Vatican; the altar girl decision; general liturgical complaints; lack of enforcement or teeth behind statements like Ex Corde Ecclesia; the handling of the sexual abuse crisis and errant, non-compliant bishops on a number of issues….

Anyone who doesn’t know this just isn’t paying attention. Some of those critics were thorough and undying in their disdain for John Paul. But many others were able to couple those criticisms and questions with appreciation for the greater gifts of John Paul’s witness and pontificate. Others find themselves a bit more troubled, wondering if "the Great" is truly deserved. (And I know there was a widely circulated blog post on this in the past two weeks, but I can’t remember where I saw it – if you know of it, please post it in the comments, and I’ll add it here as a link).

So the point is that a general admiration of and support for a Pope doesn’t preclude questions or even disappointment. Levada was, indeed, a surprise choice, I maintain still, mostly because of his, let us say, low-key theological reputation. There were other theological heavyweights who were at the top of most people’s lists. The Niederauer appointment prompted a little more consternation, but I’d say for most, it’s balanced out by some other, quite interesting appointments in the US.

But what I’m saying is that in essence, this is a false conflict.  "Conservatives" had a complicated relationship with the previous pope. The general tone and approach of Benedict’s papacy has not really surprised anyone who knows him or his work – read the material from last spring by the likes of Weigel, Neuhaus and Fessio, (and I read a great deal of this and more for a book chapter I wrote) and they all, to a man, said, "This is not going to be the Panzer Pope. Public perception does not match reality."  Most observers from the end of the spectrum that Winter is trying to score points on are delighted by Benedict, his clarity of teaching, his focus on preaching the Gospel, his uncanny understanding of his audiences, and most of his administrative moves. And when they disagree? First, it hasn’t been "apoplectic." For that, look to various talking heads later this week when and if the rumored event actually happens. But secondly…so? I hate to tell Winter, but those on the "right" are not the papalotors he would like to believe they are.