I love how Pope Benedict is bringing traditional papal attire back into fashion. It’s also fun seeing the confusion of the secular world, as exemplified by a comment that Michael Dubruiel heard on CNN calling the papal camauro a "Santa’s hat." Leaping on the idea of a "Santa Benedict" instead of a Santa Claus this Christmas, St. Blog’s resident parody king, the Curt Jester, has created a Christmas carol for B16:
"You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I’m telling you why
Benedict is coming to town
He’s making a list
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out Who’s naughty and nice
Benedict is coming to town
He sees you when catechizing
He knows when you’re a fake
He can only teach good not bad
So be good for Jesus’ sake!
O! You better watch out!
You better not cry
Better not pout
I’m telling you why
Benedict is coming to town
Benedict is coming to town."
Last year an exhibit of papal treasures came to San Diego and it was fascinating to see vestments, clothing, and jewelry of the popes. Some of it was fantastically adorned but much of it was simple, like this camauro worn by Pope Benedict. One of my favorites was a red wide-brimmed hat that belonged to Pius XII and was said to be worn by him as protection against the sun when he walked in the Vatican gardens. If papal artifacts fascinate you, too, I highly recommend the catalogue from the exhibit Saint Peter and the Vatican: The Legacy of the Popes. At fifty bucks, it’s expensive, but an Aladdin’s cavern of beautiful papal art.
To be honest, until today I couldn’t have told you the difference between a camauro and a camaro.
But now I can! You live and learn!
I would be a bit cautious about spending money to see traveling art/treasure exhibits. Most of the art/treasures might be copies. We went to a Russian art exhibit a few years ago in Wilminton, DE. On exiting, I questioned one of the guards about the authenticity of the art. He told me only 10% of the exhibit was the real thing.
So what you’re saying is that if you earn graduate degrees in Art History and Archaeology, you’ll probably end up as a security guard?
Still, I suppose it’s important to have knowledgeable guards.
Okay, couldn’t the “camauro” and the cape be the same red?
I must admit (no disrespect intended), but he does look like the Grinch – when his heart gets bigger at the end of the cartoon.
The entire Vatican Exhibit is authentic.
While I am glad Benedict XVI is bringing back the camauro, I cannot share the Curt Jester’s boundless faith that he “can only teach good not bad.” In his book on creation he endorses the documentary hypothesis in contradiction to the decree of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of June 27, 1906, and in a Vatican radio address reported by Zenit.com on November 25, 2004 he endorses the American model of separation of Church and State in contradiction to the Syllabus, Immortale Dei, Libertas, Iamdudum, Vehementer Nos, et al. Not to mention some of the extremely problematic statements he made when he was a younger theologian and his approving preface to the PBC’s 2001 book which declared “Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain.” Sadly, theologically, he’s a mixed bag.
Ben,
I would agree with you that some of the earlier writings are problematic. One thinks of the “Introduction to Christianity,” which I found (in the section on the resurrection of the body I read) to be a terribly ambiguous read. Hopefully that’s just the translation, but it’s undeniable that Pope Benedict’s early life was in counterpoint to the the rigid Thomistic theological tradition of old as seen in, say, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
That said, people change, and you should draw some comfort by the ferocious opposition Pope Benedict is receiving from heterodox and dissenting Catholics. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, no?
As for the documentary hypothesis, while I’m not a fan of it, the binding force of the 1906 PBC decrees, which were discipinary, is at best, very much in question. A fair argument can be made that those no longer have the force they once did, eclipsed by custom and papal tolerance of other views, if nothing else.
As for separation of Church and State, doctrinally that is hard to reconcile with past papal teachings. But as a prudential matter, in today’s concrete world, can you see a better option than the traditional American system? Is it a coincidence that America is one of the stronger religious nations in the world, as opposed to now apostate Europe states, which were traditionally confessional?
I don’t think claiming that the American system is the best one prudentially available to us today is necessary a false claim. It may well be true. I am of course referring to the American system through the eyes of federalism and originalism, not the creation the Supreme Court has made.
While one could claim that the reference to Jewish messianic waiting is true in the sense that Christ will come at the end of the World, and that the Jews are correct in their faith that the Christ would come at the end of time, the Jews are clearly incorrect in denying that the Messiah has already arrived 2000 years ago, and that they missed the boat. Your point is well taken. However, I think it arguable that Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t have an objectionable viewpoint, but rather, that he was just leery to come out and say the obvious truth. Perhaps that’s a case of speaking too ecumenically, too diplomatically. You notice that he, unlike some others, has not denied that Jews need to believe in Jesus just as the rest of the World.
That said, people change, and you should draw some comfort by the ferocious opposition Pope Benedict is receiving from heterodox and dissenting Catholics. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, no?
Unfortunately, I have heard Benedict quoted as saying that it isn’t him that’s changed; he’s stayed where he’s always been while everyone else has moved to the left.
Certainly, a lot of the right people hate him, and that is good. However, I think if he were to preach the totality of the deposit of faith with the force it needs to be preached, we’d see a significant increase in the intensity of the hatred, and probably several attempts e.g. by the EU and UN to have him forcefully silenced.
As for the documentary hypothesis, while I’m not a fan of it, the binding force of the 1906 PBC decrees, which were discipinary, is at best, very much in question. A fair argument can be made that those no longer have the force they once did, eclipsed by custom and papal tolerance of other views, if nothing else.
Pope Pius X’s Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae (ASS [1907] 724ff; EB nn. 278f; Dz 2113f) has never been revoked, and it has not been excized from the latest edition of the Enchiridion Biblicum, so, de jure, the following statement still has binding forse: “We now declare and expressly enjoin that all Without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are on matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and of rashness or be therefore without grave fault.”
As for custom and papal tolerance of other views mitigating the force of the written documents of the Magisterium, that logic could prove almost anything, since there have been several times in Church history where various heresies (e.g. monotheletism) have gained a large foothold in the Church and enjoyed a period of papal tolerance.
As for separation of Church and State, doctrinally that is hard to reconcile with past papal teachings. But as a prudential matter, in today’s concrete world, can you see a better option than the traditional American system? Is it a coincidence that America is one of the stronger religious nations in the world, as opposed to now apostate Europe states, which were traditionally confessional?
I can certainly see a stronger alternative to the traditional American system: Malta, which is one of few remaining confessionally Catholic states. Write it into the nation’s constitution that the government’s authority comes from God, that the government has no authority to write a law contrary to natural law or divine positive law, that such a law would be automatically null and void, and that the arbiter of divine law is the Roman Catholic Church. That would fix an immense number of problems.
As for why America is stronger religiously than many traditionally confessional European states, I can think of a few reasons:
(1) The conservative evangelical Protestant presence in Europe is negligible
(2) Large portions of the Church hierarchy e.g. in France have imbibed principles antithetical to Catholicism
(3) Confessional states have often failed to recognize that the Church is the superior partner in their relationship, and attempted to dominate the Church
(4) Most of the most radical and influential intellectuals involved in the revolutions of the past 40 years have come from European schools (hence, the Rhine Flows into the Tiber), so they have been able to sow the most destruction in Europe
Of course, Benedict has never openly stated that Jews don’t need to convert to Catholicism. He seems to have danced around the issue for most of his career.
It would have been better if the pope had first worn the camauro publicly with the fur lined mozzetta. They match, thus avoiding the clash with the cappa, and in that context would likely not be seen as a modified Santa cap.
The EB is just a collection of documents. The fact that something is still printed in it means nothing about its continuing “forse” or lack thereof. And if you read JPII’s own stuff on Scripture, it’s clear (even if it hadn’t been clear before – which it probably should have been) that there has been at least implicit papal approval of source criticism of the Pentateuch. Likewise, Vatican II did change past papal teachings about what the relationship between Church and state should look like in practice. So what? These weren’t dogmatic definitions.
Back on topic, I have to say that I find the camauro at once cute and disturbing. On the one side, it’s certainly a nice idea that will rub off some of the “cold theologian” aura B16 still wears in the eyes of many. On the other, that hat always brings me back memories of Leo X and the pope-kings of the Renaissance, the true Dark Age of the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict should keep his head warm in the winter. How does a pope keep his head warm when he is dressed in a pope-outfit? I guess we now have the answer – a camauro.
I think JFK started the bare-headed in winter fashion at his inaugural. 45 years of this nonsense is enough. The pope is an old man. He should keep his head warm.