If you take a course in theology, sociology or any other subject, the teacher will speak using a technical vocabulary and expect the students to understand what he is saying. It is the students’ responsibility to understand words in the way in which the teacher uses them. If students do not, they flunk.

For Benedict, the world is his classroom, but the students have not grasped the vocabulary and therefore they understand words in their ordinary sense rather than in the technical sense he uses them. Thus he speaks of homosexuals as “disordered,” of the relation between the sexes as not equal but “complementary,” of Protestant communities not being “churches,” of Buddhism being “autoerotic,” and of Islam not being a “rational” religion. He never intended to insult people, but that is the way people feel because they take these words in their ordinary street meaning. He has done this all his life. This is Benedict being Professor Ratzinger.

Benedict is a very smart scholar, but, some say he does not have a politically sensitive bone in his body. Others compliment him for not being concerned about being politically correct. In addition, he is surrounded by people who think he is the smartest man in the world. They are loath to say, “Hey, Pope, you can’t say that.” As a result, he will continue to say things that upset people, not because they understand him, but because he is using words they do not understand.

The latest document to cause controversy is “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now headed by Cardinal William Levada. There is really nothing new in this document that was not more extensively stated in Dominus Iesus issued by Cardinal Ratzinger seven years ago.

First, what does it not say? It did not say that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In fact it acknowledged “these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

When you get rid of all the double negatives the document says that the Non-Catholic churches and communities are significant and important in the mystery of salvation, and the Spirit of Christ uses then as instruments of salvation.

But document does say that Protestant communities are not churches because they do not have a true episcopacy (with apostolic succession), priesthood and Eucharist. That is the way he defines “church.” Many disagree with that definition and with what is meant by “apostolic succession.” In an ecumenical age, one normally expects these topics to be put on the table for discussion and dialogue. But a German professor does not dialogue with his students.

In reality, when Benedict gets into trouble he is usually not addressing the people who get upset; he is speaking to his own flock. He supports the ecumenical dialogue but is concerned that Catholics are beginning to think that all churches are the same, that it does not matter what church you are in as long as you love Jesus and do good.

There is empirical evidence to support his concern. According to American Catholics Today by William D’Antonio et al., 56 percent of Catholics under 40 years of age say, “I could be just as happy in some other church.” This is a revolutionary change from pre-Vatican II Catholicism. It is not happy news for Catholic leaders who want to keep their flock.

But will the documents coming out of the Vatican turn this around? I doubt it. Other statistics in the book show that younger Catholics will not be receptive to the kind of language that the Vatican uses. This kind of language will drive them away.