In one sentence
Benedict XVI quietly believed that Christianity—and perhaps the world—was entering an apocalyptic crisis. Thiel and Wolfe argue that his reticence was a mistake: Christians need to recognize the possibility of the end, resist ideologies promising artificial “peace and safety,” and recover faith oriented toward the future.
Overview
The essay begins with Thiel’s Rome lectures on the Antichrist and his unexpected sympathy for Benedict, whose apocalyptic thinking was mostly expressed indirectly. It traces Benedict’s intellectual formation through Joseph Ratzinger’s study of Bonaventure, especially the conflict between Joachimite certainty about history’s end and Aristotelian confidence in the world’s permanence. Ratzinger sided with Bonaventure’s insistence that ignorance of the exact date does not justify indifference to eschatology.
The authors then collect Benedict’s later warnings: his 1969 prediction that the Church would become smaller and more spiritually focused; his 1988 discussion of Solovyov’s Antichrist; his praise of Cardinal Biffi’s diagnosis of contemporary conditions; his use of Kant in Spe Salvi; and remarks describing an expanding “power of the Antichrist” and an anti-Christian creed enforced through social exclusion.
The essay speculates that Benedict’s principal antagonist was not necessarily Pope Francis but the liberal theological project associated with Hans Küng. Küng’s World Ethos, with its emphasis on interreligious peace, moderation, universal dialogue, and worldly problem-solving, is compared to Solovyov’s Antichrist: a figure who promises unity and peace by rejecting judgment, division between good and evil, and the expectation of Christ’s return.
The conclusion turns against Benedict’s academic assumptions. He expected ideas and theological debates to retain influence, but the authors argue that contemporary society has lost both intellectual seriousness and confidence in the future. The danger is not simply a mistaken prediction about a particular Antichrist; it is the refusal to believe that history has an end, that judgment is real, and that philosophical reserve5s
Core ideas
Apocalypse is not the same as date-setting
Bonaventure’s position provides the essay’s central model: Christians should not claim certainty about the day or hour, but neither should they treat eschatology as irrelevant. Uncertainty about timing is compatible with vigilance.
The world’s supposed permanence can become an anti-Christian belief
Ratzinger interpreted Bonaventure’s criticism of Averroist Aristotelianism as identifying the belief that history simply continues forever as a primordial apocalyptic error. The problem is not only false prophecy; it is also the denial that history has a divinely determined end.
Benedict communicated apocalyptically through hints
The authors read Benedict’s scholarship, speeches, encyclical references, and private remarks as a pattern of indirect warnings. His restraint may have reflected fear of losing authority, concern about destabilizing believers, or the difficulty of controlling apocalyptic rhetoric once released.
Peace can become a substitute for truth
The essay contrasts Christ’s divisive judgment between good and evil with Solovyov’s Antichrist, who promises universal peace. Küng’s World Ethos is presented as a modern parallel: an appealing synthesis that seeks to overcome conflict by softening doctrinal boundaries and suppressing final judgment.
The Antichrist is presented as a type, not securely identified person
Although the authors briefly entertain Pope Francis and Hans Küng as possible candidates, the more durable argument concerns a recurring pattern: a persuasive, educated, universalist figure or ideology that offers comprehensive peace while displacing Christ, judgment, and transcendent hope.
The essay’s final target is intellectual complacency
Thiel and Wolfe argue that Benedict overestimated the lasting power of academic theology, but they also criticize the broader modern loss of faith in the future. A society that assumes its own indefinite continuation may be less prepared for catastrophe than one that takes finitude seriously.
Practical takeaways
- Read Benedict XVI not only for formal doctrinal statements but also for his repeated images, references, and warnings about history’s end.
- Distinguish humility about apocalyptic timing from indifference to apocalyptic meaning.
- Examine political and religious programs that promise universal peace by minimizing sin, judgment, doctrinal difference, or the possibility of final catastrophe.
- Treat confidence that institutions, intellectual systems, or civilization will continue indefinitely as an assumption to be tested rather than a neutral fact.
- Ask whether hope is directed merely toward improving the present world or toward a future judgment and redemption beyond it.
Caveats and counterpoints
- The article is interpretive and polemical, not a neutral biography of Benedict or a systematic account of Catholic eschatology.
- Its suggestion that Hans Küng approximated Solovyov’s Antichrist is an analogy advanced by the authors, not an established historical or theological conclusion.
- The argument relies heavily on suggestive connections—Benedict’s references, silences, and associations—so some inferences are necessarily speculative.
- The essay compresses complex disputes involving Joachim, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Averroism, Solovyov, and Küng in order to support its contemporary thesis.
- The article does not offer a concrete political program; its practical demand is primarily spiritual and intellectual: recover seriousness about judgment, mortality, and the future.
Questions worth revisiting
- Is Benedict’s indirect language best understood as deliberate eschatological signaling, or as ordinary theological caution interpreted retrospectively?
- Does the essay distinguish sufficiently between legitimate interreligious cooperation and the kind of false universalism it associates with the Antichrist?
- Can Christians cultivate apocalyptic vigilance without falling into sensationalism, conspiracy, or premature identification of enemies?
- Is the rejection of permanent-progress assumptions compatible with constructive political action in the present?
- What would it mean, concretely, to recover faith in the future rather than merely fear the end?
Return to this when…
Return to this essay when thinking about Benedict XVI, Christian eschatology, political universalism, the tension between intellectual humility and apocalyptic vigilance, or the spiritual risks of assuming that the present order will continue indefinitely. The exact First Things article is dated July 15, 2026 and appears in the August/September 2026 issue.