I don’t propose to present an evaluation of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, something that has been competently done by others. For readers, it may be more interesting to recognize the tension that is always present in the Church and marks the profile of each Pope.
We presuppose that a balanced view should sit on two fundamental pillars: the Kingdom and the world. The Kingdom is the central message of Jesus, his utopia of an absolute revolution that reconciles creation with itself and with God. The world is where the Church accomplishes its service to the Kingdom, where it is built. If the Church is too closely linked to the Kingdom, it runs the risk of spiritualization and idealism. If it is too close to the world, it faces the temptations of secularization and politicization. It is important to know how to articulate Kingdom-World-Church. The Church belongs both to the Kingdom and the world. It has a historical dimension with its contradictions, and a transcendent dimension.
How should this tension be lived within the world and history? We present two different and sometimes conflicting models: testimony and dialogue.
The model of testimony affirms with conviction: we have the deposit of faith that contains within itself all of the truths necessary for salvation; we have the sacraments that communicate grace; we have a well-defined morality; we have the certainty that the Catholic Chuch is the only true Church of Christ; we have a Pope who enjoys infallibility in matters of faith and morals; we have a hierarchy that governs the faithful; and we have the promise of the continued assistance of the Holy Spirit. It must bear witness to a world that does not know where it is going and which, by itself, will never attain salvation. It is necessary to pass through the mediation of the Church, without which there is no salvation.
The Christians of this model, from Popes to the ordinary faithful, feel imbued with a unique mission of salvation. We find fundamentalists here and there are very few things up for dialogue. Why do we need dialogue? We already have everything. Dialogue is just to facilitate conversion and it is a gesture of courtesy.
The model of dialogue begins with other assumptions: The Kingdom is larger than the Church and and it also has a secular component, where there is always truth, love, and justice; the risen Christ has cosmic dimensions and pushes evolution to a good end; the Spirit is always present in history and in people of good will; It arrives before the missionary because it was with our peoples in the form of solidarity, love, and compassion. God never has abandoned his own and God offers everyone an opportunity for salvation, because he brought them forth from his heart in order that they would one day live happily in the Kingdom of free men and women. The Church’s mission is to be a sign of this history of God within human history and also an instrument for implementation along with other spiritual paths. If both religious and secular reality is soaked through with God, all of us should be in dialogue: exchange, learn from each other, and make the human journey towards our happy promise, more easily and more safely.
The first model is the testimony of the Church of tradition, which promoted the missions in Africa, Asia and Latin America, being complicit, in the name of evangelization, in the decimation and domination of many original peoples, Africans, and Asians.  It was the model of Pope John Paul II who traveled the world, carrying the cross as testimony that salvation was found there. It was the model, even more radicalized, of Benedict XVI who denied the title of “Church” to evangelical churches, offending them harshly; he attacked modernity directly as going down a bad road, relativistic and secular.  Of course he did not deny all values, but saw their source in the Christian faith. He reduced the Church to a secluded island or a fortress, surrounded by enemies on all sides against which it is defending itself.
The model of dialogue was present in Vatican II, Paul VI, and Medellin and Puebla in Latin America. They saw Christianity not as a deposit, a closed system with the risk of becoming fossilized, but as a source of living, sparkling waters that can be channeled by many cultural conduits, a place of mutual learning because all are bearers of the Creator Spirit and the essence of the dream of Jesus.
The first model, testimony, frightened many Christians who felt devalued and infantilized in their professional knowledge; they felt that the Church was no longer their spiritual home and were disconsolate. They walked away more from the institution than Christianity as the value and generous utopia of Jesus.
The second model, dialogue, made many people feel at home, helping to build a Learning Church, open to dialogue with everyone. The effect was the feeling of freedom and creativity. So it is worth the trouble to be a Christian.
This model of dialogue is urgent if the Institutional Church wants to emerge from the crises which have hurt its ancient honor: morality (pedophiles) and spirituality (theft of secret documents and serious problems of transparency in Vatican Bank).
We must discern intelligently which method best serves the Christian message within an ecological and social crisis of very serious consequences. The central problem is not the Church but the future of Mother Earth, of life and of our civilization. How does the Church help in this passage? Only by dialogue and joining forces with everyone.