Before anything, let me note that John Allen devotes his weekly column on 8//27/10 to discussing the Rodari-Tornielli book ATTACCO A RATZINGER,
ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/attack-ratzinger-italian-book-assesses-benedict...
Allen's piece turned me off right away because he leads off with his usual condescending and hyperbolic platitudes about the 'image problem of a Pontificate defined by train wrecks' - the very condescension of a know-it-all (who treats Benedict XVI as if he were a silly schoolboy who keeps making the same mistakes) that turned me off Allen starting about two years ago. To say nothing of other strange claims he makes that do not exactly pass the truth test.
Anyway, here is an excerpt from the final chapter of Rodari and Tornielli's book, which Il Foglio published yesterday. Much of it quotes the opinions of other journalists, who offer few new insights into the conclusions that the two authors have drawn (which they state forcefully at the start of the chapter), and who, in the specific case of the New York Times Rome correspondent that they cite, ideologically reject the idea that they are attacking the Pope at all!
All the blows against
Pope Benedict XVI
by PAOLO RODARI and ANDREA TORNIELLI
Translated from
August 27, 2010
Editor's Note: We publish here excerpts from the concluding chapter of the book ATTACCO A RATZINGER written by the Vaticanista of Il Foglio, Paolo Rodari, adn the Vaticanista of Il Giornale, Andrea Tornielli, which was published this week by Piemme.
Five years under attack. Five years of Joseph Ratzinger on Peter's Chair, characterized by continuous incomprehension.
On the one hand, he, Benedict XVI, whose words are never conformed to the mentality of the world. On the other hand, a world that does not understand him, and which, almost after every statement he makes, often reacts in one way only - by attacking him.
Simply by looking at the reportage in the international media, one must admit there exists a real attack against Papa Ratzinger. An attack demonstrated in terms of negative prejudice that is quick to jump on anything the Pope says or does. Quick to underscore certain details, quick to create international 'cases'.
This concentric attacks come from outside the Church, but not infrequently, from within as well. And it is unconsciously aided by the reaction - more often a non-reaction - of those around the Pope who could certainly do much more to anticipate and prevent crises and to manage them effectively once they arise.
This book is not intended to present a pre-constituted hypothesis. It does not start off from the theory that there is a conspiracy directed by some shadowy directorate, nor even that this is a media conspiracy - the notion that has become a convenient cover for
some of the Pope's collaborators to justify their slow and inefficient reactions.
[I wish the authors had named which ones exactly! Because indulging in conspiracy theory is often resorted to by cowards and people who want to shirk their own responsibility.]
But it is undeniable that Papa Ratzinger has been and is under attack. The criticism and controversy raised by the Regensburg lecture. The scandalous case of the Polish Bishop Wielgus who was forced to renounce his nomination as Archbishop of Warsaw because he had been an informer for the Communist secret services. The bitter polemics following the publication of his motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum. Revoking the excommunication of the four Lefebvrian bishops which took place just as a Swedish channel broadcast statements by one of them minimizing the Holocaust. The diplomatic crises over his words regarding condoms and AIDS at the start of his first trip to Africa. The wide play given to the scandal of sexual abuse of minors by priests - which shows no sign of abating and risk casting a shadow over the final years of John Paul II's Pontificate.
From one media storm to another, from controversy to controversy, the effect has been to 'anesthetize' the message of Benedict XVI, crushed as it were by the cliche of a retrograde Pope and robbing his message of the weight it deserves.
[But that is the 'elitist' view, that of those who look down their noses at the Christian message in any case, whether there had been these media problems or not. What, for example, did that elite retain of John Paul II's Christian preaching, after 25 years of a Papacy they looked on as nothing more than performance art on a global scale, with a man they invested with the superficial traits of the 'rock star' that they described him to be?
I don't think that for sensible Catholics - those whose faith does not swing and sway with prevailing cultural winds - the Pope's message has been lost or diminished in any way! If that were so, people would have stopped coming to his public events, because why would they be interested in someone they believe to be discredited?
If that were so, the Vatican publishing house has simply been throwing money away by literally grinding out pamphlet after pamphlet of Benedict XVI's teachings. But the fact is they have not done so much business as in the past five years because there is a steady appetite to buy Benedict XVI's writings.
I think perhaps a major omission in the Rodari-Tornielli book is the point of view of the Catholic faithful - represented by those who came to the Papa-Day rally last May 16 in St. Peter's Square. The authors apparently documented what the international MSM commentariat has said in rivers of anti-Benedict polemic, and additionally, sought some of them out for interviews for this book, in effect providing reflecting scho chamber for the critics' narcissistic navel-gazing. But what about the faithful 'faithful'? They're the ones who matter, because they are the ultimate recipient of the Pope's messages. ]
"It's difficult to say that there is a plot against the Pope", says Marcello Foa,
Giornale correspondent, foreign affairs analyst, professor of journalism at the University of Lugano, and author of the book
Gli stregoni della noticia: Da Kennedy alla guerra in Iraq. Come si fabrica informazione al servizio dei governi (Wizards of news. From Kennedy to the Iraq War. How information is fabricated in the service of governments) (2006).
Certainly, what has been happening in the past few years indicates an attempt to diminish the influence of the Church in the world. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a process began tending towards the continual weakening of traditional institutions states, churches, etc) and the transfer of power to the large private corporations, international organizations, special interest lobbies, that are sometimes overt but often hidden.
During the Cold War, the Church - and particularly, John Paul II - had an important role: she represented a moral bulwark for the West, she contributed to regulate society, and at the same time, through her influence on Eastern Europe, she was a thorn in the side of the Soviet Union. [That does not explain the secularization that was immediately manifested by the Eastern European countries including the most Catholic ones like Poland and the Czech Republic after the Communists left! Obviously, six decades of Communism - three generations - managed to supplant the Christian message and encourage the narcissistic individualism that characterizes secularism.]
After the Soviet empire collapsed, the prevailing parameters and interests changed. The Church was no longer a bulwark but an obstacle, a conservative force, a potential counterpower.
For the past two decades, there has been a continuous erosion of the prestige of the Vatican through the work of the media, including film. Film has enormous persuasive power. How many feature films have been international hits that portrayed the Church or the Catholic faith as a model or even something interesting? Very few. On the other hand, how many films have there been which portray the Church and cardinals as evil, intrigue-driven and hypocritical. More than you can think of. And that has not been by chance.
The erosion goes on via the Internet, by books of opinion and even of fiction, like those of Dan Brown.
So who has been leading the attack?
I have no proof, but it would seem to be the establishment which impalpably encourages diminution of national sovereignty in favor of supra-national institutions that promote globalization and the supremacy of finance over other economic sectors, and whose power of conditioning emerged forcefully in the crises of 2008 and 2010.
Says church historian Alberto Melloni:
I don't think there is a conspiracy against the Pope. But that does not mean that there are not quite a few issues about which the Catholic Church can be perceived antagonistically, and therefore, it cannot be ruled out that there is someone or some elements intent on causing her great embarrassment in order to weaken her message.
But I wish to point out right away that in my opinion, these issues are not of an ethical nature. I don't believe that the positions of the Church against abortion or gay marriage are really that galling to governments and states. But her attitudes about war, probably so.
I recall that during an audience at the Vatican, George Bush was heard to ask John Paul II what was happening in the Church in the United States with all the pedophile scandals. At the end of the audience, John Paul II reportedly remarked to those around him, "I should have asked him how many Republicans are pedophiles..." [That's not a nice anecdote at all about John Paul II. It makes him sound petty.]
The Russian journalist Alexey Bukalov, director of the Roman bureau of the Itar-TASS news agency, speaks of an 'objective' attack against the Pope.
There is an attack against the Church which seems to me 'objective' - from those who have never looked favorably on this Pope, who is looked on with suspicion so that everything he says and does is turned against him.
They cannot forgive him for being German, for being the age he is and therefore, having been a witness to the Second World War... And they are determined not to cut him any slack, much less give him any free pass.
And he, on the other hand, does not react to their attacks and continues to take steps that are considered politically incorrect but that reflect his personal integrity, his theological vision. I think he truly suffered when he was elected Pope. He clearly would have wanted merely to study, read and write, play Mozart.
I cannot speak of the precise circles from which these attacks originate, but from the Leninist point of view, they are political interests. Think of the very tense situation in the world - the aggressiveness of forces like Islamic fundamentalism and of secularism - and it is clear that some circles are looking for this Pope's weak point.
And so they have tried to blame him for the entire pedophile scandal, but on this issue, I think the great part of the blame should be attributed to the preceding Pontificate.
The Pope's battle against relativism is one of the causes for the attacks on the Pope, according to George Weigel, writer and essayist, who belongs to the Ethics and Public Policy Center and wrote a monumental and thoroughly documented biography of John Paul II.
I don't think there is a plot against the Pope in the sense of an organized campaign to block his initiatives or derail his Pontificate. But in the eyes of the secularists of Europe and North America, he embodies the last institutional obstacle to what he himself has called 'the dictatorship of relativism'.
And so he has enemies, and they are not few - who generally also have access to the world media. The secular agenda often coincides with that of those Catholics who are still dreaming about a revolution that never was: I am referring to Hans Kueng and his journalist allies - who are ready to imagine yet another Ratzinger different from the caricature which they themselves have created and propagandized.
As in the case of John Paul II, the enemies of Benedict XVI refuse to confront his ideas but limit themselves to denouncing them and lament what they erroneously depict as his reactionary theology.
Decidedly opposed to accrediting the hypothesis of a media campaign against Ratzinger is the Rome bureau chief of the
New York Times, Rachel Donadio.
I categorically reject the idea that an attack against Benedict XVI is behind the articles on the systemic problem of sexual abuse of minors by priests and on the historical reluctance on the part of the Vatican and local bishops to punish priests who have committed crimes that violate both civil and canon law.[How can she so self-righteously make such a sweeping statement considering the minuscule percentage of priest offenders out of the world's 400,000 priests, and as though the Vatican and local bishops never did a single thing to pursue these offenders???? The deliberate and systematic malice of the media in their reportage of this issue has been clothed in brazen sanctimony of the kind Donadio so cavalierly displays.]
I think that the notion of 'attack' itself shows the obvious cultural differences between American and Italian journalism. In Italy, it is generally presumed that there is always something behind any critical journalism, and criticisms against the Church are read in the context of a long history of ant-clericalism. [Another superciliously sweeping statement, and this time, one that is almost insulting to honest and conscientious Italian journalists!]
But in the United States, there is a profound tradition of investigative journalism and a belief rooted in the public that the role of the press is to examine and keep under check any institution or person in a position of power. [Oh the arrogance of this sanctimonious presumption - that the press is the ultimate power over any other power. Which implies, of course, that it is just as corruptible by a power that it so arrogantly wields like a club, not in equal measure on everyone, but only on those that it chooses to target. Where is their outrage over worse and more widespread crimes against minors by individuals in civilian institutions????]
In this sense, the articles in the New York Times about the Pope and the Church do not differ in any way from the articles on any other politician or multinationals [whom the Times chooses to target, that is]. As the correspondent of the Times at the Vatican, during the worst moments of March and April, I felt like I was between two parallel trains going on different tracks. On the one side were my editors who asked why crisis management in the Vatican seemed so questionable (as when Cardinal Sodano, on Easter Sunday, profoundly offended the victims by calling the accusations against the Church 'gossip'[A GROSS UNTRUTH in which Donadio retroactively picks up Cardinal Schoenborn's deliberately wrong interpretation of Sodano's words - which obviously referred not to reports about the abuses committed but to the accusations jerry-rigged against Benedict XVI personally, since he was delivering a short message of support for the Pope in behalf of the College of Cardinals at a difficult time, not a defense of offending priests! And I say Donadio 'retroactively' picks up Schoenborn's outrageous interpretation, because this sanctimonious notion of 'profoundly offending the victims' was not expressed by Donadio herself in her own report about Sodano's Easter Sunday tribute.]
And on the other was the Vatican itself which asked why the Times was 'attacking' the Pope. [You know what, Ms Donadio? When you report lies and build up all sorts of negative insinuations against Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, as the New York Times doggedly did on the Munich and Milwaukee cases, that constitutes 'attack' - and don't pretend that it was simply honest investigative journalism, and the operative word here is 'honest'. Dishonest journalism of the kind the Times has exercised against Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not legitimate investigative journalism - it is calumny, and therefore an attack.
The American Vaticanista John Allen says:
A great part of the media coverage of the Catholic Church and Benedict XVI, with regard to the sex abuse crisis as in other issues, had been undoubtedly shoddy and unjust. In general, however, I don't think that this is the result of a 'campaign' to strike at the Church.
[If a large part of the reporting on any issue about the Church is shoddy and unjust, as Allen has just acknowledged, how can it not be a 'campaign' - which is defined as any systematic effort to espouse, negatively or positively, an idea, interest or person? No journalist worth the name is deliberately shoddy, and I am sure Allen's colleagues will vehemently object to their work being described as shoddy and unjust - because they believe they are all knights in shining armor smiting the perfidious evildoers in the Church starting with Benedict XVI.]
In particular, conspiracy theories are a distraction from existing real problems that have to do with the public perception of the Vatican and the Church. [But who exactly at the Vatican is purveying the notion of conspiracy, Mr. Allen? Certainly not Benedict XVI. Vaticanistas like you have been slinging around this statement cavalierly but never without any names - it is always attributed to those conveniently anonymous 'Vatican sources'. It is yet another way of (not always) subconsciously insulting the hierarchy at the Vatican by making them appear paranoid and evasive when they are offended by fabricated charges. When was the last time anyone in the Vatican denied that some priests have committed horrible crimes? In the 1960s perhaps?]
I will list these problems: the high rate of 'religious illiteracy' which characterizes the principal media; the instinctive skepticism of journalists about institutions and authority; the pressure for them to adapt to the increasingly short time for the 21st century culture of 'instant news'; and the approach to communications which shows a lot of incompetence on the part of many Church functionaries that often becomes counter-productive to the Church. {A very good list!]
The dean of Italian Vaticanistas, Benny Lai - who can proudly show off his first accreditation card at the Vatican Press Office signed by Giovanni Battista Montini when he was deputy Secrretary of State - finds the current situation 'absolutely unprecedented". He says:
I cannot remember a situation analogous to what is taking place today. In the past, there were more moments of crisis, even furious disputes among cardinals, and more than one Pope in the 20th century had to defend himself on various occasions against detractors from within the Church itself. Often it was bishops against bishops disagreeing on important issues for the Church.
But it never came to the situation we have today. It goes without saying that questions would have been raised anyway about a Joseph Ratzinger who came to Vatican II with the reputation of a progressive theologian [Yes, but it is important to distinguish what he was progressive about and in respect to what] and later changed, referring to 'the pathos typical of young persons' [???? I am not aware that Joseph Ratzinger ever used that to justify himself, only that he maintains 'It was the others who changed, not I".]
But all it takes is to follow ecclesiastical developments to become aware that many times, it is the central government of the Church that has to carry water, and that persons who ought to assist the Pope in governing the Church are usually scarce. [If John Paul II has often been accused of 'neglecting' Church administration in favor of his global evangelizing, the obvious implication is that in a 26-year Pontificate, he had no one really competent to carry out that task!]
Of course, one can also say that Benedict XVI, with his reserved character, has not helped make things better. But precisely because of this, he should have working for him a well-oiled machine that can be his major support. [Which obviously and unfortunately, he does not have!]
It is not at all easy to work in the Roman Curia. Montini, when he became Paul VI, took his time before deciding anything - and he had been Secretary of State for years and years!
The French Vaticanista Jean-Marie Guenois seeks to turn the cards upside down.
Is it really Benedict XVI who is in the crosshairs? Is it really he who is the ultimate target of a media campaign? Or is it rather he, with his gentleness but firm clarity at the same time, who is carrying out an 'offensive', so to speak?
More than the Pope being attacked, I would say that the Pope himself has launched an 'attack' on several fronts, carried forward in a very subtle way but with precise and well-honed language.
The cause of the attacks against him must be seen in his approach to certain problems. For example, on liturgy, on the relation between faith and reason - which is much disputed in France where there is an insistence on separating faith and reason, and where the rationalists who have always been antagonistic to the Catholic Church now find themselves embarassed because in Benedict XVI, the Church speaks their language.
That is why I think it is not the Pope under attack - it is he who is on the attack in very clear ways [on the issues that matter to him]... So the attacks against him are basically a kind of resistance to the problems that he poses. [A novel way of looking at it, but rather fuzzy - and I expected better of Guenois - because he nonetheless acknowledges explicitly that the Pope is under attack!
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 28/08/2010 18:32]