BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

See earlier posts today, 2/12/12, on preceding page.




Here's someone whose view I share that Benedict XVI may yet visit Dublin to close the Eucharistic Congress. It would be a visit not unlike the lightning trips he made to Compostela and Barcelona in 2010, which were not on his travel schedule for that year, until they were announced a few weeks before the event. The event is just as important for the Church, being the 50th International Eucharistic Congress...

This London-based blogger who writes as 'The Reluctant Sinner' describes himself as 'a Catholic who studied theology to postgraduate level, and am specifically interested in biblical scholarship, Church history, philosophy of religion;. He 'confirms' my gut reaction to the Archbishop of Dublin who has publicly said he does not think it is the 'right time' for the Pope to visit Ireland - ignoring that a visit to close the IEC would be far from an apostolic visit to Ireland, and therefore, hardly an 'imposition' on the people of Ireland, as Mons. Martin he all but publicly said it would be (See original post about this on page 285 of this thread)...

Irish Church divided on whether
Pope should come to Dublin in June

February 11, 2012

It is my personal belief that Pope Benedict XVI will visit Ireland this year. He may even travel to the closing ceremony of the 50th Eucharistic Congress in Dublin. He will do this despite the prophets of doom in his own Church, and also because he knows that the ordinary Massgoers in Éire are currently in need a form of pastoral care than only the Successor of St Peter can offer. His visit may only last hours, but will certainly boost the morale of his flock in Ireland for the next few decades.

Sadly, the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, recently downplayed the prospect of a visit to Ireland by the Pope. During an interview with RTÉ Irish radio), the Archbishop stated that he felt a Papal visit to coincide with the Eucharistic Congress would be premature in light of the recent clerical child abuse scandals.

These criminal acts by priests, sometimes involving the collusion of Ireland's bishops and the Irish state, have led to a general feeling of anger against the Church in Ireland. In what many consider to be a cynical or frankly unjust move, the Irish government has also openly criticised the Holy See, accusing it of being a primary facilitator of the scandals - effectively blaming Rome for Ireland's problem.

According to the Irish Examiner, it seems that one of Diarmuid Martin's main fears concerning a Papal visit to Ireland in June is that it may lead to protests by those opposed to the Church, which would then detract from the whole purpose of the Congress. It appears that this is a fear shared by some of Martin's brother bishops in the Irish hierarchy.

But these concerns fail to acknowledge the reality of the situation. I am confident that most Irish people know that the blame for clerical child abuse does not rest with Pope Benedict XVI, who has done more than anyone else to remove the filth that has infected the Catholic Church in recent times. The people of Ireland are not naïve. [One certainly hopes so, as the 'Ireland, stand up!' movement would seem to show, contrary to the 'public opinion' reflected in Irish MSM.]

I believe that Archbishop Martin's cautionary words also display a certain lack of trust in God's grace and in the ability of the Successor of St Peter to transform negative situations into positive ones.

Before the Pope's visit to the UK in 2010, it is true to say that many within the Church's hierarchy feared the worst - so much so that at times it even appeared as if some bishops couldn't be bothered to support the Papal visit. Yet, when the prophets of doom in the media and the Church were confounded by the success of Pope Benedict XVI's visit and by the sheer numbers of faithful Catholics and others who came out to greet the Holy Father, they were the first ones to stress that they had always known it would go well! Such is life. Such is politics.

To be fair, when speaking on RTÉ Radio, Dr Martin actually said that he hoped the Pope would visit Ireland one day. He then went on, though, to seemingly dampen any welcome by basically suggesting that the Holy Father shouldn't attend the Eucharistic Congress, as the timing would be wrong.

Referring to the clerical child abuse scandals that have hit Irish Catholicism in recent years, the Archbishop of Dublin cautioned that the Church was not yet "at that stage" whereby a Papal visit would "fit into the overall timetable of the renewal of the Church in Ireland."

The Archbishop of Dublin went on to say that the Holy Father himself had suggested that any visit by him would have to take into consideration the state of the Irish Church before it could bear effective fruit. [The Pope most likely meant an apostolic visit - which had been considered before the post-Cloyne Report hysteria that overtook Ireland - not a 'special occasion' visit such as the IEC]

In publicly stating that the Church has not yet reformed herself sufficiently to deal with a Papal visit, it seems that Diarmuid Martin's comments during his interview on RTÉ suggest that he would rather the Pope did not attend the 50th Eucharistic Congress in June. What Dr Martin appeared to be saying was: the Pope is welcome to visit Ireland, but not yet.

Having said all that, it seems that the Primate of All Ireland and the Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Seán Brady, actually contradicted the Archbishop of Dublin during a separate interview on Wednesday - in which he stated that the timing is right for a Papal visit to Ireland.

Speaking to the Irish Catholic in Rome, Cardinal Brady's spoke some words that contrast those offered by Diarmuid Martin. Brady told the newspaper that he heard Archbishop Martin's comments concerning any possible visit by the Pope to Ireland.

He then went on to offer a different view to that given by the Archbishop of Dublin. Here is what he said: "My hope is that the Pope will come. I was listening to Archbishop Martin at the weekend about whether the moment is right or not. My hope is that the moment would be right."

Cardinal Brady went on, though, to state that he had not been given any indication by the Vatican as to whether or not the Pope would be attending the Eucharistic Congress, or if the Holy Father has any other plans to visit Ireland later in the year.

It seems that a difference in attitude has opened in the Irish Church. It is a division between those, like Brady, who appear to hold onto that Christian attitude of optimism, and those, like Martin, who seem more concerned with public opinion and the political spirit of the age.

Is it any wonder, then, that Pope Benedict chose to raise Seán Brady to the cardinalate, whilst the red hat has not yet been offered to Martin? [Ahem, that's a thought that has been lurking in my mind since Martin gave that God-awful, almost holier-than-the-Pope interview to Maureen Dowd of the Times post-Cloyne Report. My thought is based on nothing more than gut reaction. So if this blogger, who is close to the situation in Ireland, states it the way he does, there may be something to it! I think perhaps there may be some human envy, too, in that the Archbishop of Armagh is, by definition, Primate of All Ireland. I'm sorry, I know I am being uncharitable to the Archbishop of Dublin, and I would be most happy to be proven wrong.]

It seems to me that the Pope is still actively considering attending the 50th Eucharistic Congress in Dublin this June. If he were not, I am sure that Rome would have clarified the situation by now. The fact that there are only four months left before the Congress and that the Pope hasn't ruled out a visit to Ireland this year seems encouraging to me. I may be wrong, of course.

In the past, Pope Benedict XVI has often travelled to shrines or events in Italy that only involve a short journey from Rome. Like his predecessors, he has sometimes made visits that only last a few hours or an afternoon. In that sense, and seeing that Rome is only a three-hour flight from Dublin, I can see no reason whatsoever why the Holy Father could not visit Ireland just for the Eucharistic Congress's closing ceremony.

In so doing, costs would be kept to the minimum, unjust and angry protests would be contained within a specific time-frame, and - more importantly - the Irish people would have the opportunity to see and hear the Successor of St Peter on their soil.

It is undeniable that the Pope feels a close attachment to the people of Éire, and that his presence as Vicar of Jesus Christ is something that can turn negative situations into positive ones. Having the Pope present for few short hours in Dublin would bring about more healing to the Church and people of Ireland than can be achieved through decades of apologies and attempts at reconciliation by the Irish Church's own hierarchy.

Unlike some in the episcopacy, Pope Benedict XVI is not so much concerned by image or politics, by media representations or unjust anti-Papal vitriol.***

His primary concern is the care of that flock of sinners and saints which Christ Jesus has entrusted into his care. For that reason, then, I believe that the Pope may very well surprise the prophets of doom by turning up for the closing liturgy of the 50th Eucharistic Congress to be held on 17 June in Dublin's Croke Park Stadium. If he does, Ireland will rejoice, despite the pessimism of that nation's leaders - ecclesiastical or otherwise.


***Apropos,I've reflected on this and posted occasional comments to remark on it, but let me go farther this time:

Let us continue praying for the Pope:
Yes, we can rise to his defense all we want
but he does not need us to confound his enemies -
As Vicar of Christ, he does that best on his own

Even some of the Pope's most ardent admirers often over-estimate the effect of the media attacks on Benedict XVI himself, projecting our own outraged reactions onto him as if he were an ordinary man.

He did not cave in to more than a decade of direct and active media hostility when he was CDF Prefect - for the simple reason that all the attacks were false. Why would he be any less 'stoic' about attacks on him as Pope, equally false and unfounded, when he knows the Pope gets to be the focus of the entire weight of historical and present hostility against the Church?

It is a cross the Successor of Peter knows he must bear, and that as Vicar of Christ, he would bear gladly and be crucified upon, head to the ground, as Peter did.

It bothers me when Vaticanistas routinely write "The Pope is suffering....", presumably from all the slings and arrows of the media and uninformed public opinion. In addition to the reasons I cited above against this facile assumption, they obviously do not know that, so why state it as if it were fact? It is as if he never said all the things he said to Peter Seewald in the July 2010 interview in the sixth year of his Pontificate. It is as if he had never undergone 'ordeal by media' as CDF Prefect. At the time, he said something like the attacks do not bother him at all as long as he can go to sleep at night after a clear examination of conscience. (I must find the exact quote).

Of course, now as Pope, it must concern him how the attacks on him personally and on his Curia represent potential damage to the Church, if not actual damage, in terms of negative 'public opinion' and the consequent weakening of the faith among the already weak of faith. But he is Peter, and Christ said to him, "The gates of hell shall not prevail..." With the grace of God, he does what he can, as do the men he chose to work with him and around him - and then, it is all up to God's will, as are, to begin with, the adverse situations with which he tests his Church and his creatures.

Benedict XVI is human, yes, but as the Pope and holy man that he is, he also has superhuman resources not available to us, much of which comes to him from the constant prayers of all us faithful who must never cease to pray for him, for the Church, and all her all-too-fallible members (we all).

Consistent with what we know of him, that is all he expects - not a superduper PR-savvy press office ready to spring up, unnecessarily, to do battle contra mundum at every perceived slight and delirious calumny peddled by anyone, including those who are inconsequential in the overall scheme of things! That's not the role of the Vatican Press Office, any more than it is the role of, say, the White House Press Office in defense of the President. If only because it is 'bad PR' for any Press Office to be engaged in direct tit-for-tat with any critic or detractor.

Speaking from my own modest 11 years of experience running the information office for a ranking government official, I know a Press Office cannot dispute opinion, no matter how wrong or terrible or based on false premises. A Press Office can only dispute statements wrongly claimed to be fact by presenting the correct facts. If the Vatican Press Office should react like Pavlov's dog to every negative statement (mostly opinion) made about the Pope, it will not have time to do anything else, and its responses would simply be ignored for the knee-jerk reactions that they would seem to be!

A Press Office is not supposed to be adversarial to the media, and if it must do battle directly, it has to choose its battles most carefully. For the day-to-day fighting, the Vatican has sympathetic allies in the traditional and new media, some of them very influential, who can 'respond' far more effectively because they are not perceived as mouthpieces or ventriloquist dummies for the Vatican even if their hearts and minds are obviously in the right place!

Imagine if the Vatican Press Office back in 1968 had to respond to every negative attack there was on Paul VI after Humanae Vitae! Paul VI himself was never the issue, even if he personified it for his opponents. And the document spoke for itself, which is true, if not more so, about everything Benedict XVI writes and says.

So Fr. Lombardi is no Joaquin Navarro-Valls in terms of PR savvy. If Benedict XVI were so concerned about his own personal 'image' - as one cannot imagine any Pope to be - he would have replaced Fr. Lombardi by now with someone like, say, Vittorio Messori or Luigi Accattoli, or some other long-standing survivor of Italy's media minefields, who is also on his side and will not be dictated to by some middle-level bureaucrat at the Secretariat of State, or even by the Secretary of State himself, but will ask to answer to the Pope!

Because of who he is and what he has done and continues to do, Benedict XVI is his own best defender, without having to defend himself but just being who he is. It is no accident that every high-ranking Vatican official who makes a statement in his defense when speaking to the media always precedes it by saying, "the Pope does not need me to come to his defense, but..."

Nor should the fact that there are traitors and incompetents in the Vatican lead us to excoriate everyone in the Curia as disloyal to the Pope and unworthy of their positions. Especially not the heads of the Curia who, with the exception of the preaident of the Pontifical Council for the Laity (appointed by John Paul II but who is not even 70 yet, so, far from retirement), are now all appointees of Benedict XVI: They are his own men, and we can assume he did not appoint any of them casually and without thorough deliberation.

Even Cardinal Bertone's apparent administrative incompetence does not mean he has ever been less than loyal or devoted to the Pope. He just does not seem to see that habitual incompetence itself can be the most harmful thing any subordinate can do against the Pope. And I for one would gladly 'forget' all past episodes of this seeming incompetence if he can just flush out and dismiss the principal traitors to the Pope and the Church from their secure sinecures in the Third Loggia of the Apostolic Palace! And soon! (Even if, most likely, the diligent mole in the hole who has been feeding Il Fatto Quotidiano with pilfered documents has already acquired all the juicy files he has been able to access!)

Of course, all this 'fog of war' serves to keep the focus away from Benedict XVI's Magisterium. But his opponents were never interested in exposing his Magisterium anyway, so no loss there. And the Vatican, as well as his admirers and Catholic clergy and faithful who can, continue to propagate it, each in their own way.

John Paul II made headlines for the greater part of 26 years because he travelled all over the globe to bring the Christian message. Yet, with significantly far less media hostility - and a boundless reservoir of good will - than Benedict XVI has, his Magisterium was never the focus of media reporting about him, and much of what he preached remains unknown or unconsidered in the Catholic world. Or worse, ignored by Catholic sectors to whom he directly addressed it but who insist on asserting their own will (for instance, his teaching on why the Church does not have the right nor the faculty to change the institution of priesthood, or his exhortations on what Catholic schools must be).

Evangelization - the mission of the Church - is never easy, but who would have thought that from the small band of Apostles, Christ's message had conquered much of the known world within a few hundred years after he died! In the Internet age, despite the infinity of competing messages on line, the Christian message nonetheless continues to get across to believers, seekers and some who simply come across it by accident.

So let us persevere, each doing what we can, and following Benedict XVI's own example, to do what we can do, to give what we can give, and not try to give what we cannot, as he said to Peter Seewald. In his case, he is giving himself as he did from the day he was ordained a priest - more than that he cannot give. No one can.