Thanks first of all to Lella and her blog
for leading me to this account, which illustrates how the media - including the best Vaticanistas and the usually attentive John Allen - failed, or did not think it important, to look at the totality of the private documents from the Pope's desk that were published by Gianluigi Nuzzi in his book Sua Santita : Le carte segrete di Benedtto XVI ['Your Holiness':The private papers of Benedict XVI]. (Nuzzi has said that 'Sua Santita' in his title comes from the usual heading for letters or notes addressed to the Pope, therefore I translate it as 'Your Holiness', in which Italian uses the third-person singular to address a distinguished or older person. English news reports have translated it literally as 'His Holiness', which does not make sense as a form of direct address)...
Anyway, translation quibbles aside, the more I think of it, the more I think that the book could have been entitled simply 'SUA SANTITA' in the general sense, meaning 'HIS HOLINESS' - precisely because it contains nothing that impugns Benedict XVI's personal holiness in any way, as the author himself says so in his introductory chapter to the book.
What is obviously the apparent failure by most reporters in their reporting of Nuzzi's book was that they were all so focused on finding the negative aspects they could write about - nothing about the Pope, but yes, about other people who wrote the Pope or who had committed themselves in writing to comment about important Vatican and Church affairs - that not one thought to write about the positive information contained in the book about the Pope himself.
Yet Andres Beltramo Alvarez, whose reporting I sometimes have problems with, does so in this article, citing a memorandum by Benedict XVI to the then Prefect for Bishops, Cardinal Re, about a problem bishop in Australia. When was the last time we were made privy to an internal memorandum by a Pope, least of all one of this kind that shows us at first hand the attention and detail devoted by Benedict XVI to matters that need his intervention?
And yet, not one reporter before Beltramo Alvarez, at least among the manifold articles I have read about Nuzzi's book, even thought that this memorandum was in itself rare of its kind and therefore newsworthy for that alone. [A weak analogy would be if a similar memorandum had been made public, from the President of the United States to his Secretary of Defense, telling him why he has no choice but to fire a dissident general from his position.] If they had appreciated the rarity of such a papal memorandum, they would have written about it, as they ought to have! My only question is why Beltramo who writes for VATICAN INSIDER did not write this up for the Insider, and only used it on his blog.
How does Benedict XVI govern?
Translated from the blog
August 21, 2012
Benedict XVI is a Pope who governs, as we have repeated on this space on numerous occasions, because that is what the facts show.
But again and again, from the time he assumed his Petrine ministry, there has been an effort to 'extend' by some artifice or other the idea that Joseph Ratzinger is a Pope who is isolated, ailing or incapable of holding the reins of the Catholic Church.
[In fact, Marco Politi and the rest of the cabal that persists in defaming Benedict XVI this way have never provided any 'proof' that he is any of those things - they simply state it ex cathedra!]
Now, let us look at a document that demonstrates the very opposite.
The book by Gianluigi Nuzzi, 'Sua Santidad', is not only the concrete symbol of the scandal known as Vatileaks, because it contains a great number of private documents that were never meant to leave the confidential files of the Holy See.
[Let it not be forgotten, BTW, that the documents published appasrently all dated to the period from late 2009 to early 2012 - which indicates that the thief Paolo Gabriele began his treasonous work only two years ago, more or less, a fact not explained or even cited in the documents that the Vatican has released so far about his case.]
But it is also a valuable source of information. Not all the documents contained in the book are embarrassing. In fact, some texts show hitherto-unknown positive facts about the work of the Bishop of Rome.
More importantly, going through its 326 pages, one will not find any huge international conspiracies, shameful laundering of money or links with the Mafia and other criminal elements, as one may have been led to believe.
[Nor, it must be said, evidence of the 'corruption' that almost every MSM news report attributes to the Vatican based solely on Mons. Vigano's broad but unsubstantiated accusation!]
The book reflects matters regarding ordinary pontifical administration - some serious, and some not. Most of the documents are letters or messages sent by persons in different parts of the world to the leader of the Church, to seek his intervention in concrete situations.
But it also has some interesting reports, under-estimated by Nuzzi, perhaps because of his relative unfamiliarity with the ecclesiastical world (he has never been a Vatican reporter; he was and continues to be a reporter on judicial matters). And because these reports are presented towards the end of the book, little attention has been paid to them by reporters.
In fact, these are notes by Benedict XVI himself about key issues, in which one can appreciate how the Pope governs, and when looked at all together, provide the profile of a zealous pastor who is concerned, patient, informed and by no means fragile. despite all the real pressures he is subjected to.
Let me just cite the case of William M. Morris, who was the Bishop of the Australian diocese of Toowoomba. On May 2, 2011, the Vatican Press Office made the announcement that the bishop had been dismissed by the Pope from his diocesan responsibility. In keeping with its usual practice, the Holy See [other than citing the applicable canon law provision] does not explain the circumstances of the dismissal, the reason for which was uncommon and represented a serious problem.
However, the case was well known. Morris was someone who was never silent about his progressivist thinking. In 2006, he sent a pastoral letter defending the ordination of women as priests, and allowing Anglican priests to administer Catholic sacraments. He also proceeded to impart collective absolution on the faithful, bypassing the need for individual confession. He justified all of this by the lack of priests in his diocese which covers a territory of 487,000 sq km.
In 2007, the Holy See sent US Archbishop Charles Chaput (then Archbishop of Denver) to make an apostolic visitation to Toowoomba.
[Alvarez fails to mention that before the visitation, the Holy See warned Morris several times against his heterodox teaching and practices, to no avail.]
After receiving Mons. Chaput's report, and with all available facts in hand, Benedict XVI summoned Morris to the Vatican and had a private audience with him. Morris assured him that he would present his resignation, but he never did, and openly proclaimed his 'rebellion', defending his dissent to the press and raising a great stir.
Benedict XVI followed his case meticulously, as shown by the memorandum reproduced below integrally, which shows a well-informed Pontiff who knows the case and is unequivocally clear about the doctrinal responsibility demanded of any bishop.
A Pope who carries out his work with diplomacy and respect. He never questions the intentions of the bishop even in his open disobedience, and even suggests that he himself, the Pope, may have misunderstood Morris because he does not know English enough, although obviously, he acquits himself quite well in that language.
His memorandum is addressed to the then Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, and is dated from December 2009. Morris was not dismissed until 17 months later, when even the patience of the Pope reached a limit.
Vatican City
December 11, 2009
Memorandum for His Eminence
Re: Morris
Thank you for the draft of a letter to H.E. Mons. Morris. I would add the following elements:
- The prelate always speaks of 'process' and 'defects in the process' (Page 1 of Morris letter, Par. 5), and goes on to say “I have been denied natural justice and due process” (Page 2, Par 6); and “there has not been a canonical process” (ibid), etc.)
One should say that in fact, there was no process at all, but a fraternal dialog and a call on his conscience to freely renounce his responsibility as a diocesan bishop. We are convinced that his doctrinal formation is not adequate for this position, and it was our intention to explain to him the reasons for our belief.
- The prelate speaks of “a lack of care for the truth” on our part (Page 1, Par. 4). This statement is unacceptable. But obviously, there was a misunderstanding, created, it seems to me, by my insufficient knowledge of the English language.
In our meeting, I intended to convince him that his resignation was desirable, and I understood him to have expressed his readiness to resign his position as Bishop of Toowoomba. I see from his letter that this was a misunderstanding, of which I take note, but I am obliged to say firmly that this was not 'a lack of care for the truth'.
- The prelate states that it is all a question of cultural differences, which do not have bearing on communion. In fact, his pastoral letter - which also contained highly questionable pastoral choices - contains at least two proposals that are incompatible with the Catholic faith.
- The letter says that the Church could proceed with ordaining women in order to make up for the shortage of priests. But the Holy Father John Paul II decided in an infallible and irrevocable way that the Church does not have the right to ordain women in the priesthood.
- Morris also says that the ministers of other Christian communities (e.g., Anglicans) could help in the Catholic Church. But the doctrine of the Catholic faith holds that their ministries are not valid in the Church because (their ordination was) not sacramental, and therefore, they cannot perform acts in the Catholic Church that are linked to the sacraments. [That is why the Anglican bishops and priests who rejoin the Church under Anglicanorum coetibus first have to be re-ordained by the Church.]
There are no doubts that he has good pastoral intentions, but it also appears clear that his doctrinal formation is inadequate. And yet, the diocesan bishop must be, above all, a teacher of the faith, since faith is the foundation of pastoral work. That is why I asked him to examine his conscience before God about freely giving up his present ministry in favor of a ministry that is more compatible with his gifts.
Please assure him of my prayers.
BXVI
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 22/08/2012 20:50]