BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI

Thursday, March 7, Third Week of Lent

SAINTS PERPETUA AND FELICITA (Carthage, d 203?), Martyrs
They were both young women - Perpetua, a well-educated noblewoman, daughter of a Christian mother and pagan
father, mother of an infant son; Felicita, her slave, pregnant at the time they were seized and jailed, along
with three men, by Roman persecutors in the time of Septimus Severus, for refusing to denounce their
Christian faith. Perpetua was 22 and wrote an account of their imprisonment, the earliest known surviving
text by a Christian woman. In it she recalls she pleaded successfully with her captors to allow her to have
her son with her in prison. Eventually, they were 'sent to the public games' for execution - the men were
killed by beasts, and the two women were beheaded. They are remembered in the Canon of the Mass as two
of the seven women other than the Virgin Mary who are so memorialized. They are among the earliest
of North Aftican saints.
Readings for today's Mass:
www.usccb.org/bible/readings/030713.cfm


AT THE VATICAN TODAY
The College of Cardinals held their fifth general congregation in the morning and will meet again in the afternoon.
With the arrival of Cardinal Pham from Vietnam yesterday, all 115 cardinal electors are now in Rome.

One year ago today...

The Holy Father Benedict XVI concluded his catecheses on Christian prayer, which began on May 4, 2011. In the final catechesis, he reflected on the equal importance of word and silence in Christian prayer, as exemplified by Jesus on the Cross.

Ignatius Press in the USA has just come out with an anthology of Benedict XVI's catecheses on prayer:

Benedict XVI dedicated the last complete catechetical cycle of his Pontificate to prayer, the life to which he now dedicates the rest of his days.

Sic transit Pontificatus...
Two brief items today which report that
1)Pope Benedict's official ring has been 'cancelled'

---

Pope Benedict XVI's gold papal ring, the symbol of his power used to officially seal documents and ensure their authenticity, has been cancelled, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said.

Known as the Fisherman's Ring, it was due to be destroyed with a special silver hammer after Benedict's resignation Feb 28, symbolising the end of his authority.

Earlier, Claudio Franchi, the goldsmith who crafted the ring said he hoped his work would not be destroyed once the pontiff stepped down.

"I hope the ring is preserved and exhibited. It is a jewel that has so much symbolic value," Franchi said.

Benedict was the first pontiff since the 19th century to commission a Fisherman's Ring, which shows St. Peter fishing and bore the inscription "Benedictus XVI", the Pope's name in Latin.

---

2) The Vatican Governatorate today tore out Benedict XVI's coat of arms that had been designed with colorful plants on the slope in front of the Palazzo del Governatorato.

Papa Ratzi's paparazzi problem:
How was this CHI photo obtained?

Corriere della Sera reports that the telephoto shots (we've only seen 2 so far) were taken from the balcony of a Castel Gandolfo resident whose house is at an elevated point that overlooks the gardens. Apparently, another media agency has taken photos from the same site.

And a snapshot of this morning's current Catholic headlines tells a tale of silliness in itself:

---

Briefing on the Fifth General Congregation
of the College of Cardinals
March 7, 2013 (AM)


The Fifth General Congregation of the College of Cardinals took place on Thursday, 7 March, from 9:30am until 12:40pm.

Two newly arrived cardinals were sworn in: Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, archbishop of Warsaw, Poland, who is a Cardinal elector, and Cardinal Giovanni Coppa, apostolic nuncio emeritus to Czech Republic, who is not an elector. The number of Cardinal electors who have arrived so far is thus 114.

Three new Cardinal assistants to the Camerlengo were then chosen by lot to serve on the Particular Congregation for the following three days. The Cardinal assistants chosen were: from the Order of Bishops, Cardinal Béchara Boutros Raï, O.M.M., patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites, Lebanon; from the Order of Priests, Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya, archbishop of Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo; and from the Order of Deacons, Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, C.S., president emeritus of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See.

Cardinal Dean Angelo Sodano then read the draft of a telegram of condolence to be sent on behalf of the College of Cardinals to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the occasion of the death of President Hugo Chavez, in accordance with the Holy Father’s custom of sending a telegram when a head of state dies.

Proceedings then resumed with interventions from the three Cardinal presidents of the Holy See’s economic departments: Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi, president of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See; Cardinal Domenico Calcagno, president of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA); and Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, president of the Governorate of Vatican City State.

Each gave a brief report in their area of competence in accordance with the provisions outlined in No. 171 § 2 of the Apostolic Constitution "Pastor Bonus".

The interventions that followed, of which there were 13 in addition to the three aforementioned ones, again covered a wide range of topics including, in addition to those mentioned in the previous briefing, ecumenism and the Church's charitable efforts and attention to the poor.

No decision regarding the starting date of the Conclave has yet been made.

---

The unique impossibility
of the Papacy
by George Weigel


ROME, March 6, 2013 — At the point at which John Paul II began his papacy in the first volume of my biography of him, Witness to Hope, I borrowed some thoughts from Hans Urs von Balthasar and tried to explain a bit of the uniqueness of the papal office:

---

To be pope is to take on a task that is, by precise theological definition, impossible. Like every other office in the Church, the papacy exists for the sake of holiness. The office, though, is a creature of time and space, and holiness is eternal.

No one, not even a Pope who is a saint, can fully satisfy the office’s demands. Yet the office, according to the Church’s faith, is of the will of God, and the office cannot fail, although the officeholder will always fall short of the mark. That distinction between the office and the man who holds it is a consolation to any Pope.

---

According to Balthasar, it is also “unutterably terrible.”

The office reflects the unity of person and mission in Jesus Christ, of whom the Pope is vicar. Every Pope, the saints as well as the scoundrels, “stands at an utterly tragic place” [Balthasar continued], because he cannot be fully what the office demands.

If he tries to be that, he arrogantly makes himself the equal of the Lord. If he consoles himself too easily with the thought that he must, necessarily, fail, he betrays the demand that the office makes of him, the demand of radical love.

The Office of Peter always reflects Christ’s words to Peter—that, because of the depth of his love, he will be led where he does not want to go (John 21:18).

But if the job is essentially impossible, the Church is not without the resources of history and contemporary experience to imagine the qualities one would like to see in the man who must, as someone must, take up this uniquely impossible yet essential task.

[I hope all the above is not a none-too-subtle criticism of Benedict XVI's decision. As Weigel suggests below, a papal resignation was not something he had factored into his new book, nor one imagines, in the list of qualities he draws up that a Pope must have. Nor, for that matter, did Hans Urs von Balthasar, in his reflections, factor in the inevitable toll of advanced age, if not serious degenerative illness, on even the most qualified and holiest Pope there is! Benedict XVI's historic decision opens up the discussion to pragmatic and realistic considerations in the completely new world of the 21st century compared to the last one!]

In Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church, published just before Pope Benedict XVI’s stunning announcement of his resignation, I suggest seven such qualities.

A profound and transparent faith. The Pope must be so convinced of the Catholic symphony of truth, and so transparent to it in his own life, that he readily invites others into friendship with Jesus Christ, simply by being who and what he is. The preaching, catechetics, and teaching are important, but they come “after” transparency to Christ and his love.

Natural resilience amplified by grace. The Pope must be able to draw from the wellspring of his prayer an abundance of energy, patience, endurance, and compassion. The Pope knows the wickedness and evil sins of the world in macrocosm and the sorrows of individual men and women in microcosm. The grace of strength needed to bear that burden of knowledge without being crushed by it must build on a natural physical and psychological hardiness and resilience. [Mr. Weigel fails to take the effects of advanced age into his equation. What physical resilience can a man over 80 possibly have, when physical decline is inexorable with age? Perhaps like the rest of us, who have had no experience nor historical memory of an octogenarian Pope with no specific serious health problems, he simply assumed Benedict XVI could continue into his 90s even, as Leo XIII did, even if conditions today are far different. What do we know, for instance, about Leo's last seven years, at a time when most Catholics knew their Pope only through an official photograph or portrait? Compare that to the literally morbid death watch that kept the global media focused - in images and sound - on John Paul II 24/7 for a number of years! I dare anyone to say that they would have welcomed another such experience of anguish watching a beloved person literally decay before our eyes in a process that could and did take years. John Paul II left us his powerful catechesis of suffering, if we did not already know it from the supreme example of Christ himself. Benedict XVI was wise to decide not to have to subject us all to his potential ordeal, leaving us instead with a living catechesis on humility - Jean Guenois in Le Figaro called it his greatest encyclical - and faith.]

Pastoral experience. John Paul II’s papacy was previewed by his work as archbishop of Cracow and his successful ministry there. That model makes sense for future popes, who must have demonstrated evangelically effective pastoral leadership and a capacity to meet the challenges of aggressive secularism, which did not end when the Berlin Wall came down. [Forgive me for being touchy, but does this imply that Joseph Ratzinger's pastoral experience as bishop of Europe's second largest diocese for five years was any less meritorious or somehow inadequate????]

Good judgment in people. A holy, brilliant, humanly decent Pope will find his ministry impeded if he does not have shrewd judgment in choosing men for high Church office, both as local bishops and as leaders in the Church’s central administrative machinery in Rome. [Hmmm, one might say that on this count, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI were wanting, the former more than the latter (whose only egregious judgment lapse, IMHO, was choosing Cardinal Bertone as his #2 man, as the latter turned out to be more of a public liability for him).

In the choice of bishops, judging from the dismal record of many bishops named in the previous Pontificate (Benedict XVI dismissed or nudged some 70 bishops appointed by his predecessor to resign their episcopal seats due to dissent, indiscipline, financial or moral questions), Benedict XVI was much more discerning, seeking to name bishops who think as he does about the priorities of the Church.]

Openness and curiosity. One of the keys to the success of John Paul II’s papacy was his openness to a range of inputs from outside conventional ecclesiastical channels. A twenty-first-century Pope must look to a wide range of information to inform his own evangelical ministry. [I am surprised - and disappointed - that Weigel does not mention this was one of Benedict xVI's outstanding and most obvious characteristics, recognized by all his interlocutors outside the Church and in the secular world.]

Courage. A timid man who sees dilemmas but not ways to address them is ill-qualified for the papacy. So is a man easily rattled by failure. Doing what is hard and absorbing the criticism for doing it is part of the essential responsibility of the Pope.

[Lest it may even brush the thought of anyone that the qualification cited above could in any way refer to Benedict XVI, some words need to be said about him and the way he was described in the media. One of the most commonly used adjectives for him in the languages that I understand has been 'timid' or the equivalent thereof, which is quite misleading. Anyone who has seen him the past eight years on countless live coverages and video clips would know.

He is hardly fearful and thereby wary and closed, in the usual connotation of timid. Those who know him best say he is naturally a reserved person, who is not given to displaying his emotions, but we could all see from TV coverage that he is very spontaneous, one who reacts to the moment with unfeigned openness and warmth; and a modest person (not SHY at all, the other overused adjective for him) despite his exceptional gifts and achievements.

Not shy at all, because after 25 years in academia, 23 years as the most influential man in the Vatican after the Pope, and 8 years as Pope, he early gained the aplomb and poise to face any social situation, from university lecture halls where he had to address not just his students but many outsiders who came just to listen to him, to the crowds that turned out to acclaim him and the many world leaders he met with during his Pontificate.

As for courage, his renunciation is arguably the most courageous act by a Pope in centuries, certainly in modern times.]

Languages. In a multilingual Church, a multilingual Pope is helpful.

All of which suggests that nationality is irrelevant in choosing a Pope.

[We should all hope so! All this media talk about skin color or geographical origin or proportional representation is typically secular, political and monomaniacal. The cardinals are called on to elect the most suitable among them to be Pope, one who can meet most if not all of the qualities cited by Weigel, regardless of skin color, geographical origin or proportional representation.]

I have not been following Sandro Magister's www.chiesa in the past week, but here is a great service he has provided,in an unsigned article on his site, that should prove to be an invaluable quick reference.

Who's who among
the cardinal electors


VATICAN CITY, March 5, 2013 – Subtracting the two who will not take part in the Conclave for different reasons - Keith Michael Patrick O'Brien of Scotland (personal scandal) and the Jesuit Archbishop of Jakarta (indonesia) Julius Darmaatmadja (health reasons) - 115 cardinals will enter the Sistine Chapel to elect the successor to Benedict XVI some time in the next week or two.

They are listed here by continent and by nation, with the place of activity of each one, the abbreviation of their religious order if they belong to one, the date of birth and the Pope who made them cardinal (JP-II for John Paul II, B-XVI for Benedict XVI). The listing is followed by further documentation of their roles and backgrounds.

---

EUROPE - 60 cardinals (37 B-XVI and 23 JP-II)

Italy - 28 (20 B-XVI and 8 JP-II)
AMATO Angelo S.D.B, curia, 1938 (B-XVI)
ANTONELLI Ennio, ex curia, 1936 (JP-II)
BAGNASCO Angelo, abp. Genova, 1943 (B-XVI)
BERTELLO Giuseppe, curia, 1942 (B-XVI)
BERTONE Tarcisio S.D.B, curia, 1934 (JP-II)
BETORI Giuseppe, abp. Firenze, 1947 (B-XVI)
CAFFARRA Carlo, abp. Bologna, 1938 (B-XVI)
CALCAGNO Domenico, curia, 1943 (B-XVI)
COCCOPALMERIO Francesco, curia, 1938 (B-XVI)
COMASTRI Angelo, curia, 1943 (B-XVI)
DE PAOLIS Velasio C.S., ex curia, 1935 (B-XVI)
FARINA Raffaele S.D.B, ex curia, 1933 (B-XVI)
FILONI Fernando, curia, 1946 (B-XVI)
LAJOLO Giovanni, ex curia, 1935 (B-XVI)
MONTERISI Francesco, ex curia, 1934 (B-XVI)
NICORA Attilio, curia, 1937 (JP-II)
PIACENZA Mauro, curia, 1944 (B-XVI)
POLETTO Severino, abp. em. Torino, 1933 (JP-II)
RAVASI Gianfranco, curia, 1942 (B-XVI)
RE Giovanni Battista, ex curia, 1934 (JP-II)
ROMEO Paolo, abp. Palermo, 1938 (B-XVI)
SARDI Paolo, ex curia, 1934 (B-XVI)
SCOLA Angelo, abp. Milano, 1941 (JP-II)
SEPE Crescenzio, abp. Napoli, 1943 (JP-II)
TETTAMANZI Dionigi, abp. em. Milano, 1934 (JP-II)
VALLINI Agostino, Rome vicar general, 1940 (B-XVI)
VEGLIO’ Antonio M., curia, 1938 (B-XVI)
VERSALDI Giuseppe, curia, 1943 (B-XVI)

Germany – 6 (3 B-XVI and 3 JP-II)
CORDES Paul Josef, ex curia, 1934 (B-XVI)
KASPER Walter, ex curia, 1933 (JP-II)
LEHMANN Karl, bishop Mainz, 1936 (JP-II)
MARX Reinhard, abp. Munich, 1953 (B-XVI)
MEISNER Joachim, abp. Cologne, 1933 (JP-II)
WOELKI Rainer M., abp. Berlin, 1956 (B-XVI)

Spain – 5 (3 B-XVI and 2 JP-II)
ABRIL Y CASTELLÓ Santos, curia, 1935 (B-XVI)
AMIGO VALLEJO Carlos O.F.M., abp. em. Seville, 1934 (JP-II)
CAÑIZARES LLOVERA Antonio, curia, 1945 (B-XVI)
MARTÍNEZ SISTACH Lluís, abp. Barcelona,1937 (B-XVI)
ROUCO VARELA Antonio María, abp. Madrid, 1936 (JP-II)

France – 4 (2 B-XVI and 2 JP-II)
BARBARIN Philippe, abp. Lyon, 1950 (JP-II)
RICARD Jean-Pierre, abp. Bordeaux, 1944 (B-XVI)
TAURAN Jean-Louis, curia, 1943 (JP-II)
VINGT-TROIS André, abp. Paris, 1942 (B-XVI)

Poland – 4 (3 B-XVI and 1 JP-II)
DZIWISZ Stanislaw, abp. Krakow, 1939 (B-XVI)
GROCHOLEWSKI Zenon, curia, 1939 (JP-II)
NYCZ Kazimierz, abp. Warsaw, 1950 (B-XVI)
RYLKO Stanislaw, curia, 1945 (B-XVI)

Portugal – 2 (1 B-XVI and 1 JP-II)
MONTEIRO DE CASTRO Manuel, curia, 1938 (B-XVI)
POLICARPO José da Cruz, patriarch Lisbon, 1936 (JP-II)

Others – 11 (5 B-XVI and 6 JP-II)
BACKIS Audrys Juozas, abp. Vilnius, Lithuania, 1937 (JP-II)
BOZANIC Josip, abp. Zagabria, Croatia, 1949 (JP-II)
BRADY Sean Baptist, abp, Armagh, Ireland, 1939 (B-XVI)
DANNEELS Godfried, abp. em. Brussels, Belgium, 1933 (JP-II)
DUKA Dominik op, abp. Prague, Czech Republic, 1943 (B-XVI)
EIJK Willem Jacobus, abp. Utrecht, Holland, 1953 (B-XVI)
ERDO' Peter, abp. Esztergom, Hungary, 1952 (JP-II)
KOCH Kurt, curia, Switzerland, 1950 (B-XVI)
PULJIC Vinko, abp. Vrhbosna-Sarajevo, Bosnia, 1945 (JP-II)
RODÉ Franc cm, ex curia, Slovenia, 1934 (B-XVI)
SCHÖNBORN Christoph O.P., abp. Vienna, Austria, 1945 (JP-II)


AMERICAS – 33 (17 B-XVI and 16 JP-II)
Latin AMERICA – 19 (8 B-XVI and 11 JP-II)

Brazil – 5 (3B-XVI and 2 JP-II)
AGNELO Geraldo Majella, abp. em. São Salvador da Bahia, 1933 (JP-II)
BRAZ DE AVIZ Joao, curia, 1947 (B-XVI)
DAMASCENO ASSIS Raymundo, abp. Aparecida, 1937 (B-XVI)
HUMMES Cláudio O.F.M., ex curia, 1934 (JP-II)
SCHERER Odilo Pablo, abp. São Paulo, 1949 (B-XVI)

Mexico – 3 (1 B-XVI and 2 JP-II)
RIVERA CARRERA Norberto, abp. Mexico, 1942 (JP-II)
SANDOVAL IÑIGUEZ Juan, abp. em. Guadalajara, 1933 (JP-II)
ROBLES ORTEGA Francisco, abp Guadalajara, 1949 (B-XVI)

Argentina – 2 (1 B-XVI and 1 JP-II)
BERGOGLIO Jorge Mario S.J., abp. Buenos Aires, 1936 (JP-II)
SANDRI Leonardo, curia, 1943 (B-XVI)

Others – 9 (3 B-XVI and 6 JP-II)
CIPRIANI THORNE Juan Luis, Opus Dei, abp. Lima, Perù, 1943 (JP-II)
ERRAZURIZ OSSA Francisco J., Schönstatt, abp. em. Santiago, Chile, 1933 (JP-II)
LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ Nicolas de Jesus, abp. Santo Domingo, 1936 (JP-II)
ORTEGA Y ALAMINO Jaime Lucas, abp. Havana, Cuba, 1936 (JP-II)
RODRIGUEZ MARADIAGA Oscar A. S.D.B, abp. Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 1942 (JP-II)
SALAZAR GOMEZ Ruben, abp. Bogotà, Colombia, 1942 (B-XVI)
TERRAZAS SANDOVAL Julio C.Ss.R., abp. Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 1936 (JP-II)
UROSA SAVINO Jorge Liberato, abp. Caracas, Venezuela, 1942 (B-XVI)
VELA CHIRIBOGA Raul Eduardo, abp. em. Quito, Ecuador, 1934 (B-XVI)

NORTH AMERICA – 14 (9 B-XVI and 5 JP-II)
United States – 11 (8 B-XVI and 3 JP-II)
BURKE Raymond Leo, curia, 1948 (B-XVI)
DINARDO Daniel Nicholas, abp. Galveston-Houston, 1949 (B-XVI)
DOLAN Timothy Michael, abp. New York, 1950 (B-XVI)
GEORGE Eugene Francis O.M.I., abp. Chicago, 1937 (JP-II)
HARVEY James Michael, curia, 1949 (B-XVI)
LEVADA William Joseph, ex curia, 1936 (B-XVI)
MAHONY Roger Michael, abp. em. Los Angeles, 1936 (JP-II)
O’BRIEN Edwin Frederick, curia, 1939 (B-XVI)
O'MALLEY Sean Patrick O.F.M. Cap., abp. Boston, 1944 (B-XVI)
RIGALI Justin Francis, abp. em. Philadelphia, 1935 (JP-II)
WUERL Donald William, abp. Washington DC, 1940 (B-XVI)

Canada – 3 (1 B-XVI and 2 JP-II)
COLLINS Thomas Christopher, abp. Toronto, 1947 (B-XVI)
OUELLET Marc P.S.S., curia, 1944 (JP-II)
TURCOTTE Jean-Claude, abp. em. Montreal, 1936 (JP-II)

AFRICA – 11 (6 B-XVI and 5 JP-II)

Nigeria – 2 (1 B-XVI and 1 JP-II)
OKOGIE Anthony Olubunmi, abp. Lagos, 1936 (JP-II)
ONAIYEKAN John Olorunfemi, abp. Abuja, 1944 (B-XVI)

Others – 9 (5 B-XVI and 4 JP-II)
MONSENGWO PASINYA Laurent, abp. Kinshasa, RD Congo, 1939 (B-XVI)
NAGUIB Antonios, patriarch em. Alexandria of the Copts, Egypt, 1935 (B-XVI)
NAPIER Wilfrid Fox O.F.M., abp. Durban, South Africa, 1941 (JP-II)
NJUE John, abp. Nairobi, Kenya, 1944 (B-XVI)
PENGO Polycarp, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 1944 (JP-II)
SARAH Robert, curia, Guinea, 1945 (B-XVI)
SARR Theodore-Adrien, abp. Dakar, Senegal, 1936 (B-XVI)
TURKSON Peter Kodwo Appiah, abp. Cape Coast, Ghana, 1948 (JP-II)
ZUBEIR WAKO Gabriel, abp. Khartoum, Sudan, 1941 (JP-II)


ASIA – 10 (7 B-XVI and 3 JP-II)

India – 5 (3 BVI and 2 (JP-II)
ALENCHERRY George, maj. abp. Ernakulam of the Malankars, 1945 (B-XVI)
DIAS Ivan, ex curia, 1936 (JP-II)
GRACIAS Oswald, abp. Bombay, 1944 (B-XVI)
THOTTUNKAL Baselios Cleemis, maj. abp. Trivandrum of the Malankars, 1959 (B-XVI)
TOPPO Telesphore Placidus, abp. Ranchi, 1939 (JP-II)

Others – 5 (4 B-XVI and 1 JP-II)
PATABENDIGE DON A. M. Ranjith, abp. Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1947 (B-XVI)
PHAM MINH MAN Jean-Baptiste, abp. Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 1934 (JP-II)
RAI Bechara Boutros omm, patriarch Antioch of the Maronites, Lebanon, 1940 (B-XVI)
TAGLE Luis Antonio, abp. Manila, Philippines, 1957 (B-XVI)
TONG HON John, bishop Hong Kong, China, 1939 (B-XVI)

OCEANIA - 1 (JP-II)
PELL George, abp. Sydney, Australia, 1941 (JP-II)

---

Cardinals who are older than 80 are able to participate in the general congregations that precede the Conclave, but not in the Conclave itself.

At the beginning of the sede vacante there were 90 of them - 52 Europeans (21 Italians), 11 Latin Americans (4 Brazilians), 8 North Americans (all from the United States), 9 Asians, 7 Africans, and 3 from Oceania.

Eligible to vote in the Conclave is German Cardinal Walter Kasper, who turned 80 on March 4, during the sede vacante. Under the 1996 rules set down by John Paul II, those who reach the statutory age during the sede vacante are sqill qualified to vote.

There are 20 cardinals belonging to religious orders who will participate in the conclave, and 15 are non-electors,

Four are Salesians (Amato, Bertone, Farina, and Rodriguez Maradiaga); 3 are Franciscan friars minor (Amigo Vallejo, Hummes, Napier); two are Dominicans (Schonborn and Duka). Other orders represented have one cardinal each: Jesuits (Bergoglio), Vincentians (Rodé), Redemptorists (Terrazas), Capuchins (O'Malley), Oblates (George), Sulpicians (Ouellet), Schönstatt (Errazuriz Ossa), and the Maronite Mariamites (Rai).

The cardinal electors also include cardinals prominently associated with the post-Vatican II lay movements: a member of Opus Dei (Cipriani Thorne), a historic representative of Comunione e Liberazione (Scola), and at least two friends of the Focolare movement (Antonelli and Braz de Aviz). Strongly sympathetic toward the Neocatecumenals are Filoni, Cordes, and Cañizares, while Dias is close to the charismatic movement.

Forty cardinal electors are working or have worked in the Roman Curia and other Vatican offices.

Nineteen of them are Italian, with 11 currently heads of dicasteries (Amato, Bertello, Bertone, Calcagno, Coccopalmerio, Comastri, Filoni, Nicora, Piacenza, Ravasi, Sardi, Vegliò, and Versaldi) and 6 are retired (Antonelli, De Paolis, Farina, Lajolo, Monterisi, Re). [What happened to Cordero de Montezemolo, former Arch-Priest of St Paul???]

Curial cardinals from the United States are 4 (3 of them active - Burke, Harvey, and O’Brien - and the retired Levada); Spain has 2 T(Cañizares, Abril Castelló)' Poland has 2 (Grocholewski and Rylko), all of them active. There are also 2 Germans, but both of them retired (Cordes and Kasper).

Curial cardinals from Latin America are Sandri of Argentina, Braz de Aviz of Brazil, both of whom are active, while another Brazilian, Hummes, is retired.

European but non-Italian Curial cardinals are Tauran of France, Monteiro of Portugal, and Koch of Switzerland, all active; and Rode of Slovenia, retired.

There are two Africans in the Curia, Turkson of Ghana and Sarah of Guinea.

Ouellet of Canada is the only active North American member of the curia. Dias of India retired last year.

Of the 40 cardinals with Curial credentials, half also have pastoral experience as bishops or archbishops: Antonelli, Bertone, Calcagno, Coccopalmerio, Comastri, Nicora, Versaldi, Kasper, Rodé, Canizares Llovera, Koch, Hummes, Braz de Aviz, Burke, Levada, O’Brien, Ouellet, Dias, Turkson, and Sarah.

Cardinals who previously served at the Vatican who now head a diocese or previously headed a diocese are Sepe, Vallini, Dziwisz, Backis, Agnelo, Hummes, Errazuriz Ossa, Rigali, and Patabendige Don.

Scherer, Wuerl and DiNardo also worked in the curia before their pastoral appointments as officials, not as dicasteery heads.

Finally, 16 cardinal electors come from pontifical diplomacy (former nuncios): Bertello, Filoni, Lajolo, Monterisi, Re, Romeo, Sepe, Vegliò, Tauran, Abril y Castelló, Monteiro de Castro, Backis, Sandri, Harvey, Rigali, Dias.

Cardinal Sardi, though not a product of the Pontifical Academy that trains Vatican diplomats, acquired the honorific of apostolic nuncio when he was named archbishop by John Paul II when he became head of the office of pontifical 'ghost writers' in the Secretariat of State.

For those who want to play the Papa-Lotto, Magister goes out on a limb in a signed article today touting Cardinal Dolan of New York as the most likely Pope-to-be, and claiming that the candidate of the Curia is Brazil's Cardinal Scherer whom, he says, they think, will be pliable to their will (but how demeaning to Scherer!) . More strangely, Magister all but dismisses the candidacies of Cardinals Scola and Ouellet... Well, Vaticanistas have never made good papal oracles at all. In a conclave where no one comes in with any sizable perceived lead, the dynamics of what happens after the initial balloting that may have dozens of names in play are hardly predictable to anyone.

John Allen leads off his post today by reiterating Magister's 'crystal ball' perceptions, and adds the following information that sort of punctures one of the media obsessions in this sede vacante period - the meme that the cardinal electors are as obsessed as they are with Vatileaks:

---

...This afternoon, one of the cardinal electors taking part in the General Congregation meetings spoke to NCR on background, given the informal agreement the cardinals have reached not to give interviews.

This cardinal made two points:
- Contrary to what's been reported by some media outlets, there is no strong push among the cardinals to be shown the secret report given to Benedict XVI by three over-80 cardinals on the Vatileaks affair.

- Cardinals are taking the leaks scandal "very seriously," he said, but most believe they have adequate information from the authors of the report, who are taking part in the General Congregation meetings. He said there is no "battle royale" over Vatileaks within the General Congregation and voiced suspicion that some of the media reports are intended to put "pressure" on the conclave. [Actually, this undue emphasis on Vatileaks was articulated bluntly by Cardinal Sean O'Malley before the US cardinals 'agreed' to respect the pre-Conclave rule on discretion.]

In general, the fallout from the Vatileaks affair seems to have strengthened the conviction among many cardinals that governance is a key issue heading into this vote and that the next Pope has to be someone with the "strength" to push through a serious reform of the Vatican bureaucracy. {I think it is more a secular prurience about anything labelled scandal by the media that is motivating those cardinals who are eager to see the motes in the Curia but not the beams in their own bureaucracies - and more importantly, they have completely ignored Benedict XVI's repeated admonitions that structural reforms are futile unless there is internal conversion and purification first among the persons who make up that structure, even citing Mother Teresa who, when asked what the most important changes in the Church should be, simply said "You and I". ]

---

Jose Luis Restan has perhaps been one of the most constant and consistent followers of Benedict XVI in the media - and a most thoughtful one. Because he made it a point to chronicle the Pontificate of Benedict XVI by commenting on every major text by Benedict XVI in the past eight years through his weekly columns and radio commentary, he has been able to anthologize them in three volumes, covering the years 2005=2008, 2008-2011 and 2011-2013. Obviously, Benedict XVI's epochal renunciation came just weeks before the third volume was going to press (or he rushed it into press because of the development), and so he was able to complete his account of the Pontificate, as his Preface indicates.

Benedict XVI:
Father to the very end
Translated from

March 7, 2013

This is the Preface, written in the form of a letter to Benedict XVI, for the third volume of Diario de Un Pontificado, covering the years 2011-2013. The book was presented Thursday afternoon in Madrid at the headquarters of the COPE radio network.

---

Dear Holy Father:

In a few hours, I will no longer be able to continue calling you this way.

I still remember the initial occasion when you asked the cardinals who had just elected to you, "I beg of you, do not leave me alone".

And I sincerely believe that the good Christian people have always been near you, enjoying and suffering with you.

Just as I believe that the great majority of your co-workers wished to serve you with sincere heart, even if they must have often felt that you flew so high it was difficult for them to follow you. And I don't mean the heights of your prodigious thought but the transparent beauty of your Christian witness.

I, too, with my microphone and my pen, have sought to be close to your tireless presence. Throughout the three volumes of this Diary of a Pontificate, I have tried to reflect something of the riches that you have sown so generously in this world, and have tried to let these riches reach more and more people so that you can help them live.

Because, as you have always said, Christianity is really the art of living - an art that few have known how to teach as you have.

Once, when you were speaking of the theologian Erik Peterson, you cited the verse from the Letter to the Hebrews that says "we do not have a permanent city here but we must go in search of the future". You noted thatPeterson "remained all his life without a secure base and without a definite homeland, a pilgrim with faith and for the faith, trusting that in his wandering homeless, he was at home in another way, as he came nearer and nearer to the celestial liturgy..."

This passage came to mind = among all the thousands that had passed under my eyes in these eight years - because I have the sansation that in speaking of this theologian who was once Lutheran (and to whom you felt quite close), you were basically speaking of your own life. I see it even clearer now, after you announced that you were renouncing the Petrine ministry,

Basically, you have always been somewhat of a 'stranger' wherever you have been. You were a stranger in Germany as a theologian in the ferment of the student uprisings. You were one as the young Archbishop of Munich because you broke up schemes promoted by various interests. You were one in Rome as Prefect in the Curia, who kept away from factions, uncorroded by the acid of the media, disconcerting for those who confuse Tradition with its usual forms.

And you have been during these almost eight years of a passionate and fascinating Pontificate. Because you know that we do not have our permanent dwelling here, as you have just shown us now! Because the Christian does not send his roots into the earth, but upwards to heaven.

During these years, I was impressed by the sympathy that you always had for every man and woman whatever their situation. You always saw far beyond appearances. You always detected that crack through which the thirst for the infinite was manifest, the search for goodness and beauty that so many do not even know by name.

Perhaps you were the first Pope in many centuries who was aware that he was speaking to a world that was for the most part not Christian. It was impressive how you spoke to that world: in Regensburg, in New York, at the College des Bernardins of Paris, in the Bundestag... Would it be an exaggeration to say that you spoke like a new Augustine or like a Leo the Great of the 21st century? I think not.

You told the seminarians of Rome during your last encounter with them: The Church is the tree of God and therefore, it will always have a future. A tree that may be shaken by storms, that will lose many branches, that may sometimes seem moribund because of the sins of her members, because of our lack of faith.

Nevertheless, it is always reborn because she carries in her the seed of eternal life. Yes, the Lord will take care of his Church - of that I am sure, and so I remain tranquil. But the Lord always takes care of his Church through the hands and hearts of human beings, you also said.

And even if you do not seek praise and applause, allow me to thank you for the fortunate grace of these years. It is as you told Peter Seewald: There are times when the Lord chooses one of his own and makes history.

---

When George Weigel gets hysterical...

Allow me this self-indulgence to protest a gross injustice to Benedict XVI by George Weigel. Aqua has called my attention to a column by Weigel yesterday in National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342386/team-america-shut-down-george-weigel?pg=2
which is ostensibly his screed against what he describes as "Team America shut down", referring to the fact that the US cardinals who had been holding daily media briefings. Briefings which were purportedly about the pre-Conclave deliberations in the General Congregations (about which they really could not offer any information, but merely their own personal opinions). The cardinals cancelled yesterday's briefing after Fr. Lombardi's statements that participating cardinals were not supposed to talk to the media about their deliberations.

I would have been totally shocked at the crescendo of hysteria in Weigel's NRO piece were it not already familiar to me from a similarly hysterical - and equally irrational - tirade against Caritas in veritate back in 2009 when he unloaded on elements in the Curia who supposedly 'fed' Benedict XVI with outrageous ideas for the encyclical - as though B16 had been an unthinking moron.

This time, beginning with an excoriation of Fr. Lombardi and the entire Vatican communications system, Weigel's hysteria rises shrilly to the point when he says something completely extraneous to communications per se, but becomes an ad hominem slap at Benedict XVI himself, to wit:

---

I have yet to meet the person who believes that the title (“His Holiness Benedict XVI, pope emeritus”) or vesture (white soutane) of the former pontiff now living at Castel Gandolfo reflected wise or prudent governance decisions. Rather, they have compounded the difficulty of explaining to the world (and reassuring some shaken Catholics) that there will not be “two popes” after the white smoke arises from the Sistine Chapel chimney in a few weeks.

---

I say 'ad hominem' because we know it was Benedict XVI himself who decided, after apprropiate consultations and deliberation (he must surely have thought about it long before the fact), who decided on these dispositions, which were not, as Weigel chooses to see them, 'governance decisions'.

They concern matters of 'form' for an unprecedented situation - how to refer to and how to address an ex-Pope who is not dead, and what he may wear as his habit. These have nothing to do with governance, since they concern someone who voluntarily renounced all the rights, functions and prerogatives of the ministry of Peter, and therefore has no governance at all.

Contrary to Weigel's barefaced assertion in the first line of the paragraph above, I am not aware that there has been a single objection in the media other than his to the dispositions decided by Benedict XVI - everyone has simply proceeded without any fuss to use the terms His Holiness and Pope Emeritus. Nor do I think the overwhelming majority of the faithful could have any possible objections.

What confusion could there be for anyone about 'two Popes'? Weigel is insulting Catholics who do not have to be told there is only one Pope at a time. We all know Benedict has stepped down, i.e., he is no longer Pope -= he is now like all of us who must revere and obey the next Pope, which he expressed directly to the next Pope that Thursday morning in the Sala Clementina.

But he is more than just another retiree. Secular world leaders continue to be addressed and referred to by the title they last held - why not an ex-Pope? As for the title 'Your Holiness', it is also held in the Catholic Church by the Patriarchs (Catholicos) of the Armenian Churches. Is the former Supreme Pontiff any less worthy to be called Your Holiness?

Even Weigel has acknowledged and praised on more than one occasion the personal modesty of Benedict XVI. The title, address and vesture that he decided appropriate for himself as the retired Pope do not have to do with the person of Joseph Ratzinger but with the office of the Pope itself. It is about asserting that the dignity of the office remains even with someone who has deposed the position itself, even if he no longer has any of its prerogatives. It is about setting a precedent for any Pope in the future who might step down alive for any valid reason.

As for the white habit, all priests who work in the tropics wear white instead of black. Dominicans wear white (Pius VI, a Dominican, began what is now the tradition of papal white). We saw Benedict XVI in Africa, where his own entourage and all the local priests and bishops were in white. Did that confuse anyone to know who was the Pope?

Weigel then goes on to criticize the telegram sent to Benedict XVI by the cardinals - not for the piece of infamy that it is - but because he says the cardinals were somehow expecting a reply from Benedict XVI that would, in effect, violate the fact that he ought to have nothing to do with the Conclave at all. That is as childishly petulant and irrational as any rant by a rad-trad or ultra-left blogger dissing Benedict XVI.

He rails against Cardinal Sodano - for over ten years the righthand man to John Paul II of whom Weigel is the pre-eminent biographer - for proposing the telegram at all, for not having convoked the cardinals earlier than he did on March 1, for how he is running the General Congregations, in general, and ends with a wholesale denunciation of the 'Curia' and a need for a drastic general housecleaning, yada, yada, yada.

I have not read Part 2 of Weigel's bigraphy of John Paul II, but I would dearly love to know what he writes in it, if at all, of the state of the Curia in the last decade of John Paul II's life, or of how John Paul II governed the Church in his final years through his Polish inner circle. and their dynamics with Cardinals Sodano and Sandri, who ran SecState and held the formal powers and instruments of governance.

The JPII Curia pots and the BXVI Curia kettles may both be black, but there are degrees of blackness - from a superficial coating of soot to a hard incrustation of burnt-in dirt that needs to be cracked open to begin to clean out. Which Curia was what?

I was glad to read that some of Benedict XVI's Curial heads have been able to report to the General Congregations about their respective offices, as I had thought incumbent upon them, and I hope all of them have a chance to do that - at which time I suppose the cardinals on the floor could ask them questions if they had to. They should still submit a written summary to each of the cardinal electors as Maronite Patriarch Rai did about the situation of Christians in the Middle East.

As for Mr. Weigel, he should consider not writing anything when he is in the grip of hysteria. Indeed, no responsible writer should. I thought his hysteria over CIV was a singular anomaly in his otherwise clean record of reportorial and analytical excellence, but it is apparently a character trait he must learn to discipline.

Just by comparison, here is what I commented on July 9, 2009, two days after CIV was published, about Weigel's instant rant against the encyclical [his article can be found in full here:http://benedettoxviforum.freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=8669430&p=1 - Scroll down to Post 17897]

---

I find George Weigel's instant commentary on the encyclical strange - and obviously biased, from its very title. It seems to be more a defense - uncalled for and unnecessary - of John Paul II's Centesimus annus and an open denunciation of Paul VI's Populorum progressio - which amounts to a denunciation of Benedict XVI's Caritas in veritatis which so explicitly pays homage to Populorum progressio - in the course of which Weigel scapegoats the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, accusing it of having tried to strong-arm John Paul II into writing things the Council wanted him to write, and now apparently having succeeded in getting Benedict XVI to join their bias for Paul VI's Populorum progressio.

I must object that Mr. Weigel, whom I have always found objective and fair-minded before this, now appears to make the Pope's encyclical the battleground for his differences (and, he implies, John Paul II's differences) with the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. In any case, it does not make for a flattering picture of Benedict XVI or of this encyclical - and I think it is flagrantly wrong and unfair to 'instrumentalize' the encyclical for such purposes.

It is almost as if Weigel had allowed his hostility towards Justice and Peace to take over his judgment in this matter. And to portray encyclicals by different Popes as somehow 'competitive' with each other is just not right! Every encyclical is supposed to be part of the continuum of the Church's universal Magisterium, not a self-assertive ego trip by the Pope who wrote it..

---

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/03/2013 18:04]

Friday, March 8, Third Week of Lent

Extreme left, a portrait by Murillo; center, the saint's statue in the Founders' Corner of St. Peter's Basilica.
SAN JUAN DE DIOS [John of God] (b Portugal 1495, d Spain 1550)
Founder of the Hospitaliers Order, Patron of Hospitals and the Sick
Born to an impoverished noble family near Evora, Portugal, he was a shepherd until age 27, when he decided to go to Spain
and serve in the army of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. He was not actively religious until he was 40, when he decided
to change his life and embarked for Africa hoping to be a martyr. Always impulsive, he ended up helping out a family of
exiles who fell on hard times, and went back to Spain shortly afterwards. He started selling religious books, first as an
itinerant vendor, then from a bookstore in Granada. In 1538, he heard a sermon by John of Avila, and he underwent his 'second'
conversion - giving away all he owned, beating himself in public, and other acts that caused him to be committed to the mental
ward of the Royal Hospital. He was visited there by St. John who became his spiritual mentor and advised him to channel
his services to help the poor. He did so, begging for alms to set up a hospital for the poor, first in a rented house, then
in an old Carmelite monastery. His work drew likeminded men, who became the nucleus of the Order of Hospitaliers. He also
started getting contributions from the rich and powerful, and was even granted an audience with Charles's V's son and
successor, Philip, who would reign as Phillip II. He earned the name 'Juan de Dios' from the Archbishop of Granada who
called him to give him a habit of his own, because he was used to giving the clothes on his back to the first beggar he met.
After 10 years of exemplary work, with other hospitals for the poor set up in other places, he died of pneumonia that he
contracted when he jumped into the river to save a drowning child. He was canonized in 1690 and named patron saint of hospitals
and sick people. Today there are hospitals all over the world named for him. He is also considered the patron saint of
booksellers and firefighters (because he heroically saved the Royal Hospital from burning down and survived miraculously).
Readings for today's Mass: www.usccb.org/bible/readings/030813.cfm

AT THE VATICAN TODAY

The College of Cardinals held their seventh General Congregation in the morning, and were to hold their eighth
in the afternoon, at which they were expected to set a date for when the Conclave will begin.

One year ago today...
The Holy Father Benedict XVI had a 'routine day', meeting with two visiting dignitaries and a group of US bishops on ad-limina visit. But on that day, Andrea Tornielli had this report which brings up many considerations in play today regarding the choice of a new Pope, with the misplaced obsession on Vatileaks and the supposed chaos of the Roman Curia put forth as a 'key consideration'. Even if the person interviewed is an ex-Curial member and ex-Apostolic Nuncio (therefore, a product of the SecState 'school'), he makes valid points that have been overlooked or ignored about Vatileaks.





Cardinal Lajolo seeks
to set the record straight:
'Mons. Vigano's accusations were wrong'
by Andrea Tornielli
Translated from the Italian service of

March 8, 2012

VAtICAN CITY - "Mons. Vigano starts out from suspicions which have since been found unfounded, and went down the wrong path", said Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, who was president of the Governatorate of Vatican City State until last summer (and under whom Mos. Carlo Maria Vigano worked as secretary of the Governatorate).

Caridinal lajolo spok in an interview published on the Tgcom24 site, in the blog 'Stanze vaticane' (Vatican rooms) by Fabio Marchese Ragone.

The Cardinal, who was one of four signatories of a letter published February 4 responding to some of the accusations made by Mons. Vigano in private letters to Cardinal Secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone and to the Pope himself, said, "Vigano saw himself portrayed unjustly in a bad light by some news reports and felt profoundly wounded". The articles referred to were published anonymously in the daily newspaper Il Giornale.

"In trying to find out who was responsible for these articles," Lajolo continued. "he started out with suspicions, since then shown to be unfounded, and started down the wrong path which led him to frame his personal problem in a far larger context, through a series of 'analyses' that a more attentive and dispassionate examination has shown to be erroneous".

"Yet I don't think that he was punished. The position of Apostolic Nuncio to the United States carries the greatest prestige which offers him the opportunity to prove himself".

The cardinal, now 77, who retired last October and was succeeded by Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, also spoke of the reported cost of the Nativity scene in St. Peter's Square in 2008. (This was not addressed in the February 4 letter, which was a general response to Vigano's allegations).

"It did not involve any unjustifiable waste of money," he said. "First of all, the cost of the project (cited by Mons. Vigano) was 546,000 euro, which also covered the installation of the Christmas tree on St. Peter's Square and numerous Nativity scenes set up in various places inside the Vatican."

"Moreover, that year, the technical services department of the Governatorate had provided a new permanent metallic foundation, installed a new lighting system, and acquired new building materials, mostly polystyrene, which could all be used again in successive installations, as they were in the following years. So the cost for such Christmas installations were lower after 2008, because many elements were reusable, and the building costs were less expensive with the new permanent foundations".

About Vatileaks, Cardinal Lajolo said: "There are many possibilities. On my part, I cannot help but think that someone employed in the Curia who is frustrated in his ambitions, thought he could get back at the system by some underground activity intended to cause a racket, and found someone in the media who helped him exploit the situation."

"But that all this took place at a time when the Church is preparing to celebrate a Year of Faith is particularly unpleasant. However, the faith will triumph".

He also cites another hypothesis to explain Vatileaks:
"It seems to me that it is an attempt to divert from all the important things done by Benedict XVI - and he is doing a lot - the most important is his commitment to truth in a society which appears not just resigned but even convinced that truth cannot be reached, and which is transforming this conviction into an indisputable dogma that they would like to impose as a foundation for living 'freely'.

"The 'strategy of confusion' - which would make it appear that the Vatican is a ship without a captain - aims to discredit the message power of the Pontiff and his governance of the Church, to distract public attention from the positive aspects to focus on a few episodes that are certainly unpleasant but also occasional and marginal. But they (the detractors) will not prevail".

Of the tensions and internal conflicts that the leaked documents appear to portray, Cardinal Lajolo said: "That there should be, in the Church and in the Holy See itself, diverse and even contrary opinions about various practical matters is not in itself bad or sinful - it is a legitimate process of looking into what is best by the persons concerned.

"But it is not legitimate that such differences of opinion are given irresponsible publicity and being interpreted by using expressions such as 'power struggle'. There are documents that ought to remain private, first of all, to protect those involved so that they may be able to continue expressing their opinions freely, but also to avoid compromising intra-personal relationships and avoid unpleasant and unjust conclusions in the public opinion, but especially among the faithful".

Finally, Lajolo points out that the Pope "has a firm hand on the tiller of the Church - It is also a serene hand, with a paternal spirit, from someone who never gets agitated nor indulges in polemics."

About Cardinal Bertone, he says: "He rightly enjoys the confidence of the Pope. Cardinal Bertone carries out his task, which is very complex and difficult, with great humanity and Salesian pastorality, which unfortunately, some do not understand.

"But I wish to recall - especially to those who have short memories - the judgments that were made about previous Popes and their associates when they were alive - even of the unforgettable Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli. The judgments were not more benevolent than those that are disseminated in the media today - and were invariably corrected over time".

[Media do conveniently forget history to create 'news' that is not really news, and to report chronic problems inherent in any human institution as unprecedented or even unique! Anything to generate headlines that they can keep fueled for several days or even a few weeks. Until the current cause celebre gets overshadowed by a newer, fresher scandal du jour. And most readers get taken in by the hype. That's the way it works in a time marked by general irresponsibility. ]


3/8/13 P.S. I must add, however, as someone who has always criticized Cardinal Bertone for failing to be around to defend the Pope at the most critical times in the past eight years, and for the imprudent seemngly power-grabbing actions he took which were all fortunately foiled or vetoed by Benedict XVI, I stand by my specific reproaches against him.

Conclave to begin
Tuesday afternoon, March 12


The following supersedes the earlier item posted below:

---

The eighth General Congregation of the College of Cardinals has decided that the Conclave will begin on Tuesday, 12 March 2013

A “pro eligendo Romano Pontifice” Mass will be celebrated in St. Peter’s Basilica in the morning. In the afternoon the cardinals will enter into the Conclave.

---

Conclave expected to start
early next week
By Crispian Balmer


VATICAN CITY, Match 8, 2013 (Reuters) - Roman Catholic cardinals will decide later on Friday when to start their conclave to elect a successor to Pope Benedict and the secret gathering will most likely begin early next week, the Vatican said.

Benedict's surprise abdication last month has drawn most [MOST? All but 2 of the electors] of the world's cardinals to Vatican City for discussions on the problems facing the 1.2 billion-member Church, and to decide on the profile of the man they want to take charge.

[I do not understand this universal and persistent formulation used even by Fr. Lombardi. Certainly, the cardinals who take the floor at the congregations are free to say "I believe these are the criteria for the next Pope", but that is not for the Congregations to decide as if they were putting it to a vote. After all, any man they choose to be Pope must be holy, spiritual, pastoral, intelligent, and competent.

If by this last criterion they mean someone who can 'reform the Curia', I do not recall that any one cardinal who has been in charge of a fairly large organization (such as SecState) or large diocese has ever been singled out for particular competence in running their bureaucracies. Without detracting in any way from his greatness and holiness, even Blessed Karol Wojtyla whom his preeminent biographer holds up as a model of pastoral competence in every way - he may well have been - chose not to do anything about the Curia he inherited and pretty much let the Curial offices do as they pleased during the 26 years of his Pontificate.

And yet, no one now says that Curial era was particularly 'chaotic', despite the unfortunate scandals of the Banco Ambrosiano, of the Orlandi kidnapping and of the Swiss Guard love-triangle killings. Against which we had what in the Curia of Benedict XVI? An overpriced Nativity scene on St. Peter's Square. I just wish everyone would stop being so sanctimonious about Benedict XVI's Curia, because it seems like everyone, from the most sober cardinal imaginable and the Vatican media officials themselves to the man on the street, has swallowed whole and been indelibly conditioned by the media line that 'crisis in the Church' means bureaucratic problems rather than, as Benedict XVI never ceased to underscore, a crisis of faith and the need for individual purification, to begin with. I cannot believe the cardinal electors do not realize this in their daily examinations of conscience, if they do still follow this old=fashioned practice.]

There is no clear favourite to take the helm of the Church, which faces an array of problems following Benedict's rocky, eight-year reign, ranging from sexual abuse scandals to internal strife at the heart of the Vatican administration. ['Scandals' which did not take place in his Pontificate and which he was the first one in the Church to seek to redress in any way, and 'internal strife' which no one has shown to be no more or no less than what has usually afflicted the Vatican or any organization, for that matter! Why does media never balance out its presentation once they have decided something must be unconditionally negative?]

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said cardinals would vote later in the day on when to seclude themselves in the Sistine Chapel for the conclave balloting, with a decision expected soon after 7 p.m. local time (6 p.m. British Time).

"I believe that it will start in the first few days of next week. They certainly won't decide to start tomorrow or on Sunday, but they could choose Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday," Lombardi told reporters at a daily news briefing.

A total of 115 elector-cardinals, all aged under 80, are expected to take part in the elaborate Sistine Chapel ritual, which will continue until one man receives at least a two-thirds majority, put at 77 votes.

Cardinal Jean-Baptiste Pham Minh Man was the last of the elector-cardinals to come to the Vatican, arriving on Thursday. He joined about 150 cardinals of all ages who are discussing the state of the Church before the conclave, in preliminary meetings known as general congregations.

Vatican officials have put pressure on those present not to divulge the content of those discussions, but leaks continue to appear in the Italian press, with La Stampa daily reporting that criticism of the Vatican bureaucracy continued to surface. [If, as previous reports emphasized, most of the cardinals say they want to know more about Vatileaks since they know very little about what is happening in the Curia, what would be the basis for their criticisms then? What they read in the media? I hope the Curial cardinals present speak up and defend themselves and their offices if they have nothing to apologize for!]

Lombardi said about 100 cardinals had taken the floor since the formal meetings started on Monday, adding that important informal conversations were also being held on the sidelines.

The cardinals have made it clear they want a quick conclave to make sure that they can all return to their dioceses in time to lead Easter celebrations - the most important event in the Roman Catholic calendar.

Vatican insiders say the longer the general pre-discussions go on, the easier it should be to establish the best candidates to take the helm, possibly shortening the eventual vote.

Pope Benedict was elected in little over a day after just four rounds of voting, while his predecessor, Pope John Paul, was elected after eight ballots spaced out over three days.

Cardinals were traditionally locked into areas around the Sistine Chapel, famed for its Michelangelo frescoes, and not allowed out until they chose a new pontiff.

But the rules changed before the 2005 conclave and the red-capped prelates now get to reside in a comfortable Vatican hotel while they are not voting in the Sistine Chapel.

Father Lombardi said the cardinal electors would draw lots to see which rooms they would get to sleep in, with all external contact, including emails and telephone calls, forbidden.

Special jamming devices would also be set up in and around the Sistine Chapel and the residence to stop any outsiders from trying to eavesdrop and to prevent any mobile phone usage in the vicinity.

One senior prelate is believed to have let slip to friends in Germany that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had been elected pope in 2005 before the crowds waiting in the nearby St. Peter's Square had been informed.

I never thought I would live to see the day when Marco Politi - arch-critic of Benedict XVI. he who did not waste a single opportunity to diss him in the worst terms possible, to the point of writing a whole book about it - would express the sentiments he does in this interview with Vatican Radio... But bless him for the change in rhetoric, if not a genuine change of heart. However, one must consider he is saying all this of a man who is still alive, so it is not pious post-mortem charity that prompts it.

Marco Politi looks back on
Benedict XVI's Pontificate


Explaining how the Papacy of Benedict XVI has written new chapters in the history of the Catholic Church, veteran journalist, author of a number of books dedicated to the Popes, and Vatican observer Marco Politi looks back to an intense eight-year period which has further defined the role of the Roman Pontiff in a contemporary world.

Speaking to Vatican Radio’s Linda Bordoni, Politi expresses his opinion that Benedict’s Pontificate has been in perennial tension, moving “from the past to the present, from the past to the future”. By being the first Pope to resign in modern times - he says - he has set the stage for a new scenario… Listen to the interview… RealAudioMP3

Politi says that by stepping down, Pope Benedict “has moved the human aspect of the Pontiff to the forefront, underlining that the Church is led by Christ – not by a person – and that the Popes are servants”. So, he says “when it is the time for a servant that has much vigour spiritually and physically, then it is good that the former servant gives way to a successor”. [Thank you, Mr. Politi, for articulating something that I had brought up in the same terms yesterday!]

This – he says – is very human, and at the same time it is theologically very deep because it puts Christ and God at the center of the community.

Politi agrees that Benedict’s unprecedented step in modern times to step down in a way modernizes the Papacy. He says that “he is completing the reforms of Paul VI who wanted to refresh the top hierarchy of the Church. In fact he decided that bishops over 75 had to retire, and then he decided that Cardinals over 80 could not be electors in the Conclave”.

Now Benedict is giving his successors the possibility to step down at a certain moment of their life.

Since Benedict a rational man, Politi points out, “he knows very well that in the modern world changes are very quick so you need somebody who can follow all those changes”. And also in the modern world, where the media and public opinion are so focused on the Pope, it is not possible like in past centuries to have an old and ill Pontiff who delegates administration to someone behind the scenes. [Too bad the interviewer did not follow this up by asking Politi, who co-authored a biography of John Paul II with Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame, what he thought of the final years of John Paul II when he did just that.]

Politi adds that this gesture, which was revolutionary, and at the same time humble and noble, also was a way to recognize his personal limits. Many people – he says - have appreciated this gesture, “even those who maybe were not in agreement with him got a new wave of sympathy for him”. [He among them, obviously!]

Because of his very high intellectual and theological stature - Politi continues - Benedict has always been beyond stereotypes. And because it is not in his temperament to “rule” the machinery of the Curia, he showed a certain lack of leadership. [Not a lack of leadership, because it is not the Pope's job to 'rule' the Curia. But an unfortunate choice - and therefore a judgment lapse - for Secretary of State whose specific job it is to rule the Curia. Not that Bertone 'failed' in this respect - because other than Vatileaks and the perennially controversial IOR, there have been no major problems affecting the Church itself with and in the Curia - but because he focused on other things instead of his primary responsibility to administer the Vatican.]

But thanks to his “intellectual dimension he was often moving “from past to present, from past to future. For instance, in the last years he often underlined the fact that Christians must be an active minority in modern society - recognizing that society has changed".

He reiterated this concept during his journey to Britain, and also when he returned from Prague when he said ‘it is time to open a dialogue with non-believers who are in search of the truth’. [I think that came before the trip to Prague - when he first broached the idea of a modern-day Court of the Gentiles in a Christmas address to the Curia.]

And he decided to invite non-believers for the first time to the great religious meeting in Assisi”. This, Politi says, is also very modern because it means “to understand that modern society is a society of crossroads where many philosophies, religions and ways of thinking meet with Christianity. And Christianity must be able to be in dialogue with these dimensions”.

Politi speaks of his recently published book, “Joseph Ratzinger: Crisis of a Papacy”, written because he realized that there had been too many crises in the Papacy. He says that although they were all unwanted crises, they showed there was a problem.

Politi mentions the crises with Islam, with Jews because of the Lefebvrian groups, and he says there were other flashpoints culminating of course with the “Vatileaks” crisis and the questions regarding the Vatican Bank.

[That's it? That's the sum total of negatives to be laid out against Benedict XVI's Pontificate? Or at least the most significant, as they are the ones that Politi mentions? Gee, any Pope would be proud of that - because none of it has to do with how he carried out the Petrine ministry or being 'servant of the servants of God'!

All right, let's take Politi at his word and consider his list. None of what you mention, Mr. Politi, was a genuine 'crisis' at all, only made so by the media.

1) Islam - Regensburg was a two-week tempest, as any review of the news reporting of those days will show, and any negative fallout from the media's unwarranted focus on Benedict XVI's citation of a Byzantine emperor's words - as the only significant thing they could report about the Pope's lecture - was dramatically reversed a few weeks later when the Pope visited Istanbul, and by the subsequent rational and welcoming reply to the Regensburg lecture by Islam's leading intellects. For the first time in history, a formal dialog was established between the Church and Islam. Surely that is significant?

2) The Jews - It was far less the Jews who raised a monumental ruckus about this than sanctimonious Catholic liberals who were panting for any chance to hit at Benedict XVI. Does anyone doubt that if Benedict XVI had known about Williamson's Holocaust-denying statements earlier, he would still have lifted his excommunication anyway, since it had nothing to do at all with Williamson's pig-headed historical opinions? The only difference was that the Pope would have made sure that the Vatican explained all this beforehand, not after the fact.

3) Vatileaks - Entirely a media scandal. The treason of Paolo Gabriele was appalling but not the first nor the worst treason in recent Vatican history (think back to the treachery of Pius XII's personal physician). Nor did the papers he purloined reveal anything significant (mainly about Cardinal Bertone's maneuverings) that was not already previously reported in the Italian media. Nor for that matter, any new 'scandal', much less anything at all that reflected negatively on Benedict XVI, as even Gabriele's media collaborator Gianluigi Nuzzi underscores in his book.

4) IOR - Not only had it just undergone months of scrutiny by Moneyval, with passing grades for its transparency measures, but its worst action under Benedict XVI - the un-Christian dismissal of Ettore Gotti Tedeschi - does not even approach the gravity and magnitude of the Banco Ambrosiano scandal (which was a genuine one in all the ways a scandal can be defined) of the previous Pontificate.

As regards his handling of the sexual abuse crisis, Politi points out "it must be said Pope Benedict has turned a new page in the history of the Catholic Church” with his zero tolerance line, by putting the victims at the center of the attention, and by recognizing the failures of some bishops who failed to apply the rules. And he has put new, more rigorous rules in place and asked bishops all over the world to elaborate guidelines to confront this phenomenon. [I must go back and see what exactly Politi was writing in 2010 when all of MSM was trying to get Benedict XVI to resign, desperately dredging up any old story they could use to show that he himself was directly culpable of covering up sex abuses, or even something worse. I am almost 100% sure Politi was not expressing what he says in the above paragraph.]

Politi says that he thinks when Benedict spoke of the burden of the Papacy, saying that sometimes it was very heavy to bear this burden, the Pope was also referring to these situations. [Of course he was - a burden which he carried and resolved while he was able to, more of which his increasing physical limitations would make him unable to deal with in the best way they deserve.]

As regards the problems he ran into with Jews, Politi says in reality Pope Benedict had a “super great esteem for the Jewish traditions. He found a better a better word to describe the Church’s relationship with the Jews than did Blessed John Paul II, because John Paul II, coming from the Romantic Polish tradition said that they were ‘our elder brethren’, but the Jews don’t like this example because the elder brethren always fail, and the younger brethren win – like Jacob or Joseph – and Pope Benedict found a better word when he said ‘our fathers in faith’, showing he is a very subtle theologian”.

Finally, thinking back to his own reaction when the news broke that Pope Benedict had stepped down, Politi says he actually wasn’t surprised. After having ascertained the veracity of the news, he recalled that for a number of years he had been saying that because of his mentality, Benedict could become the first Pope to step down in modern times. He had always predicted a 50 percent possibility that he would do so.

Why? Because - Politi says – “I always took Ratzinger’s speeches very seriously. Also when I interviewed him, I noticed he has a way of choosing his words - when he speaks it is as if he is writing what he think’.

"So when two years ago he told his biographer, Peter Seewald, that in certain circumstances of physical, psychological and mental stress a Pope, not only has the right but also the duty to step down. This for me was like an alarm signal because he was speaking about 'duty', and for the Germans the word duty is very strong.

"And already when Pope John Paul II was very ill, there were only two Cardinals who were speaking about the possibility of him stepping down: one was Cardinal Ratzinger and the other was Cardinal Maradiaga. So this idea regarding the possibility and the necessity to step down was in his mind as a rational option. So when it happened I said: voilà – he did it”.

Politi speaks of the great esteem he has for Benedict’s spiritual and intellectual qualities. He says he always liked the way he preached the Gospel in some little parishes he visited as the Bishop of Rome. [That's interesting. Did he ever think to write about it, though? No, because that would have been positive, and Politi had chosen to be the arch-critic of Benedict XVI, as inflexible and doctrinaire as his former publisher at La Repubblica, Eugenio Scalfari, the self-anointed Pope of secularism.]

“He has a way” – Politi says – “of explaining the Gospel in such a clear way that it comes straight to the heart and the minds of both very intellectual people and of very simple people. I always felt in his words a Living Faith”.

"If at times," [all the time before this], Politi says, “I have been critical towards some aspects of his lack of leadership, it is because it is the duty of a journalist to observe what happens (...) Even if you see a personality and recognize that he is an exceptional or extraordinary personality, whether he is a politician, a leader or a religious leader, you must observe what really happens in his mandate and you must be a witness of things, even if they don’t all go well”.

[Yes, but the trouble is you only hammered on the things you thought did not 'go well' and said not a word about everything else that was going well.

There was never any balance in Politi's reporting about Benedict XVI. Moreover, he is the one, more than any other, who fed the myth of Benedict being an isolated Pope, who preferred to play his piano and enclose himself in an ivory tower, out of touch with the world - a very false image that does not now fit in any way with his conclusion that Benedict XVI was a very modern Pope.

Still and all, I am glad Politi had the grace to give this interview and say the things he did, which he did not have to do, after all. I thank him, but let's see what he commits himself to, in writing. Because those who follow him are unlikely to listen to Vatican Radio at all or visit it online and will never know he said the things he said here, unless he writes it out in his usual outlets!]

BRAVO and God bless Cardinal Herranz, who has openly articulated what many of us feel - a sentiment I had expected one of Joseph Ratzinger's 'better known' friends in the College of Cardinals to have volunteered early. But it does not matter that they have not done so. God knows.

Cardinal Herranz:
'I have already canonized
Benedict XVI in my heart'
Translated from


Cardinal Julián Herranz has worked in the Vatican under five Popes. His last service was to head the three-man cardinals' commission named by Benedict XVI to investigate the Vatileaks episode and the environment that had made it possible.

He believes that Benedict XVI's renunciation of the Papacy was the act of soemone with the soul of a saint. He has known Joseph Ratzinger for 32 years (that would be since the latter came to Rome as Prefect of the CDF in 1982).

The cardinal gave this interview on February 16, 2013, to Spain's ABC newspaper:

Eminence, you were at that February 11 consistory when Benedict XVI made the unexpected announcement of his resignation. What was your immediate reaction?
I reacted first as a canonist then as a cardinal. As a canonist, I was surprised by the juridical precision with which Benedict XVI took this step, a gesture without precedent in the history of the Church.

What about Celestine V in 1294...
Benedict's gesture cannot be compared to that of Celestine V seven centuries ago, because the persons and the situations are completely different. In fact, I felt that I had just witnessed a unique event in the history of the Church - a decision that had been perfectly medtiated on in all its dimensions, including the theological and the juridical.

As a cardinal, what did you think?
As a cardinal, as a priest, and as a faithful member of the Church, I felt a wave of sadness because someone I had worked with for years and whom I admire profoundly was leaving.

But at the same time, I experienced a sensation of interior joy for witnessing an act of great holiness.

How so?
It was a gesture of heroic humility and love for the Church, therefore, love for Christ. A gesture perfectly consistent with the soul of a saint. It is a kind of humility that we have not been accustomed to see, especially in civilian life, where too many are so attached to their positions of power...

How should the ordinary faithful look at this renunciation?
From the spiritual angle, we must consider the example of profound humility from a man who loves Christ above all and his Church.

From the human viewpoint, it must be considered as a very reasonable decision. Up to a century ago, it would have been inconceivable. But not now, when life expectancy has grown a great deal without - and I say this as a physician - the ability to conserve in the same measure the organic and biological capacity of man beyond a certain age.

Some have objected that this could diminish the sense of sacredness of the Papacy...
I am convinced that is not the case. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, who is God as well as man. Who wept for a widow whose son died, who wept at the death of a friend. This total humanity is reflected in the humanity of his earthly vicar.

Others point out that Benedict XVI acted in the opposite way to John Paul II who chose not to resign...
I see the difference, but not an 'opposition' between the actions of the two Popes. In his conscience, before God, John Paul II decided that he ought to go on. Likewise, in conscience, before God, benedict XVI decided that for the good of the Church, he had to do this, a gesture that is as heroic as it is holy.

The decisions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI are two heroic reactions at different times in the Church's history. And I must affirm that I do not think at all that Benedict XVI's decision was a 'descent from the Cross'.

So would it be better to establish a term limit for the Pope such that he must resign when he turns 80, which is when cardinals in the Holy See must retire?
I do not think there should be an age limit for the Pope. He is elected 'ad vitam' - for life - but this should not be considered a condemnation to carry the weight of the office for life if he is no longer able to do it.

What do you think will happen at the general congregations of the College of Cardinals after March 1?
The first part of these congregations, in which all cardinals take part, including the non-electors, deals with practical and logistical issues. Afterwards, we proceed to examine the situation of the Church in the world. We get studies of the situation in every continent, and even information on specific topics, the positives and negatives regarding the panorama of evangelization in all parts of the world. Then we discuss possible solutions to the more significant problems.

Thus, by defining the tasks that face the next Pope, the cardinals can individually consider an 'identikit' for someone who would be best qualified to meet these problems.

Are you confident that the Conclave will choose well?
Fortunately, the Holy Spirit aids the cardinals in their task, and this is evident. The last six Popes have been persons with extraordinary gifts, human as well as 'supernatural'. John XXIII and John Paul II are already beatified. And the causes for the canonization of Pius XII, Paul VI and John Paul I are under way. And even if I will say this sotto voce and as a private person, I must say that I have already canonized Benedict XVI in my heart - and you can write that.

The Church's center of gravity:
The substance of the faith, not structures
Translated from

March 8, 2013

Cardinal Walter Kasper finds himself taking part in a Conclave even after turning 80 a few days ago. Providence handed him this gift while in his retirement. [By virtue of a rule promulgated by John Paul II that says cardinals who turn 80 during a sede vacante preceding a papal conclave can still take part in the Conclave.]

His long relationship with Joseph Ratzinger reflects a large part of the Church's recent history. Both were young and brilliant theologians who shared all the enthusiasm for the Second Vatican Council. Both saw the need to renew theology, by going back to the sources, on the one hand, and by dialog with modernity, on the other.

Their intellectual openness and the absence of formality between the two allowed them to agree and disagree without pretenses, even when both were already cardinals.

Kasper always placed the emphasis on structural and disciplinary issues. He was concerned principally with the relations between the Pope and bishops, advocating for 'less centralism and more collegiality', with the participation of laymen in Church structures, as well as progressive causes like allowing communion for remarried divorcees [whose first sacramental marriage had not been annulled].

These are not minor topics, and his colleague Ratzinger never declined to discuss them. [In fact, their best-known confrontation was an open exchange of articles in which Kasper argued, basically, that the local Churches had precedence over the universal Church, whereas Ratzinger maintains it is the universal Church that validates the local Churches. I may not be summarizing the argument correctly - but I'll look back over that exchange, which is documented by Christopher Blosser in the Ratzinger Fan Club.]

One thing is sure: Ratzinger always placed the center of gravity of the Church, not in structures, but in the substance of the faith.

Whenever Kasper spoke of crisis, he underscored the need to 'modernize the machinery' of the Church, to make her norms more flexible. Whereas Ratzinger-Benedict XVI always insisted that the crisis was the fatigue and weakness that had overtaken the faith of many Christians.

Of course, the two positions are not incompatible, not even two the two men themselves, but each has held to the position - the musical key, as it were, when it was time to face the music.

When Joseph Ratzinger was elected in 2005 to the Chair of Peter, many doubted whether Kasper had any more future in the Roman Curia. For years, he had led the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity with a sensibility that was not always in accord with that of the new Pope. But Benedict XVI confirmed him in his position and kept him on for five years until Kasper retired, such was the Pope's greatness of mind and spirit.

Now Kasper is back in Rome and has reiterated his progressivist program in an interview with Paolo Rodari (now with La Repubblica): decentralization, extending collegiality to all the strata of the Church, a Copernican reform of the Curia [of which he was part for more than 10 years!], and a reform of canon law which would unconditionally allow remarried Catholic divorcees to receive Communion. [Why is the latter concern such an obsession with the progressive German clergy? It's analogous to the obsession of the Western secular world with bending over backwards for homosexuals. As if the 'special interest' of minority groups must trump the principles of the Church, in the case of divorcees, and of natural law, in the case of homosexuals... BTW, a Catholic blogsite, commenting on the Rodari interview, reminds us that Kasper started out being an assistant to Hans Kueng in Tuebingen, where Kasper obtained his doctorate in theology. But Wikipedia says he was also an assistant to the late Cardinal Scheffczyk, a conservative held in high esteem by Joseph Ratzinger. Now we know who influenced him more.]

I repeat - there are not trivial topics. But strangely, Kasper makes no mention at all of the 'fatigue of faith' in the Western world, the educational [i.e.,catechetical] deficiencies of Christian communities, nor the challenges of communicating the faith in a world marked by nihilism.

Of course, the positions embodied by Kasper are completely legitimate and must represent one current of sensibility operating among the cardinals who will go into conclave: that of those who consider the Church's problems of structure and internal government as priorities, especially after Vatileaks and dysfunctions reported in the Curia. [Even Restan strangely buys into this - although no one has reported any major problem or dysfunction in the organisms of the Curia other than the Secretariat of State and its dependency, IOR. One would have thought that newsmen covering the Vatican could have dedicated some effort during the sede vacante to present an objective review of the various curial offices. to expose any such major problems and dysfunction = other than the normal dose of office politics and petty intrigue found in any organization. The fact that no one has done so - nor has anyone during the year of Vatileaks - leads this particular observer, me, to think there is nothing they can point to. Otherwise, if they are not exposing anything now - when all 5000 newsmen covering the Conclave are itching for any actual news at all - one must conclude there is nothing to expose.

And yet, each and every report coming out of pre-Conclave Vatican makes a general reference to 'Curial chaos and dysfunction' as if this had been established at all. Censorious perceptions have taken the place of objective fact. What maddens me is why no one in the Curia takes the lead to speak out and challenge the media, "Show me what my office has done wrong, and let us examine if you have any grounds for saying so". Is it just simple cowardice, which is unworthy of cardinals [who swore to be ready to shed their blood if need be], or because each office has skeletons to hide? If the Curial heads do not voluntarily provide a report of their offices and their custodianship before the Conclave, then the next Pope should begin his dealings with the Curia by requiring them to make a public accounting of their stewardship. I wish Benedict XVI had done so before he left office.

And there are those who insist, 50 years after Vatican II, on the need to re-dimension the 'center' of the Church.

It was precisely in Germany, homeland to both Kasper and Ratzinger, that Benedict XVI said these words, which I think, illuminate this debate:

---

We see that in our affluent western world much is lacking. Many people lack experience of God’s goodness. They no longer find any point of contact with the mainstream churches and their traditional structures. But why is this? I think this is a question on which we must reflect very seriously... The Church in Germany is superbly organized. But behind the structures, is there also a corresponding spiritual strength, the strength of faith in the living God? We must honestly admit that we have more than enough by way of structure but not enough by way of Spirit. I would add: the real crisis facing the Church in the western world is a crisis of faith. If we do not find a way of genuinely renewing our faith, all structural reform will remain ineffective.

---

[How many times and in how many different ways Benedict XVI said this, but it is all apparently lost on those cardinals who continue to be obsessed with structural reform instead of the essentials of the faith. Almost as if they would make such reform a pretext for not confronting the real crisis of the faith in their own jurisdictions.]

One last reflection on the center of Catholicism in Rome. Benedict XVI has shown us a way of exercising the Petrine ministry in which the center does not eat up nor absorb the distinct elements of the ecclesial body.

With him, Rome has been the center of doctrinal substance and the persuasion of Christian witness, but never an invasive imperial center. In this too, Joseph Ratzinger's Pontificate will leave its mark.

Without such a center as we have seen with him, the collegiality advocated by the Council would mean little. [What is there to be collegial about if the center does not hold, or if there is no there there?

It's a paradox of the post-modern age. The era of globalization and social networks have invested the Papacy with even greater weight and responsibility instead of diluting it. Should we not pay attention to the signs of the times?



It just occurred to me that the presence of 5,000 or so media representatives now in Rome for the Conclave is a remarkable fact in itself. There is no funeral of a great man and leader to cover this time, just the election of a new Pope. No such media convergence attends the election of a US President or any other secular leader for that matter - everyone can stay home conveniently and watch everything on TV or on Internet livestream.

How then are we to read this media interest unequalled by any other event? (I doubt if even Diana's wedding or funeral attracted this many accredited media representatives.) The secular world has always been quick to dismiss the Church as a thing of the past and to mock her mercilessly. But it takes her seriously enough to send 5,000 individuals to cover the Conclave!?!?!

They may not realize it but it's an indirect tribute to an institution that has outlived all other human institutions, despite the human fallibility (and I use the term deliberately) of her Popes, the men who have represented the face of the Church to the world.

The Popes have included saints and scoundrels and all types in between, but as someone pointed out, not even the most criminal of them ever betrayed the deposit of faith handed down from Christ to the apostles and to the Church. That is the certainty we hold to as Catholics.

But it is one the secular world will never understand, as its most strident voices continue trying to force their favorite liberal causes on the Church with ferocious partisan advocacy and all the tools at their disposal, as if they thought the Church would change her teachings to suit current opinion and to accommodate the advocates thereof.

Obviously, John Paul II's all-conquering charisma failed to win them over - it simply deflected their ire to Joseph Ratzinger, his defender of the faith. As Pope, already demonized by them in the preceding two decades, not even Benedict XVI's limpid reasoning and solid apologetics could make a dent in the secular imperviousness to the actual reality of the Church - not what they think it to be, in the idiotic blissfulness of their deliberate ignorance.

So we must all put up with the continuing babble of idiocy and ignorance, lies and distortions, and even outright hostility in how the media reports the Church to the world - which includes us! Starting with the babble of Babel from the 5,000 media reps now in Rome. It is not going to change soon.

A brief overview
of modern Conclaves


The following interesting facts about Conclaves in modern history were provided by Dr. Donald Prudlo, Associate Professor of History at Jacksonville State University, Alabama:

---

1740 election of Benedict XIV (d. 1758).
51 electors, 4 died during conclave
18 Feb - 17 August (181 days) (LONGEST IN MODERN HISTORY)

1758 election of Clement XIII (d. 1769)
45 electors, 44 at final ballot.
15 May - 6 July (53 days)

1769 election of Clement XIV, OFM Conv. (d. 1774) 46 electors
15 Feb - 19 May (94 days)

1774-1775 election of Pius VI (d. 1799)
44 electors, 2 died
5 Oct 1774 - 15 Feb 1775 (133 days)

1799-1800 election of Pius VII (d. 1823)
(Venice. Rome was occupied, last election outside of Rome)
34 electors
1 Dec 1799 - 14 March 1800 (105 days)

1823 election of Leo XII (d. 1829)
49 electors
2 Sep - 28 - Sep (27 days)

1829 election of Pius VIII (d. 1830)
50 electors
24 Feb - 31 March (36 days)

1830-1831 election of Gregory XVI
(LAST CARDINAL NOT A BISHOP TO BE ELECTED)
45 electors
14 Dec 1830 - 2 Feb 1831 (51 days)

1846 Bl. Pius IX (d. 1878)
(beginning of the short conclaves)
50 electors
14-16 June (3 days)

1878 Leo XIII (d. 1903)
(First non European Cardinal arrives too late, John McCloskey of NYC)
61 electors
18-20 Feb (3 days)

1903 St. Pius X (d. 1914)
(First non-European elector, Gibbons, Baltimore;
last ius exclusivae- the power some European monarchs had over the Conclave,
a power formally abolished by Pius X)
64 electors
7 Ballots
31 Jul - 4 Aug (4 days)

1914 Benedict XV (d. 1922)
(2 Americans and 1 Quebecer locked out of Conclave
having arrived late; 1st Latin American Cardinal)
57 electors
10 ballots
(31 Aug - 3 Sep)

1922 Pius XI (d. 1939) (2 Americans and 1 Canadian locked out of Conclave again =
after this Conclave, the 15-day rule was instituted to allow all Cardinal electors time to arrive)
53 electors
14 ballots
2-6 Feb (5 days)

1939 Piux XII (d. 1958)
(1st Eastern Rite Patriarch participates)
62 electors (all living cardinals)
3 ballots (FEWEST BALLOTS and SHORTEST CONCLAVE)
1-2 March (2 days)

1958 Bl. John XXIII (d. 1963)
(First Chinese, Indian, and African Cardinals)
51 electors
11 ballots
25-28 Oct (4 days)

1963 Paul VI (d. 1978)
80 electors
6 ballots
19-21 June (3 days)

1978(1) John Paul I (d. 1978)
(First conclave where over-80 cardinals did not participate)
111 electors
4 ballots
25-26 Aug (2 days)

1978(2) Bl. John Paul II (d. 2005)
111 electors
8 ballots
14-16 Oct (3 days)

2005 Benedict XVI
115 electors (LARGEST NUMBER OF ELECTORS)
4 ballots
18-19 April (2 days)

2013 First conclave in Lent since 1829

---

Here is another beautiful reflection on Benedict XVI's farewell...

The beauty of his farewell
by Julián de la Morena
Translated from

March 1, 2013

He did not leave us like a world leader would, even if the world recognized him as such. He bade us farewell like a father who only wants the good of his children.

Benedict XVI did not try to mask his physical frailty as an 86-year-old man which had led to his decision to renounce the Pontificate "for the good of the Church".

He made no analyses or political assessments of his Pontificate, nor did he have any words or bitterness or criticism for the misunderstandings and prejudices by which he was judged for years.

He had completed almost eight years on the Chair of Peter, describing himself as 'a worker in the vineyard of the Lord'. He left office saying he is not the master of the Church, which does not belong to us, but to Christ. Nonetheless, he said, the Yes he gave the Lord to serve the Church is "for always". He is not retiring from that service.

Papa Ratzinger said his last words as Pope, speaking as a man to other men, heart to heart, and we understood. He never laid claim to appreciation for what he has done, which is doubtless, a great deal.

He dedicated his last words to speaking about the Church he loves, a Church that he has always said remains young and alive. In his final addresses, he thanked everyone who had helped and offered prayers for him, and with characteristic realism and sincerity, he spoke of days of light as well as shadows during his Pontificate.

And at the very end, from the balcony of Castel Gandolfo, he once again described himself simply, this time as "a pilgrim on the last stage of his earthly journey". A pilgrim who has been traveling from place to place towards the final celestial homeland.

In his final tweet, he said to us: "Thank you for your love and nearness. May you always experience the joy of having Christ at the center of your life".

The first triumph of the German Pope was doubtless his very person, the path he had taken as a man of faith, one who affirmed to us that "where there is God, there is a future".

He did not come to the Papacy to resolve its problems, even if he did resolve quite a few. Nor to lecture us on what we ought to do, as one might have expected of a priest. Whoever reads his texts will not find an iota of moralism. But he made us understand that Christ did not come to earth to spare us from any daily effort or to end all our difficulties in life.

He himself worked on the mission that the Successor of Peter has - what Christ asked of him: to take care of his flock and seek out the lost sheep. And yet, he spared nothing to build bridges with all men. And he was especially eloquent in his dialog with the modern world.

And this was acknowledged by his interlocutors, as for instance, Wael Faroq, a leading Muslim constitutionalist: "This is a man who has become an event in himself, a human event, one of those exceptional cases when answers become questions and the questions become an amazing path to where love and faith have no limits". [That is one of the most beautiful and original tributes to Benedict XVI, especially since it comes from a non-Catholic, Muslim at that, who sees into the essence of this man of love and faith.]

There is no doubt his legacy is enormous and we will need time to assimilate it all. To comprehend and to include was his way of relating to men of different creeds, showing his trust in human reason and the human heart, both difficult challenges. He has shown us all that whatever he said he had thought through, and that he said exactly what he thought.

"May the mystery of the Incarnation continue to be present always - Christ continues to walk with us in every time and in every place", he told us at a time when he already found it difficult to walk yet was strong and firm in his frailty.

His physical limitations did not keep him from being a presence that inspired us with hope, "the beginning of something new", as he told his biographer.


One of the most gratifying things about Benedict XVI's retirement - and one that was not predictable, given the universal climate of skepticism - is that there is so much praise, gratitude and affection for him all over the media. Almost as much, if not more, than the acclamatory articles that greeted his election as Pope in 2005.

(I am not, of course, speaking at all of the darker side of the Internet, into which I have never even been tempted to look because professional haters and hate-mongers will always be as nasty as they can be, and more or better cannot be expected of them. There are enough_professional enemies of the Church for us to deal with in the 'regular' world.)

And the best part is that none of the present chorus of acclamation can be attributed to what I call obligatory post-mortem charity because the subject of praise is still alive. And that the praise is not only for what he achieved as Pope in less than a US President's two-year term, but also for everything he was before he became Pope.

The tributes are as much for Joseph Ratzinger as for Benedict XVI. I do not think the same can be said for previous Popes, about whose pre-Pope life, the public knew little nor had much interest in. Popes have interested the public only in their persona as Popes.

But Joseph Ratzinger had shared so much of himself with the world before he became Pope through a literal 'paper trail' - the body of his writings - not to mention the various news chronicles about him, even if many were not flattering. People knew him as Joseph Ratzinger in a way they never had a chance to know - nor were even aware of the existence of - Karol Wojtyla, Albino Luciani, Giovanni Battista Montini and Angelo Roncalli before they became Pope, to mention just the other Popes since the last world war. [Not to mention that since he celebrated John Paul II's funeral Mass, he had also been seen by more people on TV than had ever seen any other cardinal or even John Paul II himself in a single event.]

I have not even posted everything available in English, and I do hope to continue posting as many as I can of these tributes that I can find in the languages I can translate...

Apropos tributes to Benedict XVI drawing from his previous life, here is a reflection from an Avvenire columnist who re-read Joseph Ratzinger's memoir of his first 50 years of life (La mia vita in Italian, Milestones in English) after watching his farewell on February 28:


The singing lark that heralded
the destiny of a Pope
by Maria Romana De Gasperi
Translated from

March 9, 2013

The helicopter cut across the sky behind the dome of St. Peter's - a white insect that flew lightly, without a noise heard below. They looked up from the Piazza and felt like they were being orphaned.

Why is our father going? What had so offended his spirit, what took away his strength to help us support our world of darkness? What had weighed so much on his physical frailty that he no longer felt capable of carrying the responsibiiity of Peter's Chair? [The afflictions of age, and only that!]

His journey through life had been unwound by him like yarn when he published the memoir of his first 50 years in La mia vita in 1997. It may not be easy reading for everyone [????] although it is written plainly and clearly.

He tells about his fascination with liturgy which started when he was a child and which grew throughout his life, his family's frequent transfers in his childhood and youth because of his policeman father's assignments, his decision made early in life to enter seminary (difficult for someone who was used to studying by himself), but "I had to adjust myself to a life in common, get out of myself and be part of a community of giving and receiving...", in which we can almost see his sweet and gentle smile, the same one we saw on his face so often up to that last day of his Pontificate.

In the book he speaks about his childhood, the difficulties (but not about suffering) of seminary living amid the ruins of a lost war, the unexpected difficulty of passing his second doctoral dissertation [To gain his Habilitation or license to teach in a German university, his dissertation on the theory of history in St. Bonaventure was initially rejected by his thesis master, and he had to rewrite it using only the second part which had far less objections posted to it in the initial rejection], his first encounters with the great theologians and exegetes of his time, many through their books, some of them among his own teachers in Munich and Freising. Names which may not mean anything to us ordinary readers.

Nonetheless, in this autobiography, Joseph Ratzinger touches us with simple descriptions even of the most important and fundamental moments of his life.

As he does, when he writes about his ordination as a priest in 1951, along with his brother Georg: "...We should not be superstitious but at the moment when the elderly archbishop laid his hands on me, a little bird - perhaps a lark - flew up from the high altar in thje acathedral and trilled a little joyful song. And I could not but see a reassurance from on high, as if I heard the words 'This is good, you are on the right way'."

He had chosen to lead the quiet life of a scholar, but God had destined him to carry the weight of the Church, and at 78, he had accepted it in the spirit of the Psalm which says, "A beast of burden I am before you, for you, and this is precisely how I abide with you".

And now, the right way is that of retirement and prayer. And all of us know now that, not far from us, there is a lamp that is always lit for us.

It is understandable that these days every Tom, Dick and Harriet - and every other cardinal who speaks to he media - pontificates about 'the Pope we need'. My main reproach is that almost to a man or woman, they all speak as though Benedict XVI's Pontificate had never taken place, as though Benedict XVI was the Pope we did not need but happened to come along, and now, let us have 'the Pope we need'.

Even if most of the criteria that they list for a new Pope happen to be criteria that were eminently met by Benedict XVI - other than the advantage of youth and full physical vigor - hardly anyone says that. They all speak as if these are criteria that the Church needs de novo, starting from zero. As though the criteria of 'holy, intelligent, competent, pastoral, able to communicate, capable of the New Evangelization' were not among Benedict XVI's qualities at all! Even the much-touted need for a Pope 'who can rule the Curia' is highly questionable because it is not for the Pope to do that, but for his Secretary of State.

And I must reiterate my now-overstated proviso that none of the Popes before Benedict had better control of their respective Curias - and have been documented to be worse, in fact - and yet, all the pundits and even many cardinals speak as if all the ills of the Roman Curia originated with Benedict XVI who was simply too incompetent to deal with them! With only Vatileaks and its whole leaky foundation of innuendo and scant fact as their basis for saying so.

In any case, although I have decided not to post any of the miscellaneous pontifications impliedly if not directly assailing Benedict XVI for the perceived ills of the Curia, I will post an article that I would consider typical of those 'the Pope we need' articles that have been proliferating in the media these days. It is written by someone who has a great reputation in the American media for having reported and commented on religion for the past two decades at least, having been once spokesman for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

But as we have seen from the typical reportage-and-commentary of Vaticanistas and so-called Vatican insiders, their familiarity with the Vatican newsbeat has not made their thinking any more informed than we, the ordinary folk. In fact, that familarity appears to have bred a contempt for the institution - the Vatican is a political institution legislated into existence by the Lateran pacts of 1929 to enable the Pope to govern as an independent sovereign, and it is different from the Church, an institution founded by Christ, though even the 'esperts' don't seem to make the distinction.

The Pope we need
by Russell Shaw

March 07, 2013

"I hope we get a nice Pope," a good Catholic woman told me soon after Benedict XVI announced his resignation.

"I don't care whether he's nice or not," I replied. "I just hope he's strong."

Actually, I'd be glad if the next Pope were nice, with a winning smile and a friendly manner. But vastly more important than being nice is that he be a tough-minded realist, with a backbone of steel. That's what the Church needs now. [Which is to imply that Benedict - universally acclaimed even by the likes of Shaw before his retirement as a tough realist who was therefore very acute in his analysis of the contemporary world - was actually no realist at all, and that he had the backbone of a jellyfish.]

The problems that will face him are immense: the twin anti-Christian challenges of militant Islam in Africa and the Middle East and militant secularism in Europe and North America, very much including the United States; the apparent disarray within the Roman Curia that at times seemed to place it at odds with Benedict; and the continuing efforts of progressive Catholics, many operating from tenured positions of influence in Catholic academia, on behalf of their suicidal program of decentralization and decline. [Without acknowledging that all of these problems = and more - were amply defined, underscored, and concretely addressed in Benedict XVI's brief Pontificate, so that the next Pope does not have to start from scratch on any of these!]

Unsurprisingly, there's been a torrent of chatter in the media concerning what Catholics supposedly want at the dawning of a new pontificate. Much of it, to be blunt, has been useless or worse.

In that category I would place with regret the Pew Research Center's recent survey of opinion among American Catholics. Its most interesting finding--just about the only one--was that Catholics are divided in their hopes for the next Pontiff, with 46% saying he should "move the Church in new directions" and 51% saying he should "maintain the traditional positions of the Church."

Significantly, support for maintaining traditional positions soared to 61% among Catholics who attend Mass weekly or more often. As for those who don't--consulting them on the direction the Pope should take is a bit like asking someone who doesn't follow baseball who will win next fall's World Series.

So what in fact should the next Pope do? Opinion polls notwithstanding, the answer to that one is not up for grabs. A Pope--any Pope--can and no doubt should do many different things, from naming bishops to flying around the globe making pastoral visits.

But underlying virtually everything that a Pope does or might conceivably be imagined doing is one fundamental duty: to preserve, teach, and transmit intact the body of revealed truth entrusted to the Church by God together with the body of authentic teaching drawn from and based upon that source.

The First Vatican Council (1869-70) made this point with commendable clarity in saying this: "The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by his revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by his help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

Blessed John XXIII - "Good Pope John" - offered an interesting variation in his famous opening speech to Vatican Council II (1962-65).

He called on the assembled bishops to transmit the body of doctrine "pure and integral" while seeking ways to express it "through the literary forms of modern thought." In other words: be faithful to the tradition, but teach it in ways people can understand.

[Re all the preceding four paragraphs: So, in Shaw's view, Benedict XVI did not quite come up to this standard??? The greatest teaching Pope in history, as even his part-time detractors like George Weigel and John Allen concede??? The person who was the Church's official - and always unequivocal - defender of the faith for 23 years before becoming its primary defender of the faith as the Successor of Peter???]

So by all means let the next Pope be nice--and a great deal more. Let him have the charm of John XXIII, the earnestness of Paul VI, the charisma of John Paul II, the intellectual brilliance of Benedict XVI.

But above all let him be a brave teacher of Catholic truth in the face of all the demands that he be something less. [Which is to say that none of the Popes he just named met that criterion! What would it have cost him to add the phrase "as we have had the grace to have with all our recent Popes" to his last sentence? ]

Apropos, Paul Badde of DIE WELT has this vignette in his report from Rome yesterday, which I have illustrated with the creative bumper stickers proposed by Fr. Z and CafePress in the days after February 11:

---

A ranking prelate from Lebanon has suggested that the cardinals should simply re-elect Benedict XVI as Pope. Then, he says, the Church would have a couples less major problems!

Benedict XVI would have to accept his re-election and come back right away from Castel Gandolfo. Much like Peter, he says, who on his way out of a burning Rome, met Jesus on the Via Appia, who asked him, "Quo vadis?" - Where are you going?

With his return, Benedict XVI would be able to take back the tiller stronger than ever, since with the mandate of a re-election, even the physically challenged octogenarian would become the most powerful Pope in history.

---

A fond fantasy, in which realm it will remain, unfortunately. Though I still maintain that the cardinals who truly loved Benedict XVI ought to write his name on the first ballot, when presumably, doing so wouldn't significantly affect the initial alignments which will certainly be split among more than a few candidates. And a pro-Benedict XVI alignment would be just as legitimate as all the rest.

And from Lella's blog, this videocaps by Gemma, starting from the last screen shot of Benedict XVI as he left the balcony of Castel Gandolfo, and showing the last views we will ever have of his papal coat of arms on display at any public event.


The poignant images that preceded the above:

Saturday, March 9, Third Week of Lent

Second from left, the saint's statue in the Founders' Corner at St. Peter's Basilica; extreme right - the Basilica of Santa Francesca Romana off the Roman Forum.
ST. FRANCESCA ROMANA (Rome, 1384-1440), Wife, Mother, Founder of the Olivetan Oblates of Mary
Born to a wealthy Roman family, she always wanted to enter the religious life, but at 13, she was made to marry Lorenzo, who was commander
of the papal troops in Rome and was often away at war. She came to love him and they had six children. He indulged her Christian devotion which
she shared with a sister-in-law, with whom she went around Rome helping the poor and the sick, inspiring other wealthy women to do the same.
When a plague struck Rome, two of their children died. By this time, they had lost most of their possessions because of Lorenzo's long absence
fighting the many anti-Pope wars. Francesca begged for alms to be able to keep helping the sick and the poor, and after her second child was
taken by the plague, she converted part of her house to a hospital. In 1425, she asked the Pope to be able to set up a women's religious community
without vows but following the Benedictine rule and dedicated to serving the poorest of the poor. In 1433, she founded the order's first and only
convent in Tor di'Specchi. By this time, Lorenzo had come home, wounded, and Francesca nursed him until he died in 1436. Only after his death did
she move in with her community, where she died four years later. Miracles abounded after her death, but already in life, she was known to have had
mystic ecstasies, and after her first son died in the plague, an angel is said to have appeared to her to tell her that a daughter would also be taken
by God. Her remains are venerated in the 10th century church of Santa Maria Nova near the Colosseum. The Church was renamed after her when she was
canonized in 1608. During Lent in 2009, after a visit to Rome's City Hall, Benedict XVI visited her convent where he paid tribute to her as
'the most Roman of women saints'.
Readings for today's Mass: www.usccb.org/bible/readings/030913.cfm



AT THE VATICAN TODAY

The bulletins were posted on the 8th and 9th General Congregations of the College of Cardinals. The 8th held Friday afternoon,
was when they decided that the Conclave would begin on Monday afternoon, March 12. The 9th held this morning, was on logistical
arrangements for the cardinal electors to move on Monday morning into the Domus Sanctae Marthae in the Vatican where they
will reside until after the Conclave.

The Office of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations also officially announced the Missa pro eligendo Pontefice
to be held Tuesday morning in St. Peter's Basilica, along with the oath to he taken by Church officials who will
assist in the Conclave but are not cardinal electors, and the order of entry into the Sistine Chapel of all
Conclave participants.

One year ago today...
The Holy Father Benedict XVI began his official day by attending the first Lenten sermon by the Preacher of
the Pontifical Household, Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, at the Redemptoris Mater Chapel. The sermons for 2012
were deidcated to the four great Doctors of the Eastern Church. starting with St. Athanasius, who defended
the divinity of Christ against popular heresies in his day.

Later, the Holy Father met with US bishops on ad limina visit to whom he delivered a strongly-worded message
that "the Church needs a consientious effort to resist attempts to redefine marriage".


And in a meeting with 1,300 priest confessors attending the annual course given by the Apostolic Penitentiary,
he reminded them that "each confession promotes re-evangelization and conversion" but that as priests, they must
be the first to have active awareness of themselves as sinners who need sacramental forgiveness to renew their
encounter with Christ, so that the faithful may see Christ in them.

The Vatican Press Office posted today the summaries of the briefings given to newsmen regarding the pre-Conclave meetings held by the College of Cardinals from the sixth GC on Thursday afternoon, to the morning GC today...

Briefings on the General Congregations
of the College of Cardinals

---

Sixth Congregation
The sixth General Congregation of the College of Cardinals took place on Thursday, 7 March, from 5:00pm until 7:00pm.

Two newly arrived cardinals were sworn in: Cardinal Jean-Baptiste Pham Minh Mân, metropolitan archbishop of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (Cardinal elector) and Cardinal Adam Joseph Maida, archbishop emeritus of Detroit, Michigan, USA (non elector). The entire complement of 115 Cardinal electors who were expected has thus arrived.

The cardinals’ interventions continued. Sixteen cardinals spoke.

Seventh Congregation
The seventh General Congregation took place this morning Friday, 8 March, from 9:30am until 12:30am. There were 153 cardinals present, of whom 115 were Cardinal electors. There were no other new cardinals to arrive.

The Cardinal Dean, in accordance with No. 38 of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, informed the College of Cardinals of the reasons presented by two Cardinal electors to justify their absence: Cardinal Julius Riyadi Darmaatmadja, S.J., for health reasons, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, for personal reasons.

The Cardinal Dean asked if the College accepted to recognize the reasons presented. The response was affirmative. The definitive number of Cardinal electors is thus established at 115.

The Cardinal Dean then noted that, because there are no other Cardinal electors expected, it is unnecessary to wait fifteen days from the beginning of the Sede Vacante to begin the Conclave, in application of No. 37 of the Apostolic constitution as amended by Benedict XVI’s recent Motu Proprio, which states: "the College of Cardinals is granted the faculty to move forward the start of the Conclave if it is clear that all the Cardinal electors are present".

The cardinals’ activities then continued during which 18 Cardinal fathers intervened. The total number of interventions—and correspondingly of speakers—has thus been over one hundred.

Topics covered — along with those issues already noted over the past few days — included: inter-religious dialogue; bioethics; justice in the world; the Gospel as a proclamation of love, joy, and mercy; collegiality; and the role of women in the Church.

This afternoon’s Congregation is expected to vote on the date for the Conclave, which will probably be one of the first three days of this coming week.

Eighth General Congregation
The eighth General Congregation of the College of Cardinals took place on Friday, 8 March, from 5:00pm until 7:00pm. In attendance were 145 cardinals.

Two newly arrived cardinals were sworn in: neither of which is a Cardinal elector: Cardinal Miguel Obando Bravo, S.D.B., archbishop emeritus of Managua, Nicaragua, and Cardinal Gaudencio Borbon Rosales, archbishop emeritus of Manila, Philippines.

The Cardinal Dean proposed a vote on the date to begin the Conclave. As preparations in the Domus Sanctae Marthae and the Sistine Chapel will still be under way, the first proposal was to begin the Conclave on Tuesday, 12 March. The proposal was accepted by overwhelming majority.

The cardinals’ interventions then continued. Fifteen cardinals spoke.

Ninth General Congregation
The ninth General Congregation took place this morning Saturday, 9 March, from 9:30am until 12:30pm.

The Cardinal Dean proposed that the Cardinal electors move into their rooms at the Domus Sanctae Marthae on the morning of 12 March, the day that the Conclave will begin, starting from 7:00am. After a short discussion the proposal was accepted by the majority of Cardinal electors.

Further along in the course of the Congregation, the rooms where each Cardinal elector will reside at the Domus were assigned by lot, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Apostolic Constitution.

The cardinals’ interventions then continued. Seventeen cardinals spoke. In total, therefore, there have been at least 133 interventions during the course of the General Congregations.

Topics included, among other themes previously reported: expectations regarding the new Pope, how to improve the service of the Roman Curia, information regarding wider areas of the Church, etc.

It was communicated to the cardinals that the "Pro eligendo Romano Pontifice" Mass will be concelebrated by all the cardinals at 10:00am on the morning of 12 March, and will be presided over by the Cardinal Dean.

They were also informed of the schedule of entry into Conclave that Tuesday afternoon (beginning with a procession from the Pauline Chapel into the Sistine Chapel at 4:30pm) and the general schedule of daily procedures during the Conclave.

This coming Monday, 11 March, the final General Congregation will take place and many cardinals are already signed up to intervene.

During the press conference other information was also given:
Tomorrow, Sunday, various cardinals will celebrate Mass at their titular churches. It will be a beautiful opportunity for them to pray with the people of God at this important moment in the life of the Church.

Monday afternoon at 5:30pm in the Pauline Chapel, all the auxiliary personnel needed to ensure the smooth operations of the Conclave will take the oath of secrecy. Their oaths will be received by the Cardinal Camerlengo (Papal Chamberlain Cardinal Bertone).

The Pope's (Benedict XVI's) Ring of the Fisherman—which exists in two forms, the ring itself and as a stamp used to seal documents — as well as two stamps and the master lead seal for papal documents have been destroyed. Their images were scratched out in the form of a cross with a burin (a chisel-like graving tool).

The new Pope's Ring of the Fisherman will bear the identical image of Peter casting his net, but will have the new Pontiff's name inscribed above the image.

The commission that, under the direction of the Camerlengo, will seal the entrances to the areas of the Conclave and carry out the other operations necessary for the safeguarding of the Conclave was established.

During the course of the morning, the chimney that will release the "fumata" was installed on the roof of the Sistine Chapel.

---

Vatican Radio has details of the 'cancellation' of the symbols of Benedict XVI's Pontificate. One almost wants to genuflect to make up for the perfunctoriness of the necessary - but also impersonal and matter-of-fact - procedure (one an hardly call it a ritual):

Among the details disclosed during the briefing today was confirmation of the cancellation - rendering useless – Benedict XVI's Fisherman’s Ring and other official seals of his Pontificate. Fr. Lombardi's English-language co-briefer, Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB, elaborated:

---

Fr. [Lombardi, SJ] saw with his very own eyes this morning (Saturday), five objects that were ruined – scratched [and] rendered useless, because the image was destroyed...First of all, the Fisherman’s Ring that was destroyed – the image was scratched. Secondly, there was a stamp of the Fisherman’s Ring, a seal, which was used to seal official documents,...Ttwo stamps that were used for official Papal documents with the image [of the ring] on it, were scratched, so they can no longer be used; and finally, the master lead seal, which was used for major documents, and [for] creating other seals: that was scratched, as well.

---

I was hoping till today that the cardinals would decide to celebrate a Mass of Thanksgiving together for the Pontificate of Benedict XVI which they could have done tomorrow, Sunday. Obviously it is a gesture no one has thought of - about which many far less eminent parish priests around the world have been more generous - although it could have been a much more meaningful gesture than the robowriter telegram they sent Benedict XVI earlier this week. Some newsman needs to ask the cardinal friends of Benedict XVI after the Conclave why they ever agreed to that heartless telegram, and why not one of them suggested a Mass for Benedict XVI.

We can only be grateful to someone like Cardinal Rouco Varela of Madrid who delayed his arrival in Rome for a day so he could celebrate such a Mass of Thanksgiving at the cathedral in Madrid, and to all the other bishops and priests who have the same Christian generosity and affection for Benedict XVI.

In tribute to Benedict XVI:
A little church in Rhode Island
will celebrate all Masses 'ad orientem'
starting with the Easter Vigil Mass

The most original tribute to Benedict XVI that I have come across so far is this one from a church in the smallest state of the USA - thanks to Father Z who generously provided the link to Father Jay Finelli, parish priest of the Church of the Holy Ghost, who came up with this idea... Tiverton is a town of 15,000 inhabitants in the diocese of Providence, northern Rhode Island. As the pictures above show, although the church is a modern one, its altar area has communion rails... Father Z who monitors the Benedettian changes taking place in US churches says this is just the latest church to celebrate Mass ad orientem, but I am not sure the other churches are celebrating it exclusively ad orientem, as Fr. Finelli intends to do, or still do it ad populum, as well...



The brochure has a back page that provides more information about the 'evolution' of the Mass from the Tridentine-based 1960 Missal of John XXIII to the 1070 Novus Ordo of Paul VI, and Benedict XVI's initiatives to reform the post-Vatican II liturgical reform[/DIM} (but as you can see, the printed page does not reproduce very well and I have to transcribe the text, as its PDF format does not allow copying it as text, only as an image).

Like Father Z, Fr. Finelli is into using all the Internet tools to aid his ministry, so besides being a Webmaster, he also blogs and does regular podcasts. Here is his take on the pre-Conclave babble...

We need a moment of levity...


In the midst of Pope Benedict’s abdication and the election of a new Pope, there is so much chatter. The social networks are going a 1000 miles a minute. Blogs have new stories every hour. The media is putting a twist on every angle they can.

In the meantime, we are all a little anxious. We went through the period of shock and sadness at the Holy Father’s announcement. And now there is the waiting. What is going to happen? Will the next Pope follow the same course that Benedict has been steering the barque of Peter for the past 8 years?

The New Liturgical movement has made so much progress under the Holy Father’s leadership – watching or attending Mass at St. Peter’s is a very deeply moving experience. Pope Benedict has become a real Papa to all who love the Holy Church.

Yet, I think we all need a break from the constant stream of information [I think 'non-information' is the more appropriate term!]. The resignation and election are all very important to us all and to the entire world, but we could all use a moment of levity.

So, a friend advised him to watch the 2011 Italian film 'Habemus Papam' with English subittles. He thought it would be funny but it was not.... Here's a link to the trailer. I haven't found a link to the full film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8VqNoLzZRkI

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/03/2013 21:45]

No front-runner in Conclave
but Fr. Lombardi thinks
it will not be a long one
by Nicole Winfield




VATICAN CITY, March 9 (AP) — The Vatican sought Saturday to quash speculation that divisions among cardinals could drag out the conclave to elect the new Pope, while preparations for the vote plowed ahead with firefighters installing the Sistine Chapel chimney that will tell the world when a decision has been reached.

But the specter of an inconclusive first few rounds of secret balloting remained high, with no clear front-runner heading into Tuesday's papal election and a long list of cardinals still angling to discuss the Church's problems ahead of the vote.

"You don't have your mind absolutely made up" going into the conclave, U.S. Cardinal Justin Rigali, who participated in the 2005 conclave that elected Benedict XVI, told The Associated Press this week. "You have your impressions."

The Vatican spokesman, however, took pains to stress the "vast" near-unanimous decision by the 115 cardinal electors to set Tuesday as the conclave start date and noted that no conclave over the past century has dragged on for more than five days.

"I think it's a process that can be carried out in a few days without much difficulty," spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi told reporters.

While Tuesday's initial voting will likely see a broad number of candidates nominated, subsequent rounds will quickly whittle down the field to those candidates who are likely to obtain the two-thirds, or 77 votes necessary for victory, he said.

"This process of identifying the candidates who can receive the consensus and on whom cardinals can converge is a process that can move with notable speed," Lombardi said.

The Vatican was certainly going full-throttle Saturday with preparations: Inside the frescoed Sistine Chapel, workmen staple-gunned the brown felt carpeting to the false floor that has been constructed to even out the stairs and cover the jamming equipment that has been installed to prevent cellphone or eavesdropping devices from working.

The interference was working: cell phones had no reception in the chapel. Reporters allowed to visit the chapel used their phones instead to pose for photos in front of Michelangelo's "Last Judgment," the huge fresco behind the altar depicting a muscular Jesus surrounded by naked masses ascending to heaven and falling to hell.



Above, the tables and chairs for the Conclave participants are in place, and the stoves have been installed. When the cardinals numbered just enough to be seated in a single row on both sides of the chapel, each chair was surmounted by a canopy, so that when a Pope was elected, all the canopies would drop except that over the new Pope. Below, two photos from the 2005 Conclave.


Off in the rear left-hand corner sat the stove, a century-old cast iron oven where the voting ballot papers are burned, sending up puffs of smoke to tell the world if a Pope has been elected (white smoke) or not (black).

After years of confusion, the Vatican in 2005 installed an auxiliary stove where fumigating cases are lit. The smoke from those cases joins the burned ballot smoke in a single copper pipe that snakes up the Sistine's frescoed walls, out the window and up on the roof where firemen on Saturday fitted the chimney top.

Elsewhere in the Apostolic Palace, officials on Saturday took measures to definitively end Benedict XVI's pontificate, destroying his fisherman's ring and the personal seals and stamps he used for official papers.

The act — coupled with Benedict's public resignation and pledge of obedience to the future Pope — is designed to signal the end of his papacy so there is no doubt that a new Pope is in charge. These steps were made necessary given Benedict's decision to resign rather than stay on the job until death.

The developments all point toward the momentous event soon to confront the Catholic Church: Tuesday's start of the conclave to elect a new leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics who must try to solve the numerous problems facing the Church. [To indicate clearly that problems in the Church (or within any institution, for that matter) are not a singular occurence, an objective reporter would have said "who must continue to face the multiple problems that face the Church, some of them perennial throughout its history, others specific to this historical time".]

For the sixth day, cardinals met behind closed doors Saturday, and once again discussed the work of the Holy See's offices "and how to improve it," according to Lombardi.

The Holy See's internal governance has been a constant theme in these days of discussion, an indication that the revelations of corruption, political infighting and turf battles exposed by the leaks of papal documents last year are casting a very big shadow over this conclave.

[John Allen did us the big favor the other day of quoting an anonymous cardinal denying that this is so - Allen would not have invented the quotations as he has been one of those perennially obsessed with 'Curial dysfunction'. But as usual, MSM like AP project their own biases onto the cardinals who, as we can glean from the daily briefings about the topics brought up in the general congregations - and from Cardinal Herranz's most helpful overview of the Church panorama that the cardinals must survey during these pre-Conclave meetings to get a general picture of the Church in the world today, 'Curial dysfunction' has to be a fairly minor part of that panorama!]

The attention the issue has received suggests the cardinals will want a good manager in a Pope — or at least a Pope who would appoint a good manager as his secretary of state, the key administration job in the Vatican. [Finally, someone in MSM states the correct premise. Except that how are the cardinals to know that the person they cast their vote for will necessarily name an efficient Secretary of State? Who would have thought Benedict XVI would be unfortunate in his choice of Secretary of State?]

Another round of secret consultations is scheduled for Monday, the last day before the conclave.

Lombardi, meanwhile, confirmed that the bells of St. Peter's Basilica would ring once a Pope has been elected, though he acknowledged that there will always be some uncertainty in the whole endeavor. In 2005, it wasn't clear if the smoke coming out of the chimney was black or white and whether or not the bells were ringing for a Pope or simply because the clock had struck noon.

"This is the beauty of these events, that is to say, having a minimum of suspense," Lombardi said. "A few minutes (of uncertainty) are more interesting than if everything happened like a Swiss watch."

Media visit the Conclave site

March 9, 2013

The Vatican Press Office organized an exclusive behind-the-scenes visit to the Sistine Chapel on Saturday morning for accredited journalists only. It was a unique opportunity to see, first-hand, how work is progressing in preparation for the conclave.

The most difficult thing about the visit to the Sistine Chapel was keeping one’s eye on the job: resisting the temptation to look upward and become distracted by the beauty of Michelangelo’s ceiling and the brilliance of his Last Judgement.

That’s because all the modifications to the Chapel, in preparation for the conclave, are being done at floor level. The floor itself has been raised by several feet so that it is now uniform and at the same height as the altar. A long wooden ramp leads up from the original marble floor level so older Cardinals will not have to negotiate any steps.

Then there’s the famous stove or, rather, stoves – because there are two of them (and they are a lot bigger than one might expect). The one used to burn the ballots is made out of cast-iron and has been used for every conclave since 1939. That was the one that elected Pope Pius XII - and there have been five conclaves since then.

The second stove was added in 2005 in order to help identify the colour of the smoke from the outside. In fact, it’s not really a stove at all, but more like an electronic fumigating device that produces smoke which is either inky black (in the case of an inconclusive vote) or snowy white – heralding “Habemus Papam”.

A copper duct carries the smoke up and out of the Chapel and through the chimney which is visible from outside on the roof. The duct is held in place by steel tubular scaffolding that goes all the way up from floor to ceiling, a height of some 20 meters.

It is installed a safe distance away from the precious frescoes, of course, and – curiously, has been painted gold, probably to help it blend into the setting.

The Vatican Press Office has released a timetable (most times approximate) for Day 1 of the Conclave:

---

2013 CONCLAVE, Day 1
Tuesday, March 12th, 2013
(all times Rome local: GMT + 1)

07:00 Cardinals to move into Domus Sanctae Marthae
09:00 Missa pro eligendo Pontefices
15:45 Transfer from Domus Sanctae Marthae to Pauline Chapel
16:30 Procession from Pauline Chapel to Sistine Chapel
16:45 Cardinals take secrecy oath
'Extra omnes!' proclaimed
Meditation by Card. Prosper Grech, OP
First vote
19:15 Vespers
19:30 Cardinals return to Domus Sanctae Marthae

---

Well, I finally came across someone online who has the common sense to challenge the most unfair and least examined but universal stereotype about Benedict XVI's Pontificate and the pre-Conclave reporting and commentary so far by practically everyone who has written about the Vatican in the past several weeks = from veteran Vatican commentators like Sandro Magister and George Weigel who have worn haloes for years, to the news agency correspondents with their built-in biases who can only see what is 'bad' in the Church, to the run-of-the-mill news reports and the torrent of commentary in the press and on the Internet... Mark Moorehead is an American who is a theology graduate. former catechist and religion teacher to middle-graders, who now lives in Luxembourg. This is the first time I have come across his blog.

All the world against the Roman Curia:
A prejudice that defies common sense
by Mark Moorehead

March 8, 2013

Much is being made of the internal politics supposedly involved in the General Congregations leading up to the conclave to elect the next Pope. My own guess is that most of the cardinals are honestly there in a deep posture of prayer. As for the Curia, well... I think people need to look a little more closely.

A friend of mine recently wrote that the problems associated with the Curia most likely do not involve offices such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Apostolic Signatura, the Congregation for Clergy, the Congregation for Bishops, or various others. These make up a significant portion of what constitutes the Curia.

The problems (and problematic figures) seem to be more closely associated with the Vatican itself, such as the Secretary of State's office, the Pontifical Household, etc.

[The writer appears to have a mistaken idea of the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household, as it is formally called. It is Curial office that is different from what is usually called 'the pontifical family' referring to the privileged few who live and work in the papal apartment itself, and who, under Benedict XVI, attended his daily Mass and ate all their meals with him.

Of the members of the 'pontifical family', only the Pope's valet was directly employed by the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household, until Mons. Gaenswein, the Pope's private secretary and member of the 'pontifical family' was also named its Prefect. Therefore, the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household had no known major problems at all until Paolo Gabriele's treasonous act.

Its main job is to schedule the Pope's appointments at the Vatican and on his trips outside the Vatican (in coordination with the Pope's travel coordinator for foreign trips), but it also supervises the assignments and shifts of various unpaid personnel who hold honorary positions (usually handed down from generation to generation) serving as ushers or Gentlemen of His Holiness.]

Furthermore, one often hears terms such as "the Italians" used interchangeably with "the Curia." This is far from the case, as only about half of the cardinals in the Curia are Italian. Upon deeper reflection, what might this mean in the face of reports that credit the "Curia" as such an influential group in this process to elect a new Pope? [It's sheer bias against the Curia, with no attempt at all by the MSM to see 'the Curia' as other than an amorphous corrupt and dysfunctional bloc instead of the 20-plus different offices that comprise it. Also, not all the Curial heads under Benedict XVI are cardinals, which means that less than 20 Curial cardinals are taking part in the Conclave. The idea that they could control the Conclave in any way is an insult to all the other cardinals.]

Although there are probably some instigators within the Curia, common sense dictates that their numbers are small and that no bloc of influence large enough to matter much in the end can be found within the Curia. Sure, some of the Italians may form a bloc. Some loyal figures of the "Old Guard" in various dicasteries, such as those who have spent a career within the Curia, may have a certain allegiance to people they've come to know (and trust?). However, there is enough diversity within the Curia to cause us to doubt a few things:

1. The idea that the whole Curia is one monolithic bloc with the same interests. Can you really imagine Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Bertone, hand in hand, singing Kumbaya? (Burke would be singing the Ave Regina Caelorum this time of year anyway).

2. The idea that the Curia (or former Curia - in sedevacante) is pulling all the strings. Since there is division within the "Curia" itself, how could they?

3. The idea that the Italians within the Curia are one bloc. I suspect they have as hard a time trusting one another as it is.

We can also make some good assumptions that aren't really being made in the press (that I've seen, anyway):

1. Those who are not part of the problem in the Curia are certainly talking to all the other cardinals about the problems they see within. This casts further doubt on any attempt by a group in the Curia, however small, to command the influence they desire.

2. The cardinals by and large really are there to handle this as a group, tiny political alliances be damned. [Not so! A conclave is an election, and that means various alignments behind certain candidates before the cardinals enter the Conclave. In the 20th century, only two Conclaves had a definite front-runner before the Conclave who went on to be elected - Pius XII and Paul VI (and yet it still took six ballots to elect the latter). I did not include Cardinal Ratzinger because most of MSM still pooh-poohed bhis chances, especially after the homily he delivered at the Missa pro eligendo Pontifice, which they said would never have been delivered by anyone who wanted to be Pope. Well, he didn't want to be Pope - all he wanted was to speak the truth, and he did. And he was elected anyway, faster than Paul VI was. ]

More could be said, and I suspect others will do so in a better way than I have... Let's just relax a bit and not worry so much. The "Curia" imagined by the press does not exist, though the idea makes for dramatic stories. In reality, God is in control of this process, most of the cardinals are in tune to that, and we'll have the Pope of the Holy Spirit's choosing soon enough. For our part, all we need do is pray and wait.

Because I am so frustrated by the universal denunciation of 'the Roman Curia' in the absence of any specific charges made against its many offices (other than the Secretariat of State, IOR and the Governatorate, which have been the favorite whipping dog of the media for various irregularities - none of them major or not chronic to bureaucracy), I wrote the following as part of my commentary to Cardinal George Pell's outrageous criticism of Benedict XVI = I will not call it disloyal, because obviously, his apparent friendship for the Pope was all a sham, or he would not have chosen to give at least two interviews on Benedict XVI's last day in office criticizing him in a way that was almost as bad as Marco Politi on his most perversely cantankerous day.

Since blogger Moorehead has expressed similar common=sense observations as I did, I'd like to add that comment block to this post, so I have a convenient reference point in the future. !

---

[I have always wondered whether the heads of the Roman Curia are so spineless or unimaginative as not to have taken the simple initiative of writing an annual open letter telling the public in simple terms what it is they do exactly, how many people they have working for them, challenging the media to come up with any specific wrongdoing that can be attributed to their particular office, and ending with pledging their loyalty to the Pope and to the Church. There are 22 such organisms at the Vatican, and if even just 18 of them could write such a letter, how different the perception might be!

I say this because other than the perceived problems at IOR (reporting of which ignores the scrutiny that IOR has undergone under the eyes of Moneyval, with mostly passing marks), the Governatorate (which Vigano claims he cleaned up, anyway), and SecState which has really been the presumptive main culprit and center of factional rivalries and power plays (it's the only one of the Vatican offices large enough to harbor such shenanigans), has anyone read of any complaint or scandal attributed to any of the other Curial offices:

CDF, Saints, Worship, Bishops, Clergy, Family, Christian Unity, Inter-Religious Dialog, New Evangelization, Culture, Propaganda Fide (there was an investigation into questionable business deals undertaken by the Curial officials in the previous Pontificate), Christian Unity, Justice and Peace (there was that flap about Cardinal Turkson's position paper on a world economic authority, but that was a tempest in a teapot that mostly embarrassed Turkson himself - who is now a papabile), Ministry to Healthcare Workers, Migrants and Refugees (they had a former president, holdout from the Wojtyla years, who issued 'ten commandments for drivers' or something equally silly), the Apostolic Segnatura, the Apostolic Penitentiary, and so on, down the line.

Has anyone read or heard stories in the past eight years that cited any one particular Curial office and named names in any of these offices for improper conduct, much less nefarious or criminal? NOPE, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO! But maybe Cardinal Pell read something in Australia that has been kept secret from even the Italian media! Even the infamous Panorama expose claiming to document the activities of three homosexual priests who claimed to work in the Curia never identified which office(s) exactly they worked for. If the writer had truly been serious, he ought to have telephoned their office head(s) and challenged them with his expose. But no, just let the magic words 'Roman Curia' say it all, and the world will believe the worst of everyone in the Curia, even if you do not name names or identify which offices these names work in.]

---

I will end this page with two articles which I posted this time last year - both an appreciation of Benedict XVI's seven years of Pontificate six weeks before the actual anniversary came around. The timing seems eerie now... As does the discussion on resignation in the second article!



For an economist, Dr. Gregg always makes a compelling commonsense 'theological' analysis when he writes about Catholic subjects. He 'gets it' spot on.This is one great introduction to an appreciation of Benedict XVI's first seven years as Pope (of which I hope we will get many excellent ones. Articles, I mean, but in a different sense, many more wonderful years with B16 as our Pope...

Benedict XVI and
the irrelevance of 'relevance'
by Samuel Gregg

March 8, 2012

Over the soon-to-be seven years of Benedict XVI’s papacy, it’s been instructive to watch the shifting critiques of this pontificate.

Leaving aside the usual suspects convinced that Catholicism should become what amounts to yet another liberal-Christian sect fixated with transitory politically-correct causes, the latest appraisal is that “the world” is losing interest in the Catholic Church.

A variant of this is the claim that the Irish government’s 2011 decision to closing its embassy to the Holy See reflects a general decline in the Church’s geopolitical 'relevance'.

[And you'd think a veteran Vatican observer like John Allen - who is also a sort of self-appointed expert on world Catholic affairs, since no one else is doing what he does, taking snapshots of the state of the Church worldwide bu visiting some key capitals to talk to the locals - would be one of those who would not respond with this knee-jerk banal commonplace, but that was exactly what he led off with last year, commenting on the Irish government's decision! Not one of the Italian Vaticanistas made that almost non-sequitur leap of logic! Clearly, Irish PM Kenny's government wanted to twist into its backstab on the Church to make it hurt more, and that's the only reason one should give. No other country has followed Ireland's example in the months since, even if the financial crisis drags on, so where does that put the 'irrelevance' claim?]

Whenever one encounters such assertions, it’s never quite clear what’s meant by 'relevance'. On one reading, it involves comparisons with Benedict’s heroic predecessor, who played an indispensable role in demolishing the Communist thug-ocracies that once brutalized much of Europe. [And those who argue this completely ignore that the global picture is radically different today from what it was when the free world was still fighting the 'evil empire', and terrorism as a daily political instrument was just in its beginnings, only becoming 'routine' after 9/11/2001. Islam was not the active threat for global hegemony that it is today via its surrogates who rule the Muslim countries.]

But it’s also a fair bet that 'relevance' is understood here in terms of the Church’s capacity to shape immediate policy-debates or exert political influence in various spheres.

Such things have their own importance. Indeed, many of Benedict’s writings are charged with content which shatters the post-Enlightenment half-truths about the nature of freedom, equality, and progress that sharply constrict modern Western political thinking.

But Benedict’s entire life as a priest, theologian, bishop, senior curial official and Pope also reflects his core conviction that the Church’s primary focus is not first-and-foremost “the world,” let alone politics.

Rather, Benedict’s view has always been that the Church’s main responsibility is to come to know better — and then make known — the Person of Jesus Christ. Why? Because like any orthodox Christian, he believes that herein is found the summit and fullness of Truth and meaning for every human being.

Moreover, Benedict insists the only way we can fully comprehend Christ is through His Church – the ecclesia of the saints, living and dead.

These certainties explain the nature of Benedict’s long-standing criticisms of various forms of political and liberation theology. His primary concern was not whether such movements reflected some Catholics’ alignment with the left, or the liberationists’ shaky grasp of basic economics.

Instead, Benedict’s charge was always that such theologies obscured and even distorted basic truths about the nature of Christ and His Church. [And those who claim otherwise simply parrot the totally unfounded media stereotype of Joseph Ratzinger as the pedantic, dogmatic and robotic enforcer of orthodox Catholic teaching - without once reading what he has actually written and said about liberation theology.]-

There is, of course, a 'relevance' dimension to all this. Unless Catholics are clear in their own minds about these truths, then their efforts to transform the world around them will surely run aground or degenerate into the activism of just another lobby-group amidst the thousands of other lobby-groups clamoring to be considered 'relevant'.

Which brings us to another great 'relevance' of Benedict’s pontificate: his desire to ensure that more Catholics understand the actual content of what they profess to believe.

It’s no great secret that Catholic catechesis went into freefall after Vatican II. It’s true that much pre-Vatican II catechesis was characterized by rote-learning rather than substantive engagement with the truths of the Faith.

But as early as 1983, Joseph Ratzinger signaled his awareness of the lamentable post-Vatican II catechetical state of affairs in two speeches he gave in Paris and Lyons.

Much to the professional catechists’ displeasure — but to the delight of Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger and every young priest present — Ratzinger zeroed in on the huge gaps in the catechetical text-books then in vogue.

Two years later, the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops suggested that a new universal catechism be published. [Every time this is brought up, I cannot resist adding that in George Weigel's account of that Synod in his biography of John Paul II, it was the later much-maligned Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston who put forth the suggestion for the Catechism during that 1985 Synod. It doesn't make up, of course, for his terrible judgment lapses in almost coddling abusive priests in his diocese, but he does earn a positive footnote in history for this.]

This bore fruit in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church produced under Ratzinger’s supervision. Significantly, it followed precisely the fundamental structures he had identified in his 1983 addresses as indispensable for sound catechesis.

Fast-forward to 2012. Now Benedict is launching what’s called “a Year of Faith” in his apostolic letter Porta Fidei to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Vatican II’s opening.

Reading this text, one is struck by how many times Benedict underlines the importance of Catholics being able to profess the Faith. Of course you can’t really profess — let alone live out — the truths of the Catholic Faith unless you know what they are. Nor can you enter into conversation with others about that Faith unless you understand its content.

Hence, as one French commentator recently observed, at least one sub-text of Benedict’s Year of Faith is that the “doctrinal break-time” for the Church is over.

This point was underscored by the recent Note issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Along the other practical suggestions it gives for furthering the Year of Faith, the Note emphasizes “a profound bond between the lived faith and its contents” (i.e., true ortho-praxis can only be based on ortho-doxy).

It also stresses that Catholics need to know the content of the Catechism and the actual documents of Vatican II (rather than, sotto voce, the ever-nebulous [and rather noxious] “spirit of Vatican II” that seems indistinguishable from whatever is preoccupying secular liberals at any given moment in time.

[Documents which, it would seem, the liberal progressivist spiritists have not really read, or bothered to read, judging by the untruths and half-truths they have been spewing abundantly in the past four decades, passing off their own ideas of what they would like the Church to be, as the 'spirit of Vatican II'. Until Benedict XVI became Pope, few contested them at all!

Just start with all the inventions they stuck on the Mass, many of them never mentioned in Sacrosanctum concilium(SC), the Vatican II constitution on the Liturgy (e.g., sidelining the tabernacle and tearing out the old altars to give way to bare tables -with the corollary of celebrating the Mass ad populum; receiving Communion in the hand), and some directly contradicting SC (e.g., eliminating Latin completely from the Mass, allowing all sorts of profane music -instruments and lyrics - instead of SC's encouragement of Gregorian chant, religious texts (preferably Scriptural) for lyrics, and organ music; and worst of all, using Vatican II as an excuse for any priest to say and do as he pleases when saying Mass, instead of sticking to the ritual and the words that make a Mass a Mass. None of everything that has made a Novus Ordo Mass objectionable as commonly practised since 1970 is to be found in SC!]

The predictable retort is that this proves that, under Benedict, the Church is turning in upon itself. Such rejoinders, however, are very short-sighted. To paraphrase Vatican II, Benedict understands the Church can only have a profound ad-extra effect upon the world if it lives its ad-intra life more intensely and faithfully.

Far from being a retreat into a ghetto, it’s about helping Catholics to, as the first Pope said, “be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope” (1 Peter 3:15).

And therein lies the Church’s true contemporary significance, as understood by Peter’s present-day successor. It’s not to be found in turning the Catholic Church into something akin to the Episcopal church of America (otherwise known as the preferential option for self-immolation).

It’s about bringing the Logos of the Lord of History into a world that lurches between irrationality and rationalism, utopianism and despair, so that when we die, we might see the face of the One who once called upon Peter to have faith in Him and walk on water.

And what, after all, could be more relevant than that?




The following is a positive evaluation of Benedict XVI from another angle, although it begins, unfortunately, by buying into all the 'public opinion' commonplaces that most commentators have used to interpret and thereby further promote the wildly disproportionate hype over the leaked documents from the Vatican. None of those documents objectively constituted or indicated any high crimes or genuine scandal. To any objective view, they represent, at best, the interplay of conflicting interests inherent and normal in any human institution, especially bureaucracies (the Vatican bureaucracy is obviously no exception).

NB: Il Regno is a twice-monthly publication out of the Bologna-based Centro Editoriale Dehnoniano run by the Congregation of Priests of the Sacred Heart founded by the late French priest Leon Dehon, whose cause for beatification has been stalled because of accusations that he was anti-Semitic.]

Benedict XVI:
Spiritual renewal in the face
of worldliness in the Church
by Gianfranco Brunelli
Translated from

March 8, 2012

The kindness of his gaze, the elegance of his manners, the calmness of tone that distinguish Benedict XVI did not veil the firmness of his words.

In his series of interventions during his fourth consistory to name new cardinals, he assembled a collection of unequivocal spiritual and doctrinal references following a recent spate of poison allegations aimed at the Vatican.

It could not be otherwise. The media clamor had been generated first around the confidential letters written by the ex-secretary-general of the Vatican City Governatorate, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, now Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, to the Pope and to Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone regarding questionable financial transactions at the Governatorate. Then a couple of internal memoranda on the new anti-money-laundering laws to be enforced at the Vatican 'bank' IOR: and finally the 'delirious' anonymous memorandum inferring a supposed assassination plot against the Pope within this year - all had created great perplexity in the Church and in international public opinion.

The fact that some parties had resorted to leaking confidential documents, of various levels of importance, in order to feed any existing conflicts within the Roman Curia but most of all, calling to question the role and the ability of the Secretary of State, offered the image of a moral and institutional crisis within the Church's principal organ of governance. [2013 P.S. It would be three more months before we would find out that it was all largely the work of one 'party' - the Pope's treacherous, devious and magalomaniacal valet.]

[The general impression that the leakers intended to create was precisely for public opinion to think the worst - that unimaginable crimes have been happening inside the Vatican, even if the incidents reported did not include any really major 'scandal' and merely reflected normal internal rivalries within any bureaucracy. But for an informed 'analyst' to simply echo that intended impression as the actual outcome of the leaks is lazy and almost irresponsible.]

In a consistory February 2012] in which a number of Curial officials were made cardinals, the Curia was therefore under scrutiny both in terms of image and of substance.

[I beg to disagree. In fairness to the media, practically no one projected the negatives created by the leaks to the Curial officials who became cardinals - perhaps because, even if most reports kept referring to the 'revelations' as affecting 'the Curia', the targets, as well as the leakers, were clearly all within the Secretariat of State, which is by no means the entire Curia.

The running beef was that yes, the Pope had elevated more curial officials than metropolitan bishops to cardinal in this consistory .but that's an argument that has been discussed several times on this thread. But it must also be noted that no one, not even the Italian media, faulted any of the new Curial officials for lack of qualification or competency for the jobs that Benedict XVI named them to. Even if some of them may be proteges or friends of Cardinal Bertone, that does not make them less competent or qualified; surely, no one could say Benedict XVI named some cardinals to their positions of responsibility if he did not think they were the best men for mostly administrative and technical responsibilities.]

But whoever wanted Cardinal Bertone replaced has failed at least for now, but he is expected to set everything straight in his own department. In fact, this kind of crisis affects the Pope by implying a crisis of authority in the Church. [Again, that was the kneejerk conclusion drawn by run-of-the-mill commentary, echoing the main criticism by the Pope's detractors who claim that he takes no part and no interest at all in the actual government of the Church. Detractors like Marco Politi deliberately ignore that the Pope holds weekly meetings with his chief Curial collaborators - the heads of CDF, of Bishops and of the Evangelization of Peoples, who head the curial offices with the greatest direct impact on churches around the world; and that every afternoon, he sits down with Bertone and/or his two deputies to discuss administrative issues. But gullible members of the public will simply take their cue from what the commentators say and do not question any of their (very faulty) premises.]

It is not accidental that the latter stages of the controversy also brought forth the hypothesis that the Pope may resign. [It really is a non sequitur, because the resignation hypothesis has been floated since last year, not however because of any controversies or administrative issues, but because of alleged health problems! And it is bound to be brought up more often, as the Pope gets older, since in Light of the World, Benedict XVI said clearly that he felt a Pope should resign if he was no longer physically, psychologically and mentally capable of carrying out the Petrine ministry.] [2013 P.S. How could we know the resignation would come less than a year after this article was published?]

In the three days associated with the consistory, the Pope touched all the necessary themes. Starting with what he considers decisive for the Church in this historical moment.

He reads this last critical development as a confirmation and an acceleration of what he called 'a crisis of faith' in his address to the Roman Curia last December. A crisis that cuts across all Christianity. But especially European Christianity.

And alongside the sex abuses by priests, supposed financial scandals, and rivalries for power, there is the more significant testimony of Christians in places where the Church is now the target of persecution for what she believes.It is this reality that concerns the Pope most.

In his allocution to the cardinals before the rites that actually made them cardinals, the Pope spoke the 'mundanization' of the Church, and to the logic of power pursued by some of her members. A logic that is directly anti-evangelical.

Thus he told the new cardinals that, following the example of Christ, they are called on "to serve the Church with love and vigor, with the limpidity and wisdom of teachers, with the energy and firmness of pastors, with the fidelity and courage of martyrs".

Then, commenting on the account of St. Mark regarding the request made to Jesus by the sons of Zebedee, James and John, about sitting next to him in his glory, to the right and left of him, dBenedict XVI quoted the words of Jesus: "You do not know what you are asking".

"James and John, with their request, showed that they did not yet understand the logic of life that ought to characterize the disciple, in his spirit and in his actions". But he pointed out that such erroneous logic did not just dwell in James and John, but "according to the Evangelist, it contaminated even 'the other ten' apostles, who "started to be indignant with James and John. They were indignant because it is not easy to enter into the logic of the Gospel, and to leave that of power and glory".

The episode narrated by St. Mark (cf Mk 16,37-45) ends with the admonition to all his disciples that "they may be servants" and 'slave to all'. An unequivocal admonition on the day of the consistory. To stigmatize an evil that has once again taken grip of the Church.

"Dominion and service, egoism and altruism, possession and gift, self-interest and gratuitousness - these profoundly contrasting approaches have confronted each other in every age and place", the Pope concluded.

"There is no doubt about the path chosen by Jesus. He does not merely indicate it with words to the disciples of then and today, but he lives it in his own flesh. He explains, in fact, 'For the Son of man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many' (Mk 10,45).

"These words shed light on today's public Consistory with a particular intensity. They resound in the depths of the soul and represent an invitation and a reminder, a commission and an encouragement, especially for you".

The Pope calls on the Curia in general and to the various internal factions to stop their infighting. One doubts that his message will be heard at all.

Extending this admonition to pastors to the entire Church, on his homily of February 19, feats of the Chair of St. Peter, the Pope recalled:

"Everything in the Church rests upon faith: the sacraments, the liturgy, evangelization, charity. Likewise the law and the Church's authority rest upon faith. The Church is not self-regulating, she does not determine her own structure but receives it from the Word of God, to which she listens in faith as she seeks to understand it and to live it.

"The Fathers of the Church fulfill the function of guaranteeing fidelity to Sacred Scripture. They ensure that the Church receives reliable and solid exegesis, capable of forming within the Chair of Peter a stable and consistent whole.

"The Sacred Scriptures, authoritatively interpreted in the Magisterium in the light of the Fathers, shed light upon the Church's journey through time, providing her with a stable foundation amid the vicissitudes of history".

Summarizing symbolically the various elements of the Chair of Peter, and looking at the ensemble of the Bernini Altar of the Chair, the Pope underscored the simultaneous presence of a twofold = ascending and descending.

"This is the reciprocity between faith and love. The Chair is placed in a prominent position in this place, because this is where Saint Peter’s tomb is located, but this too tends towards the love of God. Indeed, faith is oriented towards love. A selfish faith would be an unreal faith.

"Whoever believes in Jesus Christ and enters into the dynamic of love that finds its source in the Eucharist, discovers true joy and becomes capable in turn of living according to the logic this gift. T

"True faith is illumined by love and leads towards love, leads on high, just as the altar of the Chair points upwards towards the luminous window, the glory of the Holy Spirit, which constitutes the true focus for the pilgrim’s gaze as he crosses the threshold of the Vatican Basilica". [How I agree so passionately! From the first time I ever entered St. Peter's Basilica, I always thought that that alabaster window was its most compelling feature.]

"Pray that I may be able to keep my hand on the tiller with gentle firmness". This was Benedict XVI's response to the speculation about his possible resignation.

He knows how this debate over the resignation of a Pope, occasionally aired by the media, can in fact weaken the exercise of the Papal role, since he had experienced this as an involuntary protagonist alongside John Paul II.

For now, resignation is out of the question. His health allows him to govern the Church fully even if he is about to turn 85. But his response was not - as John Paul II's was in 2003 - inherent to his state of health, but rather to the route and handling of the ship of the Church. That 'gentle firmness' says everything about his will to exercise pastoral direction and governance of the Church.

[2013 P.S. In 2012, I did not find the paragraphs above ominous or even cautionary in any way. I lived in the blissful coccoon I had built that Benedict would live as long as Leo XIII, if not longer, and would look older and obviously, less physically fit, but I never imagined how fast physical deterioration can take place in persons over 80.]

And here, the writer builds up to a wonderful conclusion that synthesizes the vision of Benedict XVI:

It is not accidental that he has placed before himself and the universal Church a demanding biennial on the symbolic and doctrinal levels: the Year of Faith which will open in October on the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, and will conclude towards the end of 2013.

It will be, in fact, a new Great Jubilee [marked by the Church in 2000 to celebrate the first 2000 years of Christianity]. This Conciliar Jubilee configures itself symbolically as a landing stage in his Pontificate.

All the points of reform in his Pontificate coalesce around the Year of Faith: a new season of evangelization, reinforced by a spiritual renewal to clean out all behavior that constitutes a continual counter-testimony to the message of the Gospel.

Nor was it accidental that at the pre-consistory assembly of the College of Cardinals on February 17, the Pope asked incoming Cardinal Timothy oDlan, Archbishop of New York, and president of the US bishops' conference, to introduce the subject of New Evangelization, and on Mons. Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, to present the initiatives programmed at various levels of the Church during the Year of Faith.

In this, the Pope calls on the universal Church to make an examination of conscience on the reception thus far of the teachings from the Second Vatican Council according to that hermeneutic of continuity that he has so often cited.

Along this line, Benedict XVI hopes to bring the Church out of the ruts of scandal and internal power conflicts.

Along this line, he hopes to lead the Church to a new season of faithful witness. It is a plan strongly characterized by the personal vision of the theologian Pope but which remains, at the same time, quite open. [Open to what? To tactical adjustments, perhaps, but not to strategic or substantial change!]