BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Et tu, Christoph?

Is there a rule that now that we have a new Pope, a cardinal can no longer speak of the still very much alive Benedict XVI? None of the cardinals I've heard on TV (or read about online) since the Conclave has had a single word for Benedict XVI - as if he had never existed, and as if it had not been his renunciation that made it possible for them to elect a new Pope. One would think such a ban exists - even if self-imposed - from this interview given by the president of Joseph Ratzinger's Schuelerkreis Foundation, who only a week before, was still saying how proud he was to have been Joseph Ratzinger's friend for 40 years,

The archbishop of Vienna:
'It was clear God had chosen
the Pope and we were led to him'
Translated from


ROME-VIENNA, March 15, 2013 (KAP) - "He [Pope Francis] must find out who all the black sheep are in the Roman Curia," the Archbishop of Vienna tells us quite plainly, "and clean out the stables so that all those who are doing good work are not discredited through the wrongdoing of a few individuals".

[Memo to Cardinal Schoenborn: Did not Benedict XVI already do the spadework with the 300-page report from his three-man cardinals' commission? A report he left for the new Pope's eyes alone? To help him get an overview of the mechanics of the Curia, if not of specific miscreants? Was not that yet another show of Benedict's humility that he left it to his successor to do the 'clean-up' - and get full credit for it - instead of ending his Pontificate by, say, firing a handful of people from the Curia, which would have been a spectacular grandstand play, sure! Especially if the handful included any cardinals at all (which is doubtful if you review the list of Curial heads who are cardinals, none of whom have been linked to any questionable activities at all). Or he could simply have fired Cardinal Bertone, who was held out as the real target of Vatileaks, though that's a simplistic misdirection. But grandstanding is not Benedict's style at all.

At the same time, however, if the cardinals' inquiry had really uncovered any serious trouble-makers in the Curia, who were accused or suspected of more than just bureaucratic hindrance (i.e., financial, ethical or sexual misdeeds), then I should think Benedict XVI would have wasted no time in ordering a specific investigation of wrongdoing, carrying out due process before meting out any punishment, as he did with the Vatican personnel specifically accused by Mons. Vigano of financial misdeeds and who were cleared by the inquiry commission. (Remember that one of the 'enemies' smeared by Vigano for alleged financial misdeeds was the Vatican Museums' administrative director, under whose management the Museums have registered their highest revenues ever.)

I am inclined to take the word of Cardinal Herranz who told Spain's leading newspaper, El Pais (very much anti-Church), that a great bubble of anecdotal speculation has been blown up about the Curia which will be shown to collapse by itself, even saying that the Vatican is the most transparent organization compared to any civilian government or international institution. I doubt that he would have made such a statement at all if he knew that it could be refuted by his own commission's report.]

Schoenborn made the comments in a live interview for Austria's ZIB-2 two days after the Conclave that elected Pope Francis. He said he was convinced that Pope Francis is "the man who can truly provide clarity" about the Curia because "he showed courage in resisting the military dictatorship on Argentina". [Sounds like a non-sequitur to me, but obviously he means that someone who has withstood, so to speak, a military dictatorship would have no second thoughts about tackling the Curia.]

"We [the cardinals at the Conclave) had the strong impression that we were truly led to this men," Schoenborn said. "It became clearer that he was the chosen one. God had chosen him and it was for us to find out whom he had chosen. Our impression was that Cardinal Bergoglio was truly the man of the hour, and that was why he was elected Pope". [So why did it take them one balloting more than they needed in 2005 - with the same number of electors - to get beyond 77 votes?]

Pope Francis was the 'man of the hour', said Schoenborn because he is "a deeply religious, human and Christlike person" who impresses most because of his solidarity with the poor.

"We have obtained in Pope Francis a man who has close-up knowledge of global and social problems and is actively engaged towards solving them. I think that was a very decisive factor in his election". [What exactly is 'firsthand knowledge of global and social problems'? Should one conclude that Schoenborn thinks Benedict XVI had only remote, secondhand knowledge of these problems? But hasn't he praised him before for his astute analysis of such problems? And how exactly does one get "actively engaged in solving global and social problems" without being a national leader or the head of a UN agency that can unilaterally legislate decrees they expect every country in the world to follow (not that they are thereby solving any problem at all)?

He said the role of Cardinal Bergoglio during the years of Argentina's military dictatorship from 1976-1983 during which some 30,000 Argentinians were killed or disappeared, was never discussed by the Cardinals. But he said he knows for sure "how courageous he was afterwards in working through the issue - he told the Argentine bishops that they should realize that they had some failure and culpability to answer for, and asked them to openly invite discussion throughout the land about the dictatorship" because "this new Pope appreciates the way of honesty and truthfulness". [Like no other Pope did before him? I wish Pope Francis has a chance to hear or read what people are saying - as if he were the exclusive and first bearer of virtue in the history of the Papacy!]

Schoenborn said he is convinced that Pope Francis will be a "very good, very courageous, and very innovative Pope" [And what was Benedict XVI then?] and that he wants "to stand up for our new Pope and support him as much as I possibly can in his great and difficult task". [Could he have not added at least for this part of his testimonial, "as I did with Pope Benedict'?]

The cardinal made it very clear that the new Pope's task would include cleaning up the Curia, in which "there is a lot of work to be done". But he said he did not wish to make a fully one-sided judgment because "there are also outstanding competent men in the Curia, but unfortunately, there are also some black sheep, and they have to be identified".

Who am I - a simple non-expert on the Church but with long experience in journalism to know what's good and fair reporting/commentary - to question the good faith (in both senses) of cardinals who are Princes of the Church and theoretically each with the potential to become Pope? And therefore, the best of the best in the Catholic world!

But I operate by common sense, and great sinner that I am, and without being Pharisaic, but just out of elementary decency, I don't think that as a cardinal, I would behave like all these cardinals who are so publicly dismissive now of Benedict XVI by pointedly failing to acknowledge him at all - not just because more than half of them were named cardinal by him, but because it simply is wrong to treat him publicly now as if he never existed. On a human level, as Benedict XVI said of Christ, he is not taking anything away from them, or from anyone else (least of all from the new Pope) - he stripped himself of the Papacy, for heaven's sake!, and all he has left is a title that does dignity not to himself personally but to his former office as Pope.

I can perhaps be more lenient with the pinheads in the media who have adopted this attitude, but not with cardinals. Pledging loyalty to Pope Francis does not mean they must forget all about Benedict XVI - as if he had not done a single good thing in his Pontificate that they must just ignore him now that there is a new Pope. They owe him at least a modicum of respect, not behave now as if they are ashamed to associate themselves with him in any way. Pope Francis himself has been setting them an example of generosity and due respect for Benedict XVI, but they don't get it at all!

In fairness to Cardinal Schoenborn - and I ought to have said this at the start - maybe he did say something about Benedict XVI, but the news report just happened to cut it all out. If that was the case, I hope he protests it formally! And I would apologize humbly for all the inferences I drew.