Sandro Magister writes the www.chiesa articles primarily for L'Espresso, the weekly newsmagazine, so he is not above tailoring his deadlines as secular publications do - for maximum shock value at first glance. I think the Sepe-Bertone confrontation he cites is tenuous and not borne out by available facts; that the 'wrangling' has been completely one-sided in the case of Schoenborn vs Sodano since Sodano has not taken the bait at all; and that the wrangling has been all too real between the liberal German bishops and the conservative Mixa, so the 'biting and devouring' has not been lmited to cardinals alone! With that caveat and a few others noted below, Magister makes his usual compelling presentation of Vatican Realpolitik in this article.
Prominent cardinals wrangle
while Rome is under siege
Schoenborn against Sodano, Sepe against Bertone.
The serious case of the Archbishop of Vienna.
Benedict XVI chastises, pacifies and looks ahead with three key Curial appointments.
ROME, July 2 - It was a busy vigil for the Pope on the eve of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, patrons of the Church of Rome.
As always, he celebrated Vespers in the Basilica of St. Paul outside the Walls together with a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople whom he received in audience at the Vatican in the morning.
In his homily he announced the creation of a new Vatican organism 'for renewed evangelization' of the countries with an ancient Christian tradition in which there has been "an eclipse of the sense of God".
But more than that, Benedict XVI had also worked hard to bring some peace among a few cardinals
who had been in public confrontation in recent weeks.
[I would not call the Schoenborn-Sodano case a confrontation since it was one-sided - all the aggression came from Schoenborn, while Sodano has chosen to keep silent! And Sepe against Bertone? Where did that come from?]
The Pope did so with two statements that were far from ritual, and with an equally unusual meeting with three of the wrangling cardinals.
[I really do not understand what Bertone had to do with the Schoenborn-Sodano case. I thought the Pope wanted him present as an impartial third party and as his right-hand man.]
By a curious coincidence, the day before, Sunday, the readings for the day included that passage from St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians in which he admonished them: "If you bite and devour each other, take care that you do not end up destroying each other".
An admonition that Benedict XVI had cited in his memorable letter to the bishops of the world in March last year, issued after sharp dissent from many princes of the Church to his having lifted the excommunication of the Lefebvrian bishops.
The first of the two Vatican notes on June 28 had to do with the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and Cardinal Crescencio Sepe who had led it from 2001-2006 before he was named ARchbishop of Naples.
Sepe was a power figure in John Paul II's Curia. But when an Italian court on June 20 opened an investigation to look into suspected irregularities in his management of the congregation's real estate properties, he immediately said that he had always done so with the approval of the Vatican Secretariat of State which was under Cardinal Sodano - involving Sodano in his case while at the same time implicitly challenging
the present Secretary of State who had wanted him transferred to Naples.
[WHOA, Mr. Magister! Watch your timeline. Bertone did not become Secretary of State until Sept. 15, 2006, although he was named to the position in June 2006. However, Sepe was moved to Naples in May 2006 - an indication of how quickly the new Pope at the time wanted him out of the Curia (i.e., as soon as his Sepe's five-year term was over) - presumably because as Cardinal Ratzinger, he was aware of power-mongering in Propaganda Fide, by far the Vatican's most service-oriented dicastery and therefore an unlikely venue for any power play! In fact, it never was, before Sepe.
To now construe Sepe's appointment to Naples as being due to Bertone's preferences is not only factually wrong but also to ignore Benedict XVI's reasons for the move! Especially since, at the same time, he also moved out two other key players from his predecessor's Curia - the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Mons. Domenico Sorrentino, whom he named Bishop of Assisi and replaced with someone who shared his views on liturgy, Mons. Albert Ranjith from Sri Lanka; and the president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialog, the British Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, too kowtowy to Muslims, whom he named Apostolic Nuncio to Cairo, while he temporarily placed the CIRD under Cardinal Paul Pouupard, then president of the Pontifical Council for Culture.
That astounding triple play carried out one year after Benedict XVI became Pope caught everyone by surprise because all three were key figures in the Wojtyla era. Fitzgerald was notoriously and uncritically pro-Muslim - his 'demotion' was a harbinger of Regensburg and Benedict XVI's intention to renew the terms for inter-religious dialog, towards directness and honesty rather than kumbaya hypocrisy.]]
Sepe's statements in self-defense about his Propaganda Fide years caused some irritation in the Vatican which was apparent from the chilly detachment that
L'Osservatore Romano has shown in failing to chronicle his current legal problem.
With its June 28 communique, the Vatican reaffirmed the exclusively missionary purpose of Propaganda Fide's income from its vast real estate holdings (estimated to be worth some 9 billion euros), while at the same time dissociating itself from any 'errors in judgment' that Cardinal Sepe and his closest associates may have committed in their personal capacities.
The second communique on June 28 had to do with the Pope's meeting that morning with Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, Archbishop of Vienna.
He had made headlines in recent weeks for having repeatedly proposed 'rethnking' the practice of priestly celibacy and for having directly and earlier, sharply criticizing Cardinal Sodano for his words and deeds regarding pedophilia among priests.
His statements were all the more newsworthy because he is considered very close to Benedict XVI. He had been a student of his [
actually, he merely attended a semester's course in Regensburg] and had always been appreciated by him. Therefore, it is assumed by many that what he says somehow has the Pope's approval.
But not this time. Whether it was about celibacy or against Sodano, Benedict XVI was not pleased at all by Schoenborn's words and actions. And he reproved him for these, initially in personal letters, and then orally at this last meeting.
[A first letter of rebuke, according to the Italian media, concerned Schoenborn's deliberately high-profile visit to Medjugorje.]
To dispel the impression that the Pope shares or approves Schoenborn's controversial views, a public gesture was needed. Which is what happened on June 28, when the private audience between the two [requested by Schoenborn] was enlarged to include Cardinals Sodano adn Bertone, followed by the Vatican communique about these meetings.
[Magister then puts in the full text of the communique.]
The note does not leave any room for doubt: Schoenborn had ashes piled on his head and must have had to recant what he said against Cardinal Sodano and about celibacy.
All this would not have been made so public by the Vatican were it not that Schoenborn's previous words and actions gained the media resonance that they did. Because
what distinguishes the cardinal from Vienna from all the other cardinals is his skill in emerging as a protagonist on stage of public opinion - to whose inclinations and pressures he has shown himself to be quite attuned.
In fact, mediatic success almost always smiles on him. His allusions to a need to 'rethink' priestly celibacy were guaranteed to earn him widespread attention and approval.
He has never said that he agrees with the claims of the reform group 'We are Church' which originated in Austria and is most widespread there. But last Wednesday in Holy Week, he asked for the leaders of that group to be beside him in the Cathedral of Vienna as he asked forgiveness for sexual abuses committed by priests.
[Oh, and wasn't that the modern-day equivalent of the Pharisee beating his breast in the temple! Not that one can doubt Schoenborn's sincerity in fighting pedophilia and his concern for the victims, but the occasion was clearly a grandstand play to earn points with the media - if not with his all-too-liberal flock who gloat that he yields to them in many ways that, however, have not and will not bring them one step back towards Catholic orthodoxy - or to official Church membership, for that matter. Not even if he guarantees that the Church in Austria will pay the church tax for them!]
Thus, in the Church's efforts to fight unnatural sins in the clergy, Schoenborn comes off in the eyes of the media as the most decisive advocate of so-called 'transparency' - in which complaints of sexual abuse are systematically referred to the justice system and to complaints commissions that are independent of the Church hierarchy.
[What has the Church of Austria actually done besides naming this lay commission with great hype? And my personal beef with Schoenborn, IMHO: What about all the cases of Austrian priests living in open concubinage which, in terms of sinning, are just as scandalous as priests committing sexual abuse? Has he and the other bishops of his conference - all seven of them - ever done anything about the problem, if only to denounce it???? Nooooo... At least nothing public!]
In attacking Cardinal Sodano for alleged insensitivity and ineptitude in the matter of priestly pedophilia [with reference to the late Austrian Cardinal Hans Groer], Schoenborn chose a too-easy target, a figure who has alfeady been the target of many criticisms [in office and out of it].
[The one other breach of good taste by Schoenborn here was that he claimed he was accusing Sodano in defense of then Cardinal Ratzinger! If Benedict XVI needs any defense at all, he certainly does not want it to be at the expense of the Church and of an individual who is innocent until proven guilty!]
But what really concerns the Vatican and the Pope himself is the weak overall leadership of the Archbishop of Vienna in the Austrian Church.
In the 1980s, Cardinal Ratzinger entrusted Schoenborn and a select group of cardinals with drafting the
Catechism of the Catholic Church. But shortly after he became Pope, when Benedict XVI received the Austrian bishops on their ad limina visit in November 2005, he rebuked them precisely
for teaching Catholic doctrine 'in an incomplete way... omitting those that people do not want to hear or that could arouse protests or derision". And Schoenborn was among those bishops.
In June 2009, the Austrian bishops were called to Rome once more for a talking-to. Evidently, the Pope felt they had not learned anything from his 2005 critique.
[Nor from what he said when he visited Austria in 2007, for that matter!]
In the months before that last audience, a majority of Austrian Catholics and clergy protested the Pope's nomination of Mons. Gerhard Wagner as auxiliary bishop of Linz, since they considered him too conservative.
Schoenborn and his fellow bishops let the protests run their course and within a month, the Vatican yielded and withdrew the nomination, to the rejoicing of all those who think that the main criterion for selecting a bishop should be his popular appeal.
[Magister fails to point out that the Austrian bishops' conference, in fact, issued an almost offensive statement at the time, criticizing the way bishops are appointed by the Pope, and, if I remember correctly, also the lifting of the Lefebvrian bishops' excommunication.]
The Vatican also issued a communique after the June 15-16 meetings of the Austrian bishops with the Pope.
The June 28 note about the meeting with Schoenborn was therefore the third public rebuke in a row. Meanwhile, another ad limina visit is looming (it will be five years since the last one), and one imagines that this will be yet another occasion for a public rebuke from the Pope.
This does not mean that Papa Ratzinger does not continue to appreciate some qualities in
Schoenborn who in his heart of hearts is absolutely orthodox.
[One wonders how Magister can claim to know Schoenborn's 'heart of hearts! One does not have to look that deep to see that the Archbishop of Vienna has been self-serving in all this, not the least because only an insensitive person would fail to see that his media-targeted Me-Tarzan-brave-man papabile posturings are hurtful to the Church and to the Pope, that he is self-aggrandizing at the expense of the Church and the Pope.]
When the Ratzinger Schuelerkreis meets at Castel Gandolfo next August for their annual seminar, Schoenborn is set to deliver the opening lecture on this year's topic, the interpretation of Vatican II.
But
Joseph Ratzinger is also aware of Schoenborn's faults, above all the inconsistency between what he thinks - which is completely in line with the Pope [Again, how can Magister presume to claim this?] - and what he says or does in order to be heard and to gain public favor. [Is that not a very grave defect? It is sheer unprincipled hypocrisy! It is even unthinkable that the editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church should now be advocating that the Church rethink what it says and practices about priestly celibacy.
And BTW, the Pope's statements recently to explain the many different bases of priestly celibacy were, in effect, direct ripostes to Schoenborn's sallies!]
Turning back to the June 28 communique, there is a part that must be explained - when the Pope rebukes Schoenborn for the accusations against Sodano with regard to the 'late lamented' Cardinal Hans Hemann Groer, Archbishop of Vienna from 1986-1995.
In effect, Schoenborn accused Sodano of having covered up for sexual abuses
committed by Groer.
Did he, in fact, commit them? Groer never admitted any culpability, nor was he ever subjected to any trial, canonical or civilian.
[In fairness to Schoenborn, he claimed a few months back that Cardinal Ratzinger had pressed for a formal investigation of the charges against Groer but that the 'diplomatic' wing of the Curia overruled him. However, if that was so, then they had the concurrence of John Paul II - or to put it more directly, John Paul II sided with them against Cardinal Ratzinger on this particular matter. Then, qui bono, Cardinal Schoenborn, out of all your futile obsessing about Groer? You already condemned him by publicity back in 1996 and you have done so again repeatedly this year!]
Il Foglio published the most precise summary of the Groer case yesterday, as follows:
The Groer case broke out in 1995 when, after ccusations of sexual abuses disseminated by the media, the Vatican accepted the resignation of the cardinal when he turned 75. Named to replaces him was Schoenborn himself, who within a few months, rose from auxiliary bishop to coadjutor bishop and then Archbishop of Vienna. In that early phase, the young Dominican bishop was not among those who denounced the Benedictine Groer for culpability.
But the case re-exploded virulently in January 1998 when some of Groer's fellow Benedictines levelled accusations at him. The consistory that would make Schoenborn cardinal was scheduled for February, and he started to do all he could to keep Groer from attending it. By that time, the new Archbishop of Vienna had concluded that Groer was guilty as charged.
However, John Paul II not only did not prevent Groer from coming to Rome but even recieved him in a private audience on February 20.
When Schoenborn got back from the consistory, the Permanent Council of the Austrian bishops held a meeting - Schoenborn with Bishops Kappellari, Eder, Weber and Aichern - at the end of which four of them signed a note declaring they were 'morally certain' of Cardinal Groer's culpability. Aichern, a Benedictine - perhaps knowing better than the other four about the infighting in the Congregation hat led to the accusations agains Groer - did not sign the statement. [Was it not the height of presumption - and once again, Pharisaism - to publicly express 'moral certainty' about grave sins (crimes, in fact) committed by a fellow bishop without benefit of a formal hearing? It's the same pharisaism shown by the German bishops with regard to Mons. Mixa - in which they summarily acted as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner without due process! And these are the very same people who moan and groan about the lack of democracy in the Church! Accused persons have rights, too, and in a rule of law, a person is presumed innocent until found guilty by due process!]
At this point, Schoenborn marched off to Rome to ask the Vatican to ratify the bishops' condemnation of Groer. But without success. The rejection was expressed - in clear and blunt terms - during Holy Week of 1996, when John Paul II and Cardinal Sodano met with Bishops Schoenborn, Weber and Eder to tell them that the Holy See did not find their denunciation probative. Nonetheless, after Easter, the retired Groer issued a statement asking for forgiveness from those he may have offended, although he did not admit to any wrongdoing.
In June of that year, John Paul II visited Austria. Schoenborn and his like-minded colleagues asked that Groer be excluded from any events and that the Vatican express a condemnation of him. The Pope agreed to the first, not to the second. Groer went abroad for a few months and then returned to Austria.
He died in 2003, without a word of condemnation from John Paul II, the only one who had the power to do so [outside of a canonical or civilian tribunal], as the communique of June 28 makes clear.
[The article continues by summarizing the new Curial appointments and the Pope's meeting with Mons. Mixa yesterday.]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 02/07/2010 16:18]