“Viva il Papa!”
Translated from
March 17, 2013
Perhaps some of my readers may have thought I have gone back into hibernation. One swallow does no a summer make, of course, but in this case [following his March 7 blog on 'Pope emeritus' that broke his 21-month absence online], my silence was simply due to lack of material time. Besides, it is not easy to return to writing regularly after such a long break...
I have been asked especially to say something about the election of a new Pope. I would be a hypocrite if I said that I jumped with joy when Cardinal Tauran made the announcement. Personally, I would have preferred Cardinal Scola, whom I esteem, or Cardinal Tagle of the Philippines, whom I got to know there.
To hear that it was Cardinal Bergoglio who had been elected was certainly a surprise. Sometimes surprises can be welcomed joyfully - and this seems to have happened for most of the faithful. It did not happen for me, not because I have anything against Cardinal Bergoglio, about whom I knew little, but simply because I had been conditioned by what had been said about him after the Conclave of 2005: that he was the candidate of the anti-Ratzinger bloc, that bloc said to have been led by now-deceased Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. So to hear that the 'anti-Ratzinger' had now been elected Pope, I had the impression that the cardinals had perhaps made a deliberate polemical choice meant to be a rebuke to the previous Pontiff.
It is true that this impression was immediately belied by the newly-elected Pope himself. But it is also true that a whole series of small details, astutely amplified by the media seemed to confirm my original impression: the rejection of the mozzetta for the new Pope's traditional first presentation to the world, the return to what seemed to be a pre-Benedettian liturgy, etc.
But in these cases, one must not be conditioned too much by first impressions, by instinctive reactions, and must instead seek to reflect on facts with rationality. First of all, one must not allow oneself to be conditioned by the mass media, who only present to us selected facts, and sometimes they are selected to provoke certain reactions [pushing buttons, i.e.].
What sense, for instance, was there in focusing on showing us Pope Francis's black shoes if not to convey the message that Benedict XVI, who wore red shoes, wore Prada, and was therefore anti-evangelical, whereas Francis is a truly poor Pope.
I don't know if you have observed how certain statements attributed to the new Pope have been given wide circulation (I do not know if he truly said them or not) that made a lot of people rejoice but has hurt many others as well.
Papa Bergoglio is reported to have told Mons. Marini, who was helping to prepare him for his loggia debut, and handed him the red mozzetta [a symbol of papal office, not a frivolous accessory]: "No, you can wear it yourself. The time is over for carnival wear!"
Or that the following day, at Santa Maria Maggiore, upon seeing Cardinal Law, emeritus Arch-Priest of the Basilica, he murmured to his aides, ""Send him away. I don't ever want him near the Basilica again".
[I read all about this supposed episode with Cardinal Law, which despite everything the latter may have been guilty of, would not have been 'condemned' so unconditionally by Pope Francis, who spoke precisely about this censorious attitude towards others as lack of mercy in his first Angelus homily on Sunday. In fact, one news agency released a series of about 15 pictures taken of the greeting between the Pope and Cardinal Law when it was the latter's turn to reverence the Pope - and there was not the slightest hint of reproach in Francis's hearty demeanor, having one hand on Law's shoulder, and the other around him. The alleged remark to Mons. Marini is even more unlikely!] I do not think that by doing this, the reporters are doing the Pope any service.
In the second place, we must free ourselves of prejudices. We cannot judge someone within a few minutes of seeing him for the first time. Let us give him time to present himself and for us to get to know something more about him. We ought not to be judging others anyway, but if we insist on doing so, then let us wait until he acts, and judge him by his deeds. never by his intentions or what we think his intentions are (whether good or bad, it doesn't matter).
And it would be best to refrain from a-critical exaltations. So Pope Francis naturally favors an informal style. Excellent, and why not? It also comes from the culture of his country. But that does not represent by itself 'a turning point for the Church', almost as if the very act of paying his hotel bill was symbolic of how he would 'save the Church'.
[Frankly, I found that particular episode a bit of grandstanding, as if someone in the Press Office said, 'Hey this is the perfect photo-op'. It seemed to spoil all the preceding account of how he slipped out of the Vatican early in the morning to pray in Santa Maria Maggiore. Only to be followed by this 'perfect photo-op'. (To be fair, it seems only the Vatican photographers were present, and the photo of the Pope standing behind a hotel counter was then released to the news agencies.) Papa Ratzinger had no hotel bill to pay in 2005 because he lived right next to the Vatican, and the second time he visited his apartment after he was elected Pope, three days after his election, he walked from the Vatican. And sure, the media ran stories about it and used some pictures, but did they make a hullaballoo about it? Not at all. nfter all, they figured, here was someone who had walked to and from work over 20 years, who was a fixture walking about in the neighborhood like any ordinary Roman. No big deal, right?, even if were now Pope! Or that as a profesor, he rode around on a bicycle, and did not drive an Alfa-Romeo as Hans Kueng did. Was that all 'less humble', less admirable, less evangelical than riding a bus? And he didn't cook for himself because he was lucky to have had a loving sister who devoted herself to taking care of him. And yet, I remember reading some articles back in 2005 castigating him for letting his sister keep house for him rather than allowing her to have 'a life of her own'. I'm sure Pope Francis does not share the Schadenfreude and utter malice of the media in trying to exalt him for his lifestyle the better to put down his predecessor!]
And yes, welcome simplicity, by all means, if this will help persons to come back to the Church. But let us not equate an informal style with humility! One can be humble too by submitting to a liturgical master who proposes the same mozzetta worn at their 'papal debuts' by all the previous Popes in living memory, including John Paul II.
[Maybe Francis objected to the ermine-lined velvet mozzetta worn in the winter. He could have asked for the plainer summer mozzetta made of satin. John XXIII - and who could have been more down-to-earth than the grandfatherly and really quite sophisticated Papa Buono who had grown up in a peasant family - had no problem using the winter mozzetta? Not for his 'debut' because he was elected in the summer, so he wore the summer mozzetta, as did Paul VI and John Paul II, but on several occasions afterwards. Did we hear anyone criticize - or imply criticism as they have done with Benedict XVI - Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI and the two John Pauls for wearing the mozzetta?]
Let me place myself, for an instant, in the shoes of some of our most 'acute' observers in the media. Pope Francis, under his cassock, has so far worn shirts with proper cufflinks. Papa Ratzinger, at his 'debut', was wearing a long-sleeved black sweater under all the new papal regalia (cassock, rocchetta or surplice, and mozzetta or capelet), and afterwards, in cold weather, always wore a sweater under his cassock.
[He said later about the black sweater that he had worn for the Conclave, "I felt cold, so I kept it on!"]
One thing that captured the most visible reaction from the crowd in St. Peter's Square Wednesday night was the new Pope's choice of papal name. Of course, the Holy Father can choose any name he wants. But he did not really break tradition so radically. Other than Benedict XVI
[who is known to have told Peter Seewald years before 2005 that he thought Benedict was an excellent papal name], the last several Popes all chose a name that was more or less original. Papa Roncalli chose John, which had not been used since the 14th century. Paul VI used a name last chosen in the 17th century. Papa Luciani chose to use the names of his two immediate predecessors - a double papal name was a first. And Papa Wojtyla carried it on to honor the first John Paul.
So Papa Bergoglio could have chosen any name, but obviously, a name can often mean a program. And Pope francis explained it himself to newsmen on Saturday: Francis, he said, represented poverty, peace, love of nature. And who could not share these ideals? As long as the virtues are not transformed to ideology - pauperism instead of poverty, pacifism instead of peace, ecologism instead of a genuine guardianship of creation.
I hope from the heart that the new Pope embodies the true St. Francis, not the surrogate that has been proposed to us by the media and pop culture (and often, by the Franciscans themselves!). One of course must underscore the saint's original calling, "Francis, rebuild my Church!"
And just as I dislike facile enthusiasms, I dislike unappealably absolute excoriations even more, from either side. I have been extremely annoyed by the attempts to make Bergoglio complicit with the military dictatorship in Argentina under General Videla, and equally so by accusations that he is a misogynist (he supposedly said, "Women were not created to govern").
And I am appalled at the immoderate reaction of some traditionalists: After having accused other priests for years of disobedience to the Pope for not following his way of celebrating liturgy, all of a sudden, they themselves are attacking the new Pope, based only on their perception of certain elements selectively pointed out by the media in their attempt to show the 'discontinuity' between the new Pope and his predecessor.
Of course, there appears to be a difference in external form and style, but does this mean a real rupture by Francis with Benedict XVI and the tradition of the Church? Let us get real. At least for now, everything is being reduced to marginal details, such as what Pope Francis chooses to wear or how he celebrates Mass.
I've said what I thought about papal garments. As for liturgy, I don't think at all that Pope Francis would 'destroy' the liturgy. One must remember that he is a Jesuit, and anyone who knows something of the Jesuits realizes they are not great liturgists, not out of choice, but because it is the way they are formed.
One might almost think that for the Jesuits, the liturgical movement and Vatican II had never happened. Basically, they have always remained a bit Tridentine. Moreover, one simply has to consider St. Ignatius's Spiritual Exercises to realize that examination of conscience appears to be more important than participation in Mass.
If the cardinals had wanted a liturgist Pope, they should have elected a Benedictine, not a Jesuit. Jesuits are more concerned about 'spirituality' than the liturgy.
['Spirituality' is a word that Papa Bergoglio uses often.] They consider themselves real 'contemplatives in action', and in this respect, we may look to Pope Francis for great help in our spiritual life.
I am certain that Pope Francis has many surprises in store - but maybe not what the media expect of him. When John Paul II and then Benedict XVI were elected, I experienced great joy and had great expectations which were in some cases subsequently disappointed.
This time, as I said, I did not experience the same enthusiasm at the 'Habemus papam', so I hope by a similar reversal, it will be followed by satisfaction. But even if that does not happen, it does not change the fact that a Pope is not elected to satisfy our expectations, but to confirm us in our faith and to serve the Church.
At this time, wee are not asked to sing hosannas to the Pope nor to criticize him. We are only asked to submit ourselves to him
(«
Subesse Romano Pontifici … omnino esse de necessitate salutis» (It is altogether necessary to submit to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved)
(Boniface VIII, Papal Bull
'Unam sanctam'), to pray for him, and to 'remain in total tranquility... knowing that Jesus Christ governs his Church" (Rosmini, Massime di perfezione cristiana, III massima).
Even an eventual fading out of this 'feeling' for Pope Francis can have beneficial effects in the long run, because it would force us not to dwell on his person, but to go beyond, to the One he represents. It will force us to distinguish between the person and the office he represents.
And it would be useful to recall what we are told about Don Bosco, because it would seem to refer to us today:
THE news from Rome had reached Turin, and even here one could here the occasional frenetic and obstinate screams, saying VIVA PIO NONO (Pius IX)! But Mons. Fransoni, Archbishop of Turin, understood right away that beneath the exaggerated expressions of enthusiasm lay the artifice of various sects, who had been solicited by the Pope to encourage the people to help Irishmen then in the grip of the Great Famine. On June 7, 1847, he wrote in a pastoral letter: "Those well-moderated ways of showing obsequy to the Pontiff deserve to be praised. Not like those who applaud Pius IX not for what he is, but for what they would want him to be. One must realize that it is not the noisy clapping of hands, nor wild tumultuous acclamation that will please him, but rather, listening obediently to his exhortations and carrying them out promptly, not that he commands you but that he invites you".
Don Bosco thought as his Archbishop did. Because naturally, even at his Oratory, everyone was shouting their lungs out with Vivas and Hosannas for the great Pontiff, especially since Don Bosco had always spoken to them about the Pope with great esteem.
He often told them that he was necessary to stay close to the Pope because he was the link that united the faithful to God, and he warned of ominous falls and punishments that would come to those who would dare oppose the Holy See or even censure it in the least. So much love was he able to instill in his own young people for the Pope that they felt ready to always be obedient and faithful to him, and even to defend him at the cost of their lives.
And so the young people were screaming EVVIVA PIO NONO! But they were surprised to hear him say now: "Do not shout VIVA PIO NONO, but simply VIVA IL PAPA!" "Why?" they asked him. "Isn't Pio Nono the Pope?"
"You are right," Don Bosco told them. "But you are not seeing beyond your senses. There are persons who wish to separate the Sovereign of Rome from the Pontiff, the man from his divine office. So we praise the person. but I do not see that you wish to have the same reverence for the dignity in which he is vested. So, let us be on the side of what is right and sure, and let us cheer VIVA IL PAPA". And all his young people cheered right back, VIVA IL PAPA! (Memorie biografiche, vol. III, Ch. 21).
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/04/2013 14:12]