BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

One welcomes this commentary by former priest Gianni Gennari, who sought and got laicization in the 1980s, with the help of then Cardinal Ratzinger, in order to marry. Gennari, a theologian, transitioned to a career as journalist and for decades now, has written for Avvenire, where he has a daily column. It is ironic that he wrote this for Vatican Insider, where veteran Vaticanista Andrea Tornielli himself has persisted in the obvious anomaly of referring to 'two Popes' when there can only be one Pope at a time....

About the supposed problem
with having 'two Popes'
There is no problem except that created by some in the media
by Gianni Gennari
Translated from the Italian service of

May 5, 2013

This intervention is intended to safeguard the category of newsmen who write about the Vatican, and Vatican Insider seems to me to be the most appropriate place to do it.

It often happens that in writing about religion, many of us do not even have the minimal competence. Even in the most prestigious media outlets. For example, one recently read in L'Espresso [Italy's largest weekly newsmagazine] that "Papa Bergoglio serves Mass every day"? Now whoever wrote this obviously does not know the difference between a Mass server (usually an altar boy) and a Mass celebrant (a priest, a bishop or the Pope). [And what was his editor doing? Sleeping at the job? Actually, I have been railing for years against AP, for instance, which habitually captions any photo of the Pope making a blessing as "the Pope blesses the faithful at a Mass..." usually during a General Audience, or, alternatively, will caption a photo "The Pope performed Mass..." ('Performed'? They never read anywhere that a Mass is 'said' or 'celebrated' or 'offered', not 'performed') - whether it is, in fact, a Mass, or other liturgy such as Vespers or Adoration, Mass seems to be the only Catholic service they have heard of. As it has become habitual for them, one concludes that they - neither the reporters nor their editors - do not know any better, and they don't care to know any better.

As for editors, it appears contemporary editors have no other function but to determine whether a report or commentary is in line with their particular media outlet's ideology or political position, and have completely dropped the essential functions of an editor to check each item for factual accuracy, for objectivity and fairness, for appropriate tone and language, and for grammar and vocabulary. This is totally unacceptable, but it has become the general practice, and so, anyone who calls himself a journalist has carte blanche to write what he wants and how he wants it without being accountable to anyone - everyone might as well be blogging, so self-indulgent are most news reports these days. At least, the more reputable bloggers seek to be well-informed.]

Then one also gets to read that Pope Francis is "the first non-European Pope in history". Really? Was St. Peter European? Pope St. Anicetus came from Syria, as did John V, Sergius I, Constantine and Sisinius. Pope St. Victor I, Pope St. Melchiades, and Pope St. Gelasius I were African...

But even this is not so serious, in my opinion, because there are even worse things. For some time now, prominent journalists who usually write about other topics, have also been writing about the Church, the Vatican, Popes and cardinals, conclaves and congregations, the Roman Curia, etc., as if they were experts opr specialists. Obviously, they are free to do so.

But what about their readers [especially those who do not know any better, and who still consider what they read in their newspaper or see on TV news as gospel truth]? Some may find the statements not just questionable, but weird or merely speculative, sensationalistic or even downright freaky.

Today (Sunday), with Corriere della Sera leading the charge, there was a commentary by Massimo Franco [whose entire career has been as a political journalist], who recently published a book whose principal thesis was expressed in its very title C'era una volta un Vaticano (There once was a Vatican) - meaning there isn't now?

Of course, the Vatican has not vanished [otherwise, what would Franco write about, now that he seems to find Church politics more interesting than secular politics, to the point of writing a book about it - in which, of course, he passes everything about the Church and the Vatican through his prism of secular politics] But the elements of fatal and irreversible 'crisis' heralded on each page of the book seem to have drastically diminished [in the perception of its 'seriousness' and the extent of 'concern' over this so-called 'crisis'] in the past six weeks! Just read the media reporting around the world or watch the TV news!

There is still a Vatican, which is as it has always been, while different from year to year, at least since the reality of the Papacy has been focused there.

Whoever is old enough to recall the transition from Pius XII to John XXIII may remember great changes in terms of 'continuity. And now? With all due respect for Franco's book, one must smile at the singular hypotheses that underlie it and which now seem to have disappeared overnight.

But the book was not enough, because today, Franco piles on something new: "The Vatican and the difficult management of an anomaly" is the headline, with the subtitle "Snapshots of a co-habitation". A whole page = devoted to the claim that the Catholic world has been upset and placed in turmoil by the renunciation of Benedict XVI and even more by his presence, first in Castel Gandolfo, and now within the Vatican itself. [These critics have to be consistent. If they see Pope Francis as the SuperPope who has made all the presumed Vatican ills of the Benedict Pontificate evaporate into thin air by his very presence (or so it seems, because now, no one talks about them at all!), then he should be SuperPope enough to be able to counteract any malevolent machinations of Lex Luthor-Benedict! He could vaporize him out of existence, too, if he so desired. So what's their problem?]

Franco says outright: "A co-habitation that is difficult to manage even for the top officials in the Church". [One would think Francis and Benedict had moved in together! What are these top officials worried about? They don't have to manage anything, neither Francis or Benedict. And the Church would be better served if they literally minded their own business, instead of seeing a problem where there is none.] And it is implied that the reason for the difficulty is obvious [i.e. Benedict XVI, always the 'inconvenient man'!]. And that is proof?

Franco and the Corriere della Sera, which illustrates this 'co-habitation' with the two photos and bulletin released by the Vatican, also cite Cardinal Camillo Ruini who is quoted as saying, "Joseph Ratzinger has chosen not to explain to anyone the reasons that led to his resignation". [Did he really say that? How my regard for Ruini has plummeted! It still strikes me as extreme perversity for anyone to speculate that there can be any other reason for Benedict XVI's resignation than what he clearly stated - the physical disabilities brought on by advancing age - even aasuming that the physical toll could have been aggravated by the 'problems' besetting 'the Roman Curia' and IOR in the last 12 months of his Pontificate (the Vatileaks episode became public fodder at the end of January 2012)] In fact, the pendulum swung to the other extreme after the video-clip of the March 23 meeting with Pope Francis, when excitable, sensation-mongering journalists like that Spanish female correspondent who was launching a new book about Benedict's Pontificate, claimed on the basis of the same images we all saw that the former Pope was suffering from some terrible terminal disease and 'would not be with us for long'. They were skeptical about the reason he gave for resigning, but now they would have him at death's door!

But as an argument to explain the supposed universal upset over Benedict XVI's actions, Ruini's alleged statement just does not do it. Obviously no one could have predicted that Benedict XVI was going to resign (other than one journalist who thought he would resign when he turned 85, just because!) - the announcement really came like a lightning bolt, like that which struck the dome of St. Peter on that very evening of February 11.

And it is true that our colleague Giovanna Chirri of ANSA underwent a temblor of emotion when she realized what she had just heard Benedict XVI say in Latin [apparently, the first journalist to do so that day]. But why would anyone say that the news 'upset' the Catholic world?

There was surprise, yes, even wonder. But perturbation, turmoil? It was always known - or it should have been - that a papal resignation is possible, and that in the past, it had occurred for different reasons and in various ways.

It is known, for instance, that Paul VI had thought about it seriously, and that John Paul II had considered the possibility. But they both decided to stay until death ended their Pontificate.

So, of course, Benedict XVI's resignation came as a huge surprise.
But did he thereby cause turmoil, and even 'raised doubts' about the faith? [But that was the reflex reaction of those who always were hostile to Benedict XVI - it gave them a pretext to present him once again in a negative light, as if his action was completely disgraceful or unworthy ("Hey, didn't we always say he's a no-goodnik?").]

Yes, there were some traditionalists who said he had dealt a backhanded blow to the Papacy - desacralization, negation of infallibility [even if papal infallibility refers only to the Pope's statements on faith and morals, not to any other statements or actions!], etc.

But whoever knows his faith, Catholicism, had no reason to be 'upset' or 'perturbed'! Perhaps some monsignor would have preferred a different course of events, or a different mode, and said so to Franco, but in reporting it the way he does, Franco has cast a blanket of ambiguity on the entire ecclesiastical world in Rome.

And perhaps there may have been individuals who were truly upset, perhaps among those who think their 'careers' may now be in peril or uncertain, especially with a new Pope who has denounced 'careerists', and who may therefore have made everyone fear for their positions in the pecking order. [Wait! Didn't Benedict XVI denounce careerism everytime he addressed priests, bishops and seminarians in the past eight years? Even Gennari seems to think this attitude only begun with Francis, or that Benedict tolerated careerism in the Curia! I cannot think of a single Curial head or #2 man he has named who was a careerist, other than the execrable Mons. Vigano, who was promptly taken off line. And I won't count Cardinal Bertone because Benedict XVI did gift him with the culmination of his ecclesial career (he was ne er considered papabile, so SecState was as far as he could go), even if he chose to misuse the gift!]

In any case, maximum discretion was observed during Benedict XVI's return to the Vatican on Thursday. Even if Page 1 of both L'Osservatore Romano and Avvenire took note of the event, without fuss or problems, reporting the bare facts and maintaining the privacy it deserved. [It may have deserved far less notice even in those two newspapers if Pope Francis had no part at all in the story. The fact that he chose to welcome his predecessor personally made it inevitable that the 'return' would be covered and reported. I frankly don't think any news outlet would have had any problem suppressing any story about the return if Pope Francis had been out of the picture. It doesn't serve their agenda or their narrative to report about Benedict XVI alone, unless it is something negative or that they can make to appear negative, i.e., ex-Pope in himself and by himself is not newsworthy]

The event was simple and reported simply: Benedict XVI returned to the Vatican from Castel Gandolfo, and was welcomed by Pope Francis. So what problem could there be with that?

Yet there are those other than Franco who have said that Benedict's presence in the Vatican could weigh down Francis - and they don't know whereof they speak. No one who is familiar with the entire life and personal comportment of Joseph Ratzinger can have the least doubt about his discretion and the refined courtesy of all his actions. He, most of all, knows there is only one Pope.

The emeritus Bishop of Rome is no longer Pope by his own free choice, and he has pledged reverence and obedience to his successor, as any cardinal, bishop or priest has done. So where is the problem? There are not 'two Popes'.

And who is upset? Massimo Franco and some prelate(s) he knows and frequents, perhaps who has (have) already been his sources for the anecdotes in his book on the 'end' of whatever he perceives to be the Vatican. In fact, there is only one Vatican, and it's still there.
…
What theological and paleological problem could there be [about Benedict XVI living in the Vatican] with the People of God who make up the Church, both at the base and at the top? Our current Pope is Francis, who appears to love, esteem and visibly appreciate the emeritus Pope, whom he has taken in as a brother and esteemed friend, whom he loves in the light of the one Lord who is really the one who leads the Church = as both Benedict and Francis have said.

Moreover, and perhaps this is something no one has pointed out to Franco and his ilk, for over 40 years now, the Catholic Church has known the presence of two bishops, one emeritus and the other in actual office, after Paul VI established in the 1970s with his motu proprio Ingravescentem aetatem [On the burden of advanced age) the practice of bishops resigning at a certain age (though the Pope can accept the resignation right away or extend the bishop's active service for a few more years). [Benedict XVI used the phrase 'ingravescente aetate' = because of advanced age - in announcing his resignation.]

So why does anyone speak about disconcertment, perturbation, upset, doubts, anonymous grumblings? Perhaps it would be better all around if newsmen concerned themselves only with material facts and not with presumptions - sometimes just to accommodate some anonymous malcontent venting against the Vatican... Imagine the outcry of protests if Vaticanistas suddenly fancied themselves Quirinalists [those who report about the Italian President, who lives in the Quirinale Palace] and suddenly started writing about the Italian government and political parties - an outcry because they obviously lack the experience to be taken seriously about a topic far afield from their beat.

But everyone seems to think he can write freely - even books - about the Church and the Vatican, Popes and cardinals It's their freedom. Just as we are also free to point out the limitations of their analysis, cordially and sincerely...

Not too long ago, I posted something execrable from the pen of Massimo Franco - he has been a habitual offender in terms of thinking the Church would be far better off if he were Pope, the underlying premise of his presumptions, as they are of La Repubblica's self-crowned Pope of secularism, Eugenio Scalfari, and lately, it seems, of George Weigel, in pushing the recommendations of his book, Evangelical Catholicism.