| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 26.668
Post: 9.154 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Master | |
|
ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI
See preceding page for earlier posts today, 5/6/13.
Given that many in the media, and many more in the College of Cardinals, have been role-playing "If I were Pope, I would undo what Benedict XVI did wrong, which was just about everything" since February 11, 2013, it is not strange that Pope Francis has been the repository of much unsolicited advice...
When the Deputy Secretary of State says
'All this unsolicited advice raining down
on Pope Francis is rather strange...'
Translated from
May 6, 2013
Last May 1, the official bulletin of the Vatican Press Office published the text of an interview given by Deputy Secretary of State for General Affairs Mons. Angelo Becciu [the position is ]colloquially called 'Sostituto' or deputy, at the Vatican] to L'Osservatore Romano.
The topics he talked about were not bound to leave Vaticanistas indifferent, much less the fact that the unusual interview was given to begin with, indicating the importance and resonance that the Vatican attached to this piece. It is a case when we can even say \"the medium is the message".
In fact, the interview is crystal-clear and does not hide the desire on the part of the highest Vatican authorities [the Pope himself, I would say], to rebut, point by point, , a series of ideological interpretations, fantasy-filled readings and the projection of personal or collective ideas about Pope Francis that have accompanied the past few weeks at the Vatican like a cacophonic chorus.
The buzz has been very intense amid what many consider as the honeymoon of the major MSM outlets with the initial phase of Pope Francis's Pontificate.
The topics discussed by Mons. Becciu had to do with the much=announced reform of the Curia, the significance of the Council of eight cardinals named to advise the Pope on the governance of the Church, and the future of the 'Vatican bank' IOR. None of which would leave indifferent the many 'opinion makers' about the Vatican, who have been so active in the past two months.
It's very possible that the vast majority of the faithful have lived and are living through the events in the Church since February with simple enjoyment unclouded by polemics, but one cannot dismiss the medium-term impact that some of the familiar media refrains may have.
Becciu's answers are frank and even ironic, for example when he refers to the 'cataract of stories' that have been published about the future reform of the Curia, which he called "rather strange" because "the Pope has not even met with the group of advisers that he named, and already the advice is raining down on him..." Unsolicited advice, he might as well have said, but it is clear what he meant.
Moreover, he is as clear as black and white about one thing because the verbosity has also afflicted even some members of the Curia [who have public;y advanced their own proposals for how to reform the Curia]: All the heads of Curial offices and their #2-men continue for now in their positions until other provisions are made (donec aliter provideatur), because the Holy Father wishes to take his time to reflect and pray on what he must do, and know the situation better before he decides anything.
And so, there is no emergency about the Curia, the Pope wishes to study things well and he does not want any pre-cooked formulas for what he must do (especially since he has not asked for them).
Even more substantial perhaps is what Becciu said about what some have already called the cardinalatial G8. The pendulum swings between those who see in their appointment a democratic redefinition of the Church, and those who are scandalized because they see it as a move towards the demolition [or at least dilution] of the Papacy.
Mons. Becciu says "the group is simply a consultative organ, not one that will make decisions, and I really do not see how the election of Pope Francis could place the primacy of the Pope at risk".
But he says "it is a gesture of great importance which is meant to be a clear signal about the way in which the Holy Father intends to exercise his ministry".
Asked whether 'advisory' was not a rather vague description, he said "it must be interpreted from a theological perspective", and that in the history of the Church "providing advice has an absolutely important function in helping the superior to discern... and understand what the Spirit is asking of the Church at a given historical moment".
For those who are angered by the move, Mons, Becciu says, "Without this consideration [about the role of advising the Pope], nothing can be understood about the true significance of governing the Church".
The other question considered was about IOR and the urban legend that it could be abolished. Once more, Becciu speaks in the name of the Pope during the interview, to say that Pope Francis "is surprised that statements he never said are being attributed to him which misrepresent his thinking".
In fact, Pope Francis did make one public reference to IOR, in one of his extemporaneous homilies at the Santa Marta chapel, when he said, in effect, that the Church is a "love story between God and man" and that human structures, such as IOR, are much less important.
In other words, he was saying that man must not lose sight of the essential nature of the Church, and he made the reference to IOR because IOR employees were among the congregation for the Mass that morning. [I still maintain it was an inappropriate reference, because the IOR rank-and-file employees have nothing to do with the policies of IOR and how it is run - which all these years has been under the oversight of a five-man cardinals' commission! Moreover, it was, quite frankly, most unfair to use the IOR as an example of a Church organization that has lost its bearings, given that much has been done in the past few years to make its operations transparent and resolve the question of lay depositors who may have been using it o shelter and/or launder their funds; and that Moneyval, an EU agency, has approved these improvements. Papa Bergoglio himself and the cardinals who have been so critical of IOR cannot possibly know more about the workings of IOR and be more exigent than an external investigative agency that has no dog in the game, and has given favorable reports about IOR over the past two years.]
In any case, what the Pope said did not amount to saying he would shut down the IOR [which, it must be emphasized and reiterated, has been fulfilling its primary function to raise funds through its investments for religious and charitable works undertaken by the Holy Father and the Holy See]. But often, the crusading reformers often confuse their thinking for reality.
[Since I am rather obsessive-compulsive about dotting i's and crossing t's, let me just re-post here the entire Becciu interview.]
The Vatican today took the unusual step of reproducing on its daily bulletin an interview with the Deputy Secretary of State (Sostituto) Mons. Angelo Becciu, published on Page 1 of the May 1, 2013, issue of L'Osservatore Romano, in which Becciu says Pope Francis has been surprised at statements attributed to him which he never said.
Reform under Pope Francis:
'Absolutely premature to make hypotheses
about the future re-structuring of the Curia'
Interview with Mons. Angelo Becciu
Translated from
May 1, 2013
On April 13, it was reported that Pope Francis has constituted a group of eight cardinals to advise him on the governance of the universal Church and to study a plan to revise the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus [promulgated by John Paul II in 1984 to spell out the structure and functions of the Roman Curia and its various offices].
The decision raised great interest and gave way to not a few speculations. About which Archbishop Angelo Becciu, deputy Secretary of State, spoke to our newspaper.
About the reforms of the Curia, many opinions have been widely aired regarding balance of powers, moderatorts, coordinators, 'a super-ministry for the (Vatican) economy', a revolution...
Actually, it is rather strange. The Pope still has to meet with the group of advisers he has chosen, and yet 'advice' has been raining down. After having spoken to the Holy Father, I can say that at this time, it is absolutely premature to advance any hypothesis regarding the future of the Roman Curia.
Pope Francis is listening to everyone, but above all, he will listen to his chosen advisers. Subsequently, there will be a project to revise Pastor bonus, but this will obviously follow its own course.
Much has also been said about IOR (Istituto per Opere Religiose, the official name of what is commonly called 'the Vaqtican bank'), and some have said it may be abolished...
The Pope has been surprised by seeing some statements attributed to him which he never said and which misrepresent his thinking. The only reference he has made to IOR in public was during a brief homily in Santa Marta, spoken off the cuff, in which he said quite passionately that the Church is a love story between God and men, and how human structures, like IOR, are less important.
The reference [to IOR] was made in good humor [Besciu used the Italian word 'battuta', which means in this case, a joke or a quip] because some employees of IOR were present at the Mass, made in the context of a serious call never to lose sight of what is essential in the Church.
[Obviously, the Vatican - starting with the Pope - has realized the 'strangeness' of the reference made by Pope Francis to IOR at that homily - a reference that the OR itself omitted in its report of the homily, but which was included and later deleted from the report of the Italian service of Vatican Radio on the same homily. I remarked at the time about the inappropriateness of the remark within a papal homily.]
Can one say that there is no imminent change to the actual structure of the Curial dicasteries?
I do not know about timing. Nonetheless, the Pope has asked all of us, who hold responsible positions in the dicasteries, to continue in our work, without wishing for now to confirm anyone in their present positions.
The same goes for the members of the Congregations and Pontifical Councils. The normal cycle of tenure, which is renewed every five years, has been suspended for now, and everyone remains in place "until otherwise provided" ('donec aliter provideatur').
This shows the desire of the Holy Father to take the time necessary for reflection - and prayer, we must not forget that - in order to have a deeper knowledge of the situation. [i.e., the Pope is not necessarily just 'swallowing' all the dire assessments of the Roman Curia generously ventilated in the past several months without any attempt at specific substantiation, not just by the media but by leading cardinals, some of them in the Pope's Council of 8.]
Regarding the council of advisers, some have said that having them could raise a question about the primacy of the Pope...
It is a consultative organ, not a decisional one, and I really cannot see why this move could raise any question about the primacy of the Pope.
But it is a gesture of great relevance which signals precisely the way in which the Holy Father intends to carry out his ministry. We must not forget that the first task assigned to the eight cardinals is to assist the Pontiff in the governance of the universal Church.
Curiosity about the eventual structures and arrangements in the Roman Curia should not relegate to second place the profound sense of the decision taken by Pope Francis.
But is not the expression 'advisory' too vague?
On the contrary, giving advise is an important action which is defined theologically in the Church and is expressed at many levels. Think, for example, of all the participatory organisms in the dioceses and parishes, or the councils formed by superiors and provincials in the religious orders.
The function of advice must be interpreted theologically. In the worldly view, a council that does not have deliberative power is irrelevant, but that would be saying that the Church is like a business corporation.
But theologically, giving advise is a function of absolute relevance: in order to help one's superior in the work of discernment, to understand what the Holy Spirit is asking of the Church at a given historical moment. Without this in mind, even the authentic significance of the act of governing the Church cannot be understood.
What do you feel about working with Pope Francis?
I was able to work closely with Pope Benedict, and I am continuing my work with Pope Francis. Of course, each has his own personality and his own style, and I feel truly privileged for this close contact with two men who are totally dedicated to the good of the Church, detached from themselves but immersed in God and with one single passion: to make the beauty of the Gospel known to men and women today.
[Thank you, Mons. Becciu, for avoiding the facile attitude taken by almost every single one of the Church hierarchy who has spoken in public since March 13, 2005 - either ignoring that Benedict XVI had been Pope for the past eight years, or referring to his Pontificate only to suggest that it represented everything wrong with the Church that the new Pope was elected to change for the better - a shameless and shameful attitude I cannot explain in men of God considered 'princes of the Church'.
I am sure, however, that the emphatic statements made by Mons. Becciu about the intentions of Pope Francis with regard to Curial reform will not put an end to the 'rain' of advice and speculations in the MSM, if not of some of the Church hierarchy. who will not miss a chance to put down Benedict XVI to advance their agenda and/or to indulge their own personal animus against him.]
An Italian journalist, Francisco Peloso, has taken note of the Becciu interview and the prominence given to it by the Vatican, in an article entitled "Pope Francis's first 'tactless' incident?", referring to the IOR reference at the homily www.linkiesta.it/papa-francesco-ior
But Lella notes on her blog that apart from Avvenire and two other newspapers, the Italian press has apparently ignored Becciu's interview (as the MSM ignores anything that runs contrary to the narrative they have chosen to impose on any subject.]
P.S. Sandro Magister, or whoever (***) is; has taken belated note of the Becciu interview on the www.chiesa site
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350512?eng=y
with nothing new to add except the egregiously offensive statements made yesterday by the Prefect of the Institutes of Consecrated Life, etc., speaking to a gathering of international sisters' orders in Rome in which he complains he was never consulted by the CDF about the decisions made regarding the LCWR.
ncronline.org/news/sisters-stories/vatican-religious-prefect-i-was-left-out-lcwr...
First, it was very wrong to make that complaint in public. Why did he not complain at the time? All he had to do was call Cardinal Levada, then CDF Prefect. What Cardinal Braz de Aziz does not mention is that he was appointed Prefect in January 2011, when the apostolic visitation on sisters' orders in the USA and a parallel one on the LCWR specifically had already taken place (it began in 2009, under Braz de Aziz's predecessor, Cardinal Franc Rode) and their recommendations had been made and acted upon by the CDF and Pope Benedict XVI. I certainly hope Cardinal Levada and/or the CDF issue a statement to reply to Braz de Aziz if only to set the record straight, not to cast back the stone he so deliberately hurled at them.
The CDF became the lead agency in dealing with the LCWR because the problem that Rome has with this group, which is statutorily under the supervision of the Vatican, is their radical doctrinal divergence from the Church Magisterium, which the apostolic visitation confirmed. Doctrinal discipline is not within the competence of Braz de Aziz's dicastery.
In any case, Pope Francis has confirmed the conclusions taken by the apostolic visitators about the LCRW and the plan that the USCCB announced last year for Bishop Sartain to oversee the implementation of the recommendations to bring the near-apostate sisters to heel. What does Braz de Aziz have to say about that?
Did Pope Francis consult him before he confirmed the CDF plan for the LCRW? And yet, the Brazilian cardinal boasted to the sisters that the Pope had consulted him about who he wanted to be his #2 man at the dicastery, and that he agreed right away when Braz de Aziz suggested the man who was appointed, the former Superior General of the Franciscan conventual friars. He does not say anything about the Pope consulting him about the LCRW! If he had, would he have omitted saying that?
Braz de Aziz 'making nice' with the LCRW will not change the situation - and he is deluding himself if he thinks that the LCRW problem can be wished away with 'dialog'. The harridans of LCRW are unrepentant, intransigent and determined to push their 'contrary Magisterium'. And the worst part is they really believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, especially the Vatican.
It bears looking into how and why Benedict XVI appointed Braz de Aziz at all, to begin with. [P.S. Rorate caeli claims that B16 had wanted the world's largest Catholic country to be represented among the Curial heads (after Cardinal Hummes retired in 2010), and that Braz de Aziz was the name recommended to him by the Brazilian bishops' conference.]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 08/05/2013 02:21] |