NEWS ABOUT BENEDICT

OREMUS PRO PONTEFICE NOSTRO

---

The Holy Father requests the prayers of all the faithful so that the Lord may illumine the road for the Church. May the commitment of Pastors and the faithful grow, in support of the delicate and weighty mission of the Successor of the Apostle Peter as 'the guardian of unity' in the Church.
- Vatican Note, Feb. 4, 2009

---

Sorry to have messed up yesterday - I didn't realize the last post (Luigi Accattoli's article) was double-posted. {This is what happens when one is trying to make up for a lost day at 2 o'clock in the morning!) I have now taken out the repeat, which was in this space, and replaced it with a re-post of the Le Figaro article which, I discovered to my horror, I had incompletely translated. I had lifted it online to a Word document, and I missed translating Page 2 of the document. This is the complete translation.




For all intents and purposes, we are entering the fifth year of Benedict XVI's Pontificate, Deo gratias, even though April 19 is still a few days away.

While the Italian papers observed Angel's Monday today by not publishing, Le Figaro today (Monday, 4/13/09) has a 'major' article on Benedict's Pontificate - even if it continues to perpetrate the media's own myths. It is unfortunate that what passes for analysis is little more than a superficial recapitulation of exhausted but ingrained biases, with no attempt at analytical distance.


BENEDICT XVI'S VIA CRUCIS


[Caption]: Benedict XVI, Sunday, on the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. [OObviously not!] The Pope rufuses to be enclosed within political categories and remains impervious to those who find him 'naive' or 'isolated'. His principal concern remains 'the mistery of God'. [AFP photo]

Beyond recent controversy, it is the application of Vatican II which is the principal stake of the Pontificate which began four years ago, on April 19, 2005.

Last Friday night, Benedict XVI carried the Cross. The Via Crucis at the Colosseum had a very special significance for him. On the eve of his 82nd birthday, on April 16, he had just undergone the most violent tempest in the four years of his Pontificate, begun on April 19, 2005.

The succession in this first three months of the year, of three 'cases' - lifting the excommunication of four Lefebvrian bishops of which one is a Holocaust denier; the issue over the 9-year-old Brazilian girl whose twin pregnancy resulting from rape by her stepfather was aborted [an 'issue' that seemed to have 'caught on' only in France outside of Brazil]; and the Pope's statements on condoms and AIDS in Africa - all brought unprecedented trouble within the Church as outside it. [An exaggeration that reflects the media-generated inflation of these situations!] - a sort of crisis in confidence which has led some to question the credibility of Benedict XVI. [Typical MSM set-up to convey a fallacious impression as being more 'widespread' than within the proponent's biased milieu!]

The three cases may have nothing to do with such a crisis but together they do provoke the same reflex accusations. [Well, at least he uses the term 'reflex accusations; himself - if that's not an admission of bias, what is?]

All such accusations are directed at 'the Vatican', 'the Pope's entourage', or 'the theologian Pope' - in short, it is Rome that is the source of all evils.

But a visit this Holy Week to the 'arcanities' of the Vatican - Italian observers, workers in the Curia, cardinals, personages close to teh Pope who require anonymity in order to speak the truth - makes it appear that these three cases have also served to highlight three structural problems that weigh on Benedict XVI - his three 'crosses', in effect.

The first, if it were not just a series of gaffes, would be fatal. Counter examples are abundant in his pontificate, but the three instances make it appear as if Benedict XVI obtains the exact opposite of his intended objective.

In wanting to lift the excommunication of the bishops illicitly ordained by Mons. Lefebvre, the Pope - who has primary responsibility for the unity of the Church - sought to eliminate the risk of a lasting schism.

But instead of 'unity', he only reaped profound division because of the negationist statements of Mons. Williamson's negationism which was well-known in the Vaticanbut about which no one informed the Pope. [The statement contains two assertions that serve to reinforce the very impression the writer seemingly intends to counteract! Vehement dissent by some European bishops does not constitute 'profound division' in a Church with 1.2 billion members, and Williamson's negationism was obviously not 'well-known' in the Vatican!

The only previous public statement by Mons. Williamson to his weird beliefs was in 1989 in Canada - and no references to it were available online until after the January 21 airing of his interview with Swedish TV. But the critics have now successfully crated teh myth that this information was always available! And by the way, equally important, neither was there a single account of outrage by anyone - Jews and media included - about Williamson's negationism before January 21, 2009. Swedish TV could have made a big to-do about it when they first got the interview in November 2008, but they chose to keep it under wraps!]

As for condoms and AIDS, he took a risk by stigmatizing anti-AIDS campaigns based solely on condom use - something John Paul II never did. His statements as reported incompletely [Thank you for acknowledging that!] gave the impression that the Church continues to reject a means recognized by medicine to reduce a mortal epidemic even if ti is not 100% reliable. [Again, the statement cleverly conveys an untruth as fact, when studies publicized after the Pope's statements show that condoms succeed in cutting down AIDS spread only among the three high-risk populations - prostitutes, homosexuals and drug addicts - who certainly do not constitute the majority of AIDS patients in Africa!] Thus, they say, the Pope is a positive accomplice to sowing death. {But that is the impression most of the media reporting tended to create - some even say so explicitly, 'quoting' critics, of course - and the impression Guenois himself continues to perpetrate in these statements.]

Paradoxically, Benedict XVI appears to recognize - implicitly, but for the first time - the possibility of using condoms as prophylaxis! The best proof came, four days after the Pope's statements, through a Page 1 article in L'Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See.

It recounted the experience in Uganda where a campaign based on advocating monogamous faithfulness in couples, abstinence among young unmarried persons and the condom for certain high-risk groups (homosexuals, prostitutes, drug addicts).

[Oh, here he cites what I just cited but in a totally perverse way. Obviously, for purposes of Church teaching, the sexual practices engaged in by these three groups are obviously not for procreation in any way, and would impose the practical obligation on the part of these groups to protect themselves! The Church opposes the use of condoms for contraception, and therefore, implicitly, only among married couples. Unmarried couples using condoms are sinning already by engaging in sex outside marriage, so their use of condoms is not really the question! How can this not be obvious to anyone who takes a moment to think about it?]

Uganda has had the best results in Africa with its campaign against AIDS, dropping down from an AIDS infection rate of 15% of the population to 5% in ten years (1991-2001).

Above all, the article was not published at random: it received, before it was published, the go-ahead from teh highest doctrinal authority of the Vatican, teh Congregation of or the Doctrine of the Faith. [Here, Guenois is playing naive deliberately. The Church has always cited the Ugandan ABC campaign as an example, even if it was largely unreported in a Western world that is so invested so wrongheadedly in the condom as the only anti-AIDS 'strategy' worth considering. And it certainly does not need the CDF to sanction reporting objective fact!!!!]

Benedict's second 'Cross' is internal. It is a divided Roman Curia. Opposing currents - or even 'parties', the term Italians prefer - have always existed there. But the division sharpened with the Williamson case, which was considered extremely toxic and where interested parties have not stopped measuring the harm it has caused.
[What harm exactly? Except for reinforcing the un-Christian attitude of sanctimonious types who are more concerned with the good opinion of Jews rather than seeing that Williamson's unfortunate views are simply an individual failing - like we all have - for which he alone, Williamson, is answerable (just as each of us alone is answerable for our own sins and failings), and not the Church!

There's a complete loss of perspective in this whole matter, in which the Holocaust is made to appear like a dogma of faith. That it is historical fact does not make it an article of faith!

Williamson is obviously wrong in what he believes - the more improbable because he seems to be otherwise a person whose intelligence is above average. But look at the super-intelligent persons, too, who believe in the infallibility of their global warming catastrophism, ignoring the cyclicity of global temperature conditions over centuries and eons, as well as shorter-term data such as those of the past 100 years which tend to contradict their catastrophism!]]

But the malaise is wider. The principal target appears to be the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. This 'prime minister', who will turn 75 this year, has the full confidence of the Pope, dating from when he was Cardinal Ratzinger's #2 man for some time at the CDF.

The tandem was well-oiled. And the Pope, who prefers to work on his theology alone, completely trusted him to run the Vatican's complex machinery. But this Salesian is resented for not having come through the Vatican's prestigious diplomatic route, the Roman 'academy' which trains nuncios and has provided the Vatican with its secretaries of state. [Isn't it surprising that Guenois fails to flesh out the anti-Bertone factionalism in any way? The charge is worse now than merely being an outsider - it is that he has failed to exercise any control of teh Curia at all, much less of the Secretariat of Satte itself.]

The last trial for Benedict XVI is to remain symbolically as John Paul II's 'successor' [an impression media reinforces daily - the Pope, any Pope, is the Successor of Peter, not the successor of his immediate predecessor!]

Even after four years, he continues to be compared to him, consciously or unconsciously. More so in a time of crisis. The statue of the charismatic giant is there to cast a shadow.[This is the mind-set of those who cannot conceive that it is possible to have two great Popes in succession. All Catholics should be proud that the Church, at this time, had Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger to lead the Church.

John Paul II's greatness should not in any way diminish or detract from Joseph Ratzinger's sterling qualities and a greatness that does not rest on 'charisma' as the media sees it, but on genuine charism in the sense of grace from the Holy Spirit.]

Benedict XVI is self-deprecating and does not have his predecessor's mediatic qualities. [He certainly does, but they are of a different kind - and media only recognize showman-type charisma, it seems. If the 'media' existed as they do today in Jesus's time, would they have found him 'charismatic' at all? Or would they have dismissed him as nothing more than 'a mild-mannered country rabbi preaching along the dusty roads of Galilee', as revisionist historico-critical accounts reduce him?]

Benedict XVI, it is said, rejects 'false personalization' [I don't recall in four years of trying to look at everything I can about him that he ever used the term.What he does say all the time and in many different ways is that he is not presenting himself or his message - but Christ and his message.] He wants to disappear behind his function. But this is an a priori devaluation in terms of image. ['Mais c'est une dévalorisation a priori en terme d'image' - I dont know exactly what Guenois means by this!]

These three problems - communication, government and a nostalgia for the Pope-star [Wait! Didn't most of the media hail Benedict as a 'superstar' during his triumphal visits to Cologne, the United Sattes and Australia? - The media bias is weird, because they did not apply the same 'verdict' to his equally triumphal visits to Poland (where John Paul's compatriots showed the world what genuine veneration is for a Pope, even one who 'replaced' their own!), Bavaria, France, and most remarkably, Africa!] -
have evoked floods of commentary in Rome but are still, according to better informed observers, confined to the periphery and do not affect the man at the center himself.

They suggest to observe the Pope himself during all these controversies and to take better consideration of the Church's global and historical reach. [But does any fair-minded journalist need this to be pointed out? The answer may be that there hardly is any fair-minded journalist out there reporting on the Pope and the Church!]

Added material starts here:

The European crisis over condoms and AIDS in Africa, for example, has been experienced here - some insist - from two angles: European and African.

And the Africans - not only the national Catholic churches but also the governments (all represented by ambassadors to the Holy See) - are 'furious', it is said, at the European polemics which have obscured the Pope's message in Africa. Whereas the Americas have hardly followed the news.

Another example is the 'affaire integriste' ['integriste' is the French term for 'fundamentalist' in the religious sense, but more specifically for traditionalists like the Lefebvrians]. It is too remote from the concerns of the Churches in Asia or the Middle East, who expect a lot from Benedict XVI's visit to Jordan and Israel next month.

It is the same expectation, they say, from German Catholics who hope that a grand papal gesture in Jerusalem will 'settle the Williamson account', so to speak. [Out of a rather selfish consideration, I believe - a pique of conscience that has more to do with 'ego' (conscious selfishnmess) than 'superego' [in the Freudian sense, what we Christians call 'conscience')]

Equally, Benedict's pontificate has a reach in time. Recemt tensions, often described as 'transient' in conversations, are seen as the continuing consequence of a stake first marked out more than a century ago, when the Church criticized modernism without any concessions - an intransigence that was put into question 40 years ago with Vatican-II.

[The reference above is to Pius IX and his December 1864 encyclical Quanta cura which contained the Syllabus of Errors, an appendix that listed and "condemned as heresy 80 propositions, many on political topics, and firmly established his pontificate in opposition to secularism, rationalism, and modernism in all its forms" - this, of course, has been wrongly passed off by anti-Church elements as being anti-modernity. Modernism is the ideology of adhering to anything modern just because it is modern, and its adherents are modernists. Modernity is the fact itself, and one can be modern without being modernist, and without casting away everything that came before.

According to this view, John Paul II's Pontificate was able to gloss over - without fixing anything - the dissension between the Church's two violently opposed tendencies [orthodox/conservative vs progressivist/modeernist], which have surfaced these days in all fury. A 'Church of No', to take the title of a critical book by the Vaticanista Marco Politi, who claims that under Benedict XVI, the Church is going back to the path of intransigence.

But the Pope himself does not 'wish' any such thing, according to someone who works closely with him. [Why should Guenois need someone else's testimony for this, when it is quite clear from everything Benedict XVI says and does?]

The central question for this Pope, who refuses to be enclosed within political categories, and who is impervious to those who think he is too 'naive' or 'isolated' - he sses too few people, in effect [all those bishops and ambassadors from around the world are 'too few'????] - is the 'mystery of God'.

He recalled this in his March 10 letter on the traditionalist case: "The overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God". And this "continues unchanged as my plan of action", he says.

In this spirit, on Thursday morning, at the Chrismal Mass with the priests of the Diocese of Rome, a very serene Benedict XVI was the very picture of what he called 'the essence of priesthood': "a transfer of ownership, a being taken out of the world and given to God".

And so, File Number 1 for this Pope, according to a member of his entourage, is not the image of the Pope, nor Catholic intransigence on doctrine, but a reversal of perspective - through preaching not by 'seduction' - to a 'better reception of Vatican II' which had been conceived, after all, as 'a way to bring men closer to God'.

Therefore, what really counts for Benedict XVI is the ability of the Church "to speak of God to contemporary man'.

And here there is a divergence even among those who support Benedict XVI: some are concerned about the consequences - 'not perceived enough in the Curia' - of any rejection of the Pope. And they have lost all indulgence [for the assaults in the Pope] - they don't want to hear any more.

But there are those who think this crisis is 'healthy' because it would allow a release from the post-John Paul II period, and 'without opposing them' [Who? The critics?], to be able to begin 'the true Pontificate of Benedict XVI'. [I agree about leaving the 'post-JPII period' behind, but the 'true pontificate of Benedict XVI' was always there, clear and unmistakable, from his appearance on the Loggia on April 19, 2005.]





Here is an editorial In Le Figaro, published earlier than the above article.


A long-term Pope
Translated from the issue of 4/11/09




What will Benedict XVI be thinking of when he celebrates the Mass of the Resurrection on St. Peter's Square? To the recent weeks which saw the bimillennial ship (to echo Andre Forssard) assailed by a storm of controversy and anathema?

But it is all within the order of things that the Lenten season should be marked by trials. Should the joy of Easter come without the Catholic Church having to endure testing, temptation, injustice?

And would this not recall to Benedict XVI those days in April 2005, when, after the funeral for John Paul II, he was carried by the cardinals onto the Chair of Peter?

Not that his predecessor's Pontificate was nothing but tranquil, An iron fist against Communism, an alert against the excesses of liberalism and relativism, and not a few media hurricanes.

For example: the hue and cry cver his recall of Jacques Gaillot as bishop of Evreux [Gaillot is an ultra-liberal French bishop who was asked by the Vatican to resign as Bishop of Evreux in 1995 after years of openly advocating all the liberal positions that are against Church teaching, from abortion to gay marriage to opposing priestly celibacy, in the name of 'solidarity with the people' He continues to be a bishop at large.]

Or the hue and cry after he made statements about condoms and AIDS in Uganda [Which, curiously, not one journalist referred to in the mass assault against Benedict xVI for what he said about the same issue!]

How do the recent controversies around Benedict XVI enter into an assessment of his Pontificate thus far?

It was precisely with a long-term view that Benedict XVI made it clear when he became Pope four years ago that he does not have 'a program of government' except God's will.

A professor rather than a 'minister', a pedagogue rather than a 'communicator', he has udnertaken a 'catechetical cycle', one might say, to give back to Christians the fundamentals of the faith, and to all men, some markers for living.

Benedict's undertaking is for the long term. But he has a bad press, every ready to trip him up, to rebut him. But really, what sense is there to interrupt the professor in the middle of his lecture? Of judging him during the school year without letting him run his course?

The Pope knows very well that the world lives in impatience. That the tempo of indignation-emotion leads everyone into a dance in which reason finds no place. Our mentality as modern men judges a tree by its appearance ,when eternal wisdom says it must be judged by its fruits.

Four years after his installation as the head of the Catholic Church, who has really read and re-read Benedict's great texts, away from the fracas of imprecations?

Who has really read the Regensburg lecture (not merely the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II), his letter to the bishops (and not merely Bishop Williamson's outrageous statements), his homilies in Yaounde and Luanda (not just fragments of them)?

Whether he's addressing the young people of France or the leaders of the world (United Nations, April 2008), Benedict XVI calls on men to elevate themselves - be it in their social, emotional, professional lives - Benedict wants all of mankind to aim higher, do better.

A the moment, Benedict XVI is placing the finishing touches on a social encyclical. Not to compete with the IMF or the G20 leaders on matters of credit, employment or golden parachutes. But he will not keep himself from reminding us of our duties with regard to the poor and social justice.

He will do so with the seriousness and subtleness that he is known for. And it is up to us to listen or not, to share his positions, if we would, in favor of justice and of life.