PEOPLE AROUND THE POPE

No, I don't. I think he's superficial and a camera hog. And I'm distinctly in the minority here.

So you feel the same way as I did, when I read that for the first time. I just wanted to know your opinion about that. I am happy to know I found people which think and feel the same way I do. I provoked to see reactions. Anyway, forum should be about discussions and not only for posting last newspaper articles.

---

Scritto da: LeticiaV 07/12/2006 5.59
I canot believe my eyes reading such a disgusting rumor. Tijgertje, maybe you should think more carefully about what you post. This is defamation, serious defamation and you are talking about an Archbishop. Please be careful about what you write.
If you read this hateful rumor in an Italian priest blog. I am very sorry for that priest. In my opinion he is unworthy of even saying the name of dearest Archbishop Marini.

---

I am sorry for mistake!!! I was trying to answer to LeticiaV before... I had to do something wrong.

About Mr.Ganswein. I belong also to that minority.

I think so, too. Many think that just because Mr. Ganswein is associated with Pope Benedict that he [the Msgr.] is beyond criticism. From what I have read about him, I do not think so. He seems to see his position as a career move, an advantage for himself, not as a position of service.

It is for sure a career move. His work is also not so visible as e.g Marini's work. So it is hard to judge. But I don't like if anybody's being admired only because of his/hers look. And suddenly each move, word, gesture is considered as extraordinary. How annoying!

---

Scritto da: Chickadee 07/12/2006 21.59
I think so, too. Many think that just because Mr. Ganswein is associated with Pope Benedict that he [the Msgr.] is beyond criticism. From what I have read about him, I do not think so. He seems to see his position as a career move, an advantage for himself, not as a position of service.

---

I agree completely. If he were ordinary looking no one would even speak of him. And no one would consider his every move as wonderful or elevated. And he considers his own looks wonderful, too. Everyone criticizes me for noticing how he behaves before the camera, but it is hard not to notice. For example, whenever the Pope is photographed, you can see it. The Pope behaves as though the camera is not there; he is totally immersed in meeting people or speaking to them, etc. But Ganswein is always making sure he looks good to the camera, smiles perfectly, etc.

Chickadee - so you asked "Why people think some of the men around the Pope are gay" and my reply was negative as it always is! Excuse me, but my posts on this forum are largely positive and in favour of the people in whom our Papa has put so much trust.
Why do gay men want others to be thought the same? They just do! It's in their nature. If you've ever seen a "gay" magazine, whether for men or for lesbians, you'll see that these people have "gay icons" amongst famous film stars and singers - people they would like to be gay like themselves and sometimes, indeed, they are. But this is a vicious underworld which is so far removed from the Catholic Church that it's not worth thinking about.
Yes, someone has pointed out that Joseph Ratzinger's heterosexuality has never been in doubt! Amen to that! And the same with Piero Marini. But they are priests, they have taken vows of celibacy and so they see celibacy in a POSITIVE light, not a burden. It is something which greatly enhances their spirituality.
I don't know why there's all this criticism of Georg Gaenswein. The way I see this man is that he's an academic, a scholar, a very able man, German like the Pope [and therefore they have much in common]. True he smiles a lot! That's good! He supports his "boss" in every way. He's young enough to be his son and also young enough to run round after him and bring him his papers and a glass of water....and so on. I see nothing odd in this man's behaviour.
And I am sure that Ingrid Stampa is a dear friend to our Papa and always will be. They know each other well, they both love music. It's right that he should have women amongst his friends, perfectly natural and well-balanced.
I agree that a forum is not a place to post loads of news items and little else, though we do have threads that are dedicated to news and we are glad of them. But, as Teresa said, let's now talk of other things!
Peace and Love to all, Mary x

[Modificato da maryjos 07/12/2006 23.19]

---

Scritto da: Chickadee 07/12/2006 21.30
Mr. Ganswein's behaviour is always suitable for the camera, whether he's talking to a child or smiling at the Pope. I'm sure he knew cameras were aimed at him when he knelt down before the child.

---

I'm sure ha did not know, because he is in the background of the pic and not at all in the centre.

Whatever. I'm sure his hairpiece was perfectly in place.

---

Scritto da: Chickadee 07/12/2006 21.59
From what I have read about him, I do not think so. He seems to see his position as a career move, an advantage for himself, not as a position of service.

---

Where's your proof in this?

Phoenix,

Take a look sometime. Hairpieces are very obvious once you've seen a few of them. There's a thin layer over his real hair. It's a good toupe, actually, although I wouldn't expect any less of Mr. Ganswein. He's very stylish.

Did you even bother to read my post? It wasn't concerning his hair. I asked you if you had any proof to your claim that "He seems to see his position as a career move, an advantage for himself, not as a position of service."

Sorry Phoenix, the print was so small on my computer I actually didn't see it. I said what I did because as the Pope's secretary it is his job to be invisible. I collect photographs of previous popes, notably Pius XI, although I have some of others. You almost never see their secretaries in prominent places (although, to be fair, the world media did not have the access that the last two or three popes have had). But, the secretaries of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II never positioned themselves so prominently or were always on display as much as Ganswein makes himself. They were there to be of service, not to be noticed. Mr. Ganswein makes himself available to the camera at every opportunity and it is no accident that, for instance, during the visit to Cologne, he nearly got as much notice as Pope Benedict. That's never a good sign when a subordinate is making himself that available to public display. He's lucky in his boss: the Pope doesn't take Ganswein too seriously; I doubt John Paul would have put up with it. But the preening for the camera and the attention are all too apparent and make it apparent as well that Ganswein's view of his job is not for service, but for his own future aspirations.

About two weeks ago, I complained in CHATTER that no one appears to want to discuss any of the important and substantive things that are being posted on this forum, and I did say that I did not think a forum should only be a bulletin board for news but that news should be discussed. [Unfortunately, no one appeared to react to that either.]

So how sad it is that when a discussion does takes place it has to be about disliking people - opinions and feelings which are, by their very nature, subjective rather than objective.

The problem about this is that the criticism and the attacks are ad-hominem, attacks against the person of those whom we do not like, getting down to petty trivia even. I do not think this forum should be used for that purpose.

We may attack all we want about what people say because we have every right to argue ideas on the substantive subjects that interest us in a forum about the Pope. But to make an ad-hominem attack against someone we do not like every chance we can get is not very Christian.

There may be other forums where the favorite sport is to run down anyone who is perceived to be close to the Pope. Those among us who feel we have to vent our bile relentlessly and continually in this respect will please take all prejudices and nasty remarks elsewhere, not here.

We cannot project onto the Pope our own feelings about the people who work for him and who have worked for him for years. If we had their enviable privilege, would we not do our very best to be worthy of his trust? Why can't we grant the same assumption to them? To cast aspersion on them is tantamount to questioning the Pope's judgment about people, especially those who must work most closely and most constantly with him. Who are we to make assumptions on his behalf?

In the same way as the Pope cannot be 'touched' by all the malicious gossip and any other active maneuverings to discredit him, none of our negative opinions here will touch him either insofar as the people who work closest with him are concerned. So please, enough of all these negative vibes.

A forum that was opened in order to promote knowledge, appreciation and love of the Pope, and in the process, help us grow in our faith, is not the place for this kind of negativity.

I hope we do not have to dispute this plain and simple statement. And I thank you all if we could all refrain from indulging in any more of this pointless and counter-productive exercise.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 08/12/2006 2.02]

What an amazing and long discussion for a change!!! Although I don't agree with a lot of it, I found it kind of entertaining in a way to read all the posts after a busy day running around in the cold. I even found myself laughing out loud at the confused hairpiece discussion. That was almost like the comic "Who's on first" routine. I really love this forum. You guys are great even if you do get a bit cranky and quarrelsome at times.

---

Scritto da: Chickadee 08/12/2006 0.17
Sorry Phoenix, the print was so small on my computer I actually didn't see it. I said what I did because as the Pope's secretary it is his job to be invisible. I collect photographs of previous popes, notably Pius XI, although I have some of others. You almost never see their secretaries in prominent places (although, to be fair, the world media did not have the access that the last two or three popes have had). But, the secretaries of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II never positioned themselves so prominently or were always on display as much as Ganswein makes himself. They were there to be of service, not to be noticed. Mr. Ganswein makes himself available to the camera at every opportunity and it is no accident that, for instance, during the visit to Cologne, he nearly got as much notice as Pope Benedict. That's never a good sign when a subordinate is making himself that available to public display. He's lucky in his boss: the Pope doesn't take Ganswein too seriously; I doubt John Paul would have put up with it. But the preening for the camera and the attention are all too apparent and make it apparent as well that Ganswein's view of his job is not for service, but for his own future aspirations.

---

That's your answer? Because he's visible in pics? When he is in any pics, I hardly notice him. He doesn't appear to be waving or pushing Papa out of the way during a photo to be noticed. I'm sorry but your explanation is a weak argument. I thought you said you read it somewhere. Unless you can provide any real proof, it's just malicious, pointless gossip that shouldn't even be discussed.

My apologies Teresa, I'm not gonna talk about it anymore.

THANK YOU, TERESA!

And now for something a little more palettable, or is it palatable (PUN INTENDED)?

Does anyone know where this rather odd picture with a spectacular coffee machine came from?

It must be a composite, but when was there a coffee maker in the square (see the reflection of St. Peter's)?

"TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER"....."YES, HE'S THE ONE IN WHITE"....



American Papist had a really funny caption. He always does. Go to his PPOTD for Dec 3.

[Modificato da Music of Lorien 08/12/2006 3.49]

Music - I like your caption better, actually, than PPOTD's.

I have been puzzling about this picture. It is obviously a composite, and if it is, it must be of three photos - the crowd in the background, the Pope walking, and the giant bean-grinder or whatever. Someone remarked the Pope's figure was obviously put on because no one is looking at him at all. He casts an unmistakable shadow on the ground, which means the foreground part of the picture is authentic, over which the alien giant was super-imposed.

A big problem with the 'wonders' of digital photo editing is that 'historical' images can now be faked....

Yes, that photo does look like a composite. I remember a coffee machine was given at a General Audience some time ago and there was also a pizza oven. These were put at the back with all the gifts. Does anyone else remember? I'll check through my photo folders to see if I saved any.
But....that "Dalek" of a coffee machine is not where it should be! It looks as if it's about to make its way down that aisle between the seating. And Papa would not be standing there like that, unnoticed.
Hilarious!
Thank you, Music!

Thank you, Teresa, for the very sensible remarks about that other unfortunate discussion. Like benefan, I was almost laughing towards the end, especially about the hair piece - OH PLEASE!!!!!
Seriously, we should move on. We don't want to lose any of our members and that, I fear, is what could happen.
Love and Peace to all - Mary x
THE LIVELY, HAPPY FORUM EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT!

[Modificato da maryjos 08/12/2006 12.13]

Teresa said in her post upstairs:

"About two weeks ago, I complained in CHATTER that no one appears to want to discuss any of the important and substantive things that are being posted on this forum, and I did say that I did not think a forum should only be a bulletin board for news but that news should be discussed. [Unfortunately, no one appeared to react to that either.]"
__________________________________________________________
Teresa, I certainly wanted to react to your observations, but eventually I thought it best to say nothing.

However, seeing that you go to a tremendous lot of trouble for the more "serious" threads (even if you say you enjoy doing it) and very few people ever respond to those posts, one may ask oneself what the reasons are for such a phenomenon?

I, for one, visit this forum mainly because of your posted articles (translated and otherwise). I have responded a couple of times and then stopped doing it because I got the feeling that, well, this is probably not a forum where the substantial news are really being discussed or debated. It didn't seem to be the "in"-thing here. I felt a bit like a fool, to tell you the truth, when I barged in with my few pennies' worth of ideas! So, I stopped replying although I still enjoy and read the articles. THANK YOU!

But the question is, why don't members respond? On the more personal threads the activity is so obviously much higher. The only answer I can come up with is that the members do not feel the need to react to what you call the substansive posts. I sure hope many people at least READ your articles, or most of it, otherwise I cannot see you slogging away and posting into a void much longer.

There may be a second reason: you have started to give commentary on the articles that you yourself post. This is very understandable if no one else responds to these posts, but since you are highly intelligent and blessed with great linguistic talent and a specialist skill in formulating your thoughts, some people may just feel you've said all that could be said on the matter. So, we have become lazy.

But most people probably come here - in the first, but not the only instance - to have fun and be happy at a fan-club of the Pope. That is why, according to some, they have left other fan clubs for this one. The words "fun" and "be happy" were stressed in this regard. So, in that respect this fan club works very well, it seems, because it has many members and is still growing.

I do however understand that you can become a bit frustrated when you feel the need to see some debate or discussion and, day by day, sometimes week by week, nearly nothing happens.