Pope Francis speaks to journalists aboard his flight from Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, to Rome June 6. At left is Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Posted on 07/21/2015 1:40:51 PM PDT by NYer
The remarks come from a "National Geographic" piece, which posits that Francis was elected by "more progressive cardinals"
The August 2015 edition of National Geographic has a lengthy essay, "Will the Pope Change the Vatican? Or Will the Vatican Change the Pope?", that has some of the usual stuff—Francis emphasizes the poor over doctrine, he has lots of Protestant/Pentecostal friends, he lives simply—but also a few things of interest.
For example, the author, Robert Draper, says this about why and how Francis was elected:
Moreover, his papacy was not a fluke. As the Roman author Massimo Franco would put it, “His election arose from a trauma”—from the sudden (and for nearly six centuries, unprecedented) resignation of the sitting pope, Benedict XVI, and from the mounting sentiment among more progressive cardinals that the hoary and Eurocentric mind-set of the Holy See was rotting the Catholic Church from within.
That's a curious statement for many reasons, one of them being that the "progressives" and the "Eurocentric mind-set of the Holy See" are hardly incompatible or distinct from one another. It's not as if the progressive stances taken by many prelates and other leaders in Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium have been a rousing success; quite the opposite (see "Germany, Catholic Church", for Exhibit A).
But the most interesting section of the piece includes some frank comments from Fr. Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office since 2006:
When Federico Wals, who had spent several years as Bergoglio’s press aide, traveled from Buenos Aires to Rome last year to see the pope, he first paid a visit to Father Federico Lombardi, the longtime Vatican communications official whose job essentially mirrors Wals’s old one, albeit on a much larger scale. “So, Father,” the Argentine asked, “how do you feel about my former boss?” Managing a smile, Lombardi replied, “Confused.”
Lombardi had served as the spokesman for Benedict, formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger, a man of Germanic precision. After meeting with a world leader, the former pope would emerge and rattle off an incisive summation, Lombardi tells me, with palpable wistfulness: “It was incredible. Benedict was so clear. He would say, ‘We have spoken about these things, I agree with these points, I would argue against these other points, the objective of our next meeting will be this’—two minutes and I’m totally clear about what the contents were. With Francis—‘This is a wise man; he has had these interesting experiences.’”
Chuckling somewhat helplessly, Lombardi adds, “Diplomacy for Francis is not so much about strategy but instead, ‘I have met this person, we now have a personal relation, let us now do good for the people and for the church.’”
And:
The pope’s spokesman elaborates on the Vatican’s new ethos while sitting in a small conference room in the Vatican Radio building, a stone’s throw from the Tiber River. Lombardi wears rumpled priest attire that matches his expression of weary bemusement. Just yesterday, he says, the pope hosted a gathering in Casa Santa Marta of 40 Jewish leaders—and the Vatican press office learned about it only after the fact. “No one knows all of what he’s doing,” Lombardi says. “His personal secretary doesn’t even know. I have to call around: One person knows one part of his schedule, someone else knows another part.”
The Vatican’s communications chief shrugs and observes, “This is the life.” ...
In attempting to divine the 78-year-old pope’s comings and goings, the closest Vatican officials have to an intermediary has been Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Francis’s secretary of state, a much respected veteran diplomat—and, importantly, trusted by his boss, according to Wals, “because he’s not too ambitious, and the pope knows that. That’s a fundamental quality for the pope.” At the same time, Francis has drastically reduced the secretary of state’s powers, particularly with respect to the Vatican’s finances. “The problem with this,” Lombardi says, “is that the structure of the curia is no longer clear. The process is ongoing, and what will be at the end, no one knows. The secretary of state is not as centralized, and the pope has many relations that are directed by him alone, without any mediation.”
Valiantly accentuating the upside, the Vatican spokesman adds, “In a sense, this is positive, because in the past there were criticisms that someone had too much power over the pope. They cannot say this is the case now.”
Here is the entire National Geographic article.
Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture writes:
By all accounts, the conclave that elected Pope Francis was looking for someone who could reform the Vatican, bringing accountability and efficiency to the Roman Curia. How can a leader harness a bureaucracy if he doesn’t give clear directives? How can he promote a culture of accountability if his own staff doesn’t know what he’s doing from day to day?
No one doubts the intelligence of Pope Francis. No one questions his work ethic. So what’s going on inside the Vatican? What do Father Lombardi’s revelations say about Pope Francis himself? Why would an intelligent, hard-working man, who is obviously determined to bring about change, adopt such an odd managerial style?
Read his entire post, "If the Vatican's main spokesman doesn't know what the Pope's doing, who does?"
Ping!
Ordo ab chaos?
Often, great thinkers are terrible managers/administrators. The reverse is also true.
I think a lot of the complaints about Pope Francis are stylistic. I think the global warming stuff was absurd, but there was actual doctrinal teaching that was accurate.
The Roman Catholic Church already is ruing the day the regressive cardinals elected Francis. Last major bulwark against the perversions and sin of the world, and Francis & his cronies are bringing it down from the inside. Unfit to be the leader of the Church. If Benedict has the energy and inclination, he should, in so many words, denounce his successor - isn’t he still infallible, too, on matters of theology & doctrine?
Sorry but the body of believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit is the last bulwark against sin and perversion, and no one can bring it down. Earthly institutions are bound to fail but the Bride of Christ will prevail in His strength and mercy
So what is the writer, Carl Olson, trying to say before he concludes his piece with what Phil Lawler says?
I thought the piece rather incoherent and not terribly insightful, but for the usual complaints of possessing no real insight into Pope Francis. LOL
Another thing with the great thinker — Jesuits will always make people think.
It’s happened to me with a Jesuit who guided our Marriage Encounter team a long time ago, God rest your soul, Father Chuck.
Heavens, that is a brilliant question! Benedict would never challenge Francis in any way, but theoretically your point has never been tested because we have never had an abdication since the establishment of the Infallibility Dogma at Vatican I in 1870.
The question would be whether the Holy Spirit continues to protect Benedict from error even though he is not pope, and it could be argued Yes by virtue of his election! In other words, his resignation does not negate the Cardinal’s choice of him as a leader in Faith and Morals. The other side could be argued, but I don’t believe it’s clearly spelled out either way...
Fascinating insight, Twister881!
Often, evil men disguise their intents by acting naive or stupid.
Not unless he speaks to all the church formally defining a matter of faith in morals. Which rarely is the case. But which does not mean RCs are not to give religious=ordinary assent (versus sacred=submission of faith,) to papal teaching on lower levels, including encyclicals, V2, and social teaching, which excludes public dissent even if they internally disagree (which is allowed, in contrast to solemn assent). As various Catholic teaching calls for.
Confusion is of the Devil.
I think you nailed it!
Thank you, those distinctions are very interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.