Posted on 01/20/2007 6:42:59 AM PST by NYer
Rome, Jan. 19, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) has faced steady opposition within the Vatican as he seeks to implement new policies, according to an article in Italy’s Panorama magazine. The article concludes that the Holy Father is now assembling his own management team to implement his policies.
“Benedict XVI does not have a decisive temperament,” writes Ignazio Ingrao in his analysis for Panorama The Italian journalist reports that the Pontiff has faced stiff resistance in his effort to reform the Roman Curia and to broaden access to the traditional liturgy.
Dwelling at length on the controversy surrounding the ill-fated appointment of Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus in Warsaw, the Panorama analysis sees tensions between the Polish clerics who surrounded Pope John Paul II (bio - news) and the allies of the current Pontiff. The author also sees continued fallout from the Wielgus debacle, with other leading Polish prelates likely to face charges that they collaborated with the Communist secret police.
Originally, the Panorama story says, Pope Benedict passed over 6 different candidates put forward by the Polish hierarchy to choose Archbishop Wielgus; the Pope withdrew his support only when he became convinced that the incoming Archbishop of Warsaw had provided misleading information about his background.
The Wielgus controversy drew attention to some of the tensions between Polish Church leaders and the Pope, Ingrao writes. He points out that Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz of Krakow, the longtime secretary to John Paul II, remained quiet about the appointment, although he reportedly did not approve of the Pope’s choice. The Italian journalist also notes that the Pope said that Cardinal Jozef Glemp could retain his title as Primate of Poland for 3 more years, after John Paul II had conferred that title upon Cardinal Glemp for life.
The Wielgus controversy has accelerated shifts in the balance of power within the Roman Curia, Panorama reports, because the incident underlined the need for the Pope to form his own effective leadership team. The Italian magazine reports that it was Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (bio - news), the Secretary of State, who conveyed the request for Archbishop Wielgus to submit resignation.
Cardinal Bertone, who took office last September, has provided Pope Benedict with a loyal and energetic right-hand man, the Panorama story says, concluding that the coming year should see more decisive movement to implement the Pope’s agenda.
Somehow, this reminds me of the unattributed sources wo tell us about the "intrigue" in the White House, usually published in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
No, I think there actually is a lot of resistance in the curia (and among many of the higher-ranking clergy in general) to BXVI. In contrast to what the article states, I think he has a decisive personality, but he can't implement things single-handedly and he's not getting the support he needs.
This is to be expected partly because of the fact that the prior papacy was so long, giving these bureaucrats a good long time to get entrenched, and partly because JPII did not make any radical changes from the policies of Paul VI. The few changes he did make - trying to get a grip on "Liberation Theology," for example - did not happen easily. However, in many ways he ignored or tolerated things that I think BXVI wants to change, and the bureaucrats are definitely rankled by this. And they're digging their plump little heels in.
Thanks for the information. As a new Catholic, I'm not up to speed on all of the background on stuff like this.
As a new Catholic, I'm not up to speed on all of the background on stuff like this.
It's fun to sit back and observe the 'happenings' inside the Vatican. This is especially true, knowing that the Holy Spirit is guiding Christ's Church and is very much in charge. Bertone was an excellent pick, by Benedict XVI!
*************
I agree. Unfortunately the article by the journalist in question is in Italian, which I cannot read. Two things come to mind:
1. This was either a mistranslation or misspelling: the word is actually divisive.
2. This is a liberal journalist (how unusual) who does not approve of the choice of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict to succeed Pope John Paul II.
Actually, I went and read the article (which is very interesting) and I didn't see that specific quote. It only says that he left the decision on removing the Archbishop until the very end, evidently because of the lack of information or the confused information forthcoming about him.
The writer doesn't really seem to be taking a political stance, but is analyzing the difficulties the new pope is having in dealing with the Church in Poland. He attributes this to a strange alliance between the former Communist authorities and the Polish church members who were close to Pope JPII (who had been the antagonist of the Communist authorities). The latter group is considered "progressive," while the group favored by BXVI is anti-nationalist and conservative.
The "progressive" group is apparently not exactly thrilled with Benedict. The Polish heirarchy has become much more liberal in recent years and in fact Polish society, with their encouragement, is secularizing rapidly, just as it is doing in Spain (although the latter is because of government pressure and not because of the Church heirarchy). BXVI perceives them as Polish nationalists but not necessarily interested in supporting the Church when it is in conflict with Polish society or politics, and has been trying to replace some of them.
There had been rumors about Wielgus, but there are rumors about everybody in Poland, and BXVI said that he would not change his mind on the appointment unless proof emerged. The article pointed out, however, that the proof, the information about the Archbishop was apparently known to several people, including Pope JPII's former secretary, who is coming out with a book in a few days, and nobody informed the Vatican. In other words, it was kind of a set-up, designed to embarrass the Vatican (although the fault lies with the Archbishop himself, who denied his involvement).
I think dealing with the curia is probably almost more difficult (and maybe even as dangerous!) as dealing with the Muslims...
Very interesting. Vatican politics is fascinating, isn't it?
Trying to read between the lines of the newspaper reports in English on the Wielgus affair, I have come to believe that at least in part the whole matter of relations or "collaboration" with the former sceret police in Polnad is being used now as a political club by all sides against their foes, much like undocumented worker housekeepers has been used here in the US against some political or judicial appointees.
The other intriguing thing about the US reports of the Panorama article is that they say that the article reports that the Legionaries of Christ are "irritated" by the actions taken against Fr. Maciel, as if those actions were also taken by others in the curia without the Holy Father's direction or approval. That would certainly be an interesting twist to the story, and would raise the question: who?
Yea, it's his indecisiveness that lead him to his present position.
Yes, the article says that "collaboration" is being screamed on all sides, and I guess that was one of the reasons that BXVI was unwilling to accept the charges until proven or admitted.
The report on Fr. Maciel wasn't in that particular article, but I'm going to go back to Panorama and look for it in the older articles. It would certainly be interesting if it is true that it was not BXVI who acted against Fr. Maciel. I have always thought the story of his supposed crimes, frankly, sounded somewhat improbable, and the fact that the Legionaries of Christ are hated by many of the "progressives" in the clergy and no doubt the curia makes it a real possibility that somebody somewhere was making an end run around the Pope, perhaps taking advantage of the transition or still unclear lines of power. And, as you say, the question is: who?
I think it's important, btw, not to get too obsessed with what is going on at the Vatican. Think of it as a huge bureaucracy, like the State Dept. and the US government, and just expect the same sort of things. But just as the dismal State Department does not invalidate the ideals of the Constitution or the claims of the United States, so the things that go on at the Vatican do not negate the Faith (although they may occasionally make it a little hard to find!).
I called up the Panorama article and looked briefly at the part relating to Fr. Maciel. It seems to say (via Google's language program) that the action against Fr. Maciel without "process" (meaning I think the trial that he had been seeking) was the irritation, so perhaps it implies that the HF did or approved it, but without regard to all the consequences?
I also have my suspicions about much of the criticism against the Legion and Fr. Maciel because in many respects (and I stated this directly last Summer in Rome to Fr. Thomas Williams LC, whose new book on spirituality will be a must read when it is released in February) the Legion and Regnum Christi seem to represent one of, if not the, most successful efforts to put Vatican II into practice at a popular level in line with Tradition, or with a hermeneutic of continuity, as the Holy Father so memorably put it. So, just for a poor example, progressives seem not to like the continued reverence for the Cristeros, Bl. Jose Luis Sanchez del Rio, among many other martyrs of that period, and in general Christ the King, not to mention that there was even some concern, back in the Fifties, about why the name "Legion"--perhaps the only legions (e.g. French Foreign Legion, and even more so, the Spanish Foreign Legion, now the Spanish Legion, still Spain's elite military unit) the liberals could think of were not ones they liked. On the other hand older style Traditionalists have trouble with some of the newer ways of doing the old things.
Or the (gasp!) American Legion...
I think it has to do with the progressivist rejection of the Church Militant. Sorry, but the Church has got to be militant - which, in the case of Christians, means preaching the Gospel in season and out. And the State does not like that.
The KofC have been great supporters of the Cristeros and the Mexican Martyrs. In my parish here in St. Augustine (the Cathedral parish), our bishop - who spent time in Latin America - has even preached on them. I happened to be at a mass where kids were getting confirmed and he told them the story of a young Mexican who was caught, had the soles of his feet cut off and was then forced to walk to the place where he was shot to death, of course yelling Viva Cristo Rey! I could tell that the kids were completely freaked out by this, because nobody reminds them of the hard facts of Christianity anymore. We're fortunate to have a teaching bishop here, though (Bp. Victor Galeone).
I am going to Rome in about a week and will be there for about a week and a half. We have gotten tickets for the Weds. audience and are really excited about this. I'm busy figuring out how to ward off gypsy swarms and how to ask for dinner reservations.
José Sánchez del Río, Martyr at the Age of 14
"If you shout ‘Death to Christ the King’ we will spare your life. Say ‘Death to Christ the King.’" But he died shouting: "Hail to Christ the King."
Guadalajara, September 15, 2005. After having received official notification from Pope Benedict XVI, the Archbishop of Guadalajara, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, announced that this coming November 20th, 13 Mexican martyrs who died during the Cristero War will be beatified in this diocese.
Among them is José Luis Sánchez del Río (1913-1928), who was assassinated for the simple fact of refusing to hate his faith. One year before his martyrdom, José Luis had joined the “Cristero” forces led by General Prudencio Mendoza, based in the town of Cotija, Michoacán.
The martyrdom was witnessed by several people, among them a seven-year-old boy who would later become the founder of a religious congregation, Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ and of the Regnum Christi Movement. In the book-length interview “Christ is my Life” (www.christismylife.org), he speaks of the decisive role that his friend, José Luis,’ testimony had for his vocation.
“He was captured by government forces, which wanted to give the civilian population that supported the Cristeros an exemplary lesson,” remembers the founder, who was then seven years old. “[…] Then the skin of the soles of his feet was sheered off, and he was obliged to walk through the village towards the cemetery,” he remembers. “He wept and moaned with pain, but would not give in. Every now and then, the stopped and said: ‘If you cry out “Death to Christ the King,” well will spare your life. Say “Death to Christ the King!”’ But he answered, ‘Hail to Christ the King!’” […] “Once in the cemetery, before shooting him, they asked him once more if he would deny his faith. He refused and was killed right then and there. He died crying out as many other Mexicans did: ‘Hail to Christ the King!’” […] “These are indelible images of my memory and of the memory of the Mexican people, although often there is not much mention of it in the official history” (Christ is my Life, n. 4).
José Luis’ mortal remains rest in the Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in his hometown.
From:
http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=39&ca=57&te=10&id=13480
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on Pro-Life or Catholic threads.
Well, this article greatly simplifies. Of course the Vatican bureaucracy has problems. That's the nature of life in the fallen world. And of course the Pope can make an occasional mistake, as long as it's not a matter of making a definitive statement on faith and morals. And of course he inherited a few officials that he probably needs to replace.
The Vatican bureaucracy is the smallest in the world. You have a few thousand people running a Church containing more than a billion people, speaking hundreds of different languages and with widely varying cultures. Yet the Church has survived for 2,000 years, something no other major institution on earth has succeeded in doing. So they must be doing something right.
Just think about the fact that the Church contains four or five times as many members as the United States, yet runs a vast, world-wide organization with only a tiny fraction of the number of administrators. Add the dioceses and the parishes, and compare them to the number of bureaucrats in state and local governments. Sure, they do different things, but it's amazing that the Vatican manages to accomplish as much as it does, and to avoid the kind of sclerotic growth that strangles many secular governments.
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.