No Ulterior Motive?

800px-Dolomites_cablecar_view_2009 I sense a tremor in the Force.

Only have time for a quick post tonight, as I just got back from calling at my Friday night square dance club, Alpine Squares.

So here we go: Today I ran across a story that intrigued me–about the Alps (pictured) . . . and Pope Benedict.

Every year, you see, Pope Benedict takes a summer break and up to now he has spent the first two weeks of it in the Alps (something that John Paul II also did).

Then he goes to Castel Gandolfo for further rest and study.

But this year he has cancelled the alpine part of his break (notice the alpine theme here? Alpine Squares? Alpine part of his vacation? Get it?) and will be going directly to Castel Gandolfo.

So Catholic News Agency reports:

The announcement conveyed the Holy Father’s appreciation for various invitations that have been offered to him to escape to “alpine locations” this year and his gratitude to the bishops who have extended them.

For this year, the Vatican statement says, the Pope “prefers to begin right away the summer period of rest and study without the commitment of ‘ulterior’ transfers.”

So the Holy Father this year is isn’t wanting to entangle himself with “ulterior” [Latin, further, more remote] transfers, but does he have an ulterior [Latin, further, more remote] motive?

That’s where I sense the tremor in the Force.

You see, the pope often uses his summer break to play the piano, read, and–most importantly–write.

That’s when he’s been working on encyclicals, his book on Jesus (which is now done, the second part to be coming out soon), etc.

So maybe he’s cancelling the alpine part of his break to get straight to writing at Castel Gandolfo.

I wonder what he’ll be writing.

Maybe his obvious next encyclical on the virtue of faith (he having already produced ones on charity and hope)?

Hard to say.

Always in motion, the future is. (Nice Latin word order, there.)

Your thoughts?

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

7 thoughts on “No Ulterior Motive?”

  1. I look forward to the pope’s encyclical on faith with great eagerness. There are several questions on the nature of faith I’ve been trying to investigate lately, and Ratzinger/B16’s writings tend to hit the spot.
    By the way, everyone be sure to click on the picture and see the full-size version. It’s gorgeous.

  2. I wish I could actually comprehend Benedict’s encyclicals. I’m no dummy. I had no problem with Love and Responsibility and most of John Paul’s papal works. (Although I can’t read Theology of the Body.) I read the Catechism cover to cover. I have a B.S. and I’ve taken graduate classes at MIT. I can mostly understand Ott. But forget about Benedict.
    Why can’t popes write in a clear, lucid, and perspicacious style? If you want to reach the most people, you need to write with the average person as your audience. Sheesh, he writes like a German college professor. [rim shot]
    Some day I hope to see an encyclical again that doesn’t give me a headache and require me to read each sentence five times to have any inkling of what it means.

  3. Why can’t popes write in a clear, lucid, and perspicacious style?
    For that matter, why couldn’t St. Paul do so? Oh, well. We can’t all be Jimmy Akin.

  4. I find his style very clear. The encyclicals particularly get down to brass tacks very quickly. (In his books, he likes to go over the state of the field or gather facts before starting in.)
    His apparent favorite technique is to point out two or three facts you already know, and then show their synthesis. At that point, he shoots forward into new territory as far as that synthesis takes him, and then he starts presenting facts you already know again.
    It works for me, I gotta say. But like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, it’s
    “…just one of those things.
    If you like it, you do.
    If you don’t, you boo.”
    (Except for his academic, technical, philosophical books like Introduction to Christianity. I don’t have the vocabulary or the intellectual groundwork to understand that stuff.)

Comments are closed.