There are still questions circulating about what, if anything, the Pope said after viewing The Passion of the Christ. Here’s my take on what happened. First, the established facts:
- Last December Peggy Noonan and Rod Dreher both reported that the Pope had privately viewed a screener copy of the movie and afterwards said "It is as it was," which would appear to be a remark indicating that the pope was very moved by the film, and that he approved of it.
- Shortly thereafter, papal spokesman Joachim Navarro-Valls and others began denying that the pope had said this. One claimed even claimed that the pope does not make comments on art.
- But as Peggy Noonan revealed, before she originally published her story she had gotten e-mail from Navarro-Valls confirming the quote. Rod Dreher also had confirming e-mail from Navarro-Valls.
- After a further inquiry from Dreher, Navarro-Valls stated "Regarding your request on the email text attributed to me I can categorically deny its authenticity," which would appear to mean that it was a fake.
What is one to make of all this? Both Dreher and Noonan had e-mail coming from Navarro-Valls’ usual account, so either someone was using his account without his knowledge or some kind of deliberate misdirection was involved. My guess is this: The pope really did make the comment (and he certain does comment on art–frequently in fact) but then Vatican officials got uncomfortable with it and started issuing denial stories using mental reservations.
A mental reservation is a fact or qualification that a person "reserves" (doesn’t state). For example, if a child is accused of eating a cookie before dinner last night he might say "No I didn’t" and reserve the fact that he did eat one immediately after school but not "(just) before dinner." Mental reservations can be morally licit in certain circumstances, but not in all. In some circumstances they amount to lying.
In this case, my guess is that the basic denial that the Holy Father said "It is as it was" is a mental reservation, to be construed along the lines of "He didn’t say it (as a public comment)." Though I hate to accuse Navarro-Valls of using a mental reservation, his statement is also susceptible of one. He may mean "authenticity" in the technical sense of "authoritativeness" rather than the colloquial sense of "genuineness." If that reservation is in play then Navarro-Valls would be saying that the e-mail that came from his account is not authoritative, not that it is a fake.
Now that the film is out, perhaps the Holy Father will choose to publicly clarify his thoughts on the film. Whatever the case may be, there is some kind of skullduggery going on. Either,
- Noonan and Dreher are forging e-mail in Navarro-Valls’ name (which I don’t believe for a minute), or
- Someone at the Vatican is forging e-mails from the papal spokesman (in which case the person needs to be identified, disciplined, and possibly prosecuted–and the public needs to be informed of the fact that the Vatican has taken corrective measures to prevent this from happening so that reporters can have confidence that they really are receiving e-mail from Navarro-Valls), or
- Navarro-Valls and others are unjustly using mental reservations and hanging commentators like Noonan and Dreher out to dry (in which case the truth needs to be stated frankly and without reservation, for the commentators repeated what they said in good faith, and they have a right to enjoy their good names).
If either of the latter two are the case then the credibility of the Vatican press office is diminished.
