Category: Benedict XVI

It’s always interesting when you read two different, allegedly objective news stories and come away with contrary impressions of the state of the facts.

Take THIS ONE and THIS ONE as examples.

Both are covering the current controversy regarding Pope Benedict’s remarks on Islam, but they convey significantly different impressions of the state of things.

For example, the first article–by Reuters–has this hopeful note:

One of the few signs that the crisis may have peaked came from Iran’s hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who told NBC television in New York that now that the Pope has taken back his statement "there is no problem."

That makes it sound like the controversy may have peaked, and it is a quite significant thing when a hate-inflamer like Ahmadinejad is saying that there is no problem. That sounds like a signal that he will not be using his government-controlled hate press to further inflame passion on this the way he did with the Danish cartoons.

But the second article–by The Evening Standard–conveys a different impression:

Pope Benedict faces a growing chorus of demands to make an unequivocal apology for remarks seen as portraying Islam as a violent faith, despite attempts by Western leaders and churchmen to defuse the crisis.

That makes it sound like the controversy is still building.

Admittedly, these matters are subjective and hard to gauge–but then THAT’S THE POINT, isn’t it? Unless the pieces are clearly labelled as opinion or analysis then they’re supposed to be objectively sticking ot the facts–or so the MSM would have us believe.

Then there’s another matter where the two pieces convey a different impression of the facts, and here the contrast between the two news services is reversed. According to Reuters,

In Turkey, Mehmet Ali Agca, who tried to kill Pope John Paul in 1981, warned Benedict not to make a planned visit to the country in late November, saying his life would be in danger.

"As someone who knows these matters well, I say your life is in danger. Don’t come to Turkey," Agca, who is serving a sentence for the killing of a newspaper editor in the 1970s, said in comments released in a statement by his lawyer.

From this one would think that Mehmet Ali Agca is sincerely concerned about Pope Benedict’s wellbeing (which he may indeed be) and issuing what could be sound advice (and it may indeed be) based on being an apparently sane and balanced individual with a realistic view of things, whatever his past crimes may have been.

In fact, Mehmet Ali Agca is a dangerously unbalanced fantasy-prone individual who regularly makes wild, non-reality-based statements that apparently come from his own delusional inner life.

While The Evening Standard doesn’t make as blunt (and as evaluative) a statement as I just did, it does at least report the facts in a way that allows the reader to infer what a crazyman Agca is:

In his two page letter to leading Italian Rome based daily La Repubblica, Agca, who was a member of the Turkish terrorist cell the White Wolves, wrote: "Pope Ratzinger listen to someone who knows these things very well.

"Your life is in danger. You absolutely must not come to Turkey. Pope Benedict you must know that between 1980 and 2000 I was in contact with various Western intelligence services and with the Vatican.

"In those twenty tears I learnt many things and I came into possession of many classified secrets."

The letter closed with Agca imploring Pope Benedict to resign for his own safety he wrote: "For your own welfare you must make a grand gesture of honour and resign.

"Then you must return to your native land (Germany) and in your place an Italian cardinal can be elected Pope, possibly (cardinal Dionigi) Tettamanzi or (cardinal Tarcisio) Bertone.

"Then the Vatican should become a centre of peace and fraternity. The world has a need of this it does not need hatred and vendetta."

While it’s praiseworthy that The Evening Standard reported the facts regarding Agca’s current letter more fully and thus put the reader into a better position to evaluate the sanity of the man, it was still writing the piece according to a scare script, pouring the story into a pre-formed mold and to my mind still constitutes shallow reporting since Agca has repeatedly said totally bizarre things and the reader is not informed of this fact.

If it was going to make Agca the centerpiece of its story, it at least should have interviewed someone who could offer an assessment of the reliability of the man.

For example, shortly before the death of John Paul II he gave an interview with La Repubblica, in which he asserted:

In the 1980’s, certain Vatican supporters believed that I was the new messiah and to free me they organized all the intrigue about Emanuela Orlandi and the other incidents they won’t reveal" [SOURCE].

Meanwhile, the Vatican Information Service released the following text from Pope Benedict’s Wednesday audience concerning his speech at the University of Regensburg:

"I chose the theme," he said, "of the relationship between faith and reason. In order to introduce my audience to the dramatic nature and current importance of the subject, I quoted some words from a Christian-Muslim dialogue from the 14th century in which the Christian – the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus – presented to his Muslim interlocutor, in a manner we find incomprehensibly brusque, the problem of the relationship between faith and violence.

"This quotation, unfortunately, has lent itself to misunderstandings. However, to an attentive reader of my text it is clear that in no way did I wish to make my own the negative words pronounced by the medieval emperor, and that their polemical content does not express my personal convictions. My intentions were quite otherwise: on the basis of what Manuel II subsequently said in a positive sense … concerning the reason that must guide us in transmitting the faith, I wished to explain that not religion and violence, but religion and reason, go together.

"The theme of my talk was, then, the relationship between faith and reason," he added. "I wished to call for a dialogue of the Christian faith with the modern world and for dialogue between all cultures and religions. I hope that at various moments of my visit – when, for example, in Munich I underlined how it important it is to respect what is sacred for others – what emerged was my deep respect for all the great religions, and in particular for Muslims who ‘worship the one God,’ and with whom we are committed to promoting ‘peace, liberty, social justice and moral values for the benefit of all humanity.’

"I trust, therefore, that following the initial reactions, my words at the University of Regensburg may constitute an impulse and encouragement towards positive, even self-critical, dialogue both among religions and between modern reason and Christian faith" [SOURCE].

Regarding the Wednesday audience, the Reuters piece noted this significant fact:

[A]s is customary, the Pope still was driven among the crowd standing on the back of an open jeep as it passed among tens of thousands of people in the square.

Which is one of the reasons I say B16 isn’t afraid to be martyred.

Despite what happened in that same square when Mehmet Ali Agca–a Muslim–tried to kill John Paul II, and despite the imminent reasonability of using a bullet-proof popemobile for security purposes, one of the first things B16 did in office was return to the practice of using an open vehicle–a clear signal that he is willing to accept the risks that this entails in order to be more accessible to those he is trying to serve.

On Sunday Pope Benedict said:

At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.

These in fact were a quotation from a Medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.

Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect [SOURCE].

I’ve highlighted a few phrases from this because of their significance for recent discussions taking place here on the blog.

The first one ("I am deeply sorry for the reactions") does not carry the meaning that what the pope said in his University of Regensburg speech was wrong. This is what one would expect. The pope does not believe that what he said was wrong–and it wasn’t. He therefore focuses his expression of sorrow on the real problem–the reactions that were touched off in the wake of the speech.

This statement is open to several constructions, one of which is the kind of terse feauxpology that we often encounter in our own lives (i.e., the one with the meaning "I’m sorry you flew off the handle, but I don’t think I did anything wrong at all; the fault is thus really all yours"). I don’t think that’s what the pope’s doing here; I think it’s more subtle than that, but the English translation I have access to uses a phrasing that is open to that interpretation. I don’t want to press the English phrasing, though, because expressions of regret are extraordinarily difficult to precisely port from one language to another without some loss or addition of meaning and force. So I’ll have to wait until I find out more about this aspect of the original language text.

The second highlighted statement ("which do not in any way express my own thoughts") rules out an interpretation that seems to be common in the combox from Friday–the idea that in presenting the words of Manuel II Paleologous the pope was endorsing them and speaking them in a kind of macho swordthrust of unpleasant truth for Islam.

While Benedict XVI is quite capable of speaking unpleasant truths, the idea that he was endorsing as his own the un-nuanced remark by Manuel II was–for anyone who is familiar with the details of the pope’s thought–clearly false. The second highlighted statement confirms this. B16 was not endorsing the ideas of Manuel II.

The third highlighted statement ("the true meaning of my words") indicates that the pope perceives the problem as one of incomprehension. It is  not that he spoke the unplesant truth about Islam and Muslims got offended. It is that Muslims failed to grasp–for whatever reason, including the way that his words were reported to them through their own hate-inciting, government-controlled press–"the true meaning of [his] words."

This too distances one from the macho swordthrust of truth to Islam interpretation.

Finally, the fourth highlighted phrase ("in its totality") also points us away from that interpretation. The pope here indicates that the point of the speech was to issue "an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect." That is inconsistent with the macho swordthrust interpretation, and the fact that the pope says the speech was an invitation to a dialogue "with great mutual respect" in its totality means–if we are to take the pope at his word–that he wasn’t even trying to get in a little swordthrust on the side.

The pope thus tells us that he was trying to summon people to a profoundly mutually respectful dialogue but that the true meaning of his words was misunderstood and he does not endorse as his own the sentiments of Manuel II and that he is deeply sorry for the reactions that this passage in his speech led to.

The pope also alludes to the statement by the new Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, which he says explains the "true meaning" of what he said. It is thus worthwhile to look at that statement.

In the statement Cardinal Bertone explains concerning the opinion of Manuel II that "the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he
mean, to make that opinion his own in any way." So yet another piece of evidence against the macho swordthrust interpretation.

He further says that "The position of the Pope concerning Islam is unequivocally that expressed by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate: ‘The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God.’"

He quotes the popes own words to a Muslim audience that "We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity."

And on behalf of the pope he conveys the following:

The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address
could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and
should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his
intentions. . . .

In reiterating his respect and esteem for those who profess Islam, he hopes
they will be helped to understand the correct meaning of his words so that,
quickly surmounting this present uneasy moment. . . .

From the original speech itself and from the way the Vatican has handled this matter, it is clear that the present situation was unexpected and that the Holy Father did not foresee this reaction to his speech. If he did then he would not be expressing regret that passages in the speech could sound offensive. Instead, he would be saying, "Y’all are just proving my point, folks! You have a violent, barbaric religion that is hate-filled, and you only prove that by the violent histrionics that you go through when someone points this out."

A lot of people might wish that the Holy Father had said this in his response, but he did not, and those who know the thought of the Holy Father on these matters are aware that he never would.

Indeed, as a man of his generation the Holy Father has an enormous concern for the promotion and preservation of peace and the avoidance of violence. It was one of the reasons that he chose the name "Benedict," in part after Benedict XV, a man of peace at a time of great conflict. He wishes his own reign to be in the service of promoting peace, and in particular he has a great concern to de-couple religion and violence.

Thus, in his message for the recent Assissi anniversary–which Cardinal Bertone quotes in the official statement linked above, Benedict himself said the following:

[D]emonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. … In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions.

This mode of language is not easy to completely understand, given the obvious commands to kill that are found in various religious texts, including the Qur’an and the Old Testament, but it is clear that–however the pope might address that issue–he certainly wishes to see religion and violence de-coupled in the minds of everyone so that religion no longer serves as a pretext for violence.

It is thus completely alien to the thought of the Holy Father–and anyone who knows his thought well knows this–to say things like "Islam is irredeemably violent and cannot be changed. It is intrinsically violent and, as long as it exists, it will always be."

Indeed, we had a demonstration of this just last year after the Schulerkreis when statements were made that the pope had privately said just this kind of thing. This was not only strongly denied, but what the pope did say was elaborated to explain that he felt Islam faces a more difficult time than some religions in overcoming its violent past but that this was still possible.

What we are witnessing here, therefore, is Pope Benedict’s NIGHTMARE SCENARIO.

He sees himself as a man of peace (which he is) who wishes to play a role in promoting peace in the world and overcoming the tendency to use religion as a pretext for violence.

That his own words–however true in their original context and understanding–could become the pretext for violence, with churches being attacked and people being killed, can only be a source of intense anguish for the Holy Father.

He certainly would be willing to be martyred himself–but to be the accidental cause of martyrdom for others would for him be an unimaginable horror. The fact that some of the churches that have been attacked haven’t even been Catholic ones–thus having his words serve as the pretext for violence against Christians who aren’t even Catholic–adds insult to injury.

And I can only begin to imagine the pain he feels at the assassination of Sr. Leonella Sgorbati (left), the nun in Somalia who was likely killed as retribution for what the pope said.

Statements like "We will blow up all of Gaza’s churches" or threats to "kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize in three days in front of the whole world to Mohammed" are certainly intensely painful for the Holy Father and it is unimaginable for those who know his thought to suggest that he intended to bring about this situation.

He is strong and resolute in his defense of the truth and willing to say unpleasant things when needed, but to deliberately provoke this situation is simply not Benedict’s way of doing things. His way is the one described above, of promoting a dialogue that seeks to de-couple religion and violence.

This is an intense time of suffering for him and for all those Christians who are at risk of Muslim violence.

Let us therefore unite ourselves with the Holy Father in prayer for peace.

Well, the adherents of the religion of peace are at it again.

When Pope Benedict quoted the words of a man 600 years ago that reflect unflatteringly on Islam, what does the Muslim community do?

It does what you see to the left.

Not all of it, of course. Not all Muslims are violent fanatics. But the Muslim community contains far too many such individuals and–fed on a constant diet of hate and conspiracy theories by their corrupt political leaders who want to direct the anger of the masses away from their own regimes–many Muslims are far too willing to throw a public temper tantrum at the slightest pretext.

Basically, Islamic culture is infected with an ethos of rage and hatred, and it needs to grow up and stop being so thin-skinned.

Consider, for example, the irony of the statement I used as the headline for this blog post. It comes from a Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman named Tasnim Aslam.

Just what are we to make of this statement? If it were talking about any religion other than Islam, it might possibly bear the meaning that one who portrays the religion as intolerant thereby encourages violence against members of that religion (e.g., fostering anti-Jewish sentiment could stir up violence against Jewish people), but here that reading is scarcely plausible.

It reads instead like a veiled threat: Muslims–or certian Muslims–will commit violence against those who describe them as intolerant.

Which actually appears to be true, but it’s an ironic statement nevertheless: "You wrongly accuse our religion of being intolerant and you may end up dead."

Of course, there is a distinction between the religion itself and the people who practice it, and the pope is fully aware of that. He also didn’t say that Islam itself is intolerant.

Which brings us to the real tragedy of this situation.

The pope was making a speech to a German university on the subject of faith and its relationship to reason, and he took a detour in the speech to touch on one of his pet subjects–that religion must not be used as a basis for violence.

So in the process of taking a detour to say something meant to help break the link between religion and violence, he happened to quote a particularly inflammatory line from 600 years ago that could and has stirred up the potential for religious violence.

And the line isn’t even necessary to his speech! He could have made all the same points without the inflammatory line–and even without bringing Islam into the discussion.

This didn’t have to have happened, and it is hard not to see it as the first (or second) major gaffe of Benedict’s pontificate (the other one being what happened when he visited Auschwitz).

How serious a gaffe is it?

It could get him killed.

Either when he goes to Turkey or when a fanatical Muslim pulls a gun on him in Rome. All it takes is one, after all, and the Muslim political leaders are as likely to use this as a pretext to redirect their populations’ anger as they were when they whipped the Muslim community into a frenzy over the Danish cartoons.

I suggest we all pray about this.

Hard.

MORE HERE.

AND HERE.

AND HERE.

It appears that we wouldn’t have His Most Awesomeness Pope Benedict if it weren’t for . . . a personal ad.

It seems, y’see, that his parents met because, way back in 1920, his father placed a personal ad looking for a wife.

(This was in the days before online matchmaking services, of course.)

According to THE STORY,

[The newspaper] Bild am Sonntag (BamS) said 43-year-old Joseph Ratzinger senior placed an advertisement as a "low-level civil servant" seeking "a good Catholic girl, who can cook and sew a bit … to marry as soon as possible, preferably with a picture," in a Bavarian paper in March 1920.

Four months later – by now a "mid-ranking civil servant" – he posted a similar notice in the same paper, and this time received a reply from Maria Peintner, the Pope’s future mother, BamS reported, citing documents from Bavarian state archives.

The second advert in the Altoetting weekly "Liebfrauenbote" stressed the gendarme Ratzinger’s "irreproachable past" and said that while it would be "desirable" if his bride had some money, it was "not a condition" for marriage.

The second ad also seemed to get quick results:

The paper said the couple married in November 1920.

It’s interesting to see the things that the pope’s father was looking for in a bride. They’re–I guess you’d say–very 1920s (money, for example, was hard to come by in Germany between the wars). Still, it kinda gives hope to those of us who are still looking.

(Now let’s see . . . "Senior management apologist with irreproachable past seeks . . . " Oh, well. Maybe another time.) 

UPDATE: AmericanPapist writes:

Jimmy – here is the full (awesome) text of the personal ad Pope Benedict’s father placed :

“Middle-ranking civil servant, single, Catholic, 43, immaculate past, from the country, is looking for a good Catholic, pure girl who can cook well, tackle all household chores, with a talent for sewing and homemaking with a view to marriage as soon as possible. Fortune desirable but not a precondition” [SOURCE].

 

The outrage potential of some radical Traditionalists can, at times, be bewildering. Rather than look at a picture that surprises them and try to think of the most charitable explanation for that picture, apparently, their reactions are set on default to "See! More evidence that Neo-Church is out to get us all!"

Take this picture of two elderly brothers spending some downtime together, a snapshot that I find simply adorable, and test your default reaction to it:

Evidently the photograph was published in the European magazine Point de Vue on February 15, 2006 (at least according to the attribution given the picture by the radical Traditionalist site Tradition In Action). In any event, the picture is likely to be a post-election photo of Pope Benedict XVI, perhaps taken when he visited Germany last year.

(UPDATE: Comboxers have dated the photo to a 2004 retreat the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and his brother took together.  See the combox for more information.)   

The RadTrad site’s reaction:

"Either during his trip to Germany last year or in Italy — the magazine Point de Vue did not specify a place for this recent photo — Benedict XVI meets his brother Fr. [sic; it’s Msgr.] Georg Ratzinger at a piano to dicuss some scores of Mozart.

"Both the Pope and the priest are wearing suits. One can see that Fr. [Msgr.] Georg chooses a more relaxed open shirt, while his ‘conservative’ papal brother Joseph keeps his closed. Although the photo is not very clear on this detail, it seems that Benedict is wearing a tie.

"At any rate, Pope Ratzinger [sic] wears a well tailored double-breasted blue-grey suit.

[…]

"At least Joseph Ratzinger maintains the ‘tradition’ of wearing suits. It should confirm some conservatives in the fact that Benedict maintains old customs…."

GET THE STORY.

Horrors! Shouldn’t a pope know better than to wear anything but a white cassock during his personal time? After all, hasn’t every pope since St. Peter done so?

Oh, wait. White papal clothing was introduced by Pope St. Pius V, who decided not to wear "traditional" papal finery during his downtime but to continue to ordinarily wear his white Dominican habit. Future popes continued wearing a white cassock until it became "traditional." And, speaking of St. Peter…. Didn’t he once strip down to his skivvies while fishing on the Sea of Tiberias and have to dress quickly and swim to shore so he could meet the Lord (John 21:7)?

But don’t tell TIA any of this. Their default setting might overload.

(POST-PUBLICATION NOTE:  It is likely that the photo is pre-election, rather than post-election, but the general point remains the same:  There is nothing wrong with a pope, cardinal, or priest not wearing Traditional Clerical Garb during his personal time. Granted, doing so can be prudentially advantageous, especially if a priest is "on call." But doing so purely for the sake of Image can actually be prideful [Matt. 23:2-7].)

No! It’s not the Bavarian equivalent of Woodstock!

Well, not totally.

It is a gathering of students, though. Specifically, it’s the gathering of the students that Herr Dr. Joseph Ratzinger had back in the day when he was a college prof. (Y’know, before that whole cardinal/pope gig came along.)

Every year the main man and his former students get together for several days of peace, love, and understanding–with the emphasis on the understanding part. Each year their gathering has a theme that is explored by different speakers (some invited from outside the group) so that the participants can chew over and learn more about the subject.

Last year’s theme for the Schulerkreis was Islam.

This year it’s a no less controversial subject: Evolution.

GET THE STORY.

Man, I’d love to have tickets to this event. If anybody is scalping, lemme know.

Earlier this month, I wrote:

In his pontificate, B16 has been quietly (or not so quietly) dealing with issues that appeared to drift during the pontificate of John Paul II. He reined in the Franciscans in Assisi; he reined in the Neocatechumenal Way; he dealt with the Fr. Maciel matter. I’m wondering if the discussion he had with Bishop Peric included an initiative to clarify where the Church is regarding the subject of Medjugorje.

New evidence has surfaced that my suspicions were correct. Over the weekend I got word from Diane of Te Deum of a story in the European press reporting the formation of a new episcopal commission to investigate Medjugorje. Before I could blog about it, though, word came today that Catholic News Service had confirmed it with the Cardinal who will be overseeing the commission (CHT: Amy).

First,

HERE’S DIANE’S TRANSLATION OF THE EUROPEAN STORY

and

HERE’S THE CNS STORY.

Now for some analysis:

The European story notes that the announcement of the new commission came after the recent meeting of the Bosnia-Hercegovina bishops’ conference in Banja Luka (I just love the sound of that name: Banja Luka. Cool!).

According to the story,

This announcement surprised many, because Medjugorje was not even one of the topics discussed at the meeting.

It also stated:

From our information, the request for the establishment of a new commission comes from the Vatican,

That certainly coheres with the idea of the commission not being discussed at the meeting. If it was the initiative of the local bishops then one would expect it to be discussed. If it were a Vatican initiative, it might not be.

It even more strongly coheres with a few points of evidence from the CNS story. First,

"The commission members have not been named yet," Cardinal Puljic told Catholic News Service in a July 24 telephone interview. "I am awaiting suggestions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" on theologians to appoint.

So that establishes involvement of the CDF on some level, but most tellingly,

When asked if the new commission was the idea of the doctrinal congregation or of the bishops’ conference, Cardinal Puljic said, "I would rather not answer that question."

Okay. That’s it. Slam dunk. Case closed. The Holy See requested the new commission.

Also (though is is a lesser point):

Officials from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were not available July 24 for comment.

Here’s exactly what happened:

<Knowledgable Guess Mode> Pre-16 felt for a long time that the community of the faithful would benefit from a clarification of where the Church is with respect to Medjugorje, and so after he became pope, he resolved to provide one. But this matter is delicate and could not best be dealt with in the manner of a motu proprio as the Franciscans of Assisi were. It needed a more indirect approach. He therefore approached his successor as head of the CDF, Cardinal Levada, and asked him to begin preparations for a new commission conducted under the auspieces of the local bishops’ conference. He also informed Bishop Peric earlier this year and Cardinal Puljic as well. Bishop Peric took the opportunity to signal the likely direction–or at least his desired direction–for the commission’s conclusions by stating B16 privately expressed skepticism about the apparitions and by publicly calling on the seers to stop making their claims. After the remainder of the bishops had been informed of the commission, Cardinal Puljic then made it public.</Knowledgable Guess Mode>

In case anyone needs a reminder of why B16 might feel that a clarification of the Church’s position is needed, I quote a passage from Bishop Peric’s confirmation homily that I quoted in my previous post regarding how serious the situation in the diocese is:

[I]n this local Church of Mostar-Duvno, there exists something similar to a schism. A number of priests that have been expelled from the Franciscan OFM Order by the Generalate of the Order, due to their disobedience to the Holy Father, for years now have been forcefully keeping a few parish churches and rectories along with church inventory. They have not only been illegally active in these parishes, but they have also administered the sacraments profanely, while others invalidly, such as Confession and Confirmation, or they have assisted at invalid marriages. This type of anti-ecclesial behaviour is shocking to all of us. At the same time, this scandal of sacrilegiously administering the sacraments, especially of the Most Holy Body of Christ, must shock all the faithful as well who invalidly confess their sins to these priests and participate in sacrilegious liturgies. We pray to the Lord that this scandal and schism be uprooted as soon as possible from our midst.

According to the CNS story:

The cardinal said he did not expect the commission to be established until sometime in September because of the summer holidays.

He said the primary task of the commission would be to review a 1991 report from the region’s bishops that concluded, "It cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations." [i.e., a non constat de supernaturalite result]

In addition, he said, the commission would be asked to review pastoral provisions that forbid official diocesan and parish pilgrimages to Medjugorje, while at the same time allowing priests to accompany groups of Catholics in order to provide the sacraments and spiritual guidance.

Now, I can’t make any concrete predictions regarding what the commission will end up announcing, but the direction of these events would not be encouraging for those who would like to see official approval of the apparitions or a loosening of pilgrimage rules–unless B16 is a closet supporter of Medjugorje, which would seem not to be the case if Bishop Peric was honest in what he said in his confirmation homily. Specifically, he said:

[A]ccording to the words of our current Pope, who I encountered during an audience on 24 February this year, [he] commented that at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith they always questioned how all these “apparitions” could be considered authentic for the Catholic faithful.

If that is accurate then it would seem that the holy father’s intention for the new commission would be directed toward one of three ends:

1) Reaffirming the status quo on the apparitions (non constat de supernaturalite) and pilgrimages (unofficial ones permitted with clerical support) in a more forceful manner

2) Reaffirming the status quo on the apparitions (non constat de supernaturalite) but placing new restrictions on pilgrimages (e.g., disallowing priests to accompany pilgrimages to the site)

3) Downgrading the status on the apparitions (i.e., to constat de non supernaturalite) and placing new restrictions on pilgrimages.

The irregular situation of the local ex-Franciscans may also be dealt with anew in an attempt to bring them into line.

Of course, the future is not yet written (from man’s perspective), and none of those things might happen, but if B16 really did take the tone with Bishop Peric that Bishop Peric reported then it sounds as if the best that devotees of the apparitions would be likely to see happen would be a reiteration of the status quo in hopes of ending some current abuses.

Whatever happens, it’s likely to be painful and disappointing to some people on some side of the issue.

So let’s keep the matter in prayer and ask God that healing will be brought to the situation through the commission’s work and that it will reach accurate and wise conclusions that reflect the truth of the matter, whatever the truth may be.

Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that Fr. Andrew Greeley — priest, novelist, sociologist, Catholic progressive — is mellowing in his old age? A few months ago, he was in the press defending Francis Cardinal George of Chicago against unfounded allegations of apathy on the priest abuse issue; now he’s come out swinging for Pope Benedict XVI:

"These have been rough days for the pope. It was inevitable his visit to Auschwitz would stir up complaints from Jewish spokespersons and commentators. No matter what he did or said, they had to criticize. The critics were a minority. Moreover, one can hardly blame Jews for sticking it to Christians for the long history of anti-Semitism and to Catholics for the long history of anti-Semitic popes. If I were Jewish I might be reluctant to believe the stand of the Second Vatican Council even after 40 years, especially if I had read some of the debates that preceded the endorsement of the document on anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, one would hope that they would give Pope Benedict a break.

"In a major article in the New Yorker, ironically titled "Forgiveness," the case was made that the pope has been complicit in the Holocaust because he prayed at cemeteries in which SS troops were buried and did not indict the whole German people for the Nazis’ crimes. The complaints against his failure to condemn the whole German people during his visit to Poland follow the same theme, accompanied by a picture of the pope as a frightened-looking teenage conscript in his Wehrmacht uniform.

"The Catholic Church, one must insist, is committed to forgiveness by the very words of the Lord’s Prayer. It cannot accept the notion of unforgivable collective guilt because it believes that final judgments on guilt belong to God. (Moreover, if everyone is guilty, then no one is guilty.) We pray for all the dead in hope that God’s mercy and love embraced them before it was too late — even if they were members of the SS.

"If we are good Christians, we pray for Islamic terrorists who have blown themselves up in the act of murdering innocent women and children. We should pray even for the World Trade Center assassins. We do not put any limits on God’s mercy. Do not expect this pope or any pope to condemn the Christian theory of forgiveness or embrace the notion of collective guilt."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Mark Shea for the link.)

I might bracket out and quibble with bits and pieces of Fr. Greeley’s analysis. For example, he really ought to read Rabbi David G. Dalin’s The Myth of Hitler’s Pope before making unqualified statements about "the long history of anti-Semitic popes." But for the most part, I was pleasantly surprised and cheered by Fr. Greeley’s defense of B16.

I’ve also found it interesting that, in the months since Pope Benedict’s election, more often than not Catholic progressives have been defending the Pope while those commonly thought to be orthodox (click here and here for examples) have been raking him over the coals.  Is it perhaps because the orthodox were indeed expecting SuperPope?

And it’s not just any conspiracy!

It’s a conspiracy involving The Da Vinci Code (dum! dum! dum!)!

FIND OUT WHAT HE SUSPECTS!

And what you can do about it!

JOHN ALLEN HAS THE STORY.