Category: Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict has approved actions that appear to bring to a close the matter concerning Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionnaries of Christ.

For some time Fr. Maciel has been the subject of sexual abuse allegations, which he has strongly denied.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope Benedict, has now done two things:

1) It has suspended further canonical investigation into the allegations in view of Fr. Maciel’s advanced age and precarious health and

2) It has invited Fr. Maciel to retire from public life, giving up all public ministry and retiring to a life of prayer and penance.

Put together, these two actions indicate that the Congregation found that there was at least some substance to at least some of the allegations but they did not want to publicly humiliate Fr. Maciel by allowing the canonical process to reach its conclusion and have him defrocked at the end of his life.

That the Congregation found that at least some substance to the allegations is indicated by the fact that the Congregation invited him to give up public ministry and lead a life of prayer and penance. You don’t do that to people against whom baseless charges have been made, particularly at the ends of their lives. One does not lightly ask the enormity of asking a priest to have to give up public ministry, particularly if he is aged and infirm and has spent his career building an organization with a reputation for faithfulness.

This is an attempt to find a graceful way out of a difficult situation and achieve the good of redressing the wrongs that Fr. Maciel apparently committed while sparing him and the organization he founded as much humiliation as possible.

That being said, the fact that the judicial process was not allowed to reach its conclusion means that there is still a question mark over the allegations. There was enough substance to them that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was willing to take very grave action, but a formal finding of guilt still has not been made.

For his part, Fr. Maciel appears willing to comply with the Holy See’s invitation to retire from public ministry.

OFFICIAL VATICAN COMMUNIQUE.

RESPONSE FROM THE LEGIONNARIES [.pdf].

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND.

MORE FROM ED PETERS.

Avery Cardinal Dulles has  a recent article on the subject of Joseph Ratzinger and Vatican II. The article covers Ratzinger’s involvement in the Council, his early thoughts on it afterwards, and his more mature thought.

EXCERPTS:

In his many publications Ratzinger continued to debate questions that arose during the council and in some cases expressed dissatisfaction with the council’s documents. In this respect he differs from Pope John Paul, who consistently praised the council and never (to my knowledge) criticized it. The material conveniently divides into three stages: his participation at the council, his early commentaries on the council’s documents, and his later reflections on the reception of the council. And then there are his changing reactions to the four great constitutions: on the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), on revelation (Dei Verbum), on the Church (Lumen Gentium), and on the Church in the modern world (Gaudium et Spes).

As a personalist in philosophy and as a theologian in the Augustinian tradition, he expects the Church to maintain a posture of prayer and worship. He is suspicious of technology, of social activism, and of human claims to be building the Kingdom of God. For this reason he most appreciates the council documents on the liturgy and revelation, and has reservations about the constitution on the Church in the modern world, while giving it credit for some solid achievements.

The contrast between Pope Benedict and his predecessor is striking. John Paul II was a social ethicist, anxious to involve the Church in shaping a world order of peace, justice, and fraternal love. Among the documents of Vatican II, John Paul’s favorite was surely the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes. Benedict XVI, who looks upon Gaudium et Spes as the weakest of the four constitutions, shows a clear preference for the other three.

I really enjoy reading Dulles’ articles for their characteristic clarity, frankness, and informative value. His willingness to take on the subject of Ratzinger’s awareness of the shortcomings of Vatican II and the criticisms that Cardinal Ratzinger made of certain passages in the Council is refreshing.

I’ve had access to some of Ratzinger’s early commentaries on the Council, but after reading Dulles’ summary of these, I’m going to have to try to look up the passage in which Ratzinger referred to one statement in Gaudium et Spes as "downright Pelagian."

That’s a statement that is eye-opening enough to make almost any theologically sensitive person to want to

GET THE STORY.

B16 has issued a document to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints that tightens up some of the procedures that have been used in recent years.

True to form, the Vatican web folks don’t have it translated into English yet–or even easily locatable via browsing,

BUT HERE IT IS.

The site serving it seems to be having connectivity problems, though,
so I’ve also put a copy of it in the below-the-fold section of this
post.

It’s been a few days, and none of the news services seem to have translated the document, but perhaps one of the Italian-speakers reading the blog may choose to perform a spiritual service for the English-speaking community by translating the short document (it’s about 1300 words in Italian). If so, I’d be happy to post the complete text.

In the meantime, we’re dependent on press-reports concerning what the pope said, such as

THIS ONE and THIS ONE and THIS ONE.

The general assessment that everyone is making is that B16 is significantly tightening up the requirements for sainthood in a way that could–in time, though perhaps not immediately–slow the astounding number of saints that have been canonized in recent years (i.e., during JP2’s reign, JP2 having proclaimed more saints than all the popes in the last 500 years PUT TOGETHER and having beatified even more people).

The reasons for JP2’s unprecedented number of canonizations is not fully clear to me, though it is something that has often been speculated upon. One of the speculations I find most interesting is that JP2 basically gave the Congregation for the Causes of Saints a kick in the pants and told them to start working on the backlog of causes that they had been sitting on, but I doubt that this would fully explain the sudden rush of saints.

As part of that rush, a number of questionable things were done, particularly in the area of proclaiming individuals to be martyrs.

Historically, martyrs are people who (a) accepted death that was being offered to them (b) because of hatred for the Christian faith.

They witnessed to the truth of the Christian faith even to the point of accepting death rather than denying it, making them witnesses in the superlative sense and qualifying them to be called "martyrs" (from the Greek word for "witnesses").

For someone to be a martyr in the classic sense, both of the above elements have to be present. The person has to accept death (meaning: they were given a choice to avoid death by denying the faith) and they have to be killed because of hatred for the faith (meaning: not for some other reason).

Thus I would not be a martyr if I go to Mass one day and al-Qa’eda blows up the church that I am in. In this case I wasn’t given the chance to avoid death by renouncing my faith. I was killed because I was a Christian, but I wasn’t given the chance to witness to the truth of the faith by accepting death rather than denying it.

That, as CNS points out, seems relevant to the potential canonization of Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was assassinated while he was saying Mass and had no chance to save his life by denying the faith.

Similarly, you would not be a martyr if someone killed you not out of hatred for Christianity but for some other reason, such as a political or social one. Thus if you are an outspoken social or political activist who runs afoul of the local Powers That Be and they decide to off you to shut you up, you’re not being killed because of hatred of the faith. The Powers That Be may even be Christians themselves (although not good ones) and have no problem at all with Christians in general, only with outspoken activists who make themselves inconvenient.

(I know the argument that by being an outspoken activist you may be witnessing to important Christian values, but this isn’t enough. The Christian faith doesn’t demand that every single person become the kind of outspoken activist you were, so it wasn’t the Christian faith that required this of you. You could have toned down your activism without denying the Christian faith. It is a refusal to deny the faith that makes a martyr, and you weren’t put in the situation of having to deny the faith in order to save your life.)

Unfortunately, in the recent rush of saints a number of people were proclaimed martyrs who did not appear to meet these criteria. While these people are certainly in heaven because of the infallibility of canonizations, the label "martyr" was applied to them in a way that did not meet the historic criteria for its usage.

The good news is that B16 seems to be hip to this, and he wants the term "martyr" used more rigorously and in its historic sense.

That, to my mind, is a good thing, because to expand the term "martyr" to new, unclear usages (a) sows confusion about what a martyr is and thus (b) dilutes and diminishes the witness of those who really did accept death rather than deny the Christian faith.

If the term "martyr" gets used in a new, fuzzy sense then I no longer know from the fact that a particular saint is a "matyr" that they witnessed to the truth of the faith by giving their live to avoid denying it. They may have just been murdered by a Christian-hater or killed because they were too outspoken an activist, and those aren’t the same things.

B16 also put the kibosh on a suggestion by some that the Church ought to count "moral miracles" (e.g., the conversions of notorious sinners) rather than "physical miracles" (e.g., medically unexplainable healings) toward sainthood.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM ED PETERS.

At least all this is how it seems from press reports–pending our getting a translation of the Italian original.

Click below to see that.

Continue reading “Important Clarifications On Sainthood”

HERE’S THE PROOF.

Man, what a sourpuss.

You may have seen this elsewhere, and it’s kinda old news, but for those who haven’t heard. . . .

THE POPE IS A POD PERSON!

Yes, it’s true.

B16 was given a 2 gig iPod Nano by the staff of Vatican Radio.

They loaded it with a buncha goodies:

The pope’s new 2-gigabyte digital audio player already was loaded with a sampling of the radio’s programming in English, Italian and German and musical compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Frederic Chopin, Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky and Igor Stravinsky. The stainless steel back was engraved with the words "To His Holiness, Benedict XVI" in Italian.

Once the pope, who is also a pianist, gets the hang of the device’s trademark click wheel, he will be able to listen to a special 20-minute feature produced by the radio’s English program that highlights Mozart’s life and music to commemorate the 250th anniversary of his birth.

The iPod also contains an English-language radio drama on the life of St. Thomas a Becket and a 10-minute feature on the creation of Vatican Radio, with original sound clips of the inventor of the radio, Guglielmo Marconi, and Vatican Radio’s founder, Pope Pius XI.

The pope also can relive the historical papal transition of April 2005. On the player, the radio’s German program included a mix of news and interviews done during the death of Pope John Paul II, the conclave and the election of Pope Benedict.

Now, popes get a lot of presents. People shove them into their hands all the time, and a lot of gifts (I’m sure) are gratefully received but then never actually get used. So has the pope actually started using his iPod? According to The Mirror, he has:

Yet despite his traditional views, Pope Benedict enjoys listening to his iPod as he walks around the Vatican [SOURCE].

But then that’s The Mirror. So who knows?

Franco Zeffirelli’s miniseries Jesus of Nazareth is known for being one of a number of recent films that attempts to rehabilitate Judas Iscariot. (Not unlike the recently-released "Gospel of Judas").

In the miniseries, Judas is portrayed by British actor Ian McShane, who is best known for his role as art detective Lovejoy (pictured)–for which I have nothing against him (not having seen the show).

Judas is also portrayed in Jesus of Nazareth as not betraying Christ for money (no matter what the gospels say), though money is given to him as an afterthought.

I don’t want to downplay the other positive aspects of the series, but this is one aspect where the film gets it wrong.

So says Pope Benedict XVI ( . . . kinda).

According to Catholic News Service,

[D]uring his April 13 homily at the Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper, Pope Benedict said Judas is the clearest example Christians have of someone who refuses God’s saving love.

For Judas, the pope said, "only power and success are real; love does not count."

"And he is greedy: money is more important than communion with Jesus, more important than God and his love. He also becomes a liar, a double-crosser who breaks with the truth," Pope Benedict said.

Purposefully ignoring the truth, he said, Judas "hardens, becoming incapable of conversion … and throws away his destroyed life" [SOURCE].

I acknowledge that there are unlikely ways of reasoning that Judas could have been saved, even given Jesus’ statements regarding him that

"Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me."

And they were very sorrowful, and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?"

He answered, "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, will betray me. The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."

Judas, who betrayed him, said, "Is it I, Master?" He said to him, "You have said so" [Matt. 26:21-25].

If you end up going to heaven, then I don’t see how it could have been better for you that you had not been born, so I don’t see how (on the most likely interpretation) Judas could have avoided going to hell. If you end up in heaven, it seems to me that you’ve ended up on the plus-side of being born.

But even shy of this declaration, it’s nice to see the Judas-revisionism being dealt a papal blow.

Thanks, B16!

We need such salutary warnings in an age in which people are likely to think that God will let them into heaven no matter what they do.

A number of years ago, when reported Marian apparitions were getting an enormous amount of attention, a rumor network built up around them that did a couple of things to foster the devotion of those who were regular readers of these reports.

The first thing that the rumor network did was to circulate claims that a particular apparition either had been approved by the Church or that it was on the verge of being approved–when in fact neither of these was true.

The second thing that the rumor network did–in the case of some reported apparitions–was to try to represent high churchmen (particularly John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger) as endorsers of their favored apparition.

"The Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger are really into the Divine Will," a supporter of Luisa Picaretta once told me.

Many similar claims were made regarding the two figures and Medjugorje.

At the time, I was quite skeptical of such claims but–even if they were true, I asserted–if the pope and Cardinal Ratzinger wished to lend their names to such apparitions then they would come out and say so.

Now the bishop of Mostar-Duvno (in whose territory Medjugorje lays) has published an interview in his own diocesan paper in which he discusses Pre-16’s attitude toward Medjugorje. I’m afraid that it may not sit well with some supporters of Medjugorje. Here is an excerpt provided by John Allen:

Some newspapers have written that this Pope visited Medjugorje incognito while he was a cardinal and that he is preparing to recognize Medjugorje as a shrine, etc. Did you touch upon this topic?

We did, and I wrote to and spoke with the Holy Father on it. He only laughed surprisingly. Regarding the events of Medjugorje our position is well known: not a single proof exists that these events concern supernatural apparitions and revelations. Therefore from the church’s perspective no pilgrimages are allowed which would attribute any authenticity to these alleged apparitions.

The Holy Father told me: "We at the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] always asked ourselves, how can any believer accept as authentic apparitions that occur every day and for so many years? Are they still occurring every day?"

I responded: "Every day, Holy Father, to one of the [visionaries] in Boston, to another near Milan and still another in Krehin Gradac (Herzegovina), and everything is done under the protocol of ‘apparitions of Medjugorje’. Up till now there have been about 35,000 ‘apparitions’ and there is no end in sight!"

… The numerous absurd messages, insincerities, falsehoods and disobedience associated with the events and "apparitions" of Medjugorje from the very outset, all disprove any claims of authenticity. Much pressure has been made to force the recognition of the authenticity of private revelations, yet not through convincing arguments based upon the truth, but through the self-praise of personal conversions and by statements such as one "feels good". How can this ever be taken as proof of the authenticity of apparitions?

… Finally the Holy Father said: "We at the congregation felt that priests should be of service to those faithful who seek Confession and Holy Communion, leaving out the question of the authenticity of the apparitions."

GET THE STORY.

I myself don’t make any claims regarding whether the bishop is correct in his assessment of B16’s attitude toward Medjugorje. I know that Bishop Peric is viewed negatively and may not be trusted by many Medjugorje supporters, and as I am not a student of the situation, I don’t claim to know who is right. But it is noteworthy that a bishop would say "Pope Benedict told me this" and publish it in his own diocesan newspaper.

A reader writes:

Hey Jimmy, I consider you an "in the know" type, so I thought I would pass this along.  (:

http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/04/universal-indult-rumor-part-ii.html

Have you heard about this?  Or are we just getting our hopes up over a cruel-but-clever joke?

The story that the reader links is one in which Gerald at The Cafeteria Is Closed links an article in an Italian website devoted to liturgy that reports that B16 has already signed an indult allowing greater celebration of the Tridentine Rite of Mass.

Since the existence of such an indult hasn’t been publicly announced by the Holy See, it’s tempting to simply say that this is one of rumors that constantly circulates about all things Vatican, but other sources are picking up on the same thing.

According to Catholic News Service, the indult exists and has been signed by B16, it will allow universal celebration of the Tridentine Rite, and it may get publicly announced as soon as tomorrow.

GET THE STORY.

We know that this is something that has been under discussion for some time in the current pontificate, and just last week B16 held a second closed-door meeting with members of the Roman curia, following which the Vatican released no information about the topic that was discussed (contrary to what they did after the previous curia meeting in February, where it was announced that the reconciliation of the SSPX was under discussion).

This closed-mouth handling of the recent curia meeting suggests that something significant was under discussion, and speculation is that it involved the reportedly-signed indult.

I don’t know if the pope has signed an indult, but I suspect that if he hasn’t yet, he will. I predicted that as soon as he was elected, based on comment he made when he was still Pre-16.

I also don’t know if he’ll make the announcement in Holy Week, but I wouldn’t put it past him.

I support universal permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite of Mass, but I’d note that the existence of such a permission would not necessarily change a lot, particular at first, because there are two significant obstacles to a wide celebration of this rite:

1) Few priests have the interest or ability to say the former rite at this point, and it would take time for them to get prepped and trained to say it.

2) Many bishops would not look favorably on their priests exercising this liturgical option. As a result, many priests would refrain from doing so lest they incur their bishop’s displeasure and wind up with punitive actions or career-limiting moves being taken against them.

Over time there would be a gravitation of priests who want to celebrate this rite to those dioceses where the bishop looks favorably on it, resulting in traditional dioceses becoming slightly more traditional and progressivist dioceses becoming slightly more progressivist–at least in relative terms.

In absolute terms, some priests even in progressivist dioceses would start exercising the option (particularly
over time) and so there would be a wider availability of Masses
celebrated according to this rite even where it ain’t welcome, resulting in a net plus to the Church.

John Allen has a thoughtful (and lengthy!) analysis of the first year of B16’s reign. It’s worth reading as a whole, but I wanted to call attention to this one point, in which Allen is describing the reaction many had to Benedict’s election:

[I]n the immediate aftermath of his election, most commentators fell back upon tried-and-true labels: "archconservative," "authoritarian," "hard-line."

Probably the best expression of all this came in an editorial cartoon in L’Unità, the newspaper of the old Communist Party in Italy. Understanding the cartoon requires a bit of background. In Italy, perhaps the most revered pope of modern times is John XXIII, know as il papa buono, "The Good Pope." One treasured memory of John XXIII is an evening in October 1962, the opening of the Second Vatican Council, when the Catholic Action movement organized a torchlight parade that finished in St. Peter’s Square. The pope was not scheduled to address the crowd, but when it arrived, John XXIII wanted to speak. He said something burned into the consciousness of most Italians, repeated endlessly on television and radio. Smiling down on the crowd, he said: Tornando a casa, troverete i bambini. Date una carezza ai vostri bambini e dite: questa è la carezza del Papa. It means, "When you go home, you’ll find your children. Give them a kiss, and tell them that this kiss comes from the pope." It summed up the legendary love of the man.

Thus the L’Unità cartoon showed Benedict XVI at the same window, saying, "Tonight, when you go home, I want you to give your children a spanking, and tell them that this spanking comes from the pope."

ROFL!

GET THE STORY.

Yesterday–the day before the red hat giveaway–Pope B16 held a pre-consistory meeting with the college of cardinals. This was a day of prayer, reflection, and discussion about topics of interest to the Church at large.

So of course they held it behind closed doors.

That didn’t stop word from getting out about what they talked about, partly through a press release and partly through cardinals who spilled a few beans.

EXCERPTS:

There was no formal agenda, but in an opening talk the pope mentioned three specific concerns for discussion, according to a Vatican press statement:

— "The condition of retired bishops."

— "The question raised by (Archbishop Marcel) Lefebvre and the liturgical reform desired by the Second Vatican Council."

— "Questions connected with the dialogue between the church and Islam."

The pope invited the cardinals to raise other issues of their own and said the exchange should take place in a spirit of unity and communion.

Cardinal Wilfrid F. Napier of Durban, South Africa, told CNS that he did not think the pope was looking for a "yes or no" response from the cardinals on the Lefebvrites.

One bishop suggested raising the retirement age from the current limit of 75 years.

It was the pope’s idea to convene the meeting, and Vatican sources said it signaled a strong advisory role for the world’s cardinals under the new pontificate.

There was also tech support for the less tech savvy cardinals:

It fell to Archbishop Monterisi to explain a few practical details: where to tune into simultaneous translations in four languages — English, French, Italian and Spanish, how to request the microphone and how to turn up the headphone volume on the consoles.\

GET THE STORY.

MORE FROM ZENIT.