Benedict XVI – Page 6

Members of Medjugorje Commission Announced

The Vatican Information Service has announced that the new Medjugorje commission has had its first meeting.

The press release stating this also contains a list of the members of the commission. Here is the text, reformatted to make reading the names easier:

“The International Investigative Commission on Medjugorje met for its first session on 26 March 2010.”

“The Commission, presided over by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, His Holiness’ vicar general emeritus for the diocese of Rome, is composed of the following members:

Cardinal Jozef Tomko, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples;

Cardinal Vinko Puljic, Archbishop of Vrhbosna, president of the Bishops’ Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina;

Cardinal Josip Bozanic, Archbishop of Zagreb and vice-president of the Council of European Bishops’ Conference;

Cardinal Julian Herranz, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts;

Archbishop Angelo Amato, S.D.B., prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints;

Msgr. Tony Anatrella, psychoanalyst and specialist in Social Psychiatry;

Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, professor of Fundamental Theology at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy;

Fr. David Maria Jaeger, O.F.M., consultant to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts;

Fr. Zdzislaw Jozef Kijas, O.F.M. Conv., relator of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints;

Fr. Salvatore M. Perrella, O.S.M., teacher of Mariology at the Pontifical Marianum Faculty of Theology; and

Fr. Achim Schutz, professor of Theological Anthropology at the Pontifical Lateran University as secretary.

Msgr. Krzysztof Nykiel, an officer of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith serves as additional secretary.”

“Other experts have also participated in the commission’s work:

Fr. Franjo Topic, professor of Fundamental Theology in Sarajevo;

Fr. Mijo Nikic, S.J., professor of Psychology and Psychology of Religion at the Philosophical and Theological Institute of the Society of Jesus in Zagreb,

Fr. Mihaly Szentmartoni, S.J., professor of Spirituality at the Pontifical Gregorian University, and

Sr. Veronica Nela Gaspar, professor of Theology at Rijeka.”

“As announced previously, the work of the Commission will be carried out with the utmost reserve. Its conclusions will be submitted to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for study.”

I’m not a veteran Medjugorje watcher, so I don’t have a feel for the individuals on or working with the commission when it comes to Medjugorje.

Does anybody have thoughts on how the members lean–or if they’re all neutrals, or what?

Smoking Gun Memo Finally Translated

This will be a long one, so let me summarize the key points right up front:

* One of the documents contained in the New York Times files on the Fr. Lawrence Murphy case is a memo in Italian summarizing a meeting that was held at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about Fr. Murphy.

* This memo has not had a professional English translation until now.

* The new translation is a smoking gun in that it reveals how badly the New York Times and others have botched the story.

* Then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not present at the meeting. It was run by the Secretary of the CDF, then-Archbishop Bertone.

* Cardinal Ratzinger’s name never comes up, making it impossible to determine anything regarding his involvement in this case.

* In the meeting Bertone points out the difficulties in proceeding with canonical trial for Fr. Murphy, but he does not forbid one.

* The chief difficulty, according to Bertone, is gathering the needed proof against Murphy given the passage of time (not Murphy’s advanced age or ill-health, neither of which is mentioned at all).

* Bertone is appalled at how long this case has been allowed to linger and by the fact that Murphy apparently still has the ability to celebrate Mass for the deaf community in Milwaukee. He insists that this be rectified.

* He also insists that Fr. Murphy be made to reflect on the gravity of his crimes and to furnish proof of his repentance.

* If he fails to do so, Murphy can have additional penalties inflicted on him, including “dismissal from the clerical state” (i.e., laicization, “defrocking”).

* The CDF is thus not opposed to defrocking Murphy.

* A note on the same meeting by Bishop Sklba states that Bertone also said that a new canonical process can be initiated against Murphy if he violates directives not to have contact with the Milwaukee deaf community.

* In audio interview referencing the same meeting Archbishop Weakland also characterizes the CDF’s response as a “suggestion,” says that he doesn’t think Cardinal Ratzinger was personally involved with these types of cases at this point, says that everyone—including Weakland himself—moved slowly, and says that trying to initiate a canonical case to defrock a priest was something unusual at the time.

One can still criticize the way the CDF handled the case, but the memo does not reveal a portrait of Bertone—much less Ratzinger—as unwilling to take action against Fr. Murphy. A current trial is not prohibited, and even if one is not held, Murphy is not off the hook. He must be prohibited from contact with the community he has harmed, if he fails to provide proof of his repentance he is at risk of being defrocked, and if he breaks the new rules a further canonical process against him could begin.

Now the long form . . .

The other day while composing the first post regarding Cardinal Ratzinger’s (non-)involvement in the Lawrence Murphy paedophilia case I was frustrated by the fact that one of the key documents was available only in Italian and with a really, really lame machine translation done back in 1998.

The document was a memo summarizing a meeting on May 30, 1998 at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith between Archbishop Bertone, the secretary of the CDF and thus the man responsible for its day-to-day operations, and the American bishops involved in the Murphy case.

I figured I’d do the best with it I could, but there were likely additional facts in the document that would emerge in future discussion, once the matter was out on the blogosphere.

Boy, was that right!

This is the smoking gun memo for the case. It reveals just how completely wrong the New York Times and the mainstream media have gotten this story.

I owe a Ten Gallon Cowboy Hat Tip to translator Lori Pieper (BIO) (BLOG) for THIS PROFESSIONALLY DONE TRANSLATION. (HER COMMENTARY.)

Just as the New York Times and other media outlets never contacted key figure Fr. Thomas Brundage before running the story, it appears that they also never got a professional translation of the document, with the result that important facts were left out entirely—or ended up being misrepresented in the press to convey the opposite impression.

So much for the MSM’s “layers of fact checkers.” They couldn’t even have their correspondent in Italy (I assume that person can translate Italian to English?) do a translation of an obviously key document (a meeting held at the Vatican regarding the very case they’re investigating? Sheesh!).

But thanks to the blogosphere and its Army of Davids, we now have a translation. (All emphases, both bold and italics, in the original.)

So what does it say?

Summary of a meeting between the Superiors of the CDF and Their Excellencies the Prelates involved in the case of Lawrence C. Murphy, a priest accused of solicitation in Confession (Prot. No. 111/96).

As the title reveals, the reason that the CDF was involved in this case is that it involved a priest accused of sexual solicitation in the confessional—not because it involved paedophilia. At the time, the CDF did not have a mandate to cover paedophilia (those were normally handled by the local bishop or, if appealed to Rome, by a different Vatican court—the Roman Rota). But the CDF did (and does) have a mandate to deal with cases involving priests who commit sexual solicitation in the confessional.

The meeting took place on Saturday, May 30, 1998 in the office of the CDF. Present for the CDF were: His Excellency, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary, who presided over the meeting, the Rev. Father Gianfranco Girotti, Undersecretary. Don Antonio Manna of the Disciplinary Office, Don Michael Jackels (translator) and Fr. Antonio Ramos. Present were Their Excellencies the prelates who had requested the meeting: His Excellency, Rembert Weakland, Archbishop of Milwaukee (USA), his Auxiliary, His Excellency, Richard Sklba and His Excellency, Raphael Fliss, Bishop of Superior (USA).

Note who is not in attendance: Cardinal Ratzinger. It is possible that Bertone was acting on Ratzinger’s instructions in this meeting, but it is also possible that he was acting independently. We just don’t know. Ratzinger’s name never even comes up in this document.

Also note that the CDF has a Disciplinary Office, which is represented at the meeting by Don Antonio Manna. This is not the only case the CDF has to work on.

As the meeting starts, Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland begins with a summary of the case:

1. His Excellency Archbishop Weakland briefly set forth the previous facts of the case, bringing out the following points: 1°) there have turned out to be many victims of the abuses by Fr. Murphy, all of them deaf; 2°) in 1974, there was an intervention in Fr. Murphy’s case, but nothing had been recorded in the archdiocesan archives (it appears that there was a civil lawsuit, which ended without any penalty being imposed on the accused and the intervention consisted of sending the said priest to another diocese, i.e. Superior); 3°) the deaf community is now experiencing great indignation because of this case and refuses any pastoral solution; 4°) because of the long period of time that has passed since the events took place, it is no longer possible to begin a civil lawsuit in the state of Wisconsin; 5°) Fr. Murphy has no sense of remorse and does not seem to realize the gravity of what he has done. In addition, 6°) there is the danger of great scandal if the case is publicized by the press. According to the testimonies that have been collected, Fr. Murphy’s misdeeds had their origins in Confession.

Point 2 is startling, shocking even. For there not to be diocesan records concerning the 1974 “intervention” (that is, the action undertaken by the diocese) under Weakland’s predecessor Archbishop William Cousins reveals an instance of appalling incompetence at best.

Point 3 is the primary motivator for Weakland taking canonical action against Murphy. The deaf community will not find other solutions acceptable at this point.

Actually, there is more to it than this. Though the memo speaks of the deaf community as a united whole, in a recent audio interview with the BBC Weakland states that there was a sharp division in the Milwaukee deaf community over this case, with the younger members—who had been abused—indignant and the older members—who saw Murphy as someone helping them—taking his side.

It might be more accurate, then, to say that certain elements of the local deaf community would not accept anything other than a trial at this point.

Point 4 is another reason for canonical action. Because the Wisconsin statute of limitations has expired, the deaf community cannot begin an action against Murphy in civil court. If there is to be a judicial action taken against him, it must be in Church court.

Note that the idea of keeping the case secret is not on the table. The matter is public, and the civil authorities already knew (see point 2, above). It appears that if a civil lawsuit were still possible, nobody in the room would object to it.

Point 5 is the assessment that Fr. Thomas Brundage (see link above) and others involved in the case came to, though Murphy claimed the contrary in his January 1998 letter, in which he said that he had repented of his past transgressions. Nevertheless, as we will see, it is the assumption that he is not properly repentant that the meeting will proceed on.

Point 6 reflects the natural desire to avoid scandal. But be careful here. In ecclesiastical-speak, “scandal” does not just mean controversy. It means “to cause (others) to stumble” in their faith or morals (Greek, skandalizein, “to cause to stumble,” “to trip”), such as alienating people from Christ and his Church through the actions of sinful ministers—something any bishop would and should want to avoid.

Note that Weakland wants to pursue canonical action against Murphy to provide justice for abused members of the deaf community and heal the rift Fr. Murphy has created. And at the same time he wants to avoid the scandal and alienation that sensationalistic press coverage would generate.

It is one thing to try to avoid taking action in order to minimize press coverage. It is another to want to take action while minimizing scandal. It’s hard to fault Weakland for wanting to take the latter path.

One note on Weakland’s last point: The memo states that Fr. Murphy’s crimes “had their origin in Confession.” In the audio interview, Weakland clarifies that he’s not saying that they physically took place in the confessional but that they were in some way connected to the confessional. (Perhaps, e.g., he used his knowledge from the confessional to identify potential abuse victims.) This may relate directly to one of the difficulties that Archbishop Bertone points out.

Now that Weakland has had his say, Bertone of the CDF has his:

2. His Excellency the Secretary of the CDF—stressing both the long period of time that has now passed (more than 35 years!) from when the events took place, which constitutes the true problem even on the canonical side, and the fact that there has been no report of other crimes perpetrated or scandals created by Murphy during these years in Superior—maintains that there is insufficient information to instruct a canonical process. Nevertheless, he stresses, it is unacceptable for him [Murphy] to be able to go and celebrate the Eucharist in the deaf community in Milwaukee; it will be necessary, therefore, to impede him, having recourse also to some penal remedies. For precautionary reasons, he can be ordered to celebrate the Eucharist only in the diocese of Superior, especially since this is agreed to both by his Ordinary, i.e. the Archbishop of Milwaukee, and the Ordinary of the place where he resides. But such a provision must be communicated to him in writing. [1]

Note the element of exasperation at how long this has been allowed to linger (that exclamation point after “35 years” is there in the Italian). Because of this, Bertone feels that there is not enough information to properly inform a canonical process against Murphy. As a secondary point, he notes that there have been no new allegations against Murphy, but even though the statute of limitations has already been waived in terms of Church law, the gobsmacking lack of documentation and amount of time that this case has been left to linger creates significant hurdles for prosecuting this case.

That does not mean inaction at this point. On the contrary, Bertone now turns to measures that should be taken against Murphy even in the absence of an ecclesiastical trial.

He is indignant that Murphy has the ability to celebrate Mass for the deaf community in Milwaukee.

There is some confusion about precisely what Murphy did and was allowed to do in this matter. One source, from Feb 1997, suggests that Weakland and Sklba of Milwaukee have directed Murphy not to have contact with deaf people but that there is “some indication from the diocese of Superior” that he has done so by saying Mass and helping with retreats for the deaf.

Murphy’s own letter, from January 1998, indicates that his ministry was never restricted by Weakland’s predecessor, Cousins, and that thus he has on occasion said Mass at parishes in the diocese of Superior and helped at retreats for the deaf. He also states that he has complied with every directive of Cousins and now Weakland.

From the documentation I’ve been able to review, it is not clear just what the facts are. It may be there, but I haven’t seen proof that Murphy was saying Mass for the deaf in the Milwaukee archdiocese (or for the deaf in the diocese of Superior). It strikes me as unlikely that Murphy would say he had complied with all of Weakland’s directives if he knew that Weakland could produce a document showing him to be in violation. So perhaps Weakland only communicated the directive orally. Or perhaps there was miscommunication. Or perhaps the source quoted in the Feb. 1997 document was under the mistaken impression that such directives had been communicated when they hadn’t been.

In any event, Bertone is acting on the premise that Murphy still legally has the ability to celebrate the Mass for the deaf community in Milwaukee, and he is indignant and determined to end that.

The language he uses—for anyone familiar with the ultra-polite, ultra-diplomatic way that Catholic bishops speak to and about each other—is dramatic.

First, he says that is is “unacceptable” that Murphy has the ability to go and say Mass for the Milwaukee deaf community. In the language of bishops, saying this is “unacceptable” translates into normal speech as, “Why haven’t you taken care of this already, you fools? How can you possibly allow this criminal to continue to have contact with the very community he has harmed? You don’t need a trial to stop him from doing that. Use your authority as bishops!”

Thus he says it will be “necessary” (charged term) to “impede” (charged term) Murphy, including having recourse to the infliction of “penal remedies” (charged term).

BTW, Bertone may have been even more blunt about all this in person. What we are dealing with is the exquisitely politely-drafted memo version.

“For precautionary reasons” (i.e., to protect the Milwaukee deaf community from further scandalization—or even abuse—by Murphy), the two bishops can take immediate action. Together Weakland (the ordinary or episcopal “boss” to whom Murphy reports) and Fliss (the ordinary or episcopal “boss” of the place where Murphy lives) can order him not to celebrate Mass except in the Diocese of Superior, thus preventing him from doing so for the deaf community in Milwaukee.

This order “must” (charged term) be communicated to him in writing so that there can be no mistake about it. No “he said; he said.” (Perhaps this is an indication that prior directives to Murphy—if any—had been oral in nature.)

You don’t need a trial for this, guys. Do it!

Don’t let yourselves be hung up by a trial, because there are some hurdles there . . .

3. In regard to the possibility of a canonical process for the crime of solicitation in Confession, His Excellency the Secretary draws attention to some problems that it presents: 1°) first of all the difficulty of proving such a crime, the interpretation of which will have to be made in stricto sensu [in the strict sense]; 2°) the difficulty that deaf people have in furnishing proof and testimonies without aggravating matters, keeping in mind both the limits inherent in their disability and the distance of the events in time. Nevertheless, he stresses, it will be necessary to make Murphy reflect seriously on the grave nature of the evil he has done and on the fact that he will have to give proofs of reformation. 3°) He mentions finally the broad right of [self]-defense that exists in the U.S. and the difficulties that would be put forward by the lawyers in this direction.

Point 1 is Bertone’s real concern here: “the difficulty of proving such a crime.” Notice that, despite the fact that Murphy had sent a letter pleading ill-health as a reason not to proceed. Bertone’s concern is with the difficulty of using a trial under these circumstances, not with Murphy’s health. The latter may well have been one motivating factor in the CDF’s recommendations, but it doesn’t appear in the minutes of this meeting.

And so Bertone points out several difficulties with the proposition of going to trial.

Here we arrive at a place where the previous, machine translation, is positively misleading. Contrary to Andrew Sullivan and reader Carolyn Disco, who are dependent on the machine translation, Cardinal Bertone does not speak of increasing scandal or the need for secrecy. What Cardinal Bertone refers to is the need to prove that the crime has been committed “in the strict sense” (not proving it “in strict secrecy”) and that this will be difficult without “aggravating matters” (not “increasing the scandal”).

The first difficulty Archbishop Bertone mentions (dealt with in the latter part of point 1) is that the law applied to Murphy will have to be interpreted in the strict sense.

This refers to a point in canon law that may not be obvious. According to canon 18 of the Code of Canon Law,

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

The purpose of this canon (among other things) is to prevent innocent people from having penalties inflicted on them based on loosey-goosey readings of the law. If you’re going to be hit with a penalty, it should be unambiguous that you violated the law. (Note that this applies not just to priests, but to anybody who could be hit with a penalty. It’s related to the “innocent until proven guilty” ethic.)

Thus penal laws applied to Murphy will have to be interpreted in the strict sense. That means that you will have to prove that his actions clearly violated the letter of the law, not debatably violated it, not violating its spirit or intent, but clear violation of the letter of the law itself.

This opens up potential challenges that Murphy’s advocate could make in the case.

For example, remember how in the audio interview Weakland cautioned that the crimes may not have been in the confessional itself but only had some connection with it or “had their origin” in it, the way the memo states? Perhaps Weakland has a weak case against the guy in terms of proving a connection with the confessional. Murphy’s canonical advocate could certainly argue fallibility of memory after this many years.

We know how defense attorneys are (and you have to let the guy have a defense attorney or there is not even a pretense of justice): “Is Victim A really sure that Murphy said this to him in confession and not outside of it? How can he be sure after so many years? How does he know that Murphy’s abuse of him wasn’t based on attraction he felt independently and not based on what was said to him in confession? It’s one thing when these kinds of things are fresh in memory, but after 35 years?”

Remember: If Weakland wants to run this case under the auspices of the CDF then it needs to be tried on what the CDF has competency over at this time, which is abuse of the sacrament of confession. If Weakland wants to run it as a paedophilia case then the normal dicastery to contact would be the Roman Rota, not the CDF.

So Weakland may have made a mistake not only by waiting so long to deal with the case but also by picking a dicastery that doesn’t have the right jurisdiction given the evidence he can provide.

Also related, though not specifically mentioned here, is that like any priest accused of misconduct in the confessional, Murphy is hampered in making his own defense by the fact that he can never (under pain of automatic excommunication) violate the seal of confession. According to the Code of Canon Law,

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

“For any reason” includes your own defense in a Church trial. Even to prove your own innocence, you can’t break the seal.

That makes hearing these kinds of cases harder, since one of the parties is significantly impeded from being able to tell his side of the story.

In point 2, Bertone brings out another difficulty in proceeding with the case, namely, “the difficulty that deaf people have in furnishing proof and testimonies without aggravating matters.”

I have to say that I don’t know what Bertone is referring to here. The memo tries to clarify by referencing “the limits inherent in their disability and the distance of the events in time.”

Perhaps Bertone is thinking that, given the utter lack of documentation from the 1970s, that it would aggravate matters for the deaf community by forcing members of it to undergo deposition via an interpreter in ways that could rip open old wounds about painful experiences a long time ago.

This could be particularly true if, as Weakland says in the audio interview, the local deaf community was divided, with one generation taking Murphy’s side and another opposing him.

Or perhaps he thinks that deaf people somehow have difficulty communicating matters with precision due to the nature of sign language (in which case he doesn’t—or at least didn’t—have much awareness of how American Sign Language works; it can be just as precise as spoken languages). Or perhaps he is thinking that some deaf people have difficulty communicating because their parents do not arrange for their children to have a good education in sign language and proper exposure to the deaf community (though that would not seem to be the case in a school for the deaf).

He does seem to be thinking of the fact that, for both the hearing and the deaf, our memories aren’t always as reliable as we would want concerning long-ago events, including—and perhaps especially—traumatic events.

Whatever the case here—and it may simply be bad memo drafting since we don’t have Bertone’s own words—he thinks that it will be difficult to get the needed proof for a trial.

Despite this, and in the same point, Bertone stresses that it will be “necessary” (charged word) “to make Murphy reflect seriously on the grave nature of the evil he has done and on the fact that he will have to give proofs of reformation.”

So Murphy is not to be let off the hook if a trial doesn’t proceed. He’s going to have to reflect on the gravity of his sins and provide proof that he has repented.

In point 3 Bertone cites a third difficulty for a trial, which is “the broad right of [self]-defense that exists in the U.S. and the difficulties that would be put forward by the lawyers” acting on Murphy’s behalf.

The memo doesn’t say, but it is possible Bertone is thinking not just of Murphy’s canonical advocate in the Church trial but of civil lawyers getting involved and trying to interfere with ecclesiastical proceedings. Indeed, that may be what he is thinking since under the Church’s internal law, priests in America don’t have any broader right of self-defense than priests in other countries (though American priests might seek to exercise their canonical rights more aggressively).

So, while he doesn’t exclude the possibility of a trial of Murphy, Bertone notes various difficulties that one would face, while simultaneously insisting that actions must be taken against Murphy.

Weakland then agrees to such actions . . .

4. His Excellency Archbishop Weakland commits himself to try to obtain from Father Murphy—whom he compares to a “difficult” child—a declaration of repentance; all three psychologists who have examined him consider him a “typical” pedophile, who therefore “considers himself a victim.” In this regard, the Under-Secretary [of the CDF] Father Gianfranco Girotti, stresses that the said priest will have to give clear signs of repentance, “otherwise we will have to have recourse to a trial.” His Excellency the Secretary [i.e. Bertone] proposes imposing on him a period of spiritual retreat together with a salutary admonition in order to be able to understand whether he really is repentant or not, otherwise, he would expose himself to the risk of having more rigorous measures imposed on him, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state. He then advises entrusting him to a priest as his spiritual director, with meetings every one or two months.

Here we have arrived at another point where the original machine translation is badly misleading. It is incredibly garbled. Among other things, it makes it appear that three psychologists would need (in the future) to evaluate him and determine if he is a typical paedophile. In fact, as the above translation makes clear, three psychologists have examined him and found him to be a typical paedophile.

Worse, the machine translation leaves out altogether Bertone’s proposal of “imposing on him a period of spiritual retreat together with a salutary admonition in order to be able to understand whether he really is repentant or not, otherwise, he would expose himself to the risk of having more rigorous measures imposed on him, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state” (emphasis in original). Dismissal from the clerical state is laicization or “defrocking,” so defrocking Murphy is explicitly on the table in this meeting. Yet the machine translation leaves it out entirely.

So, far from opposing a trial, on grounds of age or health or anything else, the undersecretary of the CDF indicates that “we will have to have recourse to a trial” if Murphy doesn’t furnish “clear signs of repentance.”

Bertone goes farther, saying that Murphy needs to be sent on retreat with the warning that if he doesn’t come back seriously repentant that he will risk exposing himself to “more rigorous measures [being] imposed on him,” including “dismissal from the clerical state.” He also wants a spiritual director to keep tabs on Murphy.

5. His Excellency the Secretary finally sums up the two central points of the line to be followed in regard to the priest, in a word: 1°) the territorial restriction of the celebration of the Eucharist and 2°) the admonition to induce him to show remorse.

So, whether there is a trial or not, two points are definitely to be followed: Keep Murphy from celebrating Mass for the Milwaukee deaf community and take steps to provoke repentance, with the warnings above about what will happen if he’s not properly repentant, age and anything else notwithstanding.

Weakland then get the last effective word:

Before the conclusion of the meeting, Archbishop Weakland thought it important to restate that it will be difficult to make the deaf community understand the slight extent of these provisions.

And that’s the end of the meeting.

We also have another, briefer account of the meeting in the form of notes that were taken on it by Bishop Richard J. Sklba [RJS in the notes], who was one of the attendees. He writes:

385.

Lawrence Murphy

On May 30, 1998 I joined Archbishop Weakland and Bishop Fliss in meeting with Archbishop Bertone and staff regarding the case. It became clear that the Congregation was not encouraging us to proceed with any formal dismissal on the basis of 24 years of apparent good conduct and the precept impeding exercise of orders currently in effect. We were also cautioned about the difficulty of the question of the Confessional, both in terms of the strict canonical definition of the crime as well as the time lapse between obtaining the information and acting thereon. Archbishop Bertone noted that disobedience of any precept forbidding contact with community members could form the basis for another canonical process.

RJS

So Sklba’s understanding was also that the CDF was “not encouraging us to proceed” but also not forbidding.

An interesting note that wasn’t captured in the official memo summarizing the meeting is Sklba’s last sentence: “Archbishop Bertone noted that disobedience of any precept forbidding contact with community members could form the basis for another canonical process.”

So even if there would be difficulties prosecuting a case this old, if Murphy violates the soon-to-be-imposed requirements not to have contact with the deaf community, he can be nailed for that.

In the audio interview, Weakland also offers a very brief account of the CDF meeting, which he also characterizes as resulting in a “request” to handle the case with restrictions rather than a trial (at the 3:55 mark). Weakland also states (4:40) that he doesn’t think Cardinal Ratzinger was personally involved in this kind of case at this point (i.e., before the CDF was given the mandate to handle them) and that everyone—Weakland himself included—was acting slowly. Weakland states that he probably should have acted ten years earlier (5:10). He also states, very interestingly, that at the time U.S. bishops weren’t really thinking about canonical cases to get priests defrocked (5:15), that what he was trying to do was something unusual for the time—perhaps explaining the difficulty he encountered trying to do it.

No Ulterior Motive?

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?

More News on the Anglican Situation

Well, we now have some more information about how the celibacy issue will be handled in regard to the Anglican ordinariates that will be the subject of Pope Benedict's new apostolic constitution–including word on when that will be out.

This Saturday (!) the Holy See had a press conference which dealt with these matters. Here is the text of the English bulletin on it, plus commentary:

CLARIFICATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE, FR. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, S.I. [sic; he's a Jesuit], ON SPECULATIONS [ominous word at the Vatican; signals damage control is the motive of the briefing] ABOUT THE CELIBACY ISSUE IN THE ANNOUNCED APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION REGARDING PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICAN ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

There has been widespread speculation, based on supposedly knowledgeable [interesting phrase; attempting to be polite but can't help but being read as sarcastic] remarks by an Italian correspondent Andrea Tornielli [he's also highly respected; interesting that they're naming him and making him eat this one; he also rankled some in Vatican circles by reporting a little too freely on some possible liturgical reforms discussed by the Congregation on Divine Worship that they didn't want aired in public; depending on who you believe, he also may have overstated those], that the delay in publication of the Apostolic Constitution regarding Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, announced on October 20, 2009, by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is due to more than "technical" reasons. According to this speculation, there is a serious substantial issue at the basis of the delay, namely, disagreement about whether celibacy will be the norm for the future clergy of the Provision.[Not that that's an unreasonable speculation, as the present text will soon make clear.]

Cardinal Levada offered the following comments on this speculation: "Had I been asked I would happily have clarified any doubt about my remarks at the press conference[Fr. Z's remark about such press conferences is apropos]. There is no substance to such speculation. No one at the Vatican has mentioned any such issue to me. [Under normal circumstances, this could be read as a non-denial denial.] The delay is purely technical in the sense of ensuring consistency in canonical language and references.[That I can believe; for all his virtues–which are many–Pope Benedict is not a canonist, nor are the folks at the CDF (at least as a body) and it makes sense to have the canonical folks go over it prior to publication.] The translation issues are secondary; the decision not to delay publication in order to wait for the ‘official’ Latin text to be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis was made some time ago.

The drafts prepared by the working group,[nice; a glimpse into the drafting process of this constitution; an acknowledgement that it wasn't simply written by Benedict himself, though it undoubtedly was written at his direction and along the lines he indicated, then reviewed carefully in consultation with Cardinal Levada] and submitted for study and approval through the usual process followed by the Congregation, have all included the following statement, currently Article VI of the Constitution [kewl! advance text!]:

§1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary [the head of the ordinariate in this case] as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement "In June" [not easy to find online; I'll put the text of it at the bottom of this post] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.[So, as expected, they won't be able to be ordained and then get married.]

§2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.[If I'm taking this right, section 2 seems to be referring only to those who have served previously as Anglican ministers; that is, it's stating more explicitly what could be inferred from section 1; ordinarily, only unmarried men can be ordained in the new ordinariates but, on a case by case basis, exceptions can be made for those who previously served as Anglican ministers; however see below.]

This article is to be understood as consistent with the current practice of the Church, in which married former Anglican ministers may be admitted to priestly ministry in the Catholic Church on a case by case basis. With regard to future seminarians, it was considered purely speculative whether there might be some cases in which a dispensation from the celibacy rule might be petitioned. For this reason, objective criteria about any such possibilities (e.g. married seminarians already in preparation) are to be developed jointly by the Personal Ordinariate and the Episcopal Conference, and submitted for approval of the Holy See."[So this is the big news: They haven't decided yet how to deal with the married seminarian question; they're planning to work it out in the future. Also note that the example given is for married seminarians already in preparation; they might decide not to allow future Anglican ordinariate seminaries to accept married seminarians–at least if they didn't convert from Anglicanism while in seminary; in this case the married status of Anglican ordinariate clergy would largely be a first-generation-only thing]

Cardinal Levada said he anticipates the technical work on the Constitution and Norms will be completed by the end of the first week of November.[Kewl! So coming up soon!–though they might not release it for a while.]

———————————————————–

Text of the "In June" statement referred to above (or what I have):

“In June 1980, the Holy See, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, agreed to the request presented by the bishops of the United States of America on behalf of some clergy and laity formerly or actually belonging to the Episcopal (Anglican) Church for full communion with the Catholic Church. The Holy See’s response to the initiative of these Episcopalians includes the possibility of a “pastoral provision” which will provide, for those who desire it, a common identity reflecting certain elements of their own heritage.

“The entrance of these persons into the Catholic Church should be understood as the ‘reconciliation of those individuals who wish for full Catholic communion,’ of which the Decree on Ecumenism (no. 4) of the Second Vatican Council speaks.

“In accepting former Episcopalian clergy who are married into the Catholic priesthood, the Holy See has specified that this exception to the rule of celibacy is granted in favor of these individual persons, and should not be understood as implying any change in the Church’s conviction of the value of priestly celibacy, which will remain the rule for future candidates for the priesthood from this group.

“In consultation with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has appointed the Most Reverend Bernard F. Law, bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, as ecclesiastical delegate in this matter. It will be his question to be submitted for the approval of the Holy See, to oversee its implementation and to deal with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in questions pertaining to the admission of former Episcopalian clergy into the Catholic priesthood.”

New Structures Announced for Reception of Anglicans into Full Communion

Things like this have been in the works behind the scenes for some time, but the Holy See has finally announced formal means for facilitating the reconciliation with the Catholic Church of Anglicans who are disaffected with the heterodox trajectory of the worldwide Anglican communion.

The plan will allow bishops' conferences to create "personal ordinariates"–basically nonterritorial diocese with its own bishop (although the former Anglican ordinariates will be able to have priests as their heads).

Further details are to be announced in an apostolic constitution by Pope Benedict. Initial details have been made available by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

CDF STATEMENT.

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER AND THE ANGLICAN ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

As both statements point out, this move is in part a product of ecumenical dialog–even if it is rather a bank shot. It will be interesting to see how ecumenists receive the move. One has the impression that, for many, ecumenical dialog is an end in itself–not something that is supposed to produce concrete results, or at least not the result of bringing people into full communion with the Catholic Church in its current form.

Vatican Downplays

There are lots of stories out there with headlines beginning "Vatican Denies . . . "

There have to be.

The crazy Italian press guarantees lots of stuff that the Vatican needs to deny.

Sometimes the person doing the denying is even using a mental reservation (or something along those lines) when making the denial.

But you know it's significant when the headline only says "Vatican Downplays . . . " If the headline is accurate, it means that there is an implicit, up-front admission on the part of the person that the press interviewed that there is at least some truth to the story.

That's why I really like this headline:

Vatican official downplays report of planned liturgical reforms

As the story indicates, there apparently have been some liturgical reforms proposed by the CDWDS and some of its individual members to Pope Benedict.

We'll have to see what comes of that. Maybe a few things; nothing huge (I very much would doubt an outright ban on Communion in the hand); maybe nothing at all. But it's good that reformist proposals are being made.

(NOTE: I'm working on the next installment of the Age of the World series, but the text I'm dealing with is so rich that it's taking me a while to get the post done, which is why I went with this one today.)

Gold, Red, Dark Blue

Sorry I haven't blogged the last few days, but my old laptop died late last week. I was typing along and suddently hit the Black Screen of Death. Not the blue one, the totally black one that you can't even kinda reboot after. Since then I've been struggling with getting a new laptop, data transfer, and getting the new one set up right. (Still working on that. Can't get a couple of programs installed properly.)

Anyhoo . . .

I thought I'd offer a few (late) thoughts on George Weigel's piece on NRO on Caritas in Veritate.

READ IT HERE.

Weigel has received a lot of criticism for the piece, some of it justified, some of it not.

Let me begin by saying that Weigel is certainly right and dead on the money about much of what he says.

First, this encyclical is a problem child. That's widely known and can be clearly seen just from what the Vatican has said about it publicly in the run up to its release. We knew that before it even came out.

Once it did come out, the matter was abundantly confirmed.

It's clear that the encyclical was, as Weigel indicates, intended as a 40th anniversary commemoration of Paul IV's encyclical Populorum Progressio, which means it should have come out in 2007.

But it didn't. It's two years late.

Why?

The Holy See has acknowledged that it was delayed because of the global economic crisis, but if memory served that really didn't hit, not with encyclical-delaying force, until 2008.

It also was delayed because, unlike his previous encyclical Spe Salvi, which B16 wrote all on his own with virtually nobody knowing about it, the pontiff had people from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace drafting it and, as Weigel says, he wasn't happy with the drafts and kept rejecting them.

How many drafts were rejected is unknown, but once the financial crisis happened, Pope Benedict rejected the then-current draft as simply inadequate to the world situation.

Which is quite revealing. Thank God he pulled that version! Presumably it would have been bolder, more moralizing, less nuanced, and more leftist. It would have been terribly embarassing for the Church to have such a document representing its views in the middle of a world financial crisis or to have it released just before the crisis.

All of this fits with Weigel's narrative of the previous drafts of the encyclical being filled with loopy leftist stuff from the PCJP and Benedict struggling to whip the thing into shape.

And look how long it took!

If this was meant to be in print in 2007 then, given how things work around the Vatican, it must have been in production in 2006 at the latest, and possibly 2005–the same year Benedict became pope. Agreeing to do this encyclical (plausibly, as Weigel says, at the suggestion of the PCJP) must have been something that happened very early in Benedict's reign.

What we're looking at is an encyclical that has been under construction for virtually all of Benedict XVI's four-year reign.

That's a problem child, and we should expect it to show signs of that kind of history.

And it does.

Pope Benedict's ultimate response to the drafts he was getting was to try a hybrid solution in which he drafted certain parts himself but left others alone or only modified them (notably by putting in qualifiers to tone down things the PCJP had proposed).

The result is a patchwork that, as Weigel says, can be marked "gold" where Benedict is speaking and "red" where the default positions of the PCJP are on display. Weigel is totally correct about this. Anybody with an ear for Benedict's voice (meaning a knowledge of his own distinctive theological themes) and a knowledge of the views common at PCJP, can instantly distinguish between the two voices in reading the document.

It's enough to make you think that the source critics have more going for them than you thought.

There's also another kind of passage that Weigel identifies but doesn't assign a color to, so let's use our third primary color and call it dark blue.

Why dark blue? Because these passages are very hard to undertand, even at present incomprehensible. It may be the PCJP talking, or Pope Benedict, or someone else, but whoever is talking, they're not making themselves easily understood.

Reading the encyclical I was struck over and over by passages that just left me scratchi
ng my head. They weren't Benedict's usual style, and I don't know who wrote them. Some may be so difficult precisely because they are hybridized passages with more than one hand at work.

However that may be, they're definitely there. An example is one Weigel treats well:

[A]s when the encyclical states that defeating Third World poverty and underdevelopment requires a “necessary openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion.” This may mean something interesting; it may mean something naïve or dumb. But, on its face, it is virtually impossible to know what it means.

Weigel assigns this to the red category, but on my division it's dark blue because it's just hard to tell what it means in concrete terms other than people ought to be nice to each other in some way. It seems to be an attempt at soaring rhetoric that doesn't so much uplift the reader as cause him to pop right up out of the experience of reading the text and start wondering what the text means.

Regardless of who wrote them, there are many passage in the encyclical that are just dense and hard to make sense of. (Which means they likely aren't Benedict, because he tends to be clearer.)

So far Weigel's take on the encyclical is on course. There is the kind of tension between different viewpoints at the Vatican, including the one that predominates at the PCJP, the encyclical is a fusion of ideas of Benedict's and the standard PCJP positions, and there was a big unhappy behind the scenes process for this encyclical's production.

It may even be reasonable to say that at a certain point Benedict threw up his hands and let the PCJP have its way on some things even though he wasn't entirely happy with the way they came out.

Benedict might well feel that there is still room for improvement in the encyclical, though he obviously felt it was "good enough" at this point to be released.

And that's where Weigel goes wrong.

Weigel depicts the pope as allowing the PCJP passage to stay in the encyclical just so Benedict could maintain peace inside the Vatican.

Nonsense.

Pope Benedict has no problem telling people "no" or undertaking decisions that leave others at the Vatican absolutely mortified. (Summorum Pontificum, anybody? Lifting of the Lefebvrite excommunications–even apart from the Holocaust-denying tendencies of one of the bishops?)

And then there's the fact that he's apparently been saying "no" to the PCJP about this very encyclical for the last several years.

Maybe they wore him down of a few things that he would have liked to have come out better, but he was entirely capable of saying, "You know, guys, I really appreciate the work you've done here, but given the current state of things, I think it best that we shelve this idea."

That kind of thing happens all the time at the Vatican, and Pope Benedict certainly has the wherewithal to shelve an idea that he thinks isn't working.

Also problematic is Weigel's apparent implication that the "red" passages of the encyclical do not represent Benedict's thought.

I think it's fair to say that they may not always have the same intensity in Benedict's mind as the "gold" passages that he felt needed to be in there and inserted on his own personal initiative. But even if some of them are of lesser importance to Benedict or even if he isn't happy with the precise way they ended up being worded, surely they correspond to his thought in at least a general way. (And possibly a much, much stronger way than that.)

So I think Weigel is simply mistaken with this implication.

This is not some minor speech that the pope had ghost written and that he read maybe once before he delivered it in public. In documents such as that the pope might, indeed, pass over something by accident that doesn't really reflect his thoughts.

This is an encyclical for crying out loud!

The pope–and his chosen experts–have been over every single word of this. The pope has spent years wrestling with this thing and personally critiquing the drafts from the PCJP. This thing has been scrutinized by the pope and his chosen experts so thoroughly that anything appearing in the document at this date is something Benedict has made his own.

He or may not be entirely happy with the result, but it's his now, and–to come to the last problem I want to mention with Weigel's essay–it's just insulting to the pope to suggest that the contents of numerous passages in his encyclical do not, at least in general terms, reflect his own views.

I mean, really.

The PCJP is de
finitely a dicastery that can be subject to legitimate and forceful critique, but Weigel simply goes too far in making them out as the villain. In the process he, certainly unintentionally, insults Pope Benedict by portraying him as a man so weak as a Vicar of Christ that he can be bullied by a mid-range dicastery into including in an encyclical (one of the most authoritative papal teaching moments) things that don't even reflect his thought.

Or so it seems from what Weigel wrote.

Perhaps he will clarify.

He's usually very insightful, and I'd love to see him interact more with this encyclical.

Early Tentative Thoughts on the New Encyclical

A reader writes:

The Pope recently came out with his position on capitalism. Can you
explain his position possibly better than what I have read in the papers?
Also, I am hearing secular talk on the radio wondering about Papal
infallibility and this economic view. On the surface what he has said
appears to me to be even further left of Obama! To me that would be worse
for the poor not better!

What the reader is querying about is the new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, that Pope Benedict released yesterday.

Actually, the document does not ever use the word "capitalism" or "socialism"–which seems to be by design. The pope is not trying to comment on particular economic systems but on general principles. Within that framework, he actually has good things to say about the market. This is not an anti-market encyclical, so beware of the oversimplifications that the mainstream media is going to offer.

Thus far I have read through the encyclical once, but I need to go back and do further reading and digesting.

Because of the pressing news cycle (even stepped on as the encyclical release was by the Michael Jackson funeral), though, here are a few early thoughts:

1) Do not put weight on anything you read in the newspaper or on secular talk radio regarding the encyclical. The mainstream media simply does not "get" religion, and they are too incompetent on matters of religion to report accurately anything that the pope says or does. Sorry, but it's the truth.

2) In particular (and this will be an even greater temptation on talk radio), there is a tendency on the part of the MSM to read everything in terms of a liberal/conservative dichotomy. This political, polarized reading should not be imposed on the encyclical. When you read it, it quickly becomes clear that it does not fit neatly into either a liberal or a conservative box. It says things that are challenging no matter what one's political persuasion is.

3) Consequently, it is not possible from the encyclical to simply compare the pope's views to Obama's and say which is in what direction from the other. This is a complex, multi-axis matrix, not something that can be reduced to a simple left/right spectrum.

4) Because of the complexity, it would be possible to pick an item–or several items–out of the encyclical and take them out of context and say, "The pope sounds to the left of anything Obama has proposed so far." It would be equally possible to do the reverse and say, "The pope sounds to the right of anything Obama has proposed so far."

5) Either of the above would be a mistake. One reason is the multi-axis nature of the document. Another is that the pope includes important qualifiers that have to be given their full weight. If you lop off the qualifiers then you distort the picture.

6) Yet another reason is that, as the pope points out in the encyclical, the Church does not have specific, technical solutions to propose. Figuring those out are the task of the laity, and it is precisely in this area where most politics is generated. In other words, "left" and "right" are often agreed upon the goals that need to be achieved (full employment, combatting poverty, helping families thrive, making sure children are educated, etc.). The point of dispute is how these things are to be done, and that is the point that the Church tries to leave to the laity.

7) It therefore simply is not productive to engage in pope/president political comparisons. So don't.

8) That being said, there are points in the encyclical where, at least in general terms, the pope seems to go beyond his stated intention not to offer technical solutions and to make proposals that at least point in the direction of particular solutions. There is a blurry line here between theory and application, and pastoral concern for human well-being will always present churchmen with a temptation to cross that blurry line and at least recommend particular applications that seem right to them.

9) When that happens we need to take seriously what they say, particularly in the case of the pope, the Vicar of Christ. At the same time, we must not put greater weight on what they say than what they themselves do, and thus we must remember that they are not teaching infallibly. In releasing the new encyclical, Benedict XVI does not even remotely come close to using the kind of language that popes use when signalling that they are speaking infallibly. There simply is no attempt on the part of Benedict XVI to engage his charism of infallibility here, and so anything the reader has heard on talk radio regarding the encyclical calling infallibility into question is just nonsense. See point #1, above.

10) Because the document is not proposing anything infallibly, it is in principle open to revision in the future. This is particularly so because by its very subject matter it is an intervention of a prudential nature, seeking to apply general principles to a particular set of socio-economic problems in the world today. In describing documents of this nature, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (then-headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), wrote:

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian 24).

11) It is quite likely that a person reading the encyclical will find himself challenged at various points, no matter what his native political instincts are. This is part of the pope's intention. He wants to challenge everybody and shake them out of the uncritical political orbits that people find themselves sliding into. One should therefore avoid two mistakes in reading the document: (a) One should not casually dismiss things that seem to conflict with one's previous views; this is the Vicar of Christ talking, and we need to take what he says seriously. (b) One should not simply seize on things that seem to confirm one's prior views and absolutize them; there is a very substantial element of nuance to what the pope says, he is deliberately leaving room for legitimate diversity of opinion even as he makes certain proposals, and he is not attempting to engage his infallibility and thus is deliberately leaving much of what he says open to future revision.

12) The most constructive course is not to rush to conclusions regarding the encyclical but to read it, meditate on it, take a willing, open perspective, and allow oneself to be challenged by what it has to say, regardless of where one is coming from.

START THE CHALLENGE.

The Pope Walks

Pope Benedict XVI walked out of an ecumenical gathering prematurely in Jerusalem this evening.

The pontiff's abrupt departure was occasioned by an unscheduled tirade by Muslim official Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi (sitting to the right of Pope Benedict in the picture; incidentally you'll also see Tamimi's first name spelled Taysir and Tatzir in some stories due to the intricacies of Arabic spelling; the vowels can be represented differently, and there's a consonant in the middle of his name that we don't have in English; but it's the same guy).

Tamimi basically commandeered the microphone and launched into a heated, ten-minute tirade in Arabic.

The speech, as you would expect, was anti-Israeli.

The pope waited until the tirade was over, got up, shook Tamimi's hand, and unceremoniously left the gathering, which was not yet formally over.

THE JERUSALEM POST HAS THE STORY.

Details are still sketchy, but let's look at a few questions that may arise as a result of this:

1) If the pope decided to leave the event, why did he wait until after the tirade was over? Why not walk out in the middle of it?

Several possibilities suggest themselves:

a) So far as I know, the pope does not speak Arabic, and it does not appear that realtime translation was being provided. It may not have been clear to the pope precisely what was being said and whether it justified walking out. After all, it's one thing to walk out on an impassioned and impromptu anti-Israeli tirade. It's another to walk out on an impassioned and impromptu plea for peace. Between the two are a whole host of possibilities, and the bottom line is you want to make sure that sufficiently severe line has been crossed before you walk out. The pope may well have been waiting to find out from an Arabic-speaking aide precisely what had just been said.

Also, the Jerusalem Post notes that the pope "was visibly uncomfortable with the tone of Tamimi's discourse" while it was underway.

b) If you're going to walk out, you do so knowing that your actions will likely call more attention to the incident than it would otherwise have and that they will be portrayed by some as a slap not just against the angry tirader but against the constituency he represents. Given that, if you are trying to be a peacemaker, you want to send a measured message that will make the point without further inflaming the situation. It thus could be prudent to wait until the tirade was over and thus deny pro-Tamimi people the ability to say, "The pope didn't want to hear what was being said; he walked out before the sheikh was even finished; the pope can't handle the truth." In any event, just after the tirade would be a logical point to depart for diplomatic reasons.

c) In the heat of a moment like this, it may have simply taken the pontiff time to decide what to do.

I therefore don't see serious cause from criticism regarding the timing of the pope's departure, though I have seen people in pro-Israel parts of the blogosphere acting indignant that the pope didn't take an ultra-macho stance and walk out sooner.

2) Why did the pope shake Tamimi's hand?

a) Assuming that report is accurate (and I assume it is), see answer (b), above. The pope was trying to send a measured message. He's trying to make a point by leaving but not slam the door shut on dialogue with the Muslim and Palestinian communities. Even if Tamimi has shown himself to be an unacceptable dialogue partner, simultaneously rebuffing him by leaving but also shaking his hand sends two messages to the communities he represents: This kind of behavior isn't acceptable but I'm still trying to be nice to you and want to preserve possibilities for the future.

b) See also reply (c), above, regarding the heat of the moment and trying to figure out what to do.

c) As far as I know, the pope likely also shook the hand of the rabbi who was in attendance, which would create a message of "I'm trying to show respect for both your communities here."

3) Should Tamimi have been stricken off the guest roster due to his past behavior?

I have more sympathy for criticism of the Vatican Secretariate of State on this one. A Google search reveals that Tamimi is a known advocate of terror bombing. Why the Secretariate of State would think he was an appropriate individual to appear alongside the pope, I don't know.

On the other hand, if you're trying to advance the cause of peace via negotiation, you need someone to negotiate with, and it may well be that the Palestian leadership is so dirty with respect to terrorism that there simply are no leaders–religious or secular–who haven't made positive remarks about terror bombing.

On the third hand, Tamimi has a specific history of doing precisely this kind of thing. The Jerusalem Post notes:

Tamimi staged an identical verbal attack against Israel during Pope John Paul II's visit in March 2000.

"Well if he did that, why on earth would they invite him back?" was the question that immediately raised itself to me.

A little checking, however, revealed that there was more to the story.

Back in 2000 Tamimi did indeed make a similar outburst during John Paul II's visit, but–and I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere in the blogosphere yet–he did so only after a rabbi at the same event had made provocative pro-Israel remarks in which the tried to co-opt John Paul II as a tool against Palestinians.

So their reasonining may have been that Tamimi was provoked on that occasion and, perhaps, he'd sent signals that he would behave this time.

On the other hand, Tamimi's behavior overall at the prior event seems pretty slimy–and he himself walked out of that event early, so there's some poetic justic in Pope Benedict walking out on him!

THE NEW YORK TIMES (FROM 2000) HAS THE STORY.

I don't know enough about Tamimi and what assurances he may or may not have given the Secretariate of State to be able to make a decision here, but it the situation makes me uneasy.

Hopefully the Vatican Secretariate of State has learned it's lesson with Tamimi, and he won't get invited to anything in the future.

New Apparitions Document?

For the last week or so, I've been following a story that has started to gain traction in the English-language press and blogosphere.

The gist of the story is this: A new document is going to be released from the Holy See governing the way in which Marian and other apparitions (or private revelation in general) is handled. This will be an updating of the guidelines privately circulated to bishops since the 1970s.

The document is reported to be a vademecum (a brief guide, not an exhaustive tome), and it's being presented as something that will create a "crack down" or a "gag order" on visionaries.

There are several reasons to be cautious about this story.

First, even assuming the basic facts of the story are true, it's being represented with an anti-apparition spin that the Holy See would not approve.

The Holy See has always been receptive to genuine apparitions, which are gifts of God's grace. As St. Paul said, we should not despise prophecies, but test everything and hold fast to that which is good. The Holy See in no way would want to send the signal that it wants to "crack down" on legitimate visionaries or put a "gag" on them.

It may well want to discourage false reports of apparitions, and it might institute disciplinary norms requiring greater circumspection on the part of those reporting apparitions (as was the case before the 1960s, when there was a liberalization of the procedures visionaries were obliged to follow in making their reported revelations public). However, the language of "crack downs" and "gag orders" and similar idioms is not the Holy See's intent.

Second, and equally fundamentally, there is a problem with the sourcing on this story.

Basically, the only source on this at present is an Italian website called Petrus.

Petrus would appear to have a source that has at least read a draft or heard a summary of the vademecum, perhaps in the CDF, but who knows?

The problem is that the Italian press is often filled with rumors about that Vatican that turn out to be completely untrue or grossly distorted. There is a lot of gossip in Rome, as there is in every city, and a lot of it isn't reliable.

Reports of a new vademecum on apparitions, especially one to be made public, must therefore be treated with caution, especially when there is such slender sourcing on the claims.

It may well be that there is a new vademecum or other document on the subject. It may be in a draft stage or a final stage. It may possibly include provisions like those described in the Petrus article. It may even be made public in the future.

But we don't know any of that at this point, and people should be cautious in how they handle the subject.