The extraordinary venom spewed at the pope emeritus and the cardinal by more than a few commentators did not advance the Church’s discussion of the reform of the priesthood one jot or tittle. It actually retarded that urgent discussion, diverting attention from some urgent issues (including the deep roots of the abuse crisis and the meaning of clerical celibacy) by treating a serious book as if it were a partisan political tract.
Yet the cacophony over the Benedict/Sarah book, From the Depths of Our Hearts, did serve two useful purposes: it spoke volumes about the character of the venomous, and it clarified some of the dynamics roiling the Church as the pontificate of Pope Francis approaches its seventh anniversary on March 13.
The attack on Pope Emeritus Benedict was exceptionally nasty—and deeply ill-informed. One prominent partisan of the current pontificate opined that Benedict is “conscious barely half an hour at a time;” another wizard from the left field bleachers had it that Benedict was “incapacitated.” Neither man has the faintest idea of what he’s talking about. I spent a full 45 minutes with Pope Emeritus Benedict this past October 19, discussing a broad range of issues. He was quite frail physically, but in the early evening of what I assume had been a normal day, he was completely lucid, quite well-informed, eager for new information, full of good humor, and able to recall themes and personalities from conversations we had had decades earlier. The pope emeritus seemed clear as a bell, intellectually, at age 92; can the same be said for those who, relying on “reports,” dismiss him as a senile old man, out of touch with events and perhaps even reality?
The attack on Cardinal Sarah was equally vicious and just as ill-informed. I have had the honor of knowing the Guinean cardinal for several years and, like anyone who has spent significant time with him, I have found him a man of profound holiness: a truly converted disciple of Jesus Christ whose ministry flows from his radical fidelity to the Lord. Despite the caricatures perpetrated by those who evidently fear his present and future influence in the Church, Cardinal Sarah has also struck me as a man of Christian joy, still amazed at the grace of God that has been at work in his life, and therefore able to laugh (in that robust way that only Africans can) at the human foibles of the moment. Cardinal Sarah was not laughing, however, at the claim that he had lied about the origin and nature of From the Depths of Our Hearts—and his righteous, if controlled, anger confirmed what those who actually know him understand: this is an honest man.
These calumnies against Benedict and Sarah were amplified by another absurd charge: that by discharging their minds and consciences on what is necessary for an authentic reform of the priesthood, the pope emeritus and the cardinal were somehow interfering with Pope Francis’s “discernment” after the Amazonian synod of this past October. So it has now come down (and I do mean down) to this: the partisans of openness and dialogue are now telling two of Catholicism’s most distinguished sons that their views are unwelcome; that the theological and pastoral defense of clerical celibacy is an act of disloyalty to Pope Francis; and that they should just shut up.
These are not the tactics of advocates convinced that they have won the substantive argument and are likely to continue winning. These are the tactics of those who, fearful that time is running out, imagine that their only recourse is to resort to bullying.
There is nothing of churchmanship in this, nor is there anything of Christian charity. The reform of the priesthood is essential for the evangelizing mission of the Church. Those who dismissed a serious proposal for such reform, in large part by vilifying its authors, branded themselves as less interested in reforming the priesthood of the New Covenant than in ecclesiastical power-games.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
A defining theme of Pope Francis’ papacy has been his urging of humanity to better care for the natural environment, which he has done most prominently in his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and numerous subsequent writings and speeches.
The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States, about half of whom do not share Pope Francis’ views on climate change, according to surveys.
In Laudate Deum, which was released in October as a continuation to Laudato Si’, Francis wrote that the effects of climate change “are here and increasingly evident,” warning of “immensely grave consequences for everyone” if drastic efforts are not made to reduce emissions. In the face of this, the Holy Father criticized those who “have chosen to deride [the] facts” about climate science, stating bluntly that it is “no longer possible to doubt the human — ‘anthropic’ — origin of climate change.”
The pope in the encyclical laid out his belief that there must be a “necessary transition towards clean energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels.” This follows a call from Pope Francis in 2021 to the global community calling for the world to “achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.”
He further lamented what he called “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions [on climate change] that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
In light of the new encyclical — which extensively cites the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Pope Francis was invited to speak at this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28. Though the 86-year-old pope was forced to cancel his trip due to health issues, the Vatican has indicated that he aims to participate in COP28 this weekend in some fashion. It announced today that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin will represent the pope at the conference.
While various Catholic groups have welcomed the pope’s latest encyclical, some Catholics have reacted with persistent doubts, questioning whether the pope’s policy prescriptions would actually produce the desired effects.
How do Americans feel about climate change?
According to a major survey conducted by Yale University, 72% of Americans believed in 2021 — the latest available data year — that “global warming is happening,” and 57% believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
More recent polling from the Pew Research Center, conducted in June, similarly suggests that two-thirds of U.S. adults overall say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over the expansion of the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. That same survey found that just 3 in 10 adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal, and natural gas. The Yale study found that 77% of U.S. adults support at least the funding of research into renewable energy sources.
Broken down by party affiliation, Pew found that a large majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents — 90% — favor alternative energy sources, while just under half, 42%, of Republicans and Republican-leaning adults think the same. Within the Republican cohort, however, 67% of Republicans under age 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources, compared with the 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older who prioritize the expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas.
In terms of the expansion of alternative energy sources, two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power, Pew reported. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.
How do America’s Catholics feel about climate change?
Surveys suggest that Catholics in the United States are slightly more likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be skeptical of climate change, despite the pope’s emphatic words in 2015 and since.
A separate Pew study suggests that 44% of U.S. Catholics say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity, a view in line with Pope Francis’ stance. About 3 in 10 (29%) said the Earth is warming mostly due to natural patterns, while 13% said they believe there is no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer.
According to the same study, 71% of Hispanic Catholics see climate change as an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 49% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics. (There were not enough Black or Asian Catholics in the 2022 survey to analyze separately, Pew said.)
One 2015 study from Yale did suggest that soon after Laudato Si’ was released, U.S. Catholics were overall more likely to believe in climate change than before. That same study found no change, however, in the number of Americans overall who believe human activity is causing global warming.
Pope Francis’ climate priorities
Beyond his groundbreaking writings, Pope Francis has taken many actions during his pontificate to make his own — admittedly small — country, Vatican City, more sustainable, including the recent announcement of a large order of electric vehicles, construction of its own network of charging stations, a reforestation program, and the continued importation of energy coming exclusively from renewable sources.
Francis has often lamented what he sees as a tepid response from developed countries in implementing measures to curb climate change. In Laudate Deum, he urged that new multinational agreements on climate change — speaking in this case specifically about the COP28 conference — be “drastic, intense, and count on the commitment of all,” stating that “a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.”
The pope lamented what he sees as the fact that when new projects related to green energy are proposed, the potential for economic growth, employment, and human promotion are thought of first rather than moral considerations such as the effects on the world’s poorest.
“It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs,” the pope noted.
“What is happening is that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of generating countless jobs in different sectors.”
‘Leave God’s creation better than we found it’
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank, told CNA that he has noticed a theme of frustration and confusion among many Catholics regarding the Holy Father’s emphasis on climate change.
A self-described outdoorsman and former president of Wyoming Catholic College, Roberts spoke highly to CNA of certain aspects of Laudato Si’, particularly the pope’s insights into what he called “human ecology,” which refers to the acceptance of each person’s human body as a vital part of “accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. Courtesy of Heritage Foundation.
“I like to think [Pope Francis] personally wrote that, because I could see him saying that,” Roberts said of the passage, which appears in paragraph 155 of the encyclical. Roberts said he even makes a point to meditate on that “beautiful and moving” passage during a retreat that he does annually.
That portion of Laudato Si’ notwithstanding, Roberts said he strongly believes that it detracts from other important issues, such as direct ministry to the poor, when Pope Francis elevates care for God’s natural creation as “seemingly more important than other issues to us as Catholics.” He also said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ policy prescriptions, such as a complete phasing out of fossil fuels, contained in Laudate Deum.
“We of course want to pray for him. We’re open to the teaching that he is providing. But we also have to remember as Catholics that sometimes popes are wrong. And on this issue, it is a prudential matter. It is not a matter of morality, particularly when he’s getting into the scientific policy recommendations,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the Heritage Foundation’s research and advocacy has focused not on high-level, multinational agreements and conferences to tackle the issues posed by climate change but rather on smaller-scale, more community-based efforts. He said this policy position is, in part, due to the historical deference such multinational conglomerates of nations have given to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases overall.
He said agreements within the U.S. itself, with businesses and all levels of government working together, have produced the best results so far when it comes to improving the environment. He also pointed to examples of constructive action that don’t involve billions of dollars, such as families making the choice to spend more time outdoors or engaging in local activities that contribute to environmental conservation and community life, such as anti-litter campaigns and community gardening. The overarching goal, he said, should be to “leave God’s creation better than we found it.”
Roberts — who said he personally believes humans likely have “very little effect” on the climate — said he was discouraged to read other portions of Laudato Si’, as well as Laudate Deum, that to him read as though they had come “straight out of the U.N.” Despite his criticisms, Roberts urged his fellow Catholics to continue to pray for the Holy Father and to listen to the pope’s moral insights.
“I just think that the proposed solutions are actually more anti-human and worse than the purported effects of climate change,” he added.
‘A far more complex issue’
Greg Sindelar, a Catholic who serves as CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that studies the energy industry, similarly expressed concerns to CNA about the potential impact of certain climate change mitigation policies on human flourishing.
Like Roberts, Sindelar spoke highly of certain aspects of the pope’s message while expressing reservations about some of the U.N.-esque solutions proposed in Laudate Deum.
“I think the pope is right about our duty as Catholics to be stewards and to care for the environment. But I think what we have to understand — what we have to balance this with — is that it cannot come at the expense of depriving people of affordable and reliable energy,” Sindelar said in an interview with CNA.
“There’s ways to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing the access that we all need to reliable and affordable energy.”
Greg Sindelar is CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank in America’s leading energy-producing state. Courtesy of Texas Public Policy Foundation
Sindelar said TPPF primarily promotes cheap, reliable access to energy as a means of promoting human flourishing. The free-market-focused group is skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, both in the form of regulation and incentives or disincentives in certain areas of the energy sector.
When asked what he thinks his fellow Catholics largely think about the issue, Sindelar said many of the Catholics he hears from express the view that government policies and interventions rarely produce effective solutions and could potentially hinder access to energy for those in need.
“I think it’s a far more complex issue than just saying we need to cut emissions, and we need to transfer away from fossil fuels, and all these other things. What we need to do is figure out and ensure ways that we are providing affordable and reliable electricity to all citizens of the world,” he reiterated.
“When the pope speaks, when the Vatican speaks, it carries a lot of weight with Catholics around the world, [and] not just with Catholics … and I totally agree with him that we need to be thinking about the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us,” Sindelar continued.
“[But] by going down these policy prescription paths that he’s recommending, we’re actually going to reduce their ability to have access to that,” he asserted.
Sindelar, while disagreeing with Pope Francis’ call for an “abandonment of fossil fuels,” said he appreciates the fact that Pope Francis has spoken out about the issue of care for creation and has initiated so much public discussion.
“I think there is room for differing views and opinions on the right ways to do that,” he said.
Effective mitigation efforts
Susan Varlamoff, a retired biologist and parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in the Atlanta area, is among those Catholics who are committed to Pope Francis’ call to care for creation and to mitigate the effects of climate change. To that end, Varlamoff in 2016 created a peer-reviewed action plan for the Archdiocese of Atlanta to help Catholics put the principles contained in Laudato Si’ into action, mainly through smaller, more personal actions that people can take to reduce their energy usage.
Retired biologist Susan Varlamoff. Photo courtesy of Susan Varlamoff
The Atlanta Archdiocese’s efforts have since garnered recognition and praise, Varlamoff said, with at least 35 archdioceses now involved in an inter-diocesan network formed to exchange sustainability ideas based on the latest version of the plan from Atlanta.
“It’s fascinating to see what everybody is doing, and it’s basically based on their talents and imaginations,” Varlamoff said, noting that a large number of young people have gotten involved with their efforts.
As a scientist, Varlamoff told CNA it is clear to her that Pope Francis knows what he’s talking about when he lays out the dangers posed by inaction in the face of climate change.
“He understands the science, and he’s deeply concerned … he’s got remarkable influence as a moral leader,” she said.
“Part of what our religion asks us to do is to care for one another. We have to care for creation if we’re going to care for one another, because the earth is our natural resource system, our life support, and we cannot care for one another if we don’t have that life support.”
Responding to criticisms about the financial costs associated with certain green initiatives, Varlamoff noted that small-scale sustainable actions can actually save money. She offered the example of parishes in the Atlanta area that have drastically reduced their electric bills by installing solar panels.
“[But,] it’s not just about saving money. It’s also about reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting the natural resources for future generations,” she said.
Moreover, Varlamoff said, the moral imperative to improve the natural environment for future generations is worth the investment. “When [Catholics] give money, for example, for a social justice issue like Walking with Moms in Need or special needs, the payback is improving lives. We’re improving the environment here,” she emphasized.
The Medjugorje Youth Festival, in its 34th edition, held July 26–30, 2023, at the site of alleged Marian apparitions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. / Credit: Radio MIR Međjugorje
Rome Newsroom, May 14, 2024 / 13:52 pm (CNA).
Cardinal Víctor Manuel … […]
27 Comments
George, name names and give specific instances…please. Otherwise, yours is just another vague indictment of some with nefarious intent.
The tweet about Benedict XVI being conscious for barely half an hour a day is by Austen Ivereigh.
If you can read Italian try Stilum Curiae, Marco Tosatti’s blog for more.
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected.”- Jorge Bergoglio, denying the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and denying that sin done in private is sin.
Certainly we are all aware that there are a multitude of those Baptized Catholic, who profess to be in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, who deny that sin done in private, perhaps we should call it “consensual sin”, is sin.
“Queen and Mother, stretch thy arms to us, raise us up to thy Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart. Allow us to rest our heads on thy heart and thus become saints and apostles! Queen of the Holy Rosary grant us the strength to fight thy enemies!”
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost; “It Is Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, That Holy Mother Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, exists.
It is not possible for a counterfeit schismatic church to subsist within Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost. (Filioque)
But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?’ (Luke 18:8.)
That will be up to us, whether we repent and accept Life-affirming, Life-sustaining Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, and live.
This event makes crystal clear that the bullying is directed by the Pontiff Francis. No one but he could force Gänswein to kowtow and post-facto contradict the undeniable evidence of the long prior agreement of co-authorship.
The only question remaining is about Gänswein: is he nothing more than the jail-keeper for McCarrick’s Pontiff?
America magazine:
“Benedict, who will be 93 in April and is very frail, can hardly write because of physical difficulties or hold a conversation for more than 15 minutes and moves about in a wheelchair”
Commonweal Magazine:
“Sarah has turned the ex-pope into a counter-magisterium, a rallying point for opposition to Francis.”
So names are already well known…
Pope should condemn their rigidity.
Pope v. pope? Every Faithful Catholic knows that would not just be a contradiction in terms. That would be a denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus a denial of The Divinity Of The Blessed Trinity.
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
One cannot be for Christ, if one denies The Divinity Of The Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost.
Why not just be honest about what this book is? Sarah was rightly very concerned that PF would use the Amazon Synod to undermine the discipline of celibacy. I recall a quote from PF in one of the early interviews of his papacy in which he said something to the effect that the “problem” of clerical celibacy needed to be addressed. Then, he proposed a synod on the priesthood and celibacy but there were strong objections from some on his Council of Cardinals, so we got the Youth Synod instead. Not to be deterred, PF used another vehicle to address the issue.
With this background, you can see why Sarah was alarmed and, as a last ditch effort, contra PF and the Germans, enlisted Benedict XVI to write this book defending clerical celibacy and rush it to publication before PF publishes his exhortation. Everyone knows this is the case, but everyone (including Sarah) keeps insisting that they do not “oppose Francis.” Well, in a sense that’s true, because you can’t oppose PF if he has not yet taken a “formal” stand. But in reality we all know (or should know) what is going on. This was a last-ditch, nuclear option, enlistment of the former pope to try to forestall what Sarah fears may be coming down the pike from PF.
“One prominent partisan of the pontificate opined that Benedict is conscious barely half the time.”
WHO said that?
“Another wizard from the left-field bleachers had it that Benedict was incapacitated.”
I repeat – WHO said that?
To me this article implies that Pope Francis is clearly behind these attacks. There are undoubtedly a few layers of deniability between him and the attacks, but the implication is clear.
Great title for this article! Where do this sudden increase in anti-Church, anti-Truth bullies and their greater viciousness come from? Yep, we’ve had conflict inside the Church since day one back there 2,000 years ago (heck the Angels had conflict, it’s called ‘free choice’), but never this level of fanaticism with an aura of false legitimacy, aggressiveness and “pontifical” entitlement. As they say in martial arts: “Where the head goes the body follows”. Also, when I was a Protestant long time ago, I kept hearing that a congregation was limited to the level of spirituality of its Pastor, like a hard spiritual ceiling (and it was very obviously true).
A leader either opens the floodgates of corruption, those of mediocrity or those of integrity. Pope Francis has very consistently showed that he is himself definitely a very low spiritual ceiling and those who live at that very low level feel entitled, justified, empowered, legitimized and “sanctified” like never before in Catholic History. Thanks God we are Catholics and not Protestants because they are stunted and locked down by their Pastor’s maturity, but we Catholics have had 8 bad Popes in the past and BROKE THROUGH THAT CEILING!! Glory be to God!! Time to do it again and again and again! Our Supreme Pastor is Jesus Christ not a Pope guarded by his ideological attack dogs and that is so untruthful, fragile and delicate he can’t face the slightest difference of opinion, questioning or confrontation. To distract from this they mock Benedict’s fragility, which is ONLY physical not moral or spiritual, and like St. Paul, when Benedict is weak, he is strong in Christ (2 Corinthians 12:10).
Where were those hyper-protective attack dogs when Pope Paul VI was attacked for Humanae Vitae? Where were they when Pope John II was attacked for not yielding to the Satanic Communist Media pressure? Sure, some of those attack dogs attacking Benedict and Sarah are disguised infiltrators and agitators from “outside” that are not one bit Catholic but they come together with those who have totally ceased to be True Catholics in their hearts at some point, like the traitorous Jewish leaders scaring the people about Roman reprisals, and infiltrating and agitating the crowd to ask Pilate for Jesus’ crucifixion.
Like someone else I heard, “I am an uncompromising enemy of the enemies of the Papacy, especially the worst ones: bad Popes!” God bless, protect and empower True Catholics like Benedict and Sarah! We must follow THEM and all those who follow the Lord Jesus faithfully (“Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” 1 Corinthians 11:1) and not the pompous, bombastic impostors, cowardly hiding behind their rank! Blindly kissing up to rank is a most disgusting slavery and high treason to our True Lord Jesus Christ!! “Therefore, whoever chooses to be a friend of the world is an enemy of God!” (James 4:4)
“Sudden”, yes, as I already explained it in my comment. When a bad leader takes charge in the Church, at parish, diocese, national or world level (or political level), those inhabitants of darkness, mostly mixed in with the generic anti-Church mob of today, then come out into the open as “independent authority” and assume false airs of false “pontifical legitimacy” to attack the MOST LEGITIMATE representatives of the Church, whether Laity or Clergy like Benedict and Sarah. Referring to situations like this, my late father would say, “When the light gets turned off, the creepy crawlers come out”.
I am certain that when Pope Benedict formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, who for decades ran the office that oversaw the world-wide files on clerical abuse under Pope JPII, has plenty of thoughts on clerical celibacy, as only a true insider would have of the worst sins of the church would know. Precisely why his point of view would be so interesting. He saw what only a few people in the church every saw, namely the “filth.” His thoughts on returning the Church to the early roots of Christian celibacy would be fascinating.
Also, no one knows when he might have written several articles and/or started a book on the early Christian traditions of priestly celibacy. He could have been working on such a book for decades and could have easily handed over several finished chapters to Cardinal Sarah that he had written many years ago as Cardinal Ratzinger.
It would be nice (and fair) if the venom constantly spewed at the Pope by that ‘Catholic’ blogosphere was denounced with as much zeal. He has been subject to as bad for far longer …
Mr. Daniel Mahoney, yours is the same “compassionate”, “pacifist”, “tolerant” attitude of those who lament and strongly criticize the ones who expose the obvious errors, heresies and popularity-seeking brazenness of Protestant Pastor Joel Osteen, who went initially from a very faithful Pastor into turning Bible verses into a New Age/witchcraft/Prosperity Gospel. Those who expose Osteen are supposed to be sabotaging the Gospel, hard-hearted rigid fanatics, friends with anti-God groups, enemies of Christianity, etc. etc. REALLY? Something very similar to what’s happening over THERE is happening over HERE.
When I was an adolescent, my late father had an efficacious remedy when truthful criticism would make me indignated, offended, furious and pissy-hissy mad like a rattlesnake: “stop doing wrong and seeking ways to justify it!”
We are COMMANDED to speak up the Truth, even when we others condemn us for it: “When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood”, (Ezekiel 3:18). “For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, for Jerusalem’s sake I will not remain quiet, till her vindication shines out like the dawn, her salvation like a blazing torch”, (Isaiah 62:1).
I’m really confused. The BBC, National Newspapers both in the UK and elsewhere around the world reported that Pope Benedict, himself (via his personal, private Secretary) stated that he was not the co-author of this book and requested that the publisher change the details of the book to describe him as merely “contributor”. Can it be true that the Pope Emeritus’ Personal Secretary lied, rather than a mistake was made and greater weight was given to comments and written notes made, which the originator had not expected? We are all human and frail after all! From where did all this reported vitriol come, and is it true? As a member of the laity I feel that we need an honest answer to all this and less civil-war from the clergy, theologians and journalists. The content and value of the book has been seriously undermined by this confusion, so that all that is good is likely to be missed and anything needing reassessment will equally be misinterpreted. We, the laity need leadership and wisdom, not partisan power-struggles, more importantly, the World needs evangelization and metanoia. Is it not possible for all sides in this story to find common ground and listen generously to each other’s point of view?
Annette,
I read/watch the BBC daily & ever since Brexit, take their news accuracy with a good grain of salt. That goes for much of what the general media reports.
I don’t know what the real answer is to this book issue re.Pope Emeritus Benedict, but I’m just glad people still find it important enough to argue about.
🙂
I read that whole article here in the link given here by Mr. Carl Olson and, while there are true facts in it, there’s also a LOT of subtle and not-so-subtle personal attacks against Benedict and Sarah, starting with the title “Bookgate” (reminiscent of “Watergate”, suggesting some scandal right away), and finishing with saying “none” of both Benedict and Sarah are known for their “candour” (candor: frankness, honesty).
This is after suggesting that Sarah’s popularity as “papabile” (electable for Pope) is totally baseless due to his “carelessness” about the contracts related to the book. Whoa! Of course, you can read the article yourself and make your own conclusions. I’ve covered only what I find more remarkable, whichever way you may want to understand that word. Yes! Read it!!
Interesting article and comments and reminds us of past situations in the halls of the Vatican. Those of us with a modest competence in Church history are well aware that since at least the early Middle Ages there was rumor, intrigue and maneavering in the Vatican as in the royal houses of Europe. That the remnants of such behavior exist behind the walls today should come as no surprise. Only the names change.
George, name names and give specific instances…please. Otherwise, yours is just another vague indictment of some with nefarious intent.
The tweet about Benedict XVI being conscious for barely half an hour a day is by Austen Ivereigh.
If you can read Italian try Stilum Curiae, Marco Tosatti’s blog for more.
The comments sound arrogant and vindictive yet might beguile those who are only getting into what has been happening in the hrirsrchy.
Catherine
Never thought that I would live to see the day that a book defending Catholic tradition would be seen as an attack on the Pope.
Or at least cast that way (in true totalitarian method).
WHO said these things?
We need NAMES,
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/disorderly-institution
Here you have but one example.
I appreciate your help but my point is this – Mr. Weigel should name these people. i
“We need NAMES”.
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected.”- Jorge Bergoglio, denying the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and denying that sin done in private is sin.
Certainly we are all aware that there are a multitude of those Baptized Catholic, who profess to be in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, who deny that sin done in private, perhaps we should call it “consensual sin”, is sin.
“Queen and Mother, stretch thy arms to us, raise us up to thy Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart. Allow us to rest our heads on thy heart and thus become saints and apostles! Queen of the Holy Rosary grant us the strength to fight thy enemies!”
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost; “It Is Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, That Holy Mother Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, exists.
It is not possible for a counterfeit schismatic church to subsist within Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost. (Filioque)
But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?’ (Luke 18:8.)
That will be up to us, whether we repent and accept Life-affirming, Life-sustaining Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, and live.
This event makes crystal clear that the bullying is directed by the Pontiff Francis. No one but he could force Gänswein to kowtow and post-facto contradict the undeniable evidence of the long prior agreement of co-authorship.
The only question remaining is about Gänswein: is he nothing more than the jail-keeper for McCarrick’s Pontiff?
America magazine:
“Benedict, who will be 93 in April and is very frail, can hardly write because of physical difficulties or hold a conversation for more than 15 minutes and moves about in a wheelchair”
Commonweal Magazine:
“Sarah has turned the ex-pope into a counter-magisterium, a rallying point for opposition to Francis.”
So names are already well known…
Pope should condemn their rigidity.
Pope v. pope? Every Faithful Catholic knows that would not just be a contradiction in terms. That would be a denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus a denial of The Divinity Of The Blessed Trinity.
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
One cannot be for Christ, if one denies The Divinity Of The Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost.
Why not just be honest about what this book is? Sarah was rightly very concerned that PF would use the Amazon Synod to undermine the discipline of celibacy. I recall a quote from PF in one of the early interviews of his papacy in which he said something to the effect that the “problem” of clerical celibacy needed to be addressed. Then, he proposed a synod on the priesthood and celibacy but there were strong objections from some on his Council of Cardinals, so we got the Youth Synod instead. Not to be deterred, PF used another vehicle to address the issue.
With this background, you can see why Sarah was alarmed and, as a last ditch effort, contra PF and the Germans, enlisted Benedict XVI to write this book defending clerical celibacy and rush it to publication before PF publishes his exhortation. Everyone knows this is the case, but everyone (including Sarah) keeps insisting that they do not “oppose Francis.” Well, in a sense that’s true, because you can’t oppose PF if he has not yet taken a “formal” stand. But in reality we all know (or should know) what is going on. This was a last-ditch, nuclear option, enlistment of the former pope to try to forestall what Sarah fears may be coming down the pike from PF.
“One prominent partisan of the pontificate opined that Benedict is conscious barely half the time.”
WHO said that?
“Another wizard from the left-field bleachers had it that Benedict was incapacitated.”
I repeat – WHO said that?
To me this article implies that Pope Francis is clearly behind these attacks. There are undoubtedly a few layers of deniability between him and the attacks, but the implication is clear.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/01/de-mattei-simony-of-german-bishops.html
Great title for this article! Where do this sudden increase in anti-Church, anti-Truth bullies and their greater viciousness come from? Yep, we’ve had conflict inside the Church since day one back there 2,000 years ago (heck the Angels had conflict, it’s called ‘free choice’), but never this level of fanaticism with an aura of false legitimacy, aggressiveness and “pontifical” entitlement. As they say in martial arts: “Where the head goes the body follows”. Also, when I was a Protestant long time ago, I kept hearing that a congregation was limited to the level of spirituality of its Pastor, like a hard spiritual ceiling (and it was very obviously true).
A leader either opens the floodgates of corruption, those of mediocrity or those of integrity. Pope Francis has very consistently showed that he is himself definitely a very low spiritual ceiling and those who live at that very low level feel entitled, justified, empowered, legitimized and “sanctified” like never before in Catholic History. Thanks God we are Catholics and not Protestants because they are stunted and locked down by their Pastor’s maturity, but we Catholics have had 8 bad Popes in the past and BROKE THROUGH THAT CEILING!! Glory be to God!! Time to do it again and again and again! Our Supreme Pastor is Jesus Christ not a Pope guarded by his ideological attack dogs and that is so untruthful, fragile and delicate he can’t face the slightest difference of opinion, questioning or confrontation. To distract from this they mock Benedict’s fragility, which is ONLY physical not moral or spiritual, and like St. Paul, when Benedict is weak, he is strong in Christ (2 Corinthians 12:10).
Where were those hyper-protective attack dogs when Pope Paul VI was attacked for Humanae Vitae? Where were they when Pope John II was attacked for not yielding to the Satanic Communist Media pressure? Sure, some of those attack dogs attacking Benedict and Sarah are disguised infiltrators and agitators from “outside” that are not one bit Catholic but they come together with those who have totally ceased to be True Catholics in their hearts at some point, like the traitorous Jewish leaders scaring the people about Roman reprisals, and infiltrating and agitating the crowd to ask Pilate for Jesus’ crucifixion.
Like someone else I heard, “I am an uncompromising enemy of the enemies of the Papacy, especially the worst ones: bad Popes!” God bless, protect and empower True Catholics like Benedict and Sarah! We must follow THEM and all those who follow the Lord Jesus faithfully (“Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” 1 Corinthians 11:1) and not the pompous, bombastic impostors, cowardly hiding behind their rank! Blindly kissing up to rank is a most disgusting slavery and high treason to our True Lord Jesus Christ!! “Therefore, whoever chooses to be a friend of the world is an enemy of God!” (James 4:4)
“Sudden increase in anti-Church ….”?
It has been going on a long time – there is nothing sudden about it.
“Sudden”, yes, as I already explained it in my comment. When a bad leader takes charge in the Church, at parish, diocese, national or world level (or political level), those inhabitants of darkness, mostly mixed in with the generic anti-Church mob of today, then come out into the open as “independent authority” and assume false airs of false “pontifical legitimacy” to attack the MOST LEGITIMATE representatives of the Church, whether Laity or Clergy like Benedict and Sarah. Referring to situations like this, my late father would say, “When the light gets turned off, the creepy crawlers come out”.
I am certain that when Pope Benedict formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, who for decades ran the office that oversaw the world-wide files on clerical abuse under Pope JPII, has plenty of thoughts on clerical celibacy, as only a true insider would have of the worst sins of the church would know. Precisely why his point of view would be so interesting. He saw what only a few people in the church every saw, namely the “filth.” His thoughts on returning the Church to the early roots of Christian celibacy would be fascinating.
Also, no one knows when he might have written several articles and/or started a book on the early Christian traditions of priestly celibacy. He could have been working on such a book for decades and could have easily handed over several finished chapters to Cardinal Sarah that he had written many years ago as Cardinal Ratzinger.
It would be nice (and fair) if the venom constantly spewed at the Pope by that ‘Catholic’ blogosphere was denounced with as much zeal. He has been subject to as bad for far longer …
Mr. Daniel Mahoney, yours is the same “compassionate”, “pacifist”, “tolerant” attitude of those who lament and strongly criticize the ones who expose the obvious errors, heresies and popularity-seeking brazenness of Protestant Pastor Joel Osteen, who went initially from a very faithful Pastor into turning Bible verses into a New Age/witchcraft/Prosperity Gospel. Those who expose Osteen are supposed to be sabotaging the Gospel, hard-hearted rigid fanatics, friends with anti-God groups, enemies of Christianity, etc. etc. REALLY? Something very similar to what’s happening over THERE is happening over HERE.
When I was an adolescent, my late father had an efficacious remedy when truthful criticism would make me indignated, offended, furious and pissy-hissy mad like a rattlesnake: “stop doing wrong and seeking ways to justify it!”
We are COMMANDED to speak up the Truth, even when we others condemn us for it: “When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood”, (Ezekiel 3:18). “For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, for Jerusalem’s sake I will not remain quiet, till her vindication shines out like the dawn, her salvation like a blazing torch”, (Isaiah 62:1).
I’m really confused. The BBC, National Newspapers both in the UK and elsewhere around the world reported that Pope Benedict, himself (via his personal, private Secretary) stated that he was not the co-author of this book and requested that the publisher change the details of the book to describe him as merely “contributor”. Can it be true that the Pope Emeritus’ Personal Secretary lied, rather than a mistake was made and greater weight was given to comments and written notes made, which the originator had not expected? We are all human and frail after all! From where did all this reported vitriol come, and is it true? As a member of the laity I feel that we need an honest answer to all this and less civil-war from the clergy, theologians and journalists. The content and value of the book has been seriously undermined by this confusion, so that all that is good is likely to be missed and anything needing reassessment will equally be misinterpreted. We, the laity need leadership and wisdom, not partisan power-struggles, more importantly, the World needs evangelization and metanoia. Is it not possible for all sides in this story to find common ground and listen generously to each other’s point of view?
Annette,
I read/watch the BBC daily & ever since Brexit, take their news accuracy with a good grain of salt. That goes for much of what the general media reports.
I don’t know what the real answer is to this book issue re.Pope Emeritus Benedict, but I’m just glad people still find it important enough to argue about.
🙂
Having some inside knowledge of what has happened and not happened, I can say (speaking just for myself and not for Ignatius Press, my employer) that this account by Christopher Altieri is the most informed and accurate one out there: https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2020/01/19/bookgate-a-week-on-there-are-still-unanswered-questions/
I don’t need names. Pope Frances is a bully. He talks out of both sides of his mouth
I read that whole article here in the link given here by Mr. Carl Olson and, while there are true facts in it, there’s also a LOT of subtle and not-so-subtle personal attacks against Benedict and Sarah, starting with the title “Bookgate” (reminiscent of “Watergate”, suggesting some scandal right away), and finishing with saying “none” of both Benedict and Sarah are known for their “candour” (candor: frankness, honesty).
This is after suggesting that Sarah’s popularity as “papabile” (electable for Pope) is totally baseless due to his “carelessness” about the contracts related to the book. Whoa! Of course, you can read the article yourself and make your own conclusions. I’ve covered only what I find more remarkable, whichever way you may want to understand that word. Yes! Read it!!
Interesting article and comments and reminds us of past situations in the halls of the Vatican. Those of us with a modest competence in Church history are well aware that since at least the early Middle Ages there was rumor, intrigue and maneavering in the Vatican as in the royal houses of Europe. That the remnants of such behavior exist behind the walls today should come as no surprise. Only the names change.