Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, Secretary for Relations with States within the Holy See's Secretariat of State, at the Vatican Oct. 27, 2017. (Credit: Daniel Ibáñez/CNA)
Vatican City, Jun 25, 2021 / 05:45 am (CNA).
A senior Vatican official said Friday that he and many of his colleagues at the Secretariat of State have yet to be convinced that speaking out on the situation in Hong Kong “would make any difference whatever.”
When Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican’s equivalent of a foreign minister, was asked what made the civil unrest in Lebanon different to the Holy See than the protest movement in Hong Kong, he replied that the Secretariat of State did not believe it could make a positive contribution through public statements on Hong Kong.
“Obviously Hong Kong is the object of concern for us. Lebanon is a place where we perceive that we can make a positive contribution. We do not perceive that in Hong Kong,” Gallagher said at a Holy See press conference on June 25.
“One can say a lot of, shall we say, appropriate words that would be appreciated by the international press and by many parts of the world, but I — and, I think, many of my colleagues — have yet to be convinced that it would make any difference whatever.”
Human rights activists have urged the Vatican to publicly express its concerns about the actions of the Chinese Communist Party both in mainland China and Hong Kong.
Benedict Rogers, the founder of Hong Kong Watch, told CNA in April that it would make a “big difference” if the pope were to pray publicly for the Uyghurs, Christians in China, and the people of Hong Kong.
“The current pope is particularly outspoken on issues of persecution, injustice, and conflict around the world,” Rogers said.
“He’s been very good on Myanmar [Burma], for example, and so it’s really puzzling why there’s this almost complete silence on everything to do with China, whether it’s the Uyghurs or Hong Kong or Christians or Tibet,” he added.
Archbishop Gallagher, the Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, has repeatedly said that he believes that “grandstanding” statements would be counter-productive.
He told Hong Kong’s The Standard newspaper on March 25: “I think you will find it true that the Holy See does not have a policy, a diplomatic policy, of denunciation almost anywhere in the world, and there are human rights abuses in many, many countries.”
His most recent comments on Hong Kong come just days ahead of the U.S. Secretary of State’s scheduled visit to Vatican City. Anthony Blinken is expected to meet with senior Holy See officials.
The State Department has said that religious freedom and the climate crisis will be central topics in the meetings.
Blinken voiced concerns with Chinese officials on June 11 about the “deterioration of democratic norms in Hong Kong and the ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity against predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang,” according to the State Department.
China was a major focus of the most recent visit of the previous U.S. Secretary of State to the Vatican, immediately before which Secretary Mike Pompeo said that the “moral witness” of the Vatican in support of religious believers is sorely needed.
“The Holy See has a unique capacity and duty to focus the world’s attention on human rights violations, especially those perpetrated by totalitarian regimes like Beijing’s. In the late twentieth century, the Church’s power of moral witness helped inspire those who liberated central and eastern Europe from communism,” Pompeo wrote in an essay in First Things in September.
“That same power of moral witness should be deployed today with respect to the Chinese Communist Party,” he said.
Chinese mainland authorities have seized greater power in Hong Kong, after the imposition of a national security law on the region in 2020.
Last month, Pope Francis appointed a new bishop of Hong Kong, Fr. Stephen Chow Sau-yan, 周守仁, whose episcopal consecration is scheduled to take place in December.
Bishop-elect Chow has said that he believes that prudence and dialogue provide a way forward in the challenges facing his diocese.
At the Vatican press conference, Gallagher added: “We hope that the new bishop is going to do a lot of good work as well.”
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.
Pope Benedict XVI announced his intention to resign the papacy during a meeting of cardinals Feb. 11, 2013. The surprise announcement, which he made in Latin, took place in the Hall of the Consistory in the Vatican’s apostolic palace. / Vatican Media
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jan 2, 2023 / 06:00 am (CNA).
On Feb. 11, 2013, before a gathering of cardinals who had come to the Vatican expecting to hear the announcement of upcoming canonizations, Pope Benedict XVI dropped a bombshell.
After a few announcements about Church business at the conclusion of the meeting, the pope took out two sheets of paper and read a prepared statement in Latin.
“I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry,” the then 85-year-old pontiff told the gathering of the Catholic Church’s highest-ranking clergymen.
Because he spoke in Latin, the language used for official Vatican proclamations, reporters present did not at first realize that the pope had just stepped down.
‘Total surprise, total shock’
The assembled cardinals, on the other hand, who knew their Latin, reacted with stunned silence.
American Cardinal James Stafford later told CNA that the pope’s statement was received with “total surprise, total shock.”
“A cardinal who was sitting next to me said, ‘Did he resign?’ I said, ‘Yes, that’s what he did. He resigned.’ And we just all stood at our places.”
Cardinals react to Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement of his intention to resign the papacy Feb. 11, 2013. The surprise announcement, which Benedict made in Latin, took place in the Hall of the Consistory in the Vatican’s apostolic palace. Vatican Media
Nigeria’s Cardinal Francis Arinze, who was present that morning, said the announcement was a “surprise, like thunder that gives no notice that it’s coming,” reported The Catholic Telegraph.
In renouncing the papacy, Benedict became only the second pope in almost 600 years to voluntarily step down. In 1294, Pietro da Morrone, an elderly hermit, was crowned Pope Celestine V, but finding the demands of the job too much for him, he resigned after only five months.
In 1415, Pope Gregory XII also resigned, but under very different circumstances — he stepped down in order to end a crisis within the Church known as the Great Western Schism.
Title, white clothes, and papal coat of arms
What happened next with Benedict XVI was no less surprising to those who expected him to live as a retired cardinal.
In his last official statement as pope, before a general audience on Feb. 27, 2013, Pope Benedict assured the tens of thousands of people gathered to hear him speak as pope for the last time that even though he was stepping back from official duties, he would remain, in essence, pope.
“The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ — there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this,” Benedict said.
“I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord,” he told the crowd.
A day earlier, on Feb. 26, 2013, the director of the Vatican Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, had silenced speculation over what Benedict would be called and what he would wear. He would, Lombardi said, retain the trappings of the papacy — most significantly, his title and dress.
“He will still be called His Holiness Benedict XVI,” Lombardi said. “But he will also be called Pope Emeritus or Roman Pontiff Emeritus.”
Lombardi said Benedict would continue to wear a white cassock but without the mozzetta, the short cape that covers the shoulders. The pope’s fisherman’s ring would be replaced by a ring from his time as cardinal. The red shoes would go as well, Lombardi said, and be replaced by a pair of brown ones.
“The city of León is known for beautiful shoes, and very comfortable shoes. And when the pope was asked what he wanted to wear he said, ‘I want the shoes from León in Mexico,’” Lombardi said at the press conference.
On May 2, the cardinal who designed Benedict’s coat of arms in 2005 told CNA that he had written the pope emeritus suggesting that his coat of arms would need to be redesigned to reflect his new status. Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo proposed making the keys of St. Peter smaller and less prominent.
“That shows that he had a historic possession but not a current jurisdiction,” said the cardinal at the time.
Benedict, however, it seems, politely declined a new coat of arms. La Stampa reported the following year that the Vatican Publishing House’s manual of ecclesiastical heraldry in the Catholic Church contained the following note:
“Expressing deep appreciation and heartfelt gratitude to the author for the interesting study sent to him, [Benedict] made it known that he prefers not to adopt an expressive heraldic emblem of the new situation created with his renouncing of the Petrine Ministry.”
By his decision to continue to dress in white like the pope, retain the title of pope, and keep the coat of arms of his papacy, Benedict revealed that in giving up the “active exercise of the ministry,” he was not forsaking the role of pope altogether.
Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI pray together at the papal residence in Castel Gandolfo March 23, 2013, their first meeting after Francis’ election. Vatican Media
An expanded Petrine ministry
In his 2013 announcement, Benedict clearly expressed his intention to step aside, even determining the date and time of his official departure. Nonetheless, his decision to keep the title of pope and maintain the ceremonial protocol that goes along with the papacy led some to speculate whether there were not actually “two popes.”
Benedict’s personal secretary and closest confidante, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, sought to clear up any confusion in 2016.
In a speech at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome on May 20, 2016, Gänswein said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another but represent one “expanded” Petrine office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
Parsing Benedict’s speech, Gänswein explained that in stepping down, Benedict was not giving up his ministry.
“The key word in that statement is ‘munus petrinum,’ translated — as happens most of the time — with ‘Petrine ministry.’ And yet, ‘munus,’ in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: It can mean service, duty, guide, or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry [munus],’” Gänswein said.
“He left the papal throne and yet, with the step he took on Feb. 11, 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, saying the latter scenario was something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”
Benedict himself later made clear in an interview with his biographer Peter Seewald that he saw himself as continuing in his ministry. He said that a pope who steps down is like a father whose role changes, but always remains a father.
“Of course a father does not stop being father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such. It was also this way for bishops,” Benedict said.
“I think it is also clear that the pope is no superman and his mere existence is not sufficient to conduct his role, rather he likewise exercises a function.
“If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function. In this respect one comes to understand that the office of the pope has lost none of its greatness, even if the humanity of the office is perhaps becoming more clearly evident,” Benedict said.
Benedict’s decision “not to abandon his ministry” inspired a cottage industry of conspiracy theories, with some questioning whether the pope emeritus truly stepped down because of his age and frailty.
George Weigel, author of the definitive biography of St. John Paul II, “Witness to Hope,” dismissed such speculation in an interview with CNA.
“I have no reason to think that there was anything more to Pope Benedict’s resignation than what he said was its cause: his conviction that he no longer had the strength, physical and intellectual, to give the Church what it needed from a pope,” he said.
“Everything else written about this is sheer speculation. Let’s take Benedict at his word,” Weigel said.
A life of prayer
In retiring to live in the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery in the Vatican Gardens, Benedict did not completely withdraw from the world. He attended public events in his new capacity as pope emeritus, received visitors, and pursued a life of fruitful study, writing, and prayer.
Pope Francis visits Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery in Vatican City to exchange Christmas greetings Dec. 23, 2013. Vatican Media
Matthew Bunson, Catholic historian, author, and executive editor of EWTN News, told CNA that Benedict was determined not to exercise authority in his new role.
“He really embraced what it means to be pope emeritus, and refrained from making public comments, to instead live a life of prayer and reflection,” Bunson said.
“Benedict really was on retreat, and in prayer,” he said, “and that means we have his prayer for us as a Church.”
While becoming increasingly frail, Benedict continued to celebrate Mass daily with the other residents of the monastery and was known to enjoy spending time in the Vatican Gardens praying his daily rosary.
In the fall of 2021, more than eight years after Benedict stepped down, his private secretary, Gänswein, told Domradio in Cologne, Germany, that Benedict was “stable in his frailty.”
He described the pope emeritus as very weak physically but still clear in mind. Gänswein said he had not lost his “typical Bavarian humor.”
The meaning of Benedict’s renunciation for future popes
In 2013, after Benedict announced that he would step down as pope, Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, a Jesuit theologian and canonist chosen by Pope Francis to be a cardinal, wrote an essay on what should happen when a pope steps down.
In the article, published in Civiltà Cattolica, Ghirlanda suggested the retiring Benedict take the title bishop emeritus of Rome.
“It is evident that the pope who has resigned is no longer pope; therefore he no longer has any power in the Church and cannot interfere in any government affair. One may wonder what title Benedict XVI will retain. We think that he should be given the title of bishop emeritus of Rome, like any other diocesan bishop who ceases,” he said.
In December 2021, at a congress on papal resignations, Ghirlanda took up the theme again.
“Having two people with the title of ‘pope,’ even if one added ’emeritus,’ it cannot be said that this might not generate confusion in public opinion,” he said.
To make clear that the pope who resigns is no longer pope, he said, he should perhaps be called “former Roman pontiff” or “former supreme pontiff.”
Pope Francis in July 2022 told reporters that if he were to retire from the papacy he would do things differently from his predecessor.
“The first experience went very well,” Pope Francis said, because Benedict XVI “is a holy and discreet man.”
In the future, however, “it would be better to define things or explain them better,” the pontiff added.
“I am the bishop of Rome. In that case I would be the bishop emeritus of Rome,” he said, and then suggested he would live in St. John Lateran Palace rather than at the Vatican.
Vatican City, Oct 17, 2017 / 02:34 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Among the most lasting aspects of a Pope’s leadership is his appointment of bishops. To understand a Pope, it’s important to understand how he makes decisions about episcopal leadershi… […]
Vatican City, Sep 21, 2019 / 03:08 pm (CNA).- A member of the International Theological Commission has announced that she is no longer available to participate in the “binding synodal path” undertaken by the bishops’ conference of Ger… […]
11 Comments
This response is disappointing, to put it mildly.
I’ll take Pompeo’s approach any day.
The Vatican may as well pack up and go home. It has wasted its moral capital on ambiguity and pursual of a global syncretistic sanctuary of UN sustainable development goals. Refusing to use what little authority they retain will deplete that too. Nihilism seems to be its endgame. May God have mercy.
It might make a difference to those fighting for freedom and human rights in Hong Kong, not to mention Catholics who have to live under this regime. Maybe they’d like to know the Vatican supports them.
Alas, it seems these people don’t enter into the Vatican’s calculus at all. As the old saying goes, “with friends like these…”
Of course, China has the money and the McCarrick plan. The steepling Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher knows he has the power. However, the Vatican has no qualms about stirring around in our USA soup.
Pompeo has it correct: “…the Church’s power of moral witness helped inspire those who liberated central and eastern Europe from communism”
“That same power of moral witness should be deployed today with respect to the Chinese Communist Party,” he said.
Obviously, the Vatican thinks its statements on immigration, “climate change” and capital punishment can make a difference. They do – and for the worse. The truth is that Francis, Parolin and this Gallagher are quite satisfied with Communist China and the deal they struck with it. I have it on good authority that the CCP implements Church social teaching better than anyone else.
The Francis Vatican also must realize the futility of resisiting abortion and the homosexual agenda. That has to be why we heard nothing from them after the Obergefell decision in the US and during and after the campaigns to legalize homosexual unions in Italy and abortion in Ireland and Argentina. I appreciate the good archbishop shedding some light on the mentalitiy of our leaders.
His Excellency” Gallagher is the quintessential careerist fraud of the decadent and spiritually malignant Secretariat of State.
The same Secretariat of State that presided over the 50-year long, world-wide coverup of homosexual predation and abuse, in its capacity as “lead investigator” of sex abuse cases, until I believe 2001, when then-Cardinal Ratzinger finally persuaded Pope JP2 that The Secretariat of State was failing to pursue justice.
There is perfect symmetry between their refusal to give witness against the tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party, and their criminal negligence in sex abuse investigations, and it is all summed up in Bishop Gallagher’s very own words: “I — and, I think, many of my colleagues — have yet to be convinced that it would make any difference whatever” …to do or say anything.
Thank you for pointing out the connection. …as he sits behind his desk in perfect comfort, assured of a comfortable bed and no one will police him at night, no fear of being arrested.
Archbishop Paul Gallagher, and people who agree with him on China, should remember the end of Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut’s 1952 dystopian novel in which the U.S. has conquered the globe at the price of adoption of a social credit totalitarianism. At the end the leaders of a failed revolution are discussing it:
“You thought we were going to lose?” said Paul husily.
“Certainly,” said Lasher, looking at him as though Paul had said something idiotic.
“If we didn’t have a chance, then what on earth was the sense of-?”
“It doesn’t matter if we win or lose, Doctor. The important thing is that we tried. For the record, we tried.”
“What record?”
“Revolutions aren’t my main line of business,” said Lasher, his voice deep and rolling. “I’m a minister, Doctor, remember? First and last, I’m an enemy of the Devil, a man of God!”
This response is disappointing, to put it mildly.
I’ll take Pompeo’s approach any day.
A complete cop-out. The Vatican should speak up regardless; it matters to the people, but they continue to bow to China. Sad.
The Vatican may as well pack up and go home. It has wasted its moral capital on ambiguity and pursual of a global syncretistic sanctuary of UN sustainable development goals. Refusing to use what little authority they retain will deplete that too. Nihilism seems to be its endgame. May God have mercy.
It might make a difference to those fighting for freedom and human rights in Hong Kong, not to mention Catholics who have to live under this regime. Maybe they’d like to know the Vatican supports them.
Alas, it seems these people don’t enter into the Vatican’s calculus at all. As the old saying goes, “with friends like these…”
Of course, China has the money and the McCarrick plan. The steepling Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher knows he has the power. However, the Vatican has no qualms about stirring around in our USA soup.
Pompeo has it correct: “…the Church’s power of moral witness helped inspire those who liberated central and eastern Europe from communism”
“That same power of moral witness should be deployed today with respect to the Chinese Communist Party,” he said.
Obviously, the Vatican thinks its statements on immigration, “climate change” and capital punishment can make a difference. They do – and for the worse. The truth is that Francis, Parolin and this Gallagher are quite satisfied with Communist China and the deal they struck with it. I have it on good authority that the CCP implements Church social teaching better than anyone else.
The Francis Vatican also must realize the futility of resisiting abortion and the homosexual agenda. That has to be why we heard nothing from them after the Obergefell decision in the US and during and after the campaigns to legalize homosexual unions in Italy and abortion in Ireland and Argentina. I appreciate the good archbishop shedding some light on the mentalitiy of our leaders.
His Excellency” Gallagher is the quintessential careerist fraud of the decadent and spiritually malignant Secretariat of State.
The same Secretariat of State that presided over the 50-year long, world-wide coverup of homosexual predation and abuse, in its capacity as “lead investigator” of sex abuse cases, until I believe 2001, when then-Cardinal Ratzinger finally persuaded Pope JP2 that The Secretariat of State was failing to pursue justice.
There is perfect symmetry between their refusal to give witness against the tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party, and their criminal negligence in sex abuse investigations, and it is all summed up in Bishop Gallagher’s very own words: “I — and, I think, many of my colleagues — have yet to be convinced that it would make any difference whatever” …to do or say anything.
Well, I assume the Bishop is well fed…
Thank you for pointing out the connection. …as he sits behind his desk in perfect comfort, assured of a comfortable bed and no one will police him at night, no fear of being arrested.
Is there a better poster boy for the current Vatican than this weakling?
Archbishop Paul Gallagher, and people who agree with him on China, should remember the end of Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut’s 1952 dystopian novel in which the U.S. has conquered the globe at the price of adoption of a social credit totalitarianism. At the end the leaders of a failed revolution are discussing it:
“You thought we were going to lose?” said Paul husily.
“Certainly,” said Lasher, looking at him as though Paul had said something idiotic.
“If we didn’t have a chance, then what on earth was the sense of-?”
“It doesn’t matter if we win or lose, Doctor. The important thing is that we tried. For the record, we tried.”
“What record?”
“Revolutions aren’t my main line of business,” said Lasher, his voice deep and rolling. “I’m a minister, Doctor, remember? First and last, I’m an enemy of the Devil, a man of God!”