Pre-sede vacante news dump

So much news lately, so little time. Here we go:

1. Well, I guess that explains liturgical dance.

La Repubblica claims that Pope Benedict’s retirement was prompted by three Cardinals’ report on an influential homosexual lobby in the Vatican.

Now, I think the report is ridiculous — but only on the “retirement was prompted by” bit. Benedict has long been an advocate of Papal retirement and he was preparing for the move as far back as a year ago.

The homosexual lobby claim, on the other hand, isn’t ridiculous at all, and it’s not reasonable to think Benedict, a long-time curial insider, was somehow unaware of its existence until five minutes ago. Back when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, for instance, he denounced what he called “filth” in the Vatican, a conspicuously particular word choice that would seem to refer to something more repulsive than mere cronyism or book-cooking. Father Dariusz Oko wrote a damning piece recently about the pervasive influence of homosexuals in seminaries, chanceries, and the Curia, a group he terms the “homomafia.” And we need look no further for an example of its influence than the legacy of Archbishop-emeritus Rembert Weakland, whose aggressively subversive ministry culminated in his embezzling diocesan funds to pay off his illicit lover, and who deliberately shielded perverts in his diocese by threatening libel suits against those who reported their predations.

Meanwhile, another cardinal has been accused of perversion, though who knows if its mere opportunism or is motivated by the sense that the lid is about to be blown off this crap. (UPDATE: Cardinal O’Brien resigned this morning.)

Supposedly, the three Cardinals’ report will be presented to the College of Cardinals during the general congregation at the beginning of the coming sede vacante, so if there is any truth to the claim, they’ll know it going into the conclave. Which, if so, makes me slightly more hopeful that Benedict XVI will be succeeded by Pius XIII or Leo XIV.

Finally, check out the first two parts (here, then here) of Robert Moynihan’s investigation of the issue. His initial crediting of the claims gives way to skepticism on the grounds of the leftist Italian media’s usual incompetence and crookedness. But, note, the assignment of Mons. Ettore Balestrero to an obscure nunciature reeks of the typical Vatican policy of promoveatur ut amoveatur — promote so as to remove.

2. One of the good ones.

Disregard everyone currently being touted as papabile. The media almost always gets these things wrong.

Instead, if you want to keep your eye on a dark horse, consider Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, a disciple of the late Giuseppe Siri and a public enemy of the much-hated Tarcisio Bertone (who, incidentally, is rumored to be aggressively promoting the prospects of Timothy Dolan). If this conclave is going to produce a Pius XIII, it’ll likely be him.

3. Good luck, guys.

The fate of the SSPX will be entrusted to the next Pope, with Benedict’s final, last-minute outreach to them having failed to produce reconciliation.

I remember reading, some time ago, that Ratzinger was personally devastated at hearing the news of the Ecône consecrations and the resulting latae sententiae excommunications, and had since made it his mission to bring them home. Don’t expect the next Pope to have such a personal investment — or a persistent (and generous) style about it.

4. Bend the knee, dammit!

In advance of the coming conclave, Benedict has made a few critical changes to both the election process and the coronation ceremonies. First, he restored the rule, eliminated by John Paul II, allowing a Pope to be elected by simple majority if no winner has emerged after 33 ballots; the next Pope will have to win the traditional supermajority of the Cardinal-electors’ votes regardless of the ballot.

More importantly, though, he restored the practice, also abolished his predecessor, of requiring all Cardinals present at his inaugural Mass to come forth and publicly swear an oath of obedience to the new Pontiff. When Benedict himself was elected, the policy was instead to select only twelve Catholics to represent the entire Church for swearing that oath.

The inaugural Mass will also be somewhat more traditional, featuring more Gregorian chant and polyphony.

(UPDATE: As anticipated, the Pope has revised the guidelines governing the Papal conclave, allowing the Cardinals to move up the Conclave start date if all are present, extending the oath of secrecy to include technicians and the like who happen to be present, and punishing any violation of the oath of secrecy with latae sententiae excommunication.)

5. Benedict’s legacy.

It’ll probably be decades, even centuries, before we have a clear idea of what went on during Benedict’s pontificate. I suspect he will emerge as a man who, Hercules-like, sought to divert a river through the Vatican to clear it out, but who, sadly, was elected maybe 10 years too late for the task, as we are reminded by his poignant words to Bishop Fellay when holding audience with him at the Castel Gandolfo in 2005: “My authority ends at that door.”

Things are, to be sure, better off. I’m particularly hopeful that the assignment of Alexander Sample, sacred music afficionado, to the Archdiocese of Portland (home of the loathsome OCP) will go some way to restoring the American liturgy. And Benedict’s choice of bishops have far exceeded JPII’s, with the likes of Mahony and Clark giving way to Chaput, Burke, and Morlino. But his successor will still have a hell of a mess to clean up, including an out-of-control curia; an ailing, rebellious, and borderline schismatic Church in Germany and Austria; and an aggressively pernicious (and rapidly metastasizing) worldwide liberalism.

So pray for his successor, that, against all odds, we may be blessed with a worthy shepherd.

About these ads

20 thoughts on “Pre-sede vacante news dump

  1. I have been praying since I first heard of his resignation.
    Let us not forget the old Catholic prayer: “Lord, do not send us the Pope we deserve”

  2. The church hobbles itself in the worldwide fight against liberalism by aggressively proselytizing in countries which have their own traditions to guide them. It destroyed much of Buddhism in South Korea and South East Asia. Tried to do the same in Japan before the Edo period. Trying to destroy Hinduism in India. Traditionalists who should be allies spend most of their energies fighting each other because of Christian ideological aggression. Liberal ideological aggression, of course, is merely the daughter of the original Christian expansionist urge.

    • You speak as if Christianity is just one of many competing “ideologies” that all lead to the final, ultimate god, Traditionalism.

      Most Christians won’t agree with you there.

      • Fair enough, even if I grant that your God is the most special and true of all Gods, there is no reason for you to go around trying to stuff that down other people’s throats. Be true to the one true God and be the special Saved ones, let the pagans rot in hell. It worked well for the Jews when dealing with the gentiles, why should it not work for Muslims and Christians when dealing with other civilizations?

      • I don’t think this is the right website for you, Thinkingaboutit. Your misrepresentations and misunderstandings are so abundant as to be nearly comical. This does not keep you from being offensive, however.

        We don’t do things that way here.

        Please, either learn how to engage in ideas and disagree without being disagreeable, or expect your posts to be savaged and/or deleted.

      • Well, he does have something of a point. One of the big problems of modern times has been new Christian denominations cannibalizing more traditional ones (a similar thing has been going on with Salafi Islam). Pre-protestant Christianity used to co-opt pagan cultures, not try to wipe them out (hence all the whining from neopagans today about how Easter and Christmas are really “theirs”). Today the idea seems to be to go into remotest animist Africa or “unenlightened” Orthodox Greece and turn everyone into good little free-market evangelicals.

        On the other hand, you misunderstand the Christians on this website if you think “traditionalism” itself is the highest good. Without real religion behind it “traditionalism” is just pointless playacting.

  3. Pingback: Canaries in the apostate mineshaft. | Dark Brightness

  4. According to the report, the pope got his first look at the dossier—”two folders hard-bound in red” with the header “pontifical secret”—on Dec. 17, and decided that same day to retire.

    This strongly suggests that the report finds him culpable in some way.

    • I don’t buy that. He’s been making preparations for abdication for the better part of a year now, even before the whole VatiLeaks business.

      That said, possibly something in the report *accelerated* his plans to abdicate. But if so, I don’t think it was culpability on his part, since he has been raging against Vatican “filth” since even before his Pontificate. It would be more reasonable that he was unaware of the full scope of the problem until he saw the report, and knew then he himself could do nothing about it effectively.

      • Benedict, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was in charge of the Vatican’s response to the child sexual abuse scandal. He was the one who decided to transfer the priests from place to place rather than defrock them. He did nothing to stop the abuse or expose the priests involved; instead, he protected the priests, not the children.

        See

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/pope-complicit-child-abuse-say-victims

        The dossier probably proves all this.

      • Two things:

        First, I doubt any of this is in the report, which is ostensibly about the mess in the Vatican *right now*.

        Second, not laicizing a priest (which can only be done by the Pope, not the head of the CDF) is not the same thing as protecting them. Laicization is a pointless public gesture; it is, essentially, permission to live as laity, to go out and marry, not dress as a cleric, etc. You don’t need to laicize a priest to remove him from ministry. That can be done by a bishop, and it’s called suspending faculties, since every secular priest serves at the pleasure of the diocesan ordinary. If the intention was to avoid scandal (which is good), rather than turning the priests over to the police after pulling their faculties, they could’ve just as easily been sent to a monastery to do penance for the rest of their life. Preferably a Trappist monastery, where their rigorous prayer of the Benedictine LotH (in Latin, with like 12 psalms an office) would be supplemented by backbreaking monotonous labor. Or they could’ve handed the perverts over to the police anyway, since nothing anywhere forbids them from doing that, nor did Rome ever do so at any point.

        I’m amused by the idea that the bishops, many of whom have never had any problem disobeying the Vatican on very serious stuff in the past, suddenly degenerate into helpless ragdolls when it comes to one thing they could easily handle themselves. Why? Perhaps they’re passing the buck so they can pin the blame on Rome when the scandal blows up, so they don’t have to answer hard questions about why they admitted these perverts to seminary in the first place.

  5. Pingback: Linkage linkage and quotage. | Dark Brightness

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s