IN A FEW MONTHS, SIX NEW SAINTS CANONIZED OUTSIDE THE RULES

From Chiesa

Vatican Diary / In a few months, six new saints canonized outside the rules

That is, without a miracle verified after their beatification. It is an exceptional procedure, rarely used in the past. But Pope Francis is availing himself of it with unprecedented frequency

VATICAN CITY, March 19, 2014 – Receiving in audience Bernardo Álvarez Afonso, bishop of San Cristóbal de la Laguna in Tenerife, in the Canary Islands, Pope Francis announced to him that next April 2 he will proclaim as a saint an illustrious son of those islands, the Jesuit José de Anchieta (1534-1597), called the Apostle of Brazil (in the illustration).

The news had already been anticipated at the end of February by Cardinal Raymundo Damasceno Assis, archbishop of Aparecida and president of the Brazilian episcopal conference.

But Bishop Álvarez released the news on the website of his diocese on the same day as the audience, March 8, providing further details on the event.

He explained, in fact, that Anchieta will be inscribed in the list of saints together with two blesseds born in France who played a leading role in the evangelization of Canada: the missionary mystic Marie of the Incarnation (née Marie Guyart, 1599-1672), and Bishop François de Montmorency-Laval (1623-1708).

The three were beatified by John Paul II on June 22, 1980, together with two other venerables who had lived in the Americas, who in the meantime had already been canonized according to the ordinary procedure: Peter of Saint Joseph Betancur (1626-1667) and the young Native American virgin Kateri Tekakwitha (1656-1980), proclaimed saints, respectively, by John Paul II on July 30, 2002 and by Benedict XVI on October 21, 2012.

Everything by the book? No. The bishop of Tenerife has revealed that the three blesseds will be proclaimed saints not according to the ordinary procedure, which demands the canonical recognition of a miracle attributed to their intercession, but through a historically extraordinary channel called the “canonization equivalent.”

The nature of this special procedure, which “has always been present in the Church and has been employed regularly, if not frequently,” was illustrated in “L’Osservatore Romano” on October 12, 2013 by Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the congregation for the causes of saints.

The cardinal explains:

“For such a canonization, according to the teaching of Benedict XIV, three elements are required: an ancient tradition of devotion, the constant and common attestation of trustworthy historians on the virtues or martyrdom, and the uninterrupted fame of miracles.”

Cardinal Amato continues:

“If these conditions are satisfied – again according to the teaching of pope Prospero Lambertini – the supreme pontiff, by his authority, can proceed with the ‘canonization equivalent,’ meaning the extension to the universal Church of the recitation of the divine office and the celebration of the Mass [in honor of the new saint], ‘without any definitive formal sentence, without any preliminary juridical process, without having carried out the usual ceremonies.'”

In effect, pope Lambertini himself – in one tome of his monumental work “De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione” now available in Italian from Libreria Editrice Vaticana – enumerates twelve cases of saints canonized in this way before his pontificate (1740-1758).

They are: Romuald (canonized in 1595), Norbert (1621), Bruno (1623), Peter Nolasco (1655), Raymond Nonnatus (1681), Stephen of Hungary (1686), Margaret of Scotland (1691), John of Matha and Felix of Valois (1694), Gregory VII (1728), Wenceslaus of Bohemia (1729), Gertrude of Helfta (1738).

Also in “L’Osservatore Romano” of last October 12, Cardinal Amato then enumerates the “canonization equivalents” after Benedict XIV: Peter Damian and the martyr Boniface (canonized in 1828); Cyril and Methodius of Thessalonica (1880); Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Justin Martyr and Augustine of Canterbury (1882); John Damascene and the abbot Sylvester (1890); Bede the venerable (1899); Ephrem the Syrian (1920); Albert the Great (1931); Margaret of Hungary (1943); Gregorio Barbarigo (1960); John of Avila and Nicola Taveli? and three companion martyrs (1970); Marko Krizin, István Pongrácz, and Melchior Grodziecki (1995).

As can be noted, John Paul II, although he proclaimed more saints and blesseds than all his predecessors put together – since the popes have reserved this power to themselves – used only once the procedure of the “canonization equivalent.”

Benedict XVI also used it only once, with Hildegard of Bingen, whom he proclaimed a saint on May 10, 2012.

Pope Francis, however, has already used this exceptional procedure twice. On October 9, 2013 with Angela da Foligno (1248-1309) and the following December 17 with the Jesuit Peter Faber (1506-1546).

And he will use it a third time, proclaiming three new saints, next April 2, with the Jesuit Anchieta, Sister Marie Guyart, and Bishop François de Montmorency-Laval.

In practice the current pontiff, in just one year of pontificate, has had recourse to this special means more times than anyone other than Leo XIII, who used it a bit more, although this was over a span of twenty years (between 1880 and 1899) and was applied to persons of the first millennium of the Christian era, with the sole exception of the abbot Sylvester, who however lived in the remote 14th century.

In short, although Pope Francis loves the simple title of bishop of Rome he is fully exercising even in canonization policy the prerogatives that are his as supreme pontiff of the universal Church. A policy that is particularly delicate because, in spite of the contrary opinions found among theologians, according to the doctrine in effect canonizations – unlike beatifications – engage the infallible magisterium of the Church.

In 1989, in fact, when the motu proprio “Ad tuendam fidem” of John Paul II was promulgated, in a subsequent “doctrinal note” connected to it and signed by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger “the canonizations of saints” were explicitly cited among “the doctrines infallibly proposed” by the Church “in a definitive way,” together with other doctrines like the reservation of priestly ordination for men only, the illicit nature of euthanasia, the illicit nature of prostitution and fornication, the legitimacy of the election of a pope or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the declaration of Leo XIII on the invalidity of Anglican orders.

In this area, therefore, it is also striking that Pope Francis has decided to proceed with the canonization of John XXIII – which will be celebrated next April 27 – according to the ordinary procedure but without the canonical certification of a miracle attributed to his intercession and having taken place after his beatification.

This is a particularly glaring departure. Precisely by exercising his power as supreme pontiff Francis has determined that in order to canonize Angelo Roncalli, in a completely exceptional manner, there is no need for a miracle and it is enough that he has the enduring reputation of holiness that surrounds his person and the “fama signorum,” or the graces that are attributed to him, which continue to be testified to although none of them has been canonically certified as a genuine miracle.

In practice, here as well Francis has exploited to the highest degree the pontifical power at his disposal as head of the universal Church, in order to take upon himself a decision that seems to have no precedent when it comes to cases not concerning martyrs.

__________

For more news on the canonizations determined by Pope Francis.

> Vatican Diary / Those saints made as he commands (15.7.2013)

__________

The 1998 note attached to the 1989 motu proprio of John Paul II  “Ad tuendam fidem,” which includes the canonizations of saints among the infallible doctrines:

> Nota dottrinale illustrativa…

__________

Other particulars on the upcoming “canonization equivalent” of the Jesuit José de Anchieta:

> Emotivo y fraterno encuentro con el Papa

Islam and Christianity – Where Dialogue Utterly Fails

From Chiesa

Islam and Christianity. Where Dialogue Stumbles

In “Evangelii Gaudium,” Pope Francis dictates the rules for the relationship with Muslims. The Jesuit Islamologist Samir Khalil Samir examines them one by one. And he criticizes their limitations

by Sandro Magister

ROME, December 30, 2013 – In the Christmas message “urbi et orbi,” Pope Francis lifted up this prayer:

“Lord of life, protect all who are persecuted for your name.”

And at the Angelus for the feast of Saint Stephen, the first of the martyrs, he again prayed “for the Christians who undergo discrimination because of witness rendered to Christ and to the Gospel.”

Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio has repeatedly manifested his sorrow for the fate of Christians in Syria, in the Middle East, in Africa, and in other places of the world, wherever they are persecuted and killed, not rarely “in hatred for the faith” and at the hands of Muslims.

To all of this the pope responds by incessantly invoking “dialogue as a contribution to peace.”

In the apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium” of September 24, the most important of the documents he has published so far, Francis dedicated to dialogue with Muslims the following two paragraphs:

252. Our relationship with the followers of Islam has taken on great importance, since they are now significantly present in many traditionally Christian countries, where they can freely worship and become fully a part of society. We must never forget that they “profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day”. The sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings; Jesus and Mary receive profound veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old, men and women, make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in religious services. Many of them also have a deep conviction that their life, in its entirety, is from God and for God. They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy towards those most in need.

253. In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.

The commentaries on “Evangelii Gaudium” have paid scarce attention to these two paragraphs.

Few, for example, have noted the unusual vigor with which Pope Francis demands in Muslim countries as well that freedom of worship which the faithful of Islam enjoy in Western countries.

Those who have highlighted this “courage” of the pope – like the Egyptian Jesuit and Islamologist Samir Khalil Samir – have also emphasized, however, that he has limited himself to asking only for freedom of worship, remaining silent about the denial of freedom of conversion from one religion to another that is the real sore spot of the Muslim world. [errors of omission are a typical tactic of Francis]

Fr. Samir teaches in Beirut, Rome, and Paris. He is the author of books and essays on Islam and on its relationship with Christianity and with the West, the latest published this year by EMI with the title: “Those tenacious Arab springs.” During the pontificate of Benedict XVI he was one of the experts most closely listened to by the Vatican authorities and by the pope himself.

Last December 19, he published on the important agency “Asia News” of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions an extensive commentary on the passages of “Evangelii Gaudium” dedicated to Islam.

A commentary with two faces. In the first part, Fr. Samir brings to light the “many positive things” said by the pope on this issue.

But in the second part, he surveys their limitations. With rare frankness.

The following is the second part of his commentary.

__________

POINTS OF “EVANGELII GAUDIUM” THAT REQUIRE CLARIFICATION

by Samir Khalil Samir

1. Muslims “together with us adore the One, merciful God” (No. 252)

I would advise caution here. It is true Muslims worship one and merciful God. However, this sentence suggests that the two conceptions of God are equal. Yet in Christianity God is the Trinity in its essence, plurality united by love: He is a bit more than just clemency and mercy. We have two quite different conceptions of the Divine One. Muslims characterize God as inaccessible. The Christian vision of the Oneness of the Trinity emphasizes that God is Love which is communicated: Father-Son-Spirit, or Lover-Beloved-Love, as St. Augustine suggested.

Moreover, what does the mercy of the God of Islam mean? He has mercy for whom he wants and not on those whom displease him. “Allah might admit to His mercy whom He willed” (Koran 48:25). These expressions are, almost literally, in the Old Testament (Exodus 33:19). But never arrive at saying that “God is love” (1 John 4:16), like St John.

Mercy in the case of Islam is that of the rich man who stoops over the poor and gives him something. But the Christian God is the one who lowers Himself to the level of the poor man in order to raise him up; He does not show his wealth to be respected (or feared) by the poor: he gives Himself in order the poor should live.

2. “The sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings” (No. 252)

This is true in a sense, but it is somewhat ambiguous. It is true that Muslims retain words or facts from the canonical gospels, such as the story of the Annunciation which is found almost literally in chapters 3 (The Family of Imr?n) and 19 (Mariam).

But more frequently the Koran is inspired by the pious tales of the apocryphal Gospels, and do not draw from them the theological sense they contain, and do not give these facts or words the meaning that they actually have, not out of malice, but because they do not contain the overall vision of the Christian message.

3. The figure of Christ in the Koran and the Gospel (No. 252)

The Koran refers to “Jesus and Mary [who] are the object of profound veneration”. To tell the truth, Jesus is not an object of veneration in the Muslim tradition. Instead, Mary is venerated, especially by Muslim women, who willingly go to the places of pilgrimage.

The lack of veneration for Jesus Christ is probably explained by the fact that, in the Koran, Jesus is a great prophet, famous for his miracles on behalf of a poor and sick humanity, but he is not the equal of Muhammad. Only mystics have a certain devotion to him, as the sol-called “Spirit of God”.

In fact, all that is said of Jesus in the Koran is the exact opposite of Christian teachings. He is not the Son of God, but a prophet and that’s it. He is not even the last of the prophets, because instead the “seal of the prophets” is Muhammad (Koran 33:40). Christian revelation is only seen as a step towards the ultimate revelation brought by Muhammad, i.e. Islam.

4. The Koran is opposed to all the fundamental Christian dogmas [How do you dialogue with that? Hint: you cannot!]

The figure of Christ as the second person of the Trinity is condemned. In the Koran it says explicitly to Christians: ” O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’ – Cease! (it is) better for you! – Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that “(Koran 4:171). These verses against the Trinity are very clear and need no interpretation.

The Koran denies the divinity of Christ: “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?’” (Koran 5:116). And Jesus denies it!

Finally, the Koran negates Redemption. It even says that Jesus Christ did not die on the Cross, but it was a look-alike: “And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them” (Koran 4:157). In this way God saved Jesus from the wickedness of the Jews. But then Christ did not save the world!

In short, the Koran and Muslims deny the essential dogmas of Christianity: the Trinity, the Incarnation and Redemption. It should be added that this is their most absolute right! But you can not then say that “The sacred writings of Islam retain part of Christian teachings”. You simply must speak of the “Jesus of the Koran” which has nothing to do with the Jesus of the Gospels.

The Koran mentions Jesus because it aims to complete the revelation of Christ to exalt Muhammad. Besides, seeing what Jesus and Mary do in the Koran, we notice that it is no more than apply the prayers and fasting according to the Koran. Mary is certainly the most beautiful figure among all those presented in the Koran: she is the Virgin Mother, whom no man has ever touched. But she can not be the Theotokos; instead she is a good Muslim.

MORE DELICATE POINTS

1. Ethics in Islam and in Christianity (252)?

The last sentence of this point of “Evangelii gaudium” states with regard to Muslims: “They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy towards those most in need”. This is true and compassion toward the poor is a requirement of Islam.

There is, in my opinion however, a double difference between the Muslim and Christian ethics.

The first is that the Muslim ethic is not always universal. It is often a question of solidarity within the Islamic community, while according to Christian tradition, solidarity is universal. We note, for example, when natural disaster strikes a given region of the world, countries of Christian tradition help regardless of the religious convictions of those who are in need of help, while rich Muslim countries (those of the Arabian Peninsula, for example) do not.

The second is that Islam links ethics to legality. Those who do not fast during the month of Ramadan are guilty of having committed a crime and go to jail (in many countries). If you observe the fast, from dawn to dusk, you are perfect, even if you eat from sunset until dawn the next day, more and better than usual: “the best things to eat and plenty of it,” as some Egyptian Muslim friends told me. The Ramandan fast seems to lose all meaning if it becomes the period in which Muslims eat more, and eat the most delicious things. The next day, given that no-one has sept because they were up all night eating, no-one works. However, from the formal point of view, all have fasted for several hours. It is a legalistic ethics: if you do this, you are right. It is an exterior ethics.

Instead Christian fasting is something that aims to bring us closer to Christ’s sacrifice, in solidarity with the poor and does not allow for a period during the day or night when we can make up for the food we have not eaten.

As long as believers observe Islamic law, everything is in order. The believer never seeks to go beyond the law. Justice is required by law, but it is not exceeded. This is also why there is no obligation to forgive in the Koran, whereas, in the Gospel, Jesus asks us to forgive an infinite number of times (seventy times seven; cf. Mt 18, 21-22). In the Koran mercy never reaches the point of being love.

The same goes for polygamy: you can have up to four wives. If I want to have a fifth wife, then all I have to do is repudiate one of those that I have already, maybe the oldest, and take a younger bride. And thus because I only ever have four wives at any one given time, everything is perfectly legal.

There is also the opposite effect, for example for homosexuality. All religions consider it a sin. But for Muslims, it is also a crime that should be punished with death. In Christianity it is a sin but not a crime. The reason is obvious: Islam is a religion, culture, social and political system, it is an integral reality. And it clearly states as much in the Koran. The Gospel instead clearly distinguishes the spiritual and ethical dimension of socio-cultural and political life.

The same applies to purity, as Christ clearly explains to the Pharisees: “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them” (Mt 15, 11).

2. “The fundamentalists on both sides” (no. 250 and 253)

Finally, there are two points that I would like to criticize. The first is where the Pope groups together all fundamentalisms. In No. 250 he says: “An attitude of openness in truth and in love must characterize the dialogue with the followers of non-Christian religions, in spite of various obstacles and difficulties, especially forms of fundamentalism on both sides”.

The other is the conclusion of the section on relations with Islam that ends with this sentence: “Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence”(n. 253).

Personally, I would not put the two fundamentalisms on the same level: Christian fundamentalists do not carry weapons; Islamic fundamentalism is criticized, first of all by Muslims themselves precisely because this armed fundamentalism seeks to replicate the Mohammedan model. In his life, Muhammad waged more than 60 wars, and now if Muhammad is the super model (as the Koran claims 33:21), it is not surprising that some Muslims also use their violence in imitation of the founder of Islam.

3. Violence in the Koran and the life of Muhammad (No. 253)

Finally, the Pope mentions the violence in Islam. In No. 253 he writes: “True Islam and the proper interpretation of the Koran oppose all violence”.

This phrase is beautiful and expresses a very benevolent attitude on the Pope’s part towards Islam. However, in my humble opinion, it expresses more a wish than a reality. The fact that the majority of Muslims are opposed to violence, may well be true. But to say that ” the true Islam is against any violence,” does not seem true: there is violence in the Koran. To say then that “for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” needs a lot of explaining. It is enough to cite Chapters 2, 9 of the Koran.

What the Pope says about Islam needing a “proper interpretation” is true. Some scholars have chosen this path but not enough to counter the power of the majority. This minority of scholars is trying to reinterpret Koranic texts that speak of violence, showing that they are related to the context of Arabia at the time and were in the context of the political-religious vision of Muhammad.

If Islam wants to remain within this vision still linked to the time of Muhammad, then there will always be violence. But if Islam – and there are quite a few mystics who have done it – wants to find a deep spirituality, then violence is not acceptable.

Islam is at a crossroads: either religion is a way towards politics and towards a politically organized society, or religion is an inspiration to live and love more fully.

Those who criticize Islam with regard to the violence are not making an unjust and odious generalization: as evidenced by the present bloody and ongoing issues in the Muslim world.

Here in the East we understand very well that Islamic terrorism is religiously motivated, with quotes, prayers and fatwas from imams who encourage violence. The fact is that there is no central authority to counter this manipulation in Islam. This means that every imam is considered a mufti, a national authority, who can make judgments inspired by the Koran and even give orders to kill.

CONCLUSION: A ” PROPER READING OF THE KORAN”

Finally, the really important point is “a proper reading.” In the Muslim world, the most heated debate – indeed most forbidden – is precisely about the interpretation of the holy book. Muslims believe that the Koran descended upon Muhammad, complete, in the form we know. There is the concept of inspiration of the sacred text, which leaves room for interpretation of the human element present in the word of God.

Let’s take an example. At the time of Muhammad, with tribes that lived in the desert, the punishment for a thief was the cutting off of hands. What purpose did this serve? To stop the thief from stealing again. So we must ask: how can we preserve this purpose today, that the thief will no longer steal? Can we use other methods instead of cutting off the hand?

Today all religions have this problem: how to re-interpret the sacred texts, which have an eternal value, but goes back centuries or even millennia.

When meeting Muslim friends, I always point out that today we must ask what “purpose” (maqased), the indications in the Koran had. The Muslim jurists and theologians say that you should search for the “purposes of the law of God” (maq?sid al-shar?’a). This expression corresponds to what the Gospel calls “the spirit ” of the text, as opposed to the “letter”. We must seek the intent of the sacred text of Islam.

Several Muslim scholars talk about the importance of discovering “the purpose” of Koranic texts to adjust the Koranic text to the modern world. And this, it seems to me, is very close to what the Holy Father meant to suggest when he writes of “a proper reading of the Koran.”
_________

The complete text by Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, on Asia News of December 19:

> Pope Francis and his invitation to dialogue with Islam

Doctrinal Authority of Episcopal Conferences – “Federalist Option”

From Chiesa

The Federalist Option of the Bishop of Rome

More autonomy for the national episcopal conferences. And more room for different cultures. The two points on which “Evangelii Gaudium” most distinguishes itself from the magisterium of the previous popes

by Sandro Magister

ROME, December 3, 2013 – In the voluminous apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium”  made public one week ago, Pope Francis has made it known that he wants to distinguish himself on at least two points from the popes who preceded him.

The first of these points is also the one that has had the greatest impact in the media. And it concerns both the exercise of the primacy of the pope and the powers of the episcopal conferences.

The second point concerns the relationship between Christianity and cultures.

1. ON THE PAPACY AND THE NATIONAL CHURCHES

On the role of the pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio credits John Paul II with having paved the way to a new form of the exercise of primacy.  But he laments that “we have made little progress in this regard” and promises that he intends to proceed with greater vigor  toward a form of papacy “more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization.”

But more than on the role of the pope – where Francis remains vague and has so far operated by making most decisions himself – it is on the powers of the episcopal conferences that “Evangelii Gaudium” heralds a major transition.

The pope writes in paragraph 32 of the document:

“The Second Vatican Council stated that, like the ancient patriarchal Churches, episcopal conferences are in a position ‘to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegial spirit.’ Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated. Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.”

In a footnote, Francis refers to a 1998 motu proprio of John Paul II, concerning precisely “the theological and juridical nature of the episcopal conferences”:

> Apostolos Suos

But if one reads that document, one discovers that it attributes to the national episcopal conferences a function that is exclusively practical, cooperative, of a simple intermediate auxiliary body between the college of all the world’s bishops together with the pope on the one hand – the only “collegiality” declared to have a theological foundation – and the individual bishop with authority over his diocese on the other.

Above all, the motu proprio “Apostolos Suos” strongly limits that “authentic doctrinal authority” which Pope Francis says he wants to grant to the episcopal conferences. It prescribes that if doctrinal declarations really need to be issued, this must be done with unanimous approval and in communion with the pope and the whole Church, or at least “by a substantial majority” after review and authorization by the Holy See.

One danger warned against in the motu proprio “Apostolos Suos” is that the episcopal conferences might release doctrinal declarations in contrast with each other and with the universal magisterium of the Church.

Another risk that it intends to prevent is the creation of separation and antagonism between individual national Churches and Rome, as happened in the past in France with “Gallicanism” and as takes place among the Orthodox with some of the autocephalous national Churches.

That motu proprio bears the signature of John Paul II, but it owes its framework to the one who was his highly trusted prefect of doctrine, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

And Ratzinger – as was known – had long been very critical of the superpowers that some episcopal conferences had attributed to themselves, especially in certain countries, including his native Germany.

In his bombshell interview of 1985, published with the title “The Ratzinger Report,” he had resolutely opposed the idea that the Catholic Church should become “a kind of federation of national Churches.”

Instead of a “decisive new emphasis on the role of the bishops” as desired by Vatican Council II, the national episcopal conferences – he accused – have “smothered” the bishops with their weighty bureaucratic structures.

And again:

“It seems wonderful always to decide together,” but “the truth cannot be created through ballots,” both because “the group spirit and perhaps even the wish for a quiet, peaceful life or conformism lead the majority to accept the positions of active minorities bent upon pursuing clear goals” and because “the search for agreement between the different tendencies and the effort at mediation often yield flattened documents in which decisive positions (where they might be necessary) are weakened.”

John Paul II and Benedict XVI after him judged the average quality of the world’s bishops and of most episcopal conferences to be modest. And they acted accordingly. Making themselves the leader and model and in some cases – as in Italy – resolutely intervening to change the leadership and marching orders.

With Francis, the episcopal conferences could instead see a recognition of greater autonomy. With the foreseeable repercussions exemplified recently by Germany, where prominent bishops and cardinals have been clashing publicly over the most varied questions, from the criteria of diocesan administration to communion for the divorced and remarried, in this latter case anticipating and forcing solutions on which the double synod of bishops of 2014 and 2015 has been called to debate and decide.

2. ON CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURES

As for the encounter between Christianity and cultures, Pope Francis has insisted a great deal, in paragraphs 115-118 of “Evangelii Gaudium,” on the idea that “Christianity does not have simply one cultural expression,” but ever since its origin “is incarnate in the peoples of the earth, each of which has its own culture.”

In other words:

“Grace supposes culture, and God’s gift becomes flesh in the culture of those who receive it.”

With this corollary:

“While it is true that some cultures have been closely associated with the preaching of the Gospel and the development of Christian thought, the revealed message is not identified with any of them; its content is transcultural.”

In maintaining this, pope Bergoglio seems to be reaching out to those who hold that the proclamation of the Gospel has an original purity of its own apart from any cultural contamination. A purity that should be restored to it, freeing it mainly from its “Western” trappings of yesterday and today, allowing it to “inculturate” itself each time in new syntheses with other cultures.

But put in these terms, this relationship between Christianity and cultures  overlooks the indivisible connection between faith and reason, between biblical revelation and Greek culture, between Jerusalem and Athens, to which John Paul II dedicated the encyclical “Fides et Ratio” and on which Benedict XVI focused his memorable talk in Regensburg of September 12, 2006:

> Faith, Reason and the University

For pope Ratzinger, the bond between biblical faith and Greek philosophy is “an intrinsic necessity” that is manifested not only in the dazzling prologue of the Gospel of John, “in the beginning was the Logos,” but already in the Old Testament, in the mysterious “I am” of God in the burning bush: “a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.”

This encounter “between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit” – Benedict XVI maintained – took place “in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.”

And it is a synthesis – Pope Benedict furthermore argued – that must be defended from all the attacks that over the course of the centuries, until our own time, have aimed at breaking it, in the name of the “dehellenization of Christianity.”

In our time – Ratzinger noted in Regensburg – this attack is produced “in the light of our experience with cultural pluralism”:

“It is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was an initial inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not simply false, but it is coarse and lacking in precision. […] True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.”

On this capital theme, “Evangelii Gaudium” does not necessarily contradict the magisterium of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. But it is certainly distant from it.

Here as well with an evident sympathy for a plurality of forms of Church, modeled on the respective local cultures.

__________

The complete text of the apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis:

> Evangelii Gaudium

Highly Centralizing and Hardly Collegial – That’s How the Bishops See Him

From Chiesa

In spite of the promises to strengthen their role, for the episcopal conferences these are difficult times. Francis decides by his own lights. The Jesuit De Lubac is his instructor of ecclesiology

by Sandro Magister

ROME, December 18, 2013 – In the interview with his friend the vaticanista Andrea Tornielli published in “La Stampa” three days ago, Pope Francis returned to two points of “Evangelii Gaudium” that had elicited animated comments for and against.

The first point is communion for the divorced and remarried. The pope wanted to clarify that he was not referring to this when in the apostolic exhortation he spoke of communion as “not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

By this Francis was at pains to distinguish himself from those who had interpreted his words as the latest instance of “openness” and had publicly spoken out in favor of communion. Among whom, most recently, the new secretary general of the synod of bishops, Lorenzi Baldisseri, and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

The second clarification concerned his rejection of the economic theory of “derrame” – an expression translated into English as “trickle-down” – according to which “all economic growth, fostered by the free market, succeeds of itself in producing greater social equality and inclusion.”

Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio reiterated – “not as an expert” – that he does not believe in the soundness of this theory. And with this he rejected the criticisms that had been made against him by the American neoconservative theologian Michael Novak in particular, according to whom the pope’s distrust would be understandable “in Argentina and other static systems with no upward mobility,” but not in the United States and in other countries with advanced capitalism, where “what has been experienced is wealth ‘welling up from below'” and economic growth – if reinforced with the protection of basic rights and with the care for the poor characteristic of the Judaeo-Christian tradition – favors the rise of the less prosperous toward higher standards of living.

*

Of the two clarifications, the first touches upon one of the crucial points of “Evangelii Gaudium,” where Francis promises more collegiality in Church governance, with greater powers attributed to the episcopal conferences.

In a previous article, http://www.chiesa brought to light the novelty of this stance expressed by pope Bergoglio with respect to the position of his predecessors Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger, both very resolute in opposing the danger that the Church should become “a sort of federation of national Churches”:

> The Federalist Option of the Bishop of Rome

Some prominent churchmen have even pushed beyond what was said and not said by Bergoglio. For example, Archbishop Baldisseri – considered a pupil of the pope – has already guaranteed that “Francis wants a dynamic and permanent synod, as osmosis between the center and the periphery.”

The multiplication in Germany, on the part of influential bishops and cardinals, of statements in support of communion for the divorced and remarried – which will be one of the topics of discussion at the next synod – also seems to confirm this novelty.

There are, however, at least two elements in pope Bergoglio that seem to point in the opposite direction.

*

The first is the monocratic, centralizing form in which Francis is in fact governing the Church.

The most significant appointments of the beginning of this pontificate, both in the curia and outside of it, have all stemmed from personal choices of pope Bergoglio, sometimes bypassing the normal processes of consultation or ignoring the norms in effect.

For example, in spite of the fact that the fundamental laws of the governorate of Vatican City allow that the secretary general may be a layman, the pope has not only promoted a churchman to this role, the Argentine Legionary of Christ Fernando Vérgez Alzaga, who is very close to him, but has also consecrated him bishop and entrusted to him the pastoral care of the citizens of the tiny state, taking it away from Cardinal Angelo Comastri, archpriest of the basilica of Saint Peter and vicar general for Vatican City.

In other cases, Francis has appointed persons who are a living negation of his program of housecleaning and reform of the curia. And he has kept them in place in spite of all of the warnings to the contrary, even on the part of churchmen of the highest integrity and in his closest trust:

> Ricca and Chaouqui, Two Enemies in the House

As for the episcopal conferences, their autonomy and influence are not on the rise, but in decline. Among those which distinguished themselves in the final phase of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, only that of the United States is continuing on its course.

The Italian conference, the one closest to the see of Peter, is adrift. Francis has removed from office the secretary general, Mariano Crociata, and confined him to Latina, a third-rank diocese. He has removed the president, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, from his role as a member of the congregation for bishops, promoting in his place archbishop of Perugia Gualtiero Bassetti, one of the three vice-presidents of the CEI, who is instead in the good graces of the current pope. And now he is preparing to appoint the new secretary, who will become the de facto first-in-command of the conference, reporting directly to him.

In the meantime, Bergoglio has asked the CEI to decide if it wants to elect the future president itself or prefers to leave the appointment to the pope, as has always been done.

In 1983, during their only previous consultation on the matter, a majority of the Italian bishops declared themselves to be in favor of election.

But this time, given the prevailing mood, it seems that most would prefer to leave the task to pope Bergoglio, if only to avoid the risk of entering into collision with him.

At the conclave last March, the leaders of the CEI exerted themselves in support of Cardinal Angelo Scola. And shortly after the “habemus papam” they mistakenly released a statement of congratulations for the election . . . of the archbishop of Milan.

They are still afraid that the man who was really elected has not forgiven them for it.

*

The second element that seems to be holding Pope Francis back from a strengthening of the episcopal conferences for the sake of a more “collegial” governance of the Church has to do with ecclesiology.

“The universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches. It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church.”

This is how John Paul II and then-cardinal Ratzinger expressed themselves in a 1992 letter of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, entitled “Communionis Notio.”

The letter was addressed to the bishops, and it continued as follows:

“Indeed, according to the Fathers, ontologically, the Church-mystery, the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation, and gives birth to the particular Churches as her daughters. She expresses herself in them; she is the mother and not the product of the particular Churches. Furthermore, the Church is manifested, temporally, on the day of Pentecost in the community of the one hundred and twenty gathered around Mary and the twelve Apostles, the representatives of the one unique Church and the founders-to-be of the local Churches, who have a mission directed to the world: from the first the Church speaks all languages.

“From the Church, which in its origins and its first manifestation is universal, have arisen the different local Churches, as particular expressions of the one unique Church of Jesus Christ. Arising within and out of the universal Church, they have their ecclesiality in it and from it. Hence the formula of the Second Vatican Council: ‘The Church in and formed out of the Churches’ (Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis), is inseparable from this other formula: ‘The Churches in and formed out of the Church’ (Ecclesiae in et ex Ecclesia). Clearly the relationship between the universal Church and the particular Churches is a mystery, and cannot be compared to that which exists between the whole and the parts in a purely human group or society.”

The letter gave official stature to the thesis upheld by Ratzinger in the dispute that opposed him to his fellow German theologian, later a cardinal, Walter Kasper.

Kasper was defending the simultaneous origin of the universal Church and the particular Churches, and saw at work in Ratzinger “an attempt at the theological restoration of Roman centralism.” While Ratzinger criticized Kasper for reducing the Church to a sociological construction, endangering the unity of the Church and the ministry of the pope in particular.

The dispute between the two cardinal theologians continued until 2001, with a last exchange of jabs in the magazine of the New York Jesuits, “America.”

But after he became pope, Ratzinger reiterated his thesis in the post-synodal apostolic exhortation “Ecclesia in Medio Oriente” of 2012:

“The universal Church is a reality which precedes the particular Churches, which are born in and through the universal Church. This truth is faithfully reflected in Catholic teaching, especially that of the Second Vatican Council. It leads to an understanding of the hierarchical dimension of ecclesial communion and allows the rich and legitimate diversity of the particular Churches constantly to develop within that unity in which particular gifts can become an authentic source of enrichment for the universality of the Church.”

And Bergoglio? Once he was elected to the chair of Peter, he immediately gave the impression of wanting a more collegial governance of the Church.

And at his first Angelus in Saint Peter’s Square, on March 17, he told the crowd that he had read with profit a book by Cardinal Kasper, “a clever theologian, a good theologian.”

Some associated the two things and concluded that Pope Francis was espousing Kasper’s positions on the relationship between the universal Church and the local Churches.

But this was not the case. The book of Kasper’s that the pope read was not about ecclesiology, but the mercy of God.

And as for ecclesiology, the theologian Bergoglio has always admired and cited the most is Henri De Lubac (1896-1991), a Jesuit and finally a cardinal, author in 1971 of a book entitled “Les Églises particulières dans l’Église universelle” that upheld twenty years in advance and almost in the same words the theses of Ratzinger and of “Communionis Notio.”

In the judgment of De Lubac “the universal Church does not come about in a second phase by an addition of particular Churches or a federation of them.” Nor must episcopal collegiality be translated into “ecclesial nationalisms that are usually accompanied by an equally dire doctrinal pluralism” and a removal of the pope’s authority.

In the fifth chapter of “Les Églises particulières dans l’Église universelle,” De Lubac applies the analysis to the episcopal conferences and attributes to them a foundation that is not doctrinal but simply pragmatic, not of divine right but only of ecclesiastical right:

“The conciliar constitution ‘Lumen Gentium’ is as clear as possible in this regard. It does not recognize any mediation of a doctrinal order between the particular Church and the universal Church.”

Pope Bergoglio is not a theologian. But these are his teachers.

______________

The interview with Pope Francis by Andrea Tornielli, published in “La Stanpa” of December 15:

> “Never be afraid of tenderness”

__________

The 1992 letter from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith to the bishops, on the relationship between the universal Church and the particular Churches:

> Communionis notio

__________

A precise reconstruction of the dispute between Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper, made by the Greek Orthodox archimandrite and theologian Amphilochios Miltos, published in “Istina” 58 (2013) 1, 23-39 and in “Il Regno-Documenti” 17 (2013), 568-576:

> Le Chiese locali e la Chiesa universale

Vatican Diary / Confirmed, Promoted, Removed

From Chiesa

Tremors in the congregation for Catholic education, from which Pope Francis has removed nine cardinals. And meanwhile the new secretary of state has chosen his personal secretary, the Englishman Robert D. Murphy, fresh from four years of service in Buenos Aires.

VATICAN CITY, December 1, 2013 – It is well established by now that the reform of the Roman curia undertaken by Pope Francis will be thorough, and precisely for this reason will not be accomplished in the short term. The confirmation has come from the second round of meetings of the eight cardinal “advisors” that took place in Rome in early December, in the presence of the pontiff.

“Our work has just begun,” said one of them, cardinal of Boston Sean P. O’Malley. And the coordinator of the eight, Honduran cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, has also cautioned against haste.

“Looking at history,” Maradiaga observed regarding John Paul II’s 1988 constitution on the curia, “‘Pastor Bonus’ took more than three years. Be patient. Big things cannot be improvised. The Church is facing great problems that concern many people.”

He then added: ” The participation of the world is so great that arriving at a synthesis requires discussion. Arriving at conclusions takes time. And above all – the pope has said this – there are things that take time because the reforms are not superficial but profound, and therefore dialogue, listening, and discernment are needed.”

Nonetheless, in anticipation of a radical reform of the Roman curia Pope Francis has already begun altering the “governance” of the Roman dicasteries as they are currently structured.

*

On March 16, in effect, three days after his election, the newly elected pontiff had “expressed the desire that the heads and members of the dicasteries of the Roman curia, and also the secretaries, as well as the president of the pontifical commission of Vatican City-State, should continue, provisorily, in their respective positions ‘donec aliter provideatur.'” The latter formula left his hands free and had not been used by his predecessors in confirming the directors of the curia at the beginning of their respective pontificates.

Now, nine months after the election, in addition to having appointed on August 31 a new secretary of state in the person of Pietro Parolin and having stabilized at the same time the other officials of the secretariat of state (substitute Angelo G. Becciu, assessor Monsignor Peter B. Wells, and “foreign minister” Dominique Mamberti with his deputy Antoine Camilleri), pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio has already confirmed, with a few transfers and mergers, the officials of four out of nine congregations: doctrine of the faith, Propaganda Fide, and clergy on September 21, Catholic education on November 30. As well as those of two out of eleven pontifical councils: laity and justice and peace on September 24.

Apart from the appointment of a new major penitentiary in the person of Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, transferred there from the more important congregation for the clergy, other officials in the curia will therefore remain in office only “donec aliter provideatur,” meaning provisorily.

This is the case of the officials of the apostolic signatura (where however an adjunct secretary has been appointed, Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca, moved from the general secretariat of the governorate), of the APSA, of the prefecture of economic affairs, of the governorate (where however there is a new secretary general, the Argentine Legionary of Christ Fernando Vérgez Alzaga) and of five congregations: Eastern Churches, divine worship, causes of saints, bishops, religious. In these latter two dicasteries new secretaries have been chosen, respectively the Brazilian Ilson de Jesus Montanari and the Spanish Franciscan José Rodriguez Carballo.

*

Among the full confirmations the most interesting is certainly the one at the congregation for Catholic education, and not only because in the recent past – as documented in a recent book by Elisabetta Piqué, “Francesco. Vita e rivoluzione,” published in Italy by Lindau – then-cardinal Bergoglio had some difficulty in getting the dicastery to accept his choice as the new rector of the Catholic University of Buenos Aires, Monsignor Victor Manuel Fernández (who as pope he significantly elevated to the episcopal dignity just two months after being elected bishop of Rome).

While in the case of the congregations for the doctrine of the faith and of Propaganda Fide the pope has in fact confirmed the members of the dicasteries en bloc, and in the congregation for the clergy has instead confirmed no one, in the congregation for Catholic education the pope has dug deep: with confirmations, with the addition of new members, with removals.

Francis has confirmed as prefect of the congregation for education the Polish cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, 74 (he will reach retirement age in October of 2014), in office since 1999, and as secretary of the same dicastery the Italian archbishop Angelo Vincenzo Zani, 63, in office since November of 2012, when he replaced the French Dominican Jean-Louis Brugués, now the archivist and librarian of Holy Roman Church and in this capacity on the waiting list for the cardinal’s scarlet at the consistory already scheduled for next February.

Moreover, the pope has appointed eleven new members of the congregation and has confirmed another 23.

Seven of the new members are cardinals: Béchara Boutros Raï of Lebanon, patriarch of the Maronites; Odilo P. Scherer of São Paulo, Brazil; John Njue of Nairobi, Kenya; Timothy M. Dolan of New York; John Tong Hon of Hong Kong; Luis A. G. Tagle of Manila; Kurt Koch of Switzerland, president of the pontifical council for Christian unity.

And four are archbishops: Beniamino Stella of Italy, prefect of the congregation for the clergy; Jorge Carlos Patrón Wong of Mexico, the new secretary for seminaries of the same congregation; Ricardo Ezzati Andrello of Santiago, Chile; Marek Jedraszewski of Lódz, Poland.

Twenty of the confirmed are cardinals: Antonio M. Rouco Varela of Madrid; Christoph Schönborn of Vienna; Audrys J. Backis, emeritus of Vilnius, Lithuania; Óscar A. Rodríguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa, Honduras; José da Cruz Policarpo, emeritus of Lisbon; Peter K. A. Turkson of Ghana (curia); Josip Bozanic of Zagabria, Croatia; Péter Erdo of Budapest; Marc Ouellet of Canada (curia); Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bordeaux, France; Oswald Gracias of Mumbai, Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya di Kinshasa, Zaire; Reinhard Marx of Munich; Thomas C. Collins of Toronto; Willem J. Eijk of Utrecht, Netherlands; Leonardo Sandri of Argentina (curia); Gianfranco Ravasi and Fernando Filoni of Italy (curia); João Braz de Aviz of Brazil (curia), Edwin F. O’Brien of the United States (curia).

Plus two archbishops: Alfredo H. Zecca of Tucuman, Argentina and Gerhard L. Müller of Germany, both in the curia. And the Swiss bishop Charles Morerod, of Lausanne.

But the more curious list is that of the removals. In addition to cardinals Godfried Danneels, Juan Sandoval Iñiguez, and Raffaele Farina, who have already reached the age of 80, Dionigi Tettamanzi, who will turn 80 next March, is no longer a member of the congregation.

Also not confirmed are cardinals William J. Levada and Mauro Piacenza, replaced by their respective successors at the congregations for the doctrine of the faith and for the clergy, Müller and Stella.

But also removed are cardinals Stanislaw Dziwisz of Krakow, Giuseppe Betori of Florence, and Rainer Maria Woelki of Berlin. Curiously, these last two had been in office for only one year, having been appointed members of the congregation after the consistory that saw them created cardinals in February of 2012.

In practice, therefore, the new congregation for Catholic education designed by Bergoglio is less Italian (Tettamanzi, Betori, Farina, and Piacenza are leaving, while only Stella is entering), less European (in addition to the Italians, Danneels, Dziwisz, and Woelki are also leaving, while in addition to Stella only Koch and Jedraszewski are entering), but more Latin American (Sandoval is leaving, but Scherer, Patrón, and Ezzati are entering) and more Asian (no exits, and three new entries: Rai, Tong, and Tagle).

*

Now it will be interesting to see what results the Bergoglio treatment could produce in the other dicasteries. Starting with the congregation for bishops, which assists the pope in the selection of prelates for most of the world: from Europe to the Americas, from Australia to the Philippines.

Currently, out of the 33 members of this congregation, there are 12 Italians and 25 Europeans in all, 4 North Americans, 3 Latin Americans, one from Oceania. It is hard to imagine that these proportions will remain unchanged.

But beyond the numerical proportions, it will be interesting to see whom pope Bergoglio will confirm, appoint, or dismiss in this decisive dicastery.

In this regard it is curious to note how peremptory requests are already arriving from the progressive camp. For example, the “National Catholic Reporter” has called for the head of United States cardinal Raymond L. Burke, too conservative for the magazine’s tastes. But to what extent the pope may wish to listen to these not disinterested recommendations remains to be seen.

*

One last observation concerns the secretariat of state. In early December, on the occasion of a couple of book presentations and of a Mass for the repose of the former dean of the diplomatic corps, “L’Osservatore Romano” noted the public appearance of the new personal secretary of the new secretary of state, Archbishop Pietro Parolin.

He is Robert David Murphy, born on February 4, 1973 in Solihull in the West Midlands of England, a few miles from Birmingham. His ecclesiastical biography is not devoid of interest.

After studying literature and civil law at Cambridge, he entered the seminary at the Institut Catholique in Paris in 1995, where he obtained bachelor’s degrees in philosophy and theology. At the invitation of his bishop at the time, Maurice Couve de Murville, he went to Rome and received a licentiate degree in theology from the Gregorian.

In 2001 Murphy was ordained a priest for the diocese of Birmingham, headed since 2000 by the current archbishop of Westminster, Vincent G. Nichols. In 2004 he entered the pontifical ecclesiastical academy, the diplomatic school of the Holy See, headed at the time by Justo Mullor Garcia of Spain. During this period he received a doctorate in fundamental theology from the Gregorian on the theme: “Hierarchy and communion: elements in tension in the exercise of ecclesial authority and the retrieval of a canonical space of reception. A proposal in dialogue with the ecclesiology of Yves Congar, O.P.” His classmates included Roberto Lucchini, future second secretary of cardinal secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone, and Fabrice Rivet, now secretary to the substitute Angelo G. Becciu.

In the summer of 2007, after finishing his studies at the academy, Murphy was sent to the nunciature in Colombia, where he found as nuncio Archbishop Beniamino Stella, the current prefect of the congregation for the clergy, who in October of that same year was called to Rome to head the ecclesiastical academy.

After only one year in Bogotà, in 2008 Murphy was sent to the pontifical nunciature in Argentina, where he became the deputy of the nuncio at the time, Adriano Bernardini, whom the previously cited book by Elisabetta Piqué places at the top of the historical “adversaries in the clergy” of then-archbishop of Buenos Aires Bergoglio. Murphy went to the Argentine nunciature to replace Monsignor Alberto Perlasca, who was sent to Rome, where he still heads the important administrative section of the secretariat of state.

In 2011 Murphy was at first destined for the UN headquarters in Geneva, but then the order was retracted and he remained in Argentina, where between that December and March of 2012 he directed the Vatican embassy “ad interim,” in the interval between the departure of Bernardini, called to head the prestigious nunciature in Italy, and the arrival of the new nuncio, Emil Paul Tscherrig of Switzerland, who – again according to Elisabetta Piqué – would instead have an excellent relationship with Bergoglio.

In the summer of 2012, Murphy was transferred to the nunciature of Berlin. Where he would remain for a little more than a year. Last November, in fact, he returned to Rome to work alongside the new secretary of state.

The “Bergoglio Effect” on the Bishops of Italy and Spain

From Chiesa

Vatican Diary / The “Bergoglio Effect” on the Bishops of Italy and Spain

The change has begun with the secretaries general of the two episcopates. In Madrid the new one has been elected. And in Rome Paul Francis has deposed the old. With even bigger innovations in the works

VATICAN CITY, November 25, 2013 – As has already taken place in the United States, the episcopates of Italy and Spain also have significant changes in their leadership under way.

And the observers of ecclesiastical questions, but not only they, have gone to work to interpret these changes in the context of the new pontificate.

They want to understand the impact of the “Bergoglio effect” on the corps of Catholic hierarchies profoundly shaped by his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

IN SPAIN

In Madrid, after two five-year mandates and with the statutory impossibility of being reelected, Bishop Antonio Martínez Camino was on his way out as secretary and spokesman of the episcopal conference.

An anomalous Jesuit – hardly Bergoglian in style – and an ironclad conservative, Martinez was a staunch ally of cardinal of Madrid Antonio María Rouco Varela, no Bergoglian himself, “dominus” of the Iberian episcopate over the past two decades with an iron fist in opposing internal ecclesial dissent, the political separatist impulses present also in sectors of the Church, and the secularist tendency personified by socialist leader José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero.

In the place of Martínez Camino the Spanish bishops have elected the priest-journalist José María Gil Tamayo, well-known to the media all over the world as the Spanish-speaking sidekick of Vatican “spokesman” Fr. Federico Lombardi before and during the last conclave.

Gil Tamayo was elected in the first round of voting with 48 votes out of 79. While the two elections of Martínez Camino were more laborious. According to information leaked to the press, in fact, both times he was elected at the second round of voting, with 40 votes out of 77 in June of 2003 and 39 votes out of 77 in November of 2008.

The changing of the guard has been hailed with rejoicing by progressive Iberian circles, which are already savoring the exit from the stage of Cardinal Rouco Varela. The cardinal has in fact already reached the age of 77, and in March will cease to be president of the episcopal conference.

On the other hand, however, Gil Tamayo, in spite of his more affable and engaging character, does not at all seem to have that revolutionary cast which has been attributed to his election, interpreted as the fruit of the new climate, also presumed to be revolutionary, coming from the Rome of pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

A diocesan priest, Gil Tamayo is imbued with the spirituality of Opus Dei, having studied communications at universities of the Obra: that of Navarra, where he obtained his undergraduate degree, and the Roman university of the Holy Cross, where he is working on his doctorate.

In the first hours of his mandate, he immediately had occasion to clash with a socialist leader – who had accused him of interference in political questions – reminding him that the bishops “have the mission of illuminating situations of citizenship” and that Catholics “have the right to receive a word from their pastors.”

In order to verify a possible change in the stance of the Spanish episcopate it will therefore be necessary to wait for the name of the new archbishop of Madrid – where the expected arrival of Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera would signify a more dialogue-friendly approach in the political camp, but no less firm in that of doctrine – and above all to see who will be elected the new president of the episcopal conference.

IN ITALY

If the full impact of the “Bergoglio effect” in Spain is yet to be seen, In Italy it has already been unleashed with striking repercussions. In part because the pope is the primate of Italy and currently has the power to appoint directly not only the president of the episcopate but also, after non-binding consultation with the thirty bishops of the permanent council, the secretary general.

So far pope Bergoglio has acted on two levels here.

He has ordered a study of a reduction in the number of dioceses – currently more than 200 – and a reform of the statutes that would assign more power to the regional episcopal conferences with respect to the national conference and would take away from the presidency the power of appointment and direct control over the central offices, turning this over to the respective episcopal councils, which are elective.

Not only that. Francis has also asked that the Italian bishops determine if they want the pope to continue choosing their president and secretary general.

It is not clear how much time this statutory reform will take. But if the bishops decide to change the norms on how the president is chosen, and the pope approves the change, it is clear that their leader, cardinal of Genoa Angelo Bagnasco, appointed in 2007 and confirmed in 2012 by Benedict XVI, will be required to surrender his mandate, which according to the current norms would expire in 2017.

In the meantime, however, last October came the expiration of the five-year mandate of the secretary general, Bishop Mariano Crociata, who had been appointed by Benedict XVI in 2008.

And in this case the firm hand of pope Bergoglio made itself felt right away.

The pontiff, in fact, at first did not “confirm,” but only “extended.” And after a month he sent him as bishop to Latina, a diocese of little importance not far from Rome.

With this move, Pope Francis in fact turned the calendar of the CEI back to 1986, when John Paul II relegated to Mantua the outgoing secretary general Egidio Caporello and appointed as his successor the then-auxiliary of Reggio Emilia, Camillo Ruini.

From that time on, all the secretaries general of the CEI – who according to the current statutes must be bishops – have always been “confirmed” and/or promoted afterward to lead a diocese of cardinalate tradition.

In 1991, Ruini became cardinal vicar of Rome. His successor, Dionigi Tettamanzi, became archbishop of Genoa in 1995. Ennio Antonelli, appointed in 1995 and confirmed in 2000, was promoted to archbishop of Florence the following year. Giuseppe Betori, appointed in 2001, was confirmed in 2006 and also promoted to Florence two years later. Today all of them wear the scarlet.

Pope Bergoglio has broken this automatism.

Now it remains to be seen when and how the new secretary general will be chosen. And above all when and how the new statutes of the CEI will come to light, as they could assign a more direct role to the Italian bishops in the selection of their president. A direct role that they now exercise only in the selection of the three vice-presidents, who in practice have been chosen to represent the north, middle, and south of the country.

At times with surprising results and with elections contested to the last vote.

For example, the current vice-president for central Italy, archbishop of Perugia Gualtiero Bassetti, was selected in 2009 at the second round of voting with 102 votes out of 194, far surpassing two churchmen of great stature in the media world, then-archbishop of Terni Vincenzo Paglia, who received 46, and archbishop of Chieti Bruno Forte, who scraped together 35.

And while the current vice-president for the north, archbishop of Turin Cesare Nosiglia, was elected in 2010 with a comfortable margin of victory over bishop of Como Diego Coletti with 137 votes out of 219, the selection of the vice-president for the south in 2012 was more contested. On that occasion, bishop of Aversa Angelo Spinillo prevailed in the voting by a hair’s breadth over archbishop of Bari Francesco Cacucci, with 100 votes against 91.

Francis Effect – Used to Justify Homosexual Unions

From Chiesa

Vatican Diary / In the United States everybody with Francis, rightly or wrongly

In the leadership of the episcopal conference the men are changing but the stance remains the same, highly combative against the attacks on life and the family. Among Catholic politicians, however, there are some who are enlisting the pope himself in favor of gay marriage.

More Damage Control by Francis

From Chiesa

[Note: mitigating the errors observed by awake Catholics.]

Even the Pope Critiques Himself. And Corrects Three Errors

He is lowering the “rating” of his interview with Scalfari. Rectifying his judgments on Vatican Council II. Distancing himself from the progressive currents that have applauded him until now. But the media are silent on this change of pace

by Sandro Magister

ROME, November 22, 2013 – In the span of a few days Pope Francis has corrected or brought about the correction of a few significant features of his public image. At least three of them.

Abortion, Homosexual Marriage and Contraception not a Priority for Francis

Excerpts From Chiesa

Vatican Diary / Bishops under fire in Italy, the United States, and Spain

They were the most combative on questions that Pope Francis has relegated to second place. And now they find themselves under pressure to change their agenda and their leaders.

VATICAN CITY, November 1, 2013 – Pope Francis is showing that he has very clear in his mind both the battles that he wants to fight and those for which he sees no need to do so. Both “ad intra,” meaning within the ecclesial body of which he has become the supreme pastor – and in the Roman curia in particular – and “ad extra,” in the world.

With regard to the latter, pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio has said loud and clear, in the interview with “La Civiltà Cattolica,” that he does not see as a priority the battles over anthropological issues like the questions “connected to abortion, homosexual marriage, and the use of contraceptive methods.”

This undoubtedly constitutes a change of stance with respect to the  last pontificates: not only of Benedict XVI and of John Paul II, but also of Paul VI, the pope of “Humanae Vitae” and of the strenuous resistance against the introduction of divorce in Italy.

It is a change of stance, this of Pope Francis, who although he has not yet [coming soon] eliminated even one iota of doctrine has nonetheless raised widespread expectations among the more progressive sectors of Catholicism around the world.

But it is also a change of stance that has backed into a corner those episcopates – of Italy, of Spain, of the United States – which in the past were considered models in their way of addressing on the public stage the anthropological challenges present in the contemporary world, but which now find themselves singled out as “scarcely in line” with the new papal leadership. [Of course, since Francis will change these doctrines in the future.]

Read the rest there.

Martini Pope – The Dream Come True

From Chiesa

Jesuit, archbishop of Milan and cardinal, he was the most authoritative and highly praised antagonist of the pontificates of Wojtyla and Ratzinger. His supporters see today in Francis the one who has inherited his legacy. And is putting it into practice.