FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope Benedict moves to quash anti-Francis backlash By John L. Allen Jr. | Glob
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
YES!!!

VERY interesting, I think ...

Not just what it says about BXVI - but the fact that evidently the Church is concerned about the backlash ...

I have been waiting and waiting for clear evidence of this ... now I have it ...


Pope Benedict moves to quash anti-Francis backlash
By John L. Allen Jr.


For a pope who vowed to remain “hidden from the world” after his resignation became official almost exactly one year ago, on Feb. 28, 2013, Benedict XVI certainly has been in the spotlight a fair bit lately.

It almost seems as if the former pontiff is trying to express, both visually and verbally, that he has no intention of becoming the chaplain of conservative backlash against his successor, Pope Francis.

Recent days have brought four noteworthy public expressions of Benedict’s support for the new regime.

First, his closest aide and confidante, German Archbishop Georg Gänswein, gave an interview to the Reuters news agency on Feb. 9 in which he insisted there’s “a good feeling” between Francis and Benedict, and that the two men see one another often.

Second, Benedict XVI made a surprise appearance at a Feb. 22 consistory ceremony in which Francis elevated 19 new cardinals into the church’s most exclusive club, sitting in the front row and beaming during the event.

When Francis made his way over to wrap Benedict in a hug, the pope emeritus removed his white zucchetto, a skullcap that’s one of the symbols of the papal office — a small gesture that told insiders he was acknowledging Francis as the new boss.

Third, Benedict responded in writing to questions by veteran Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli concerning speculation that he’d been pressured to step down and therefore his resignation was invalid under church law. Following that reasoning to its logical conclusion, it would suggest that Francis isn’t really the pope.

Benedict dismissed the hypothesis as “simply absurd.”

“I took this step in full awareness of its gravity and novelty but with profound serenity of spirit,” Benedict wrote in comments published Feb. 26.

“Loving the church also means having the courage to make difficult, painful choices, always keeping the good of the church in mind and not ourselves.”

Fourth, Gänswein, who still acts as Benedict’s private secretary and who lives with the former pope in a monastery on Vatican grounds, gave another interview to the Washington Post in which he said the two pontiffs didn’t know one another well at the beginning but are becoming steadily closer.

“Benedict is well aware of the fame of his successor, but he’s not jealous because he sees that celebrity as helping the faithful,” Gänswein said.

To some extent, the timing of these gestures and statements from the former pope, and from those closest to him, may be accidental.

The consistory ceremony presided over by Pope Francis just happened to be scheduled for last week, and the one-year anniversary of Benedict’s resignation naturally elicits media interest in how he’s doing and what his attitude may be to the strong popularity enjoyed by his successor.

On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine there isn’t some connection between the former pope’s willingness to step back into the public eye, and the tendency in some traditionalist circles towards nostalgia for Benedict as an expression of misgivings with Francis.

Conservative Italian writer Roberto de Mattei, for example, authored a Feb. 12 piece asserting that developments since the election of Francis amount to “a road that leads to schism and heresy.” (For his trouble, de Mattei was fired the next day by the Italian Catholic network Radio Maria.)

A popular American traditionalist pundit, John Vennari, opined on Feb. 13 that Francis is a “theological train wreck” and said he’d never let such a man teach religion to his children.

Around the same time, writer Antonio Socci floated the idea that if Benedict had his arm twisted to quit over the 2012 Vatican leaks affair, then it wasn’t a free act under church law and might not count.

At one level, it’s easy to shrug off such dissenting notes. When asked Feb. 26 if he ever had any doubt as to whether Benedict’s resignation was valid, Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster in the U.K. told the Globe: “No … I think we can move on.”

On the other hand, Benedict apparently takes it seriously enough to not want his silence to be construed as consent.

The former pope pledged “unconditional obedience” to his successor in his final remarks to cardinals a year ago. For most of the past year, he’s honored that pledge by staying out of sight. Lately it seems he’s found another way to do it, injecting himself back into view just long enough to lend his blessing.

Most observers expect Benedict now to return to the shadows. It’s likely that his next public appearance won’t be until an April 27 ceremony when Francis will declare two former popes, John XXIII and John Paul II, as saints. The event is expected to draw millions of faithful, perhaps rivaling the 2005 funeral Mass of John Paul II as the largest public gathering in the Eternal City.

Source; Boston Globe, but you can't go there without subscription. Try John L Allen on Twitter or Facebook for free access.
Commenting on my own words ...

(02-27-2014, 06:58 AM)Roger Buck Wrote: [ -> ]YES!!!

VERY interesting, I think ...

Not just what it says about BXVI - but the fact that evidently the Church is concerned about the backlash ...

I have been waiting and waiting for clear evidence of this ... now I have it ...

This was a bit exuberant of me ... but really I have been waiting for this.

My exuberance is not to do with what this says of BXVI - but the testimony to the "backlash".

That the backlash would get strong enough for a felt need for it to be contained ...

My only hope for the Church is that its changed sufficiently since 1978 that a backlash will happen ...

Whilst Paul VI certainly had his problems with ABL, I don't think the backlash was anything like what we may be seeing now.

Request to my fellow Fisheaters - if you have any more links insights into the backlash - not just from Fisheaters or Trad bloggers but the bigger non-trad conservative guns that Allen references ... please could you post it?

There is a significant difference in potential backlash, however, between the reigns of Paul VI and Francis. Francis still has Benedict alive to undermine any simmering backlash that may be there. In a sense, Benedict's remarks are removing credibility from many of these writers, because he is clarifying that his resignation was free and that he is united to the one Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis.

If anything, the 'backlashers' may be more undermined by Benedict's words and actions than by anything Francis may say.
There will be no significant backlash. Francis is doing to traditionalists (and some conservatives) what JPII/Benedict did to liberals. There was constantly rumors of the Germans or the French going into schism but nothing happened. The fires of zealousness grow cold very quickly, if you don't feed the flame the party will either become complacent or will drop out of the Church all together. The conservative or traditional diocesan Catholics who are "backlashing" now will fall into despair later. Sorry to be blunt, this is exactly the same thing I saw happen to liberals, especially under the Benedict papacy. They constantly complained about Benedict saying that Islam was a religion of violence, that Africans shouldn't use condoms, that there is no salvation outside the Church, that he was a Hitler youth, that he brought back the Latin Mass, and so on. Eventually they become "spiritual" but "non-religious" Catholics.

Honestly Francis is beginning to worry me, I'm getting flashbacks of Obama circa 2010. I've never seen the Church this divided. The Church seemed to be in a state of healing and calm under Benedict but now it's chaotic. People that were once sweet and gentle are acting all weird. On one side of the fence people are giving me  Censored for being "more Catholic than the pope" for wearing a tie and sweater to church (in a L-O-L yet passively condescending sort of way) and then I got Poles telling me that Francis is possessed because he's undermining everything JPII fought for (culture war issues). I feel like I'm in a state of delirium, I can't accept the reality I'm living in. We're seeing the Catholic equivalent of the "Tea Party" and "Occupy Wall Street" growing in the Church. Again, Obamanation: Catholic Edition.

I can't even witness to people anymore. Under Benedict it was easy but not under Francis. I know conservative Muslims and prots and they all hate his guts. No matter what the discussion is it always ends up with "but your pope said..." and that's it, end of discussion. And that's honestly what hurts the most for me. I can deal with "bad" and "irreverent" Catholics but when I can't share the Faith with others because Francis "pope blocked" me then I'm done. I give up. Dialogue is impossible. Whenever religious discussions come up I just sit and listen. I don't even know what to do anymore, this is the exact opposite of what I thought the Francis papacy would be like.
To Maldon re:

(02-27-2014, 12:42 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]If anything, the 'backlashers' may be more undermined by Benedict's words and actions than by anything Francis may say.

Yes, but it remains to be seen how effective this will be - especially as the issues here are not simply limited to the resignation, but what may well turn out to be the most liberal papacy ever.

To Skarga re:


(02-27-2014, 02:39 PM)Skarga Wrote: [ -> ]There will be no significant backlash. Francis is doing to traditionalists (and some conservatives) what JPII/Benedict did to liberals. There was constantly rumors of the Germans or the French going into schism but nothing happened. The fires of zealousness grow cold very quickly, if you don't feed the flame the party will either become complacent or will drop out of the Church all together. The conservative or traditional diocesan Catholics who are "backlashing" now will fall into despair later. Sorry to be blunt, this is exactly the same thing I saw happen to liberals, especially under the Benedict papacy. They constantly complained about Benedict saying that Islam was a religion of violence, that Africans shouldn't use condoms, that there is no salvation outside the Church, that he was a Hitler youth, that he brought back the Latin Mass, and so on. Eventually they become "spiritual" but "non-religious" Catholics.

Honestly Francis is beginning to worry me, I'm getting flashbacks of Obama circa 2010. I've never seen the Church this divided. The Church seemed to be in a state of healing and calm under Benedict but now it's chaotic. People that were once sweet and gentle are acting all weird. On one side of the fence people are giving me  Censored for being "more Catholic than the pope" for wearing a tie and sweater to church (in a L-O-L yet passively condescending sort of way) and then I got Poles telling me that Francis is possessed because he's undermining everything JPII fought for (culture war issues). I feel like I'm in a state of delirium, I can't accept the reality I'm living in. We're seeing the Catholic equivalent of the "Tea Party" and "Occupy Wall Street" growing in the Church. Again, Obamanation: Catholic Edition.

I can't even witness to people anymore. Under Benedict it was easy but not under Francis. I know conservative Muslims and prots and they all hate his guts. No matter what the discussion is it always ends up with "but your pope said..." and that's it, end of discussion. And that's honestly what hurts the most for me. I can deal with "bad" and "irreverent" Catholics but when I can't share the Faith with others because Francis "pope blocked" me then I'm done. I give up. Dialogue is impossible. Whenever religious discussions come up I just sit and listen. I don't even know what to do anymore, this is the exact opposite of what I thought the Francis papacy would be like.

No problem with your bluntness. I appreciate your analysis and agree with much - including what you say about what JPII/BXI did to liberals.

So yes it could be that conservatives and traditionalists will just retreat "fall into despair later" as you put it etc when you observe: "The fires of zealousness grow cold very quickly."

However, I'm not ready to concede that yet. Ironically, your second two paragraphs about your pain, which many share with you and the unprecedented division of the Church may be the very reasons we won't see a replay -in -reverse of the liberals throwing in the towel ...

I remain very happy to see terms like conservative " backlash" surfacing now in the headlines of John L Allen, the Boston globe etc.

I was a non-Catholic teen in the 70s - so I wasn't observing Paul VI closely!

But despite a little irritation from ABL, I don't think he faced anything like this.

Something has changed since then and I am encouraged to see it reaching the mainstream press like this.

Skarga you tell the truth clearly a Pope actions can hurt others who are trying to bring others into the true faith.
(02-27-2014, 07:07 AM)Roger Buck Wrote: [ -> ]Commenting on my own words ...

(02-27-2014, 06:58 AM)Roger Buck Wrote: [ -> ]YES!!!

VERY interesting, I think ...

Not just what it says about BXVI - but the fact that evidently the Church is concerned about the backlash ...

I have been waiting and waiting for clear evidence of this ... now I have it ...

This was a bit exuberant of me ... but really I have been waiting for this.

My exuberance is not to do with what this says of BXVI - but the testimony to the "backlash".

That the backlash would get strong enough for a felt need for it to be contained ...

My only hope for the Church is that its changed sufficiently since 1978 that a backlash will happen ...

Whilst Paul VI certainly had his problems with ABL, I don't think the backlash was anything like what we may be seeing now.

Request to my fellow Fisheaters - if you have any more links insights into the backlash - not just from Fisheaters or Trad bloggers but the bigger non-trad conservative guns that Allen references ... please could you post it?

I would make a couple of points here. First, Pope Benedict did not issue a statement on his own but only responded to questions sent to him by Andrea Tornielli. Had there been real concerns about the backlash someone would have dashed to the microphones on their own initiative, and sooner than this. I really wouldn't bother with John Allen on this one. Tornielli is the primary source on this one
(although the accuracy of his reporting on other things is very poor) John Allen always seems to polticize the Church by dividing us into liberals and conservates. That is beyond tiresome.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the...xvi-32340/

C.
(02-27-2014, 02:39 PM)Skarga Wrote: [ -> ]There will be no significant backlash. Francis is doing to traditionalists (and some conservatives) what JPII/Benedict did to liberals. There was constantly rumors of the Germans or the French going into schism but nothing happened. The fires of zealousness grow cold very quickly, if you don't feed the flame the party will either become complacent or will drop out of the Church all together. The conservative or traditional diocesan Catholics who are "backlashing" now will fall into despair later. Sorry to be blunt, this is exactly the same thing I saw happen to liberals, especially under the Benedict papacy. They constantly complained about Benedict saying that Islam was a religion of violence, that Africans shouldn't use condoms, that there is no salvation outside the Church, that he was a Hitler youth, that he brought back the Latin Mass, and so on. Eventually they become "spiritual" but "non-religious" Catholics.

Honestly Francis is beginning to worry me, I'm getting flashbacks of Obama circa 2010. I've never seen the Church this divided. The Church seemed to be in a state of healing and calm under Benedict but now it's chaotic. People that were once sweet and gentle are acting all weird. On one side of the fence people are giving me  Censored for being "more Catholic than the pope" for wearing a tie and sweater to church (in a L-O-L yet passively condescending sort of way) and then I got Poles telling me that Francis is possessed because he's undermining everything JPII fought for (culture war issues). I feel like I'm in a state of delirium, I can't accept the reality I'm living in. We're seeing the Catholic equivalent of the "Tea Party" and "Occupy Wall Street" growing in the Church. Again, Obamanation: Catholic Edition.

I can't even witness to people anymore. Under Benedict it was easy but not under Francis. I know conservative Muslims and prots and they all hate his guts. No matter what the discussion is it always ends up with "but your pope said..." and that's it, end of discussion. And that's honestly what hurts the most for me. I can deal with "bad" and "irreverent" Catholics but when I can't share the Faith with others because Francis "pope blocked" me then I'm done. I give up. Dialogue is impossible. Whenever religious discussions come up I just sit and listen. I don't even know what to do anymore, this is the exact opposite of what I thought the Francis papacy would be like.

I commend you for a very honest and illuminating post, Skarga. But I think the liberals were gone a long time ago and just hang around now out of force of habit. They could never have reasonably expected much from Paul VI or any of his successors and they never got it. Much of the problem under Benedict was that many "trads" thought he was "their man" but really his pontificate is in continuity with the other Vatican II popes. He did make overtures to the SSPX, and had they not been so insistent on the totality of their agenda, there could have been a real reconciliation.
Your point about what Francis off the cuff remarks have done is quite interesting. I don't think Pope Francis anticipated the impact of his little "sound bites", and I am not sure he has noticed the problem yet. The truth is he has something in common with Pope Benedict; he does not surf the web. Recall Pope Benedict not knowing Bishop Williamson was a holocaust denier. That came with a shock to me as anybody has looked at anything on the web knows that. Benedict's later explanation was astonishing: " I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news." And he only figured that out in 2009?? Pope Francis is little different it seems. Most of us have been more than aware of the internet furor caused by the hints he was dropping of admitting the divorced/remarried to the sacraments but Cardinal Meissner's account of his talk with the Pope show a Francis not really cognizant of the controversy: "“At my last meeting with Pope Francis, I had the opportunity to talk very open to him about a lot of things. And I told him that some questions remain unanswered in his style of spreading the gospel through interviews and short speeches, questions which need some extended explanation for people who are not so involved. The pope looked at me “with big eyes” and asked me to give an example. And my response was : During the flight back from Rio you were asked about people who divorced and remarried. And the pope responded frankly: People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t. In the orthodox church you can marry twice. And then he talked about mercy, which, according to my view, is seen in this country only as a surrogate for all human faults. And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church. And mercy has to be identical with truth – if not, she doesn’t deserve that name. Furthermore, when there are open theological questions, it’s up to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give detailed responses“. http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/card-meis...remarried/  What gets my attention there is the reference to the "big eyes" as if he knew nothing of what was going on in the Internet over his remarks. What also gets my attention is that he seems to think the details are the duty of the CDF. But if a pope is to be an effective teacher, the details are vitally important. Pope Francis has referred to himself as "undisciplined and disorganized". The fruits of that will be more chaos if he doesn't realize the impact of statements that do not fully address a subject. Our media and our culture love sound bites, and right now Pope Francis is letting himself be defined by sound bites. That has not served him or the cause of evangelization well in my opinion, and it isn't likely to do so in the future either.


C.
Hmm - what is really being said here?

(02-27-2014, 06:58 AM)Roger Buck Wrote: [ -> ]YES!!!

Pope Benedict moves to quash anti-Francis backlash
By John L. Allen Jr.

For a pope who vowed to remain “hidden from the world” after his resignation became official almost exactly one year ago, on Feb. 28, 2013, Benedict XVI certainly has been in the spotlight a fair bit lately.

It almost seems as if the former pontiff is trying to express, both visually and verbally, that he has no intention of becoming the chaplain of conservative backlash against his successor, Pope Francis.

As soon as one sees the word "conservative" in an article about the Church one can conclude it was written by someone other than an orthodox Catholic who understand the Church. 


Quote:Recent days have brought four noteworthy public expressions of Benedict’s support for the new regime.

First, his closest aide and confidante, German Archbishop Georg Gänswein, gave an interview to the Reuters news agency on Feb. 9 in which he insisted there’s “a good feeling” between Francis and Benedict, and that the two men see one another often.

Second, Benedict XVI made a surprise appearance at a Feb. 22 consistory ceremony in which Francis elevated 19 new cardinals into the church’s most exclusive club, sitting in the front row and beaming during the event.

Of course.  This is much is not necessarily anything more than Romanista politics.  Please.


Quote:When Francis made his way over to wrap Benedict in a hug, the pope emeritus removed his white zucchetto, a skullcap that’s one of the symbols of the papal office — a small gesture that told insiders he was acknowledging Francis as the new boss.

And if he were to do otherwise - is that even thinkable - ?


Quote:Third, Benedict responded in writing to questions by veteran Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli concerning speculation that he’d been pressured to step down and therefore his resignation was invalid under church law. Following that reasoning to its logical conclusion, it would suggest that Francis isn’t really the pope.

Benedict dismissed the hypothesis as “simply absurd.”

If he wasn't prepared to say that he wouldn't have stepped down.  IF he was coerced - and I really don't have much of an opinion on that - to step down and then tell the world that he was coerced would obviously violate whatever agreement he had entered in to.  So, again, this is nothing but fluff.


Quote:“Loving the church also means having the courage to make difficult, painful choices, always keeping the good of the church in mind and not ourselves.”

"church", in lower case, eh?


Quote:“Benedict is well aware of the fame of his successor, but he’s not jealous because he sees that celebrity as helping the faithful,” Gänswein said.

Jealous of Francis... hmm... that is difficult for me to imagine, indeed.  Were I Pope Francis, I would be on my bare knees on some hard tile praying rosary after rosary begging for forgiveness for the scandal and insult I had caused.


Quote:Conservative Italian writer Roberto de Mattei, for example, authored a Feb. 12 piece asserting that developments since the election of Francis amount to “a road that leads to schism and heresy.” (For his trouble, de Mattei was fired the next day by the Italian Catholic network Radio Maria.)

Fired just like Mr. Gnocchi, who received a phone call from the pontiff thanking him for his scathing criticism (while apparently not taking any of it to heart).

Since open heretics within the Church as well as pro-abortion groups outside it have both thanked Pope Francis and cited him as inspiration, it would seem that there might be some point here.  Of course, certain American and European bishops ostensibly would have entered into open schism long ago were their disobedient and heterodox practices and teachings condemned.


Quote:A popular American traditionalist pundit, John Vennari, opined on Feb. 13 that Francis is a “theological train wreck” and said he’d never let such a man teach religion to his children.

I wouldn't let this pontiff near my children either.  God forbid it.  They are getting a Catholic education, not modernist filth like "proselytism is solemn nonsense", near-heresy such as teaching that the Blessed Virgin had no knowledge of the Passion and sinned in anger because of it, etc.

If you're going to post something like this with apparent gleeful approval, perhaps you should take a stab at rebutting, say, the factual material here:

http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/06583...5-174.html

Here is the real skinny:

- Both Benedict XVI and Francis are children of Vatican II, and defenders of it, but while the former stressed this sort of "hermeneutic of continuity", the latter makes no qualms about seeking open revolution.

- There are some definite oddities about Benedict's resignation.  He is the first ex-pope to retain wearing papal white, instead of reverting to the cardinal's red, and also to retain a papal court of arm with the Keys of Peter.  I don't know what this means, but to pretend this isn't original and unique is stupid.

- It is likewise stupid to pretend there is no conflict whatsoever between the previous and current papacies.  How could anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention the past nine years think such a thing?  For starters, Benedict welcomed traditionalists, while the new pontiff misses no opportunity, it would seem, to insult them.  Consider this:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/10...t-xvi.html

Would Benedict XVI forbid over 400 priests from offering the Tridentine Mass, depriving countless souls of who knows what graces, because the modernist Thought Police found six of them who (very truly and rightly) criticized the Novus Ordo Rite?  Of course not.  Not by a longshot.  Not in a million years.

As a matter of fact, the times, they are unprecedented, like it or not.