The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF version'Attack on Ratzinger': Italian book assesses Benedict's papacy
by John L Allen Jr on Aug. 27, 2010
Friends and foes alike of Pope Benedict XVI concur that he's got an image problem. Where they place the blame for it may differ, but the fact itself seems clear: From a PR point of view, this is a pontificate defined by its train wrecks.
Cataloguing those train wrecks is the burden of a valuable new book by two of the best Italian vaticanisti going: Andrea Tornielli of Il Giornale and Paolo Rodari of Il Foglio, both of whom also operate widely read blogs -- "Palazzo apostolico" for Rodari and "Sacri palazzi" for Tornielli. Their work is titled Attacco a Ratzinger: Accuse e scandali, profezie e complotti ("Attack on Ratzinger: Accusations and Scandals, Prophecies and Plots"), published in Italian by Piemme.
The book came out in Italy on Tuesday, and one hopes an enterprising publisher in the States will bring out an English translation quickly. (Let me volunteer here and now: I'd be happy to put together a preface introducing the book, and its authors, to an English-speaking audience.)
While the sexual abuse crisis has occasioned the most serious criticism of Benedict XVI, it's hardly an isolated case. Tornielli and Rodari treat a long list of other controversies and PR debacles too, including:
- A September 2006 speech in Regensburg which triggered Muslim protest by appearing to link Muhammad with violence;
- The appointment, followed by the swift fall from grace, of a new Archbishop of Warsaw who turned out to have had an ambiguous relationship with the Soviet-era secret police;
- Reviving the old Latin Mass, including a controversial Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews;
- Lifting the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, including one who has denied that the Nazis used gas chambers;
- Comments aboard the papal plane to Africa to the effect that condoms make the problem of AIDS worse;
- Criticism from the Catholic right of Benedict's social encyclical Caritas in Veritate;
- Open conflicts among cardinals, most notably Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, and Angelo Sodano of Italy, the Secretary of State under John Paul II;
- Ecumenical tensions related to the creation of new "ordinariates" to welcome traditionalist Anglican converts.
It's a measure of how bad things have been that this is actually far from a complete list. The authors could have included other calamitous episodes, such as Benedict's 2007 trip to Brazil, when he seemed to suggest that indigenous persons should be grateful to their European colonizers; blowback among Jews and reform-minded Catholics to Benedict's 2009 decree of heroic virtue for Pius XII, moving the controversial wartime pontiff a step closer to sainthood; and the surreal "Boffo case" earlier this year, involving charges that senior aides to the pope had leaked fake documents suggesting the editor of an Italian Catholic paper had harassed the girlfriend of a guy with whom he wanted to carry on a gay affair.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section:Deacons.Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
On the crises they do examine, Rodari and Tornielli's work has two principal merits.
First, they strike the right balance between insider and outsider approaches. Readers who did not follow these episodes closely will find the main twists and turns ably summarized, while even devotees will learn things they didn't know. (More on those revelations in a moment.)
Second, Rodari and Tornielli present a diverse sampling of theories to explain the negative public image of this papacy, surveying what the authors describe as the "most qualified observers" in Europe and the United States. (In the interests of full disclosure, for some reason they included me in that set.)
A few of these views seem awfully conspiratorial, such as Italian journalist Marcello Foa's suggestion that the shadowy "Bilderberg Group" is behind media hostility to Benedict XVI, because the papacy is the last obstacle to a secularist one-world creed. Others politely suggest the Vatican has no one to blame but itself, such as Rachel Donadio, Rome correspondent for The New York Times, who asserts that the Vatican's poor handling of the sex abuse crisis has deepened the gap between American Catholics and Rome.
One thing everyone seems to agree on is that the Vatican's PR strategy is often deficient. Commenting on the conventional wisdom that Joaquin Navarro-Valls, John Paul's spokesperson, brought Vatican communications into the 20th century, George Weigel quips, "Yeah … the first half of the 20th century." Today, he said, things actually seem to be moving backward.
Tornielli and Rodari don't pretend to settle all the questions, and they realize that the tumult unleashed by these episodes can't be reduced exclusively to a communications problem. (No matter how you spin it, for example, some people are going to find rolling out a welcome mat for Lefebvrites and Anglican traditionalists ill-advised.) That said, Tornielli and Rodari believe they have documented an "attack" against the pope stemming from three concentric circles:
- "Lobbies and forces" outside the church with a vested interest in discrediting the pope, either for ideological or financial motives;
- Liberal critics inside the church, who have long caricatured Ratzinger as the "Panzerkardinal";
- The pope's aides, who sometimes represent his own worst PR enemies.
Whatever one makes of that, the series of disasters surveyed in Attacco a Ratzinger has unquestionably eclipsed Benedict's priorities and message for a broad swath of the world. In a sound-bite, the tragedy of Benedict's papacy is that this is a great teaching pope, whose classroom is all but empty because his schoolhouse is burning down.
In just over 300 pages, Tornielli and Rodari assemble most of the data required to ponder how those flames were ignited and what's required to put them out. Even readers who may dispute their diagnosis are in their debt.
* * *
Now for one of those revelations from the book -- a nugget which captures the Vatican's PR tone-deafness so perfectly that it just takes your breath away.
It concerns the affair of Bishop Richard Williamson, one of four traditionalist prelates whose excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI in January 2009. Williamson infamously gave an interview to Swedish television in November 2008, repeating statements he had made two decades earlier in Canada, to the effect that Nazis did not use gas chambers and that only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews had died in Nazi camps during the Second World War. The interview was not broadcast in Sweden until Jan. 21, 2009, but its contents were anticipated in a piece in the German weekly Der Spiegel the day before, on Jan. 20.
By that stage, Benedict XVI had already decided (sometime in late 2008) to lift the excommunications of the four bishops -- seeing it, he would later insist, as the beginning of a process of reconciliation, not the end. A formal decree was presented to Bishop Bernard Fellay, leader of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, on Jan. 17, 2009, and it took effect on Jan. 21. The decree was not made public by the Vatican, however, until noon Rome time on Jan. 24, when it was published in that day's news bulletin.
Once that happened, headlines about the pope "rehabilitating a Holocaust denier" became the shot heard round the world. After weeks of controversy, Benedict XVI would eventually issue an agonizing letter to the world's bishops apologizing for the hurt caused by the affair.
All that, of course, is a matter of record. What Tornielli and Rodari add is that on Jan. 22, 2009 -- two days after Der Spiegel broke the story of Williams' interview, and two days before the Vatican formally announced the lifting of the excommunications -- a high-level meeting took place in the Vatican to discuss the presentation of the pope's decree. The meeting was convened by Italian Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state. Also present were:
- Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, then president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission for relations with the traditionalists;
- Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;
- Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then prefect of the Congregation for Bishops;
- Cardinal Claudio Hummes, prefect of the Congregation for Clergy;
- Archbishop Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts;
- Archbishop Fernando Filoni, substitute in the Secretariat of State.
The gathering, in other words, brought together the Vatican's most senior brain trust. Tornielli and Rodario reconstruct the meeting on the basis of a previously unpublished set of confidential Vatican minutes.
Here's the mind-blowing point: During the meeting, there was no mention whatsoever of Williamson's explosive comments on the Holocaust, despite the fact that they had been in circulation for two full days. The minutes reflect a detailed discussion about whether, and how, the lifting of the excommunications applied to other clergy of the Society of St. Pius X, but there was apparently no consideration of how this move might go down in the broader court of public opinion.
Two key figures were not on the guest list for the Jan. 22 meeting: Lombardi, who had to explain the decision to the world's media, and Cardinal Walter Kasper, who had to explain it to the Jews. Instead, Filoni led a brief discussion about a proposed statement to the press, and the minutes reflect general agreement not to grant any media interviews. Coccopalmerio was commissioned to publish an article in L'Osservatore Romano explaining the decree, but only "after a few days."
The lack of any sense of urgency, or alarm, about public reaction is astonishing. The impression one gets is that the Vatican's best and brightest were acutely sensitive to the kinds of questions canon lawyers might ask, but either unaware of -- or, even more troubling, indifferent to -- how the decree might strike the rest of the world.
The rest is history. After being whipped around by a global tsunami for 10 full days, the Vatican's Secretariat of State finally released a statement on Feb. 4, calling Williamson's statements on the Holocaust "unacceptable." It clarified that by lifting the excommunications, Benedict XVI only opened a door to dialogue, and it's now up to the traditionalists to prove their "adherence to the doctrine and discipline of the church." The four prelates still have no authority to act as Catholic bishops, and their movement is still not recognized. If they want to be fully reintegrated into the church, they will have to accept the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
Looking back, here's the thing.
Even if Williamson had never given his interview to Swedish TV, anyone looking at the situation from a PR point of view should have anticipated that once the Vatican announced these four bishops were no longer excommunicated, reporters would look into their backgrounds. Had anyone in the Vatican spent even five minutes on Google searching under the name "Richard Williamson," his troubling history on the Holocaust would have leapt off the screen, which was a matter of public record long before he spoke to the Swedes. (Indeed, all the Swedish journalist did was ask Williamson to repeat stuff he had already said.)
Armed with that information, the Vatican could have issued its detailed Feb. 4 statement along with the decree itself, to explain from the outset that these guys have not been "rehabilitated," but rather given an opportunity to clean up their act. They could also have organized a press conference, so there would be TV sound bites assuring the world that this decision in no way signified a rollback on Catholic/Jewish relations or anything else.
Under any set of circumstances, failure to take such common sense steps is hard to explain.
Yet Williamson did give that interview to Swedish TV, and in that light, the revelation that the pope's top aides assembled two days after it went public and still seemed oblivious to the train wreck hurtling towards them -- well, you'll never need additional proof that the Vatican has a PR problem.
* * *
By the way, one point Benedict XVI made in his letter to bishops after the Williamson affair is that it had brought home the need to be savvier about the Internet. In truth, Attacco a Ratzinger shows clearly that by 2009, the Vatican should already have learned that lesson. The story of the rise and fall of Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus of Warsaw two years earlier makes the point.
To recap, the Vatican announced that Benedict had appointed Wielgus to replace Cardinal Josef Glemp in Warsaw on Dec. 6, 2006, with Wielgus' official installation set for Jan. 5. On Dec. 20, a leading Polish newspaper accused Wielgus of having collaborated with the Soviet-era secret police. Wielgus admitted that he had "contacts," but denied ever having denounced anyone or otherwise collaborated. On Dec. 21, the Vatican issued a statement expressing Benedict's "full confidence" in his nominee. On Jan. 4, another Polish daily published a 1978 document signed by Wieglus pledging his cooperation with the secret police, under the code name "Gray." As public protest mounted, Wielgus was compelled to turn a Jan. 6 Mass celebrating the beginning of his ministry into a forum to announce his resignation instead.
Here's the nugget Tornielli and Rodari add to the record: It wasn't until Jan. 2, after the bomb had obviously already gone off, that anyone from the Vatican bothered to ask Poland's Institute for National Memory, which maintains the archives from the Communist era, for whatever files it might have on Wielgus. This omission came despite the fact, as Tornielli and Rodari point out, that the institute made its index available on the Internet two years before.
"All it would have taken was a click on the web to realize that in the list of 240,000 names cited in the archives of the institute, the name of Wielgus appears twice," the authors write.
Rodari and Tornielli say it's an "open question" why no one did that before approving Wielgus for the most important post in Polish Catholicism, especially given the hyper-sensitivity in Poland about collaboration. Open, indeed.
* * *
One more nugget: Tornielli and Rodari cite Fr. Marco Valerio Fabbri of Rome's Opus Dei-run University of Santa Croce on the case of Stephen Kiesle, a former Oakland priest and convicted abuser. A 1985 letter from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the bishop in Oakland at the time, saying that Kiesle's case should go slow "for the good of the universal church," has been widely touted as proof of the pope's ambivalent record on the sexual abuse crisis.
Fabbri, however, says that interpretation rests on a misreading of Ratzinger's 1985 letter, which was issued in Latin. The letter speaks of "dispensation," Fabbri says, not expulsion from the clerical state. The issue in the letter was not, therefore, whether Kiesle should be defrocked, but whether he should be released from his obligation of celibacy.
Under canon law, the two things don't automatically go together. Canon 291 states: "Loss of the clerical state does not entail a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which only the Roman Pontiff grants." The logic, according to Fabbri, is clear. If a priest's obligation of celibacy automatically ended with laicization, then being laicized under penal law would ipso facto mean freedom to marry in the church. In other words, it would amount to a reward for committing a crime.
The bottom line, Fabbri says, is that by refusing to grant such a dispensation right away in the Kiesle case, Ratzinger was actually being tough with an abuser, not lax.
The obvious question this begs: If that's true -- and it certainly seems a compelling explanation -- why didn't we hear about it right out of the gate from somebody authoritative? Why does this sort of thing always seem to be a day late and a dollar short?
* * *
There's plenty of other good stuff in Attacco a Ratzinger, ranging from new background on the conflict between Schönborn and Sodano to great behind-the-scenes detail on the humiliating withdrawal of Benedict's nomination of Gerhard Wagner as an auxiliary bishop in Linz, Austria, in late January 2009.
That about-face came after media outlets recycled incendiary statements Wagner had made back in 2005, theorizing that Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment for the immorality of New Orleans, and in 2001, suggesting that Harry Potter leads children into Satanism. While most Catholics saw the Wagner episode as another Vatican failure to adequately vet nominees, Tornielli and Rodari produce a zinger that cuts in the other direction from an unnamed Vatican official: "Cardinals and bishops can publicly criticize the pope all they want, but an auxiliary bishop is forced to resign because of a couple of statements years ago about Katrina and Harry Potter … it's truly incredible."
Getting that kind of insider skinny is a primary reason we need an English translation of the book.
* * *
As it happens, I read Attacco a Ratzinger on the heels of a piece in last Sunday's New York Times surveying three PR disasters in the corporate world: BP, Goldman Sachs, and Toyota. The piece referred to a provocative essay by Eric Dezenhall, a former aide to Ronald Reagan, titled "Not all publicity is good publicity." Intrigued, I sought out the essay, which appears in the July-August issue of Ethical Corporation magazine.
Now CEO of his own communications agency, Dezenhall debunks eight chestnuts propagated by gurus of corporate spin, prominent among which is the idea that every crisis is an opportunity. (The Catholic equivalent, I suppose, would be that every crisis is a "teaching moment.")
Bunk, Dezenhall says: "A crisis is a mugging," he writes, and "your goal is to get out alive, not to get out with all your money and self-esteem."
Why a mugging? Because of the 21st century nature of PR disasters, fueled by what Dezenhall calls "crisis capitalists" -- people who pile on when somebody's in trouble because there's money and fame to be had. (Massimo Introvigne, one of the experts interviewed by Rodari and Tornielli, has a different term for the same slice of life -- he calls them "moral entrepreneurs.") Dezenhall says they include "reporters, victims, bloggers, tweeters, plaintiffs' lawyers, regulators, legislators, non-governmental organizations, activists, short-sellers, anonymous sources, technical experts, analysts, media hounds, opportunists, and a cavalcade of amateur crisis experts."
The conclusion seems obvious: From a PR point of view, it doesn't matter whether anyone is actually out to get you, because when a crisis starts rolling, market dynamics will compel people to act as if they were. The aim, therefore, isn't to persuade them not to mug you; the aim is to avoid making it easier.
Here's a potential case study along those lines that Tornielli and Rodari hint at, but don't really develop.
When Benedict XVI went to Cameroon and Angola in March 2009, coverage of the trip in the West was dominated by the pope's comments aboard the papal plane on condoms. During a brief session with the press, French journalist Philippe Visseyrias had asked Benedict to comment on perceptions that the church's position on HIV/AIDS is "not very realistic and efficient." (Note that Visseyrias did not use the word "condom," and the phrasing of his question didn't require the pope to bring it up.)
Benedict replied that the two cornerstones of the church's approach are the humanization of sexuality, and genuine friendship with suffering people. Along the way, he added that condoms are not the solution to AIDS but, in fact, make the problem worse.
That last bit predictably became the lead in media coverage, and it set off massive protests, especially in Europe. The Spanish government announced that it would ship one million condoms to Africa as a rejoinder, and the Belgium parliament formally censured the pope. From the point of view of the global press, the rest of Benedict's six days in Africa might as well have taken place on the dark side of the moon.
Only several days into the story did three other points emerge, none with the same force as the pope's original remark:
- There is an empirical basis for the claim that wide distribution of condoms is not the best anti-AIDS strategy. Research by Edward C. Green of Harvard University shows that programs emphasizing abstinence and marital fidelity have brought down infection rates more successfully than those which rely primarily on condoms. Green says that's for three reasons: people often don't use condoms correctly; they stop using them when they believe they know the other person; and condoms generate a false sense of security that induces users into high-risk behaviors.
- Whatever one makes of the claim that condoms aggravate AIDS, Benedict XVI was only repeating a conviction held by a wide cross-section of Catholic bishops and other religious leaders in Africa. Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, said, "The pope is not the only one saying this. NGOs who want to promote condoms in my country run into resistance from many other organizations and movements, including the Muslim community as a whole."
- Many secular AIDS experts in Africa, unaffiliated with the Catholic church, also hold that view. For example, Vanessa Balla, a non-Catholic physician in Cameroon who treats AIDS patients, told me at the time, "With condoms, people think they can do whatever they want. It just encourages them to engage in really risky sexual behaviors. I've seen it myself … they take as much risk as possible." Emotionally insisting that "it's incredibly hard to watch young people dying of AIDS," Ballas said the solution is "not condoms, but changing behavior."
For the record, the pope was not caught off guard by Visseyrias' question. The Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, collects questions from journalists several days before a trip, picks two or three that seem to be the most common, and then submits them to the pope in advance.
Let's grant that Benedict XVI could not have travelled to Africa and ducked the issue of AIDS and condoms. Let's also stipulate that Vatican officials could have, and should have, anticipated that whatever Benedict XVI said would attract wide interest, running the risk of being misrepresented or caricatured.
In that situation, what would a better anti-mugging strategy have looked like?
First, the primary aim of Benedict's six-day trip was to throw a spotlight on Africa, especially the dynamism of the Catholic church on the continent. Thus when the AIDS question came up on the plane, Benedict could have said something like: "That's a very important issue, and I'll talk about it two days from now during my visit to the Cardinal Léger Center for the Suffering on Thursday. For now, however, I want the focus to be on good news from Africa." Such a reply would have ensured that journalists had to file day-one stories on the broader African situation, without feeding impressions that the pope was ducking the condoms question. It also would have created global interest in his visit to the Léger Center, one of the most visually striking moments of the trip, as it put the pope in direct pastoral contact with sick and disabled people.
Second, when Benedict did talk about condoms, the Vatican could have arranged for him to be flanked by other African religious leaders -- Catholic and Anglican bishops, Pentecostal preachers, Muslim imams, and leaders of traditional tribal faiths, all of whom would have echoed his argument. They were not hard to find; on the second day of the trip I interviewed the grand imam of the national mosque in Yaounde, the Cameroon capital, who told me his only regret about the pope's comment is that he hadn't waited so they could say it together.
Third, the Vatican could have arranged to have secular African AIDS experts such as Balla on hand, with no ties to the Catholic church, who could have offered their expertise in support of the pope's argument. Both the religious leaders and secular AIDS experts could have been made available to reporters at the press center in Yaounde immediately after the pope's speech at the Léger Center.
Fourth, Lombardi and his aides could have assembled a packet of empirical studies demonstrating the limits of anti-AIDS efforts based on condoms, featuring the Green study from Harvard. That packet could have been distributed shortly before the pope's speech, so that it figured in the first cycle of stories and TV commentary. Journalists should not have had to wait forty-eight hours to read about Green's work in an op/ed piece in The Washington Post -- a piece, by the way, that seemed to catch the Vatican completely by surprise.
None of this would have completely prevented protests about the pope's remarks, especially given that there's a legitimate debate to be had about the proper role of condoms in anti-AIDS efforts. Such a strategy, however, would at least have made it more difficult to portray Benedict XVI as isolated, out of touch, and uncaring, which was the storyline that dominated the African journey.
That's the kind of practical reflection one hopes Attacco a Ratzinger might stimulate.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time a All Things Catholic column is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add All Things Catholic to your list.
The Holy Father certainly
The Holy Father certainly could have handled some things better than he did. But this is not nearly enough of a problem to account for the bile that is slung at him constantly.
Would that I could simply repeat to the Holy Father:
"If the world hate you, know that it has hated Me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
John 15:18-19
Jesus was humble. He dressed
Jesus was humble. He dressed the same as everyone else.
He outwardly scoulded hypocrites.
He loved children and told us to become as children.
Jesus was a servant and suffered for us.
John Allen is worth his
John Allen is worth his weight in gold.
Would that he were triplets.
Thanks for writing such a
Thanks for writing such a wonderfully informative article. It'd be nice if they'd follow some of the suggestions to improve PR,but I very much doubt that will happen.
THERE IS not much that pr can
THERE IS not much that pr can do now. I believe the Latin expression is: "Alea iacta est." The only way that Pope Benedict could even reserve a bit of fame in history is to resign and go to a monastery.
As The English Catholic
As The English Catholic Hilaire Belloc wrote: The Catholic Church is "an institute run with such knavish imbecility that if it were not the work of God it would not last a fortnight."
Or how about this exchange
Or how about this exchange between Napoleon and Vatican Secretary of State, Ercole Consalvi:
Napoleon: "You realize, Eminence, that I can destroy the Church."
Consalvi: "Emperor, not even the priests have been able to do that."
Loved this quote!
Loved this quote!
Hilaire Belloc again...
Hilaire Belloc again...
"Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine( clearly not America or the NCR!!)
There is music and laughter and good red wine.
At least I ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino."
Benedict is only getting what
Benedict is only getting what he deserves. I was actually a big fan of his at the beginning. He seemed to be good shepherd seeking reconciliation and love. Then.... he let his campaign of self and his own agenda begin.
He went into the conclave with the pure intent of winning the papacy. He made sure the Holy Spirit would have nothing to do with his election. But, the Holy Spirit wants this to be Jesus' church, not Benedict's church. At the next conclave, I implore the cardinals, "be open to the Spirit." I know many of you cardinals are afraid of her, but in the end she will prevail!
My Goodness...the authority
My Goodness...the authority and self-assurance of this "fact" of which the commenter can have absolutely no first-hand, second-hand, any-hand, verifiable knowledge.
You may, if you so choose, ascribe to the Holy Father such negative intent and action. But let's please agree that doing so represents a bias on your part and not truth.
Jesus refered to the Holy
Jesus refered to the Holy Spirit as a male person, so do you know Him better than the Lord knows Him? By the way, do you also know the Pope? I ask because you seem to have an insider's knowledge of his thought processes. Do let us know how you can be certain he wanted to win the papacy and what his agenda is.
The Holy Spirit is referred
The Holy Spirit is referred to as a male person by Jesus, so do you know something that Jesus does not? Do you also know the Pope personally? I ask because you seem to have access to his inner thought processes, and even know his private agenda.
Actually, the word for spirit
Actually, the word for spirit in Greek, "pneuma", is neuter. The Hebrew, "ruah", is feminine; the Latin, "spiritus", is male. Not sure what the Aramaic is....anyone?
"In a sound-bite, the tragedy
"In a sound-bite, the tragedy of Benedict's papacy is that this is a great teaching pope, whose classroom is all but empty because his schoolhouse is burning down."
As a synthesis of the common ground that we of varying positions hold on our Pope, this is the best I could have hoped for.
It does no one any good to merely react to what the Pope says. He has something to say, he is obviously a very learned and self-reflecting man, and he also happens to exercise a teaching authority that is normally binding to Catholic Christians.
I appreciate this piece because it reminds me that what people are reacting to are the impressions left by Benedict's papacy and not always Benedict himself. The "disaster" papacy touted by many is at least partially a byproduct of a lack public relations savvy, a decidedly postmodern turn where the simulacrum or impression becomes more real as what actually happened. In his comments on condoms can be understood within a reasonable context that dissipates behind when it comes into contact with personal ideologies or agendas. It's no longer about the strength of an argument or moral high ground but a battle of wills, leaving most Catholics in the dissonance between the stronger personalities.
This is remarkably helpful when we try to assess Benedict the Pope, not Benedict the effigy.
A good teacher not only
A good teacher not only considers the truth of what he says, but how best to transmit this truth to his or her students so that they can understand and get the meaning behind it, thus affecting their lives. What is the whole point of teaching, otherwise? A great teacher must know his or her audience and their situations, plus how and which media to use for greatest effect.
Jesus was a great teacher. He related to His listeners' situations and used down-to-earth stories so well to make His points that people have retold these stories for about two thousand years. We are moving instead to a Church that cares more about how close to a liturgical translation is to the vocabulary, grammar and sentence structure of some Latin original than whether or not the listeners will be able to hear, understand, and rejoice in the Good News! Many in the hierarchy of our church actually seem to believe that the Good News would be better spread by proclaiming it reverently in a dead language that the listeners don't understand. The pope's actions and statements seem to support these movements. Benedict may be a deep thinker and a university lecturer, but the evidence of most of his actions as Pope (and even before his papacy) shows that he is no great teacher. Quite the contrary.
A tree is known by its fruit, and a teacher by the effect (or lack thereof) on his or her students. This isn't just a question of "PR management" since the Holy Father's actions and statements have an effect on the spread of the Gospel throughout the whole world. Like anyone who aspires to be a teacher, I'd encourage him to do some thoughtful "lesson planning" beforehand while considering the probable outcomes. Reading the stories reported in this article, I think that would be a nice change.
I pray for our pope and Church daily, and look forward with hope to Vatican III (or perhaps "iCouncil" -- the first world-wide, ecumenical, lay council brought to life by the Spirit and enabled by Internet open-source-style collaboration... yes, I'm a computer geek).
Brilliant!
Brilliant!
The writing is brillant and
The writing is brillant and so balanced. Mr.Allen is a great analyst and his information and insights are very educational. Keep observing and writing!
This is another superb report
This is another superb report by John Allen. It doesn't even stop with his summary of Attacco a Ratzinger. I, too, for example, read the New York Times story on the problems faced by BP, Goldman Sachs, and Toyota with an eye toward those faced by the church. But I didn't track down Eric Dezenhall's article in Ethical Corporation to learn more.
Still, there is something unsatisfactory about framing this whole question as one of poor "PR."
John may not mean to do so, but that framework suggests that a few tactical changes or fresh appointments are all that is at issue.
On the contrary, what he describes seems clearly to be the expression of a deep-seated Vatican culture. And that culture may have a lot to do not only with failures in PR but with the actions that provoked the PR problems in the first place -- just as one can say the same about BP and Goldman Sachs if not Toyota as well.
I would like to know more about that culture and how it operates and reproduces itself. Are the respective ages and backgrounds of the seven people who met to discuss the pope's decree on the Pius X bishops relevant? Why are they there and not others? Would Lombardi's and Kasper's presence really have made any difference?
At issue is not only what goes into the Vatican's efforts to explain its actions but also what goes into determining those actions in the first place. I doubt that they are separate questions.
AMEN--a very thoughtful
AMEN--a very thoughtful comment from Peter Steinfels!
John, you left out the
John, you left out the Vatican's most recent train wreck: equating the sexual abuse of children by priests with the ordination of women. If that doesn't show the Vatican's contempt for women, I don't know what does. Minutes ago I attended a talk given by Fr. Roy Bourgeois. He was excommunicated for attending the ordination of a woman priest. What happens to bishops who transfer pedophiles from parish to parish? That's right: nothing. When Bernard Law was removed from Boston, he was then showered with honors when he fled to Rome.
As for the Bishop Williams moment, I posted on this blog then that it was Benedict XVI's Hurricane Katrina moment. Even his critics looked on in disbelief at his cluelessness. We later found out that the reason George W. Bush failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina was that none of his aides told him how bad it was. Bush didn't follow the news, and his aides were afraid to inform him because he threw temper tantrums when he heard something he didn't like.
The Vatican grand pooh bahs non-reaction to the Williams debacle shows they were all clueless or they were too afraid to tell Pope Benedict XVI anything he didn't want to hear. Either way, it reveals a dysfunctional culture in the court of Benedict XVI. The fact that they were debating the fine points of canon law is all too believable.
"Clueless" is an apt
"Clueless" is an apt description for the Vatican. I'm not as certain as you are that the "pooh bahs" don't tell the Pope what he doesn't want to hear. I think the Pope does not listen or ignores what he hears.
"John, you left out the
"John, you left out the Vatican's most recent train wreck: equating the sexual abuse of children by priests with the ordination of women."
## Just for the record, the Vatican did not make that equation - the critics of the Pope are making it. The mistake is theirs.
Sexual molestation of children is now punishable in Church law by excommunication - it is a grossly immoral act.
Ordaining women (or rather, attempting to do so) is also punishable in Church law by excommunication - because of its consequences for the validity of the sacraments.
Summary:
1. Two ecclesiastical crimes
2. Two different reasons in either case for the penalty
3. Identical penalty in either case
4. No confusion at Rome of an offence against the sacraments with an offence against children
5. No just cause for criticising the Pope on the issue
To say that two acts, both of which are punishable as crimes in Church law, are to be punished with the same penalty, does not amount to equating them.
To be deported for entry into a country w/out a visa, & deported on suspicion of spying, are the same result from the POVs of the persons being deported; but no-one imagines that illegal entry into a country, is the same act as for someone resident in that country to behave in a way which suggests he or she is spying for a foreign power.
This is not an arcane distinction, but a commonsense one that everyone takes for granted - except when discussing religion.
There is no train wreck here - on other issues, maybe. It was hardly the fault of the Pope if the media did not know why Bishop Williamson was excommunicated in the first place - there was no reason for the Pope to consider the bishop's utterances on the Shoah, as they were not the reason for the excommunication; his ordination to the episcopate in 1988, without Papal approval, was the reason he was excommunicated; as his action was a serious offence against the unity of the Church. But in the Church at least, "Holocaust"-denial is not a sin; let alone a sin deserving excommunication.
What? Only 300 pages? Maybe
What? Only 300 pages? Maybe these writers will post a sequel, when it's discovered that their book will lead to fame and riches. Unfortunately, they probably won't be at the top of the Pope's list for receiving a "Plenary Indulgences for Journalistic Excellence!" Great article, John. Are you capable of doing the translation yourself?
"The impression one gets,"
"The impression one gets," writes Allen, "is that the Vatican's best and brightest were acutely sensitive to the kinds of questions canon lawyers might ask, but either unaware of -- or, even more troubling, indifferent to -- how the decree might strike the rest of the world."
I find this one of the most telling phrases in his article. The idea that somehow canon law defines, or should define, the church is an appalling one; but all too often canon law seems to be applied in such a way as to trump common sense or common Christian charity. How should these best and brightest NOT be unaware of how a Vatican degree might strike the rest of the world, if they know nothing of that world other than the way Rome conceives it?
It would be interesting to know how well educated are "the Vatican's best and brightest" in subjects other than canon law. How many know much about history -- ecclesiastical and otherwise? or art, or literature, or physics or biology? How many have read Dante, or Goethe or Shakespeare, or -- heaven help us -- The Tale of Genji?
On a local American level, it would be interesting to know how many US bishops have advanced degrees in subjects other than canon law -- are there any English scholars or historians or chemists or political scientists among them? No doubt some have degrees in philosophy and theology, but only that approved by a rather narrow reading of Catholicism. How many of them come from a background of the liberal arts and sciences, well enough educated so that they would think of reading and learning from, for instance, King Lear or Hamlet? or, for that matter, Dickens or Saul Bellow? or listening to, and understanding, plays and operas, like those by Arthur Miller or Tom Stoppard or Mozart or Verdi?
Might that sort of knowledge not perhaps help them to be better in their work?
I think I know what you are
I think I know what you are driving at Nicholas. It is encapsulated by my statement, "the problem with teachers is, they never did anything but go to school"
The problem with the Roman hierarchy, is that they see the world through a weird pair of glasses, the like of which we mere mortals cannot understand. They know nothing about how to pay the rent, where the money is coming from for new shoes for the kids, what it is like to be unemployed, all those questions the rest of us have to deal with on a daily basis. They have been closeted within their clerical culture the whole of their lives.
I suspect the bad PR arises because they have no idea that anything exists other than Canon Law. What they need is real people on these committees, but the chances of that happening can be reassessed once we have seen a pig flying overhead.
Nicholas Clifford on Aug. 27,
Nicholas Clifford on Aug. 27, 2010.
You stated:
{"The impression one gets," writes Allen, "is that the Vatican's best and brightest were acutely sensitive to the kinds of questions canon lawyers might ask, but either unaware of -- or, even more troubling, indifferent to -- how the decree might strike the rest of the world."
I find this one of the most telling phrases in his article. The idea that somehow canon law defines, or should define, the church is an appalling one; but all too often canon law seems to be applied in such a way as to trump common sense or common Christian charity. How should these best and brightest NOT be unaware of how a Vatican degree might strike the rest of the world, if they know nothing of that world other than the way Rome conceives it?
It would be interesting to know how well educated are "the Vatican's best and brightest" in subjects other than canon law. How many know much about history -- ecclesiastical and otherwise? or art, or literature, or physics or biology? How many have read Dante, or Goethe or Shakespeare, or -- heaven help us -- The Tale of Genji?
On a local American level, it would be interesting to know how many US bishops have advanced degrees in subjects other than canon law -- are there any English scholars or historians or chemists or political scientists among them? No doubt some have degrees in philosophy and theology, but only that approved by a rather narrow reading of Catholicism. How many of them come from a background of the liberal arts and sciences, well enough educated so that they would think of reading and learning from, for instance, King Lear or Hamlet? or, for that matter, Dickens or Saul Bellow? or listening to, and understanding, plays and operas, like those by Arthur Miller or Tom Stoppard or Mozart or Verdi?
Might that sort of knowledge not perhaps help them to be better in their work?}
----------------------------------------------
Excellent response, Nicholas!
Like you, I doubt that, 'heaven help us,' the best and brightest of the Vatican---have read "The Tale of Genji." It would be too complex for them to deal with all the characters and their psychological development. And God forbid, they wouldn't give it much value, because it's written by a woman---Lady Maurasaki Shikibu.
John Allen--thanks for this.
John Allen--thanks for this. So Levada was at the Williamson meeting. How can we have any faith in any of his actions at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when he shows his utter incompetence here. And he's supposed to be our spiritual guide in matter of faith? Better we turn to some pious monk in the desert rather than this Vatican insider and fixer. How much better we'd be without him and his buddy Law.
A couple of things occur to
A couple of things occur to me.
1)Either there is no ill feeling by European (especially Italian) women toward the Vatican which is symbolized by Pope Benedict or the issue was ignored. I seriously doubt the first. If you surmise that I lean toward the second explanation you're right. Why not? The book was written by men about men; it has a clerical(therefore exclusively male)perception of the institutional church.
2. I'm really glad John Allen did an in-depth review of the tome because I don't have to waste time or money reading the whole thing. One reason, of course, flows from the above. Also, reading a book by Italian "vaticanisti" journalists just isn't my cup of tea. It certainly is a primary historical source, but that's just the point. It's about the (recent)past and according to Mr. Allen's article there's no indication this history will change. During Vatican II I read this literary genre with enthusiasm because it was history-in-the-making; it was dynamic, subject to change daily. In my opinion the greatest tragedy of this reign is not a willingness for change but a determination to turn back the clocks. The book is dead history; even the article's anecdotes point this way. In the immortal words of Fr. Andrew Greeley: "They just don't get it!" and that applies to a PR situation also. Why that should entice anyone to buy and read this before the next pontificate is beyond me.
3)I'm glad I persevered (and really, it was perseverance) to the end of the article because after a whole long spiel about condoms and their efficacy, especially in Africa, this phrase occured: "... given that there's a legitimate debate to be had about the proper role of condoms in anti-AIDS efforts." I felt like giving a standing ovation right then all by myself. This is the second time recently I've read something sane about condom use. The first time was in an interview given by Cardinal Peter Turkson to Bryan Cones of U.S. CATHOLIC magazine. Cardinal Turkson is head of the Vatican's Peace/Justice curial office and is also an African (Ghanian if I remember correctly). Mr. Cones asked about the anti-Aids efficacy of condoms. Cardinal Turkson didn't respond; he changed the subject. To me that signaled in Africa a definite and serious "legitimate debate" is ongoing regarding this issue. Perhaps the institutional church's future official view will emerge in a truly pastoral policy and not cause yet another "PR train wreck". One can hope, can't one?
The Williamson affair is not
The Williamson affair is not the frist time this happened. In the late 1940's Pius the XII received a Ukrainian Orthodox Bishop into the Church, only to discover tha the was really a Soviet agent. The Archbishop received a sentence of 8 years in jail. The Vatican denied all existence of the individual,even though,it is well documented (if you know where to look). The Archbishop eventually wound up serving in a Ukrainian Catholic parish in Connecticut.
when he seemed to suggest
when he seemed to suggest that indigenous persons should be grateful to their European colonizers
They should.
VERY interesting, Mr. Allen.
VERY interesting, Mr. Allen. Without excusing the blunders, the world needs to become more sophisticated concerning the "gotcha" reflexes of those who seek derivative publicity from exploiting them. But an English translation of the book wouldn't do Benedict's papacy nearly as much good as his appointing you Special Pontifical Secretary for External Perceptions, or "the eyeglasses of the See."
This comes from one who
This comes from one who believes the bishops are the apostles of the day. Apostles of the apostolic lineage of the Universal church established by Jesus Christ. I believe the bishops and the priest speak the tounges of angels and of men. And that they (the bishops) have drifted over hundreds of years into serving primarily themselves, to the point where when a priest from a daily mass pulpit says, "There is more bad news coming out from our enemies. Don't listen or even look at it." Well you know what is called for and what we do. This time it was a priest in Ireland who committed an act of terror. He blew-up a car in a crowded area which killed nine people including four Catholics, one of them an eight year old girl. Predictably at this point, the magistrate and local law enforcers agreed to let the bishop quitly move him to another area (for the peoples own good of course). The perception really does go deeper than a PR problem.
BARACK OBAMA AND BIDEN:
BARACK OBAMA AND BIDEN: Before we criticize and gloat over Pope Benedict's and the Vatican's lack of Public Relations savvy, we Americans should look at our own esteemed President and his foot-in-the- mouth Vice President. We Americans have to marvel how --with all the highly paid consultants and experts on their staff -- these two men keep making egregiously comical and highly serious political gaffes. In his brief term of office our esteemed President, Barack Obama, has been getting into one self-made crisis after another, especially lately. No wonder his approval rating is already down to 41%. Despite all their spinning, the main stream media and all their horses can not convince the American people that "the One" does not have feet of clay. Our Administration has now become the laughing stock of the world. Ask the Germans and the French and the Brits. The Vatican doesn't need any lessons from this Administration.
I am not sure where this
I am not sure where this comment comes from - Mr. Allen's article deals with the Vatican and perceptions of the behavior of the Vatican - to bring President Obama and Vice-President Biden into the conversation relegates what seems to be an intelligent presentation to a political diatribe. I do not think that the Vatican needs advice from the President of the United STates, but by the same token it does not need advice from persons who can't manage to stay on topic. I would hope that in the future Alex you leave your political leanings where they belong - talk radio or talk TV and not a discussion of the Vatican, Benedict or PR for the VAtican.
Non dimentichi que e Dio e
Non dimentichi que e Dio e non i giornalisti chi governa il mondo
Again, more nonsense. No one
Again, more nonsense. No one who's taken the merest glance at Africa can seriously hold that the Catholic church's reasoned (and a bit humorous) stance on the use of condoms has inhibited any African from using them. The NGO's would hand them out by the millions, but guess what? There aren't many takers, and not because there are so many faithful Catholics in Africa. There are other reasons, less pleasant to contemplate, for the proliferation of AIDS in Africa, and they have absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism. They also have nothing to do with the Africans' presumed inability to use a condom "correctly." How stupid and ignorant do these "researchers" believe Africans to be?
As for the child molestation "crisis," the entire name is a howler. This sort of life-destroying deviancy has plagued the priesthood since the very concept of ordination and apostolic succession was invented. Benedict is a relict, but so is the Catholic church. All we really know about Christ and his teachings derives from the New Testament. The rest of the baloney is purely man-made. You want eternal life? Pick up your cross daily, align yourself with the impoverished, and stop living for yourself alone.
This is exclusively a PR
This is exclusively a PR problem.
John Glad, what are you talking about?
You need to understand some things:
a) The molestation issue is only recent.
b) It was caused by the weakening of society's morals in the 1960's and 70's.
c) This just goes back as far as the distribution of birth control pills.
d) Pedophiles started to sneak into the church because of Vatican II.
e) When alter boys had to learn the Latin Mass, they didn't have time to tempt anyone.
f) Now, idle hands are the devil's tools.
John, get your facts “straight”.
Am I right or am I right?
Long Memory on Sep. 01,
Long Memory on Sep. 01, 2010.
You stated:
"This is exclusively a PR problem.
John Glad, what are you talking about?
You need to understand some things:
a) The molestation issue is only recent.
b) It was caused by the weakening of society's morals in the 1960's and 70's.
c) This just goes back as far as the distribution of birth control pills.
d) Pedophiles started to sneak into the church because of Vatican II.
e) When alter boys had to learn the Latin Mass, they didn't have time to tempt anyone.
f) Now, idle hands are the devil's tools.
John, get your facts “straight”.
Am I right or am I right?"
---------------------------------------------
You are full of beans!
I suggest that you enroll in a serious Church History course. Molestation of kids has been going on for centuries, and we had popes involved just as well as cardinals, arch/bishops, and priests.
And what do you mean that when "altar boys had to learn the Latin Mass, they didn't have time to tempt anyone?" Are you stating that the young boys 'tempted the priests' and that is why they were abused? That it was the fault of underaged minors---that led to the sexual abuse?
I don't care what the underaged altar servers were memorizing---that was no excuse for adult males (who are to be celibate) to sexually abuse them.
And what does a language have to do with sexual abuse? Sexual abuse in any language is a crime, is sinful, is disgraceful, and is not any kid's fault.
Long Memory, you're wrong!
Long Memory, you're wrong! St. Basil in the 4th century said that priests who seduced young people were to be whipped and sent to spend the rest of their lives in a monastaries with old monks and no access to the young. St. Alphonsus of Liguori in the 18th century said that a priest who abused the young should be castrated.
You should read up on your Church history. You would see that this is a problem rooted in a fallen and broken human condition and not any particular time or place.
Dear Long Memory, I could not
Dear Long Memory,
I could not disagree with you more!
That article went on a bit
That article went on a bit too long. I got bored and stopped reading.
I don't think the Church needs to get too hung up on spin and PR. The Gospel is definitely NOT PC, and the Lord didn't worry too much about that.
This however is key:
''Tornielli and Rodari produce a zinger that cuts in the other direction from an unnamed Vatican official: "Cardinals and bishops can publicly criticize the pope all they want, but an auxiliary bishop is forced to resign because of a couple of statements years ago about Katrina and Harry Potter … it's truly incredible."
Yeah. It is. Good men get hammered whereas dissenters get rewarded, from the top to the bottom.
Interesting column, but three
Interesting column, but three decades worth of both experience and research demonstrate that condoms do, in fact, prevent the transmission of HIV greater than 90% of the time when used properly. Neither objections by local religious leaders nor outlier research render this fact untrue. Patterns of sexual activity, including local sexual norms and mores and how religious communities and traditions view and interpret them are separate topics. While there is interplay between them, the simple scientific fact that condoms reduce the spread of HIV should not be lumped into this to make the point that some other people agree with the Pope, and therefore he must be less wrong.
This is a dangerous and misleading point to leave the reader with.
An excellent comment--a
An excellent comment--a pleasure to see a realistic assessment presented.
BUT, condoms are often not
BUT, condoms are often not used properly. And, if the success rate when they are is 90%, that means 10 of every hundred people using condoms properly to have sex with an HIV positive partner will become infected with HIV. If that isn't an argument for behavioral change instead of condoms, I don't know what is.
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church
Condoms DO reduce AIDS
Condoms DO reduce AIDS infection, as shown in Uganda. Here is some research Allen missed in his attempt to bolster Benedict's position.
"Increased condom use and premature deaths from AIDS-related diseases might be playing more of a role in declining HIV prevalence in Uganda than abstinence and fidelity, according to a study presented Wednesday at the 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
Supporters of Uganda's ABC method -- which stands for Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms -- have "widely credited" the approach with lowering the country's HIV prevalence rate from 30% of adults in the early 1990s to under 10% currently (Russell, San Francisco Chronicle, 2/24).
However, the results of the unpublished study -- which was conducted by researchers at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University and several Ugandan organizations -- "contradict" previous findings that attribute Uganda's declining HIV prevalence to initiatives promoting abstinence and faithfulness to one sexual partner, according to the Washington Post...
The researchers found that the "single greatest factor" in Uganda's declining HIV prevalence rate is premature death among HIV-positive people who died of AIDS-related causes during the study, according to the Chronicle (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/24). The number of HIV-positive people who died each year of the study was about 70% more than the number of people newly infected with HIV annually, the New York Times reports (Altman, New York Times, 2/24).
The study's findings suggest that Uganda's "much-lauded success" in reducing its HIV prevalence has "little to do with" the abstinence and monogamy programs..."
"Condom Use
According to Wawer, increased condom use also might be "offsetting other high-risk behaviors" in the district (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/24). In 1994, about 10% of men reported that they consistently used condoms with nonmarital partners, compared with 50% in 2003. Reported condom use among women in the same age group increased from 2% to 28% in 2003 (Washington Post, 2/24).
http://www.thebody.com/content/art9249.html
Allen belongs in Lombardi's position, not the one he holds.
It is the arrogance of the
It is the arrogance of the Pope and his minions that prevents them from looking into the effect some papal decisions
and declarations could have on others. They don't really care what anyone might think, regarding themselves as beyond the reach of anything so earthbound as opinion. They haven't got a quarter pound of humility between them.
The results are predictable. I think I'm glad the results are being documented.
I agree with Ms. Roach. The
I agree with Ms. Roach. The "trainwrecks" are not a function of bad public relations. They are a function of a hierarchy that, in its arrogance and lack of humility, has no concern for it relatins with the public.
Thanks for a balanced article
Thanks for a balanced article on the PR problems engulfing the Pope. I was particularly impressed by the section on condoms and aids, since I know nothing about the subject. It was an excellent indication of how the media is manipulated on medical issues.
At the same time your article points out very clearly how poorly the Pope is served by the Vatican clique of advisors who surround him and, as Bishop John Carroll of Baltimore pointed out two hundred years ago, are more focused on seizing power than on serving the Church!
It seems to me there's
It seems to me there's something a bit conceited and arrogant about Vatican officials' turning a blind eye to the way the media works. In other words, a failure of contemporaneity is no virtue.
Pleased to see you recognize
Pleased to see you recognize that at least in the African context, there is legitimacy to the debate about the proper role of condoms in an Anti-AIDS campaign. The problem here is not recognizing that at least part of that debate emerges from whether one looks at the problem through women's eyes or just through male eyes. Many of the NGO's in Africa which promote a condom strategy do so because they address matters from a woman's perspective -- how can she be educated to understand how AIDS is transmitted so that she can be empowered to protect herself -- and perhaps protect her children from becoming orphans? Africa has a range of very different cultures -- but in many traditionally women and children live in villages, the women are the farmers, and the men either raise livestock or travel distances to employment sites, such as industrial centers or mines, where they live in single sex hostels or dorms, and only return to their family for a few weeks several times a year. Employers do not provide "family housing" -- thus the economic culture works to discourage sexual faithfulness, and puts wives in a disempowered position. Many of the anti-AIDS NGO's that have adopted aspects of a women's perspective also promote a condom strategy where the serio-status of the man returning from a distant workplace is not known. If one limits one's knowledge of the work of NGO's to only that universe of NGO's that already agree with doctrine, one might not appreciate things from a woman's perspective on African terms. I wonder if Benedict has ever sat down with African Women working on the AIDS epidemic (in some places at least a quarter of populations in child bearing ages are infected), and tried to appreciate the issue from their viewpoint?
John, you should apply for
John, you should apply for the position of the Vatican's first PR/Damage Control officer. The trouble is, if you were hired, the media wouldn't trust you anymore.
Wow. ...and THIS is our
Wow. ...and THIS is our leadership. The bishops should listen to the advice they received from Hans Kung. This ship is quickly sinking!
USCCB, do you even CARE about us, or is it more important for you to agree with Benedict for your professional advancement. Actually, you are biting the hands that feed you, so expect to starve soon.
Is consideration ever given
Is consideration ever given to the possibility that the Holy Spirit may work with no regard to PR savy or from the position of "what people might say"? The position of the Lefevbrists vis a vis the Church has ramifications for the good of their souls, isn't that the primary mission of the Church or is this only a consideration once all the PR ducks have been put in a row? Sounds a great deal like a secular corporation where the perceptions of the pubic drive the internal priorities and the timing of resource allocation. Though you are a brilliant writer, there is not even a hint of faith or of the Divine nature of the Church in this analysis. Could it not have somehow reflected the Divine will to have a difficult statement about condoms made by the Pontiff even if it might cost some chache with the oh so modern public? Offering the perspective of a Bavarian Catholic myself, I perceive an uneasy, nay, absurd juxtaposition created when the Vicar of Christ defers to Wall Street-type image consultants, PR experts and communications professionals. Though I don't remember the original Latin, there is some old saying that says in essence "It is those closest to the sanctuary who are the first to disregard it"; it would seem that sometimes professional Vatican watchers forget the nature of what they are contemplating.
Simply put - the Holy Spirit
Simply put - the Holy Spirit likely cares nothing about codoms and the Divine nature of the Church is reflected in the fact that it continues to flourish despite leadership that appears completely self-absorbed and removed from the Gospel message. BEtter PR will only help when the heirarchy takes to heart the words of this Sunday's Gospel.
A thoroughly interesting
A thoroughly interesting column. It was only in the last three paragraphs or so that it dawned on me that it's not about the PR problems of the Vatican, but rather it's about arrogance, an "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride." It's not that the men in the Vatican are woefully inept at communications. Quite the opposite, the common denominator in all of the examples is that the Vatican must show the world that they don't care what anyone thinks. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Pope's refusal to accept the resignations of the two Irish bishops. To remain a Catholic, one must see arrogance as a virtue, even perhaps the highest of virtues. Indeed, pride goeth before the fall.
It seems to me that, although
It seems to me that, although Pope Benedict might be highly intelligent, he, and those around him, lack common sense.
Rob - I think that's a
Rob - I think that's a perfect one sentence summary of maybe the biggest problem.
John, what an excellent article (on an evidently fascinating book). Thank you.
Donald Mac
Mr. Allen again hits the nail
Mr. Allen again hits the nail on the head, but permit me to repackage with a few preliminary and precautionary notes. I am a faithful Catholic, a 4th Degree Knight, and a retired Church employee in a 'lay ecclesial' role. As people, I adored John Paul II for his charism of public relations, and adore Benedict XVI for his intellect. Would that both talents would be in the same body forever amen.
The situation described by the book being reviewed by Mr. Allen is one of Clericalism and myopia, the Church's own variation on a theme of 'normal mindset' -- that what one unconsciously believes is the context, everyone else also will unconsciously believe is the context. (Consider we call priests, Father. What does that word unconsciously evoke in a parishioner whose own birth father physically and sexually abused him?) A second facet of the 'normal mindset' is a de facto assumption that everyone to whom an item will be communicated knows what the Vatican knows about that item.
Differently stated, what the Vatican simply and without conscious decision assumes is correct context, the Vatican proceeds to act as if it is the only context thus every person to which the item appears will see it in the same context and with all necessary related information.
Thus they sit around discussing Bp. Williamson in their context, oblivious to the fact others will NOT receive what they say in the same context. They release amendments to Canon Law much as a state legislature might pass an act, regarding it as an exercise in proper codification, and utterly oblivious to the context in which the public will read it.
What organization in their
What organization in their right mind selects a top leader who is an octogenarian! Clearly Ratzinger was capable of better decisions decades ago
when he served on Vatican II. The R. C. Church would be much better served by electing younger leaders, including women, changing the election system to
include theologian laity, and limiting the number of years a pope can "rule."
This archaic system of self-electing, celibate, males-only deserves to collapse, and it's well on its way to doing just that. Thank God!
BTW, traditionalist ROMAN Catholics who will surely disagree with my statement are adhering to a man-made system that has been enabled by the uninformed church-goer for centuries. Jesus radically included women in his ministry, but that has been covered up and virtually erased my our "men in power" over the years.
Tsk, tsk, tsk...
When print and moveable type
When print and moveable type was the new technology, the hierarchy protected itself against such PR gaffes by cranking up the censorship. Fortunately this is not an option against modern journalism and the internet.
Remember the Palm Sunday
Remember the Palm Sunday homily? Pope Benedict said Jesus would "lead us to the courage that does not let itself be intimidated by the idle chatter of dominant opinions". So much for PR...
I interpret it to also mean that he does not care about what lay people are thinking. He only cares about what is true, and does not think that he has anything to learn from us in that regard. When we are angered by clergy sexual abuse, he finds it shocking too, so he goes along with harsh words against abusers. When we are anguished by the cover-ups and clericalism, he does not find it shocking, so he does not care to listen to our pain, and he ignores us and our "idle chatter". He goes his own way, trusts his own judgment aided by prayer, and arrogantly dismisses our concerns when they are not aligned with his own.
From a secular POV, the book
From a secular POV, the book opens a window onto a bureaucracy with a culture from earlier centuries. By PR standards today, that culture gets a D, at best.
From a theological point of view, one gets a peek into the daily culture of a bureaucracy with no foundation in scripture and, to borrow the thinking of Cardinal Dulles, offering no unambiguous sign of the Church modelled as community of faith or sacrament of God’s encounter with humanity or institutional continuation of Christ’s message and witness.
Nothing edifying or relevant. not even from a secular point of view.
All of which begs the question, Why does the Vatican bureaucracy exist?
When it comes to spin, we
When it comes to spin, we need to look more closely at the Vatican's approach to condoms and HIV infection. Firstly, whether or not condoms are effective in reducing HIV infection - or to put the question more correctly, how effective they are and how this may vary in different cultural contexts, IS NOT the business of the Church and Church teaching, but a matter for medical specialists and scientists. The point is obvious. Neither the pope, nor his curia, nor his moral theologians are experts in the reliability and effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, and it is not the role of Church teaching to wade in on this.
It can be argued that the Pope and the Vatican do have a role in teaching about the morality or immorality of using condoms - but NOT about whether they are medically effective. And, in fact, if you look beneath the spin, you find that basically this is the situation - the pope and the Vatican claim that however effective condoms may or may not be in preventing infection, no one may use them because it is immoral to do so - and they link this with the teaching on contraception. THIS is the reason the Church opposes the use of condoms in Africa and elsewhere. If they were 100% effective in preventing infection, the pope would STILL oppose their use -officially, anyway.
If this teaching is spurious (and I happen to think it is), then it should be argued about and changed on its own terms - and similarly, if the pope and his bishops wish to continue to teach this way, then they should be honest and say that the reason is not concerned with the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of condoms, but with the immorality of their use. Of course, the theological foundations of the teaching are highly questionable, and also they are deeply unpalatable - even repugnant - to much of the world and its media, so rather than try to teach and defend a Church position that, in practice, is oppressive and even harmful, and that in public looks and sounds ludicrous, and, in theological terms is highly debatable, the pope and the Vatican say "oh well, of course, condoms are not that effective, you know..."
Then we get all the stuff about various statistics and studies - to allegedly back up a point that is NOT the point of the Vatican's teaching! - but then, the teaching is so stupid, and its effects so potentially damaging, that it is just too hard to defend in public - so we have Cardinals like Lopez Trujillo who claimed condoms had tiny holes in them, and popes like Benedict who claims condoms make things worse. I would welcome a frank debate about the effectiveness of condoms - let the studies be discussed!!! But you find the Vatican only ever cites studies that tend to support its opposition to condoms - as it tries, dishonestly, to use science and statistics to shore up a moral teaching about condom use that is deeply unpopular, theologically wobbly, intellectually questionable, and medically disastrous.
If the pope wants to teach Africans that every use of a condom is gravely immoral - let him be honest, and teach precisely that, and defend it on theological grounds. I, and I suspect they, have no interest in hearing chatter about medical issues from an elderly Bavarian theological expert, or a pope straying into matters scientific.
Frankly, the Vatican's talk about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of condoms is all about spin. Their use of it, their resorting to it, only shows up how bankrupt the teaching itself really is.
Mr. Kelly, I very much like
Mr. Kelly, I very much like your clear-headed comment.
Pope Benedict began well. I
Pope Benedict began well. I applaud him for investigating Marciel Macial, when Pope JPII refused to even discuss an invetigation into his friend...& Vatican cash cow.
I believe Benedict's heart is in the right place. He is just too old now - at 83. His advisors are fearful and men that are accustomed to being shown deference by everyone because of their position, not because of their wisdom. Those days are over.
As pointed out, Benedict is a teacher. What I found most profound was the observation that his school is burning. It is time to get MEN that are being led by the Holy Spirit in these high Vatican positions, men with GOOD REPUTATIONS FOR BEING ABLE TO LEAD, and who are working towards the salvation of souls.
For the record - women are NOT to be priests. However, per Scripture and universal church tradition, priests are most ideally married men with children. A book published in 2009 shines light on this topic - written by layman Edgar Davie and called "Illicit Celibacy and The Deposit of Faith". Go to Amazon.com for more information or www.illicitcelibacy.com
John Allen likes to jump on
John Allen likes to jump on the bandwagon. He may be good writer, but he has own agenda, and it is a liberal one.
OUR Holy Father is good company. Jesus Christ did weigh every word or statement. And for that we crucified him. The truth is the truth. You can not hide behind PR people. That's the problem with the world today. The truth is sacrificed for popularity.
I was , at one time, a very
I was , at one time, a very conservative Catholic. I read Maxwell-Stuart's "Chronicle of the Popes"; Duffy's "Saints & Sinners" etc etc and had something of a conversion. What I thought was "always the case" re the papacy......well history teaches us otherwise. Even the idea that the pope is the successor of Peter is a later idea. I now firmly believe that we RC's really have to take another look at the role and ministry of the Bishop of Rome and the whole way the RC Church is governed and led. The present practice of the Bp of Rome seems to be modelled more on a medieval emperor's style and role than the example of Jesus. I now have the nagging question: "Is the papacy good for the Church". It has become self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant and proud. Does it stand in dire need of that pruning that Jesus spoke of in John's Gospel?
Before they send the English
Before they send the English translation to Ireland, the authors should at least add an addendum relating to B16's refusal to accept the resignations of those 2 auxiliary bishops.
Post new comment