What Pope Benedict Really Said Was [Redacted]
By SHAUN KENNEY
Another day, another scandal hits the Vatican — this time in the form of the redacted and blurred contents of a letter regarding the theological background of Pope Francis. (See related articles in this week’s issue.)
The letter — penned by Pope Benedict XVI (emeritus) — at first praises Francis’ theological formation, suggesting that it was silly talk to question its rigor. This was the part of the letter that was eagerly picked up by the media, and that was visible in the photo of it distributed to the media at a press conference on March 12, the eve of the fifth anniversary of Pope Francis’ election. The letter was a thank-you that Benedict XVI had written to the head of the Vatican communications secretariat, Msgr. Dario Viganò, for the gift of an 11-volume set on the theology of Pope Francis.
The bottom two lines of the first page were blurred in the photo distributed to the media and the second page was buried under some books, with only Benedict’s signature visible.
However, the Associated Press and others quickly pounced on the visible portions of the letter before discovering the contents of the missing paragraphs.
What did the paragraphs include? A condemnation of a specific theologian who was included in the 11-book collection of work praising Pope Francis’ theological formation, ostensibly through his own lens. Not only was Pope Benedict bewildered, his own words expressed “surprise” that Fr. Peter Hünermann would even be considered to be included in such a project.
Of course, Benedict demurred at even reading the project, citing physical constraints compounded by other spiritual obligations. Yet the outcry for a resignation on the part of Msgr. Viganò was met with silence.
As of this writing, merely hours ago I have learned that Viganò did in fact submit his resignation to Pope Francis. Yet this only treats the symptoms of the disease without addressing the cure.
Who asked Viganò to get Benedict’s blessing on this project? To whose benefit? What precisely is in the translations of these books and how will they be used in future encyclicals and apostolic constitutions? What was the content of the communications to Pope Benedict that inspired his response? Who else was responsible for the blurring and redacting of the letter in the photo?
Once again, we find the bureaucrats surrounding Pope Francis engaged in duplicitous behavior, all designed to bring the Church more in line with the thinking of the world rather than bringing the world to Christ. Are we not called to be salt and light? Why then do we consistently find that the faithful are being handed — please pardon the expression — piss and vinegar instead?
What should worry the rest of us is the precedent for the old phrase — vim and vigor. The enemies of the Magisterium seem to be rather animated as of late, acting with an insistence and impatience that treats questions as hostility and fidelity as heresy.
Such a spirit comes from only one source, and it is not Christ. Rather than exhibiting the love they seem to pour on the enemies of the Church, the so-called face of mercy seems to be the back of some Vatican bureaucrat’s hand.
So long as the Vatican bureaucrats play the game of access to the halls of power rather than truly fulfilling the powerlessness that Christ exhibits to the world, then the rot and decay of Catholic institutions will continue to follow a carefully engineered path.
When the laity begin to lead and respond to the call of the new evangelization that Pope John Paul II exhorted us to follow and men such as Archbishop Charles Chaput consistently remind us — and only then — will the Body of Christ cease to be tortured by the lash of public opinion. Our refusal to accede to any other reality may very well be our best shield against what I truly fear are the first salvos (and hopefully, last gasps) of the proponents of the nouvelle théologie in our midst.
The world is starving for Christ in the Eucharist, not bureaucracy pandering to government grants and handouts through the institution of the Church. The sooner we remind out leaders of this absolute and fixed reality, the more souls we will save. Just skip to the end of the Bible — it’s all right there.
+ + +
On May 25, the Republic of Ireland will hold a referendum on whether or not the country should liberalize its laws on abortion. To date, tens of thousands of Catholics have marched in solidarity with the innocent, and long may they continue to do so.
If you haven’t done so already, please keep these soldiers of Christ in your thoughts and prayers from now until the end of May.
+ + +
If you want to know where the political left in this country is the most vulnerable, look to where its adherents are devoting the vast majority of their hate machine.
To wit, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has been under relentless hammering from day one, and while the political right has been nearly fixated on the Trump-Russia non-scandal (short version: the Democrats ran John Kerry in a pantsuit and lost, and still haven’t figured out why) DeVos has been under a relentless undercurrent of plainly evil and scurrilous hatemongering.
Of course, there’s a reason why. Jesuits used to brag, “Give me the child, and I’ll show you the man.” So too does the political left know that so long as our children are being given to Caesar, public schools will continue to produce good little Romans — all with their own social mores, political inclinations, and of course their uniquely heightened sense of self-worth.
True, one may rightly conceded that there is a basic canon which every student in a republic should adhere to. Fair enough — an American catechism is something we once had and practiced for those familiar with the McGuffey readers of old.
Yet the cookie-cutter approach to public education has failed, is failing, and will continue to utterly fail Americans until someone has the courage to introduce some vitality into the system — yes, that terrible word that only applies to killing children but not educating them: choice.
We have yet to see the essence of education reform from the Trump administration, but rest assured something big is coming that will put the power of education back into the hands of those solely responsible for the education of their children — parents. To date, teachers are expected to be social workers, test givers, test takers, surrogate parents, guidance counselors, and everything but their actual vocation — never mind the actual substance of what is being taught.
Liberals have falsely pitted teachers against taxpayers and parents. Rather, teachers ought to be liberated to teach, and parents ought to be restored to the right to have their children taught in the manner that best reflects their values.
For myself, this is a classical education in a home-school setting in rural Virginia. For others, a Catholic school, a boarding school, a vocational school, or a liberal arts setting.
But a union shop with a nineteenth-century system using twentieth-century tools that is somehow expected to crank out a twenty-first century product? Only those who are paid to believe this imagine it to be practical or true.
Your Comments, Please
Of course, I am succeeding (but not replacing) the inestimable Mr. James K. Fitzpatrick for the First Teachers column. Please feel free to send any correspondence for First Teachers to Shaun Kenney, c/o First Teachers, 5289 Venable Rd., Kents Store, VA 23084 — or if it is easier, simply send me an e-mail with First Teachers in the subject line to: svk2cr@virginia.edu.
