Christmas greetings to Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Directors of the Governorate of Vatican City State (December 20, 2010)

[English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese]

BENEDICTO XVI: LUZ DEL MUNDO // Traducción oficial de las palabras de Benedicto XVI sobre el preservativo

Extracto del libro Luz del mundo, conversación de Peter Seewald con Benedicto XVI, Editorial Herder, págs 130-132

Con su viaje a África en marzo de 2009 la política del Vaticano en relación con el sida quedó una vez más en la mira de los medios. El veinticinco por ciento de los enfermos de sida del mundo entero son tratados actualmente en instituciones católicas. En algunos países, corno por ejemplo en Lesoto, son mucho más del cuarenta por ciento. Usted declaró en África que la doctrina tradicional de la Iglesia ha demostrado ser un camino seguro para detener la expansión del VIH. Los críticos, también de las filas de la Iglesia, oponen a eso que es una locura prohibir a una población amenazada por el sida la utilización de preservativos.

El viaje a África fue totalmente desplazado en el ámbito de las publicaciones por una sola frase. Me habían preguntado por qué la Iglesia católica asume una posición irrealista e ineficaz en la cuestión del sida. En vista de ello me sentí realmente desafiado, pues la Iglesia hace más que todos los demás. Y sigo sosteniéndolo. Porque ella es la única institución que se encuentra de forma muy cercana y concreta junto a las personas, previniendo, educando, ayudando, aconsejando, acompañando. Porque trata a tantos enfermos de sida, especialmente a niños enfermos de sida, como nadie fuera de ella.

He podido visitar uno de esos servicios y conversar con los enfermos. Ésa fue la auténtica respuesta: la Iglesia hace más que los demás porque no habla sólo desde la tribuna periodística, sino que ayuda a las hermanas, a los hermanos que se encuentran en el lugar. En esa ocasión no tomé posición en general respecto del problema del preservativo, sino que, solamente, dije —y eso se convirtió después en un gran escándalo-: el problema no puede solucionarse con la distribución de preservativos. Deben darse muchas cosas más. Es preciso estar cerca de los hombres, conducirlos, ayudarles, y eso tanto antes como después de contraer la enfermedad.

Y la realidad es que, siempre que alguien lo requiere, se tienen preservativos a disposición. Pero eso solo no resuelve la cuestión. Deben darse más cosas. Entretanto se ha desarrollado, justamente en el ámbito secular, la llamada teoría ABC, que significa: «Abstinence — Be Faithful — Condom!» [Abstinencia — Fidelidad — Preservativo], en la que no se entiende el preservativo solamente como punto de escape cuando los otros dos puntos no resultan efectivos. Es decir, la mera fijación en el preservativo significa una banalización de la sexualidad, y tal banalización es precisamente el origen peligroso de que tantas personas no encuentren ya en la sexualidad la expresión del amor, sino sólo una suerte de droga que se administran a sí mismas. Por eso, la lucha contra la banalización de la sexualidad forma parte de la lucha por que la sexualidad sea valorada positivamente y pueda desplegar su acción positiva en la totalidad de la condición humana.

Podrá haber casos fundados de carácter aislado, por ejemplo, cuando un prostituido utiliza un preservativo, pudiendo ser esto un primer acto de moralización, un primer tramo de res­ponsabilidad a fin de desarrollar de nuevo una consciencia de que no todo está permitido y de que no se puede hacer todo lo que se quiere. Pero ésta no es la auténtica modalidad para abordar el mal de la infección con el VIH. Tal modalidad ha de consistir realmente en la humanización de la sexualidad.

¿Significa esto que la Iglesia católica no está por principio en contra de la utilización de la utilización de los preservativos?

Es obvio que ella no los ve corno una solución real y moral. No obstante, en uno u otro caso pueden ser, en la intención de reducir el peligro de contagio, un primer paso en el cami­no hacia una sexualidad vivida de forma diferente, hacia una sexualidad más humana.

John Allen: Why condom comments are no earthquake in Catholic teaching

John Allen, Senior correspondent, National Catholic Reporter // http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319

We’re dealing here not with abstract moral teaching, but concrete pastoral application to a specific set of facts”

Careful distinctions are the hallmark of Catholic moral reasoning, but they can be a tough sell in a world with little patience for subtlety.

A few carefully qualified words from Pope Benedict XVI on condoms offer proof of the point, as they have been “sexed up” in some commentary as an earthquake in Catholic teaching.

In reality, the Church’s broad opposition to artificial birth control has not changed, and there’s no indication that it will give way under Benedict XVI, rightly seen as a champion of Catholic orthodoxy.

Instead, Benedict XVI has said in a book-length interview with a German journalist that while condoms are not the solution to the HIV/Aids crisis, there may nevertheless be individual cases where use of a condom can represent the first stirrings of a sense of moral responsibility, if the intent is to save someone’s life.

Even then the use a condom is still not the Pope’s moral ideal (especially, of course, where the sex takes place outside marriage), but Benedict has said that it can be a step in the right direction – the dawning of awareness that “one cannot do whatever one wants.”

Non-binding

In practice, that means that if someone were to ask a Catholic priest, “Is it okay to use a condom?” the answer is still supposed to be “No.” Catholic teaching holds that to be fully consistent with God’s plan, sexuality should occur only inside marriage and should be open to new life.

If the question, however, is, “I’m HIV-positive and will have sex regardless of what the Church thinks, so is it better to use a condom to try to save lives?” the Pope has implied that a pastor might legitimately say “Yes,” while still stressing that condoms ultimately are not, as Benedict says in his interview, a “real or moral solution.”

In other words, we’re dealing here not with abstract moral teaching, but concrete pastoral application to a specific set of facts.

That point needs to be qualified in a couple of important ways.

First of all, a Q&A with a journalist carries no weight as an expression of official Catholic teaching. Elsewhere in the same book Benedict concedes that popes can have private opinions which are wrong, so until some formal edict comes down the pike, Benedict’s language has to be seen as interesting but non-binding.

Second, Catholic pastoral counselling on condoms in the context of HIV/Aids has never been quite as absolute as outsiders generally take it to be.

Since the advent of the Aids crisis, many Catholic theologians, and even a few cardinals, have debated whether the use of a condom in some limited circumstances might be tolerated. The usual example is that of a married couple where one partner is HIV-positive and the other isn’t, and the intent is not to prevent pregnancy but to prevent infection.

The ‘open question’

In recent years, both a Swiss cardinal who served as the theologian of the papal household and a Mexican cardinal who was the Vatican’s point man on health care issues have argued in favour of the acceptability of condoms in such cases, while others have demurred.

The Vatican has not issued an official statement along the lines of the Pope’s comments

It is a classic instance of what Catholic theology calls an “open question,” meaning one which has not been officially resolved.

Shortly after his election to the papacy five years ago, Benedict XVI asked the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Health Care to examine the question. That office polled a number of theologians, scientists and medical experts, and tentatively drew a positive conclusion: in the limited case of a married couple trying to save one partner from infection, use of a condom could be accepted, even if should not be presented as the ideal.

In his interview with the German journalist, Benedict uses the example of a prostitute, not a married couple, but the idea is similar. When the intent is to prevent disease rather than pregnancy, it changes the moral calculus.

To date, the Vatican has not issued any official statement along those lines, based in part not on doctrinal considerations but PR worries. The fear has been that if the Vatican were to issue even a narrow ruling, however carefully hemmed in and nuanced, all the world would hear is, “Church says condoms are okay.”

For obvious reasons, the breathless coverage of the Pope’s interview over the past 48 hours has done little to assuage those concerns.

Hence one irony of the present situation: it may well be precisely those reformers most thrilled by what Benedict has said, most inclined to spin it as a “revolution,” who actually make it less likely that even his limited concession sees the official light of day.

For those who would like the Catholic Church to become more flexible on condoms, therefore, a word of caution: hype doesn’t help.

John L Allen Jr is the Senior Correspondent for the US-basedNational Catholic Reporter and author of two books on Pope Benedict XVI.

 

Nuovo libro con l’intervista concessa da Benedetto XVI a Peter Seewald

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/text.html#13

(Esce il 23 novembre)

Il Papa, la Chiesa e i segni dei tempi

Luce del mondo è il titolo con il quale sta per essere pubblicato il libro che raccoglie la conversazione di Benedetto XVI con il giornalista e scrittore tedesco Peter Seewald.
La nuova opera, edita in italiano dalla Libreria Editrice Vaticana, uscirà in contemporanea in altre lingue il prossimo 23 novembre e ha come sottotitolo Il Papa, la Chiesa e i segni dei tempi. Nei 18 capitoli che lo compongono, raggruppati in tre parti – “I segni dei tempi”, “Il pontificato”, “Verso dove andiamo” – Benedetto XVI risponde alle più scottanti questioni del mondo di oggi. Del libro (pagine 284, euro 19,50) anticipiamo alcuni stralci.

La gioia del cristianesimo

Tutta la mia vita è sempre stata attraversata da un filo conduttore, questo:  il cristianesimo dà gioia, allarga gli orizzonti. In definitiva un’esistenza vissuta sempre e soltanto “contro” sarebbe insopportabile.

Un mendicante

Per quel che riguarda il Papa, anche lui è un povero mendicante davanti a Dio, ancora più degli altri uomini. Naturalmente prego innanzitutto sempre il Signore, al quale sono legato, per così dire, da antica amicizia. Ma invoco anche i santi. Sono molto amico di Agostino, di Bonaventura e di Tommaso d’Aquino. A loro quindi dico:  “Aiutatemi”! La Madre di Dio, poi, è sempre e comunque un grande punto di riferimento. In questo senso, mi inserisco nella Comunione dei Santi. Insieme a loro, rafforzato da loro, parlo poi anche con il Dio buono, soprattutto mendicando, ma anche ringraziando; o contento, semplicemente.

Le difficoltà

L’avevo messo nel conto. Ma innanzitutto bisognerebbe essere molto cauti con la valutazione di un Papa, se sia significativo o meno, quando è ancora in vita. Solo in un secondo momento si può riconoscere quale posto, nella storia nel suo insieme, ha una determinata cosa o persona. Ma che l’atmosfera non sarebbe stata sempre gioiosa era evidente in considerazione dell’attuale costellazione mondiale, con tutte le forze di distruzione che ci sono, con tutte le contraddizioni che in essa vivono, con tutte le minacce e gli errori. Se avessi continuato a ricevere soltanto consensi, avrei dovuto chiedermi se stessi veramente annunciando tutto il Vangelo.

Lo shock degli abusi

I fatti non mi hanno colto di sorpresa del tutto. Alla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede mi ero occupato dei casi americani; avevo visto montare anche la situazione in Irlanda. Ma le dimensioni comunque furono uno shock enorme. Sin dalla mia elezione al Soglio di Pietro avevo ripetutamente incontrato vittime di abusi sessuali. Tre anni e mezzo fa, nell’ottobre 2006, in un discorso ai vescovi irlandesi avevo chiesto loro di “stabilire la verità di ciò che è accaduto in passato, prendere tutte le misure atte ad evitare che si ripeta in futuro, assicurare che i principi di giustizia vengano pienamente rispettati e, soprattutto, guarire le vittime e tutti coloro che sono colpiti da questi crimini abnormi”.
Vedere il sacerdozio improvvisamente insudiciato in questo modo, e con ciò la stessa Chiesa Cattolica, è stato difficile da sopportare. In quel momento era importante però non distogliere lo sguardo dal fatto che nella Chiesa il bene esiste, e non soltanto queste cose terribili.

I media e gli abusi

Era evidente che l’azione dei media non fosse guidata solamente dalla pura ricerca della verità, ma che vi fosse anche un compiacimento a mettere alla berlina la Chiesa e, se possibile, a screditarla. E tuttavia era necessario che fosse chiaro questo:  sin tanto che si tratta di portare alla luce la verità, dobbiamo essere riconoscenti. La verità, unita all’amore inteso correttamente, è il valore numero uno. E poi i media non avrebbero potuto dare quei resoconti se nella Chiesa stessa il male non ci fosse stato. Solo perché il male era dentro la Chiesa, gli altri hanno potuto rivolgerlo contro di lei.

Il progresso

Emerge la problematicità del termine “progresso”. La modernità ha cercato la propria strada guidata dall’idea di progresso e da quella di libertà. Ma cos’è il progresso? Oggi vediamo che il progresso può essere anche distruttivo. Per questo dobbiamo riflettere sui criteri da adottare affinché il progresso sia veramente progresso.

Un esame di coscienza

Al di là dei singoli piani finanziari, un esame di coscienza globale è assolutamente inevitabile. E a questo la Chiesa ha cercato di contribuire con l’enciclica Caritas in veritate. Non dà risposte a tutti i problemi. Vuole essere un passo in avanti per guardare le cose da un altro punto di vista, che non sia soltanto quello della fattibilità e del successo, ma dal punto di vista secondo cui esiste una normatività dell’amore per il prossimo che si orienta alla volontà di Dio e non soltanto ai nostri desideri. In questo senso dovrebbero essere dati degli impulsi perché realmente avvenga una trasformazione delle coscienze.

La vera intolleranza

La vera minaccia di fronte alla quale ci troviamo è che la tolleranza venga abolita in nome della tolleranza stessa. C’è il pericolo che la ragione, la cosiddetta ragione occidentale, sostenga di avere finalmente riconosciuto ciò che è giusto e avanzi così una pretesa di totalità che è nemica della libertà. Credo necessario denunciare con forza questa minaccia. Nessuno è costretto ad essere cristiano. Ma nessuno deve essere costretto a vivere secondo la “nuova religione”, come fosse l’unica e vera, vincolante per tutta l’umanità.

Moschee e burqa

I cristiani sono tolleranti ed in quanto tali permettono anche agli altri la loro peculiare comprensione di sé. Ci rallegriamo del fatto che nei Paesi del Golfo arabo (Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Quwait) ci siano chiese nelle quali i cristiani possono celebrare la Messa e speriamo che così accada ovunque. Per questo è naturale che anche da noi i musulmani possano riunirsi in preghiera nelle moschee.
Per quanto riguarda il burqa, non vedo ragione di una proibizione generalizzata. Si dice che alcune donne non lo portino volontariamente ma che in realtà sia una sorta di violenza imposta loro. È chiaro che con questo non si può essere d’accordo. Se però volessero indossarlo volontariamente, non vedo perché glielo si debba impedire.

Cristianesimo e modernità

L’essere cristiano è esso stesso qualcosa di vivo, di moderno, che attraversa, formandola e plasmandola, tutta la mia modernità, e che quindi in un certo senso veramente la abbraccia.
Qui è necessaria una grande lotta spirituale, come ho voluto mostrare con la recente istituzione di un “Pontificio Consiglio per la nuova evangelizzazione”. È importante che cerchiamo di vivere e di pensare il Cristianesimo in modo tale che assuma la modernità buona e giusta, e quindi al contempo si allontani e si distingua da quella che sta diventando una contro-religione.

Ottimismo

Lo si potrebbe pensare guardando con superficialità e restringendo l’orizzonte al solo mondo occidentale. Ma se si osserva con più attenzione – ed è quello che mi è possibile fare grazie alle visite dei vescovi di tutto il mondo  e  anche  ai  tanti  altri  incontri  –  si  vede che il cristianesimo in questo momento sta sviluppando anche una creatività del tutto nuova […]
La burocrazia è consumata e stanca. Sono iniziative che nascono dal di dentro, dalla gioia dei giovani. Il cristianesimo forse assumerà un volto nuovo, forse anche un aspetto culturale diverso. Il cristianesimo non determina l’opinione pubblica mondiale, altri ne sono alla guida. E tuttavia il cristianesimo è la forza vitale senza la quale anche le altre cose non potrebbero continuare ad esistere. Perciò, sulla base di quello che vedo e di cui riesco a fare personale esperienza, sono molto ottimista rispetto al fatto che il cristianesimo si trovi di fronte ad una dinamica nuova.

La droga

Tanti vescovi, soprattutto quelli dell’America Latina, mi dicono che là dove passa la strada della coltivazione e del commercio della droga – e questo avviene in gran parte di quei paesi – è come se un animale mostruoso e cattivo stendesse la sua mano su quel paese per rovinare le persone. Credo che questo serpente del commercio e del consumo di droga che avvolge il mondo sia un potere del quale non sempre riusciamo a farci un’idea adeguata. Distrugge i giovani, distrugge le famiglie, porta alla violenza e minaccia il futuro di intere nazioni.
Anche questa è una terribile responsabilità dell’Occidente:  ha bisogno di droghe e così crea paesi che gli forniscono quello che poi finirà per consumarli e distruggerli. È sorta una fame di felicità che non riesce a saziarsi con quello che c’è; e che poi si rifugia per così dire nel paradiso del diavolo e distrugge completamente l’uomo.

Nella vigna del Signore

In effetti avevo una funzione direttiva, però non avevo fatto nulla da solo e ho lavorato sempre in squadra; proprio come uno dei tanti operai nella vigna del Signore che probabilmente ha fatto del lavoro preparatorio, ma allo stesso tempo è uno che non è fatto per essere il primo e per assumersi la responsabilità di tutto. Ho capito che accanto ai grandi Papi devono esserci anche Pontefici piccoli che danno il proprio contributo. Così in quel momento ho detto quello che sentivo veramente […]
Il concilio Vaticano II ci ha insegnato, a ragione, che per la struttura della Chiesa è costitutiva la collegialità; ovvero il fatto che il Papa è il primo nella condivisione e non un monarca assoluto che prende decisioni in solitudine e fa tutto da sé.

L’ebraismo

Senza dubbio. Devo dire che sin dal primo giorno dei miei studi teologici mi è stata in qualche modo chiara la profonda unità fra Antica e Nuova Alleanza, tra le due parti della nostra Sacra Scrittura. Avevo compreso che avremmo potuto leggere il Nuovo Testamento soltanto insieme con ciò che lo ha preceduto, altrimenti non lo avremmo capito. Poi naturalmente quanto accaduto nel Terzo Reich ci ha colpito come tedeschi e tanto più ci ha spinto a guardare al popolo d’Israele con umiltà, vergogna e amore.
Nella mia formazione teologica queste cose si sono intrecciate ed hanno segnato il percorso del mio pensiero teologico. Dunque era chiaro per me – ed anche qui in assoluta continuità con Giovanni Paolo II – che nel mio annuncio della fede cristiana doveva essere centrale questo nuovo intrecciarsi, amorevole e comprensivo, di Israele e Chiesa, basato sul rispetto del modo di essere di ognuno e della rispettiva missione […]
Comunque, a quel punto, anche nella antica liturgia mi è sembrato necessario un cambiamento. Infatti, la formula era tale da ferire veramente gli ebrei e di certo non esprimeva in modo positivo la grande, profonda unità fra Vecchio e Nuovo Testamento.
Per questo motivo ho pensato che nella liturgia antica fosse necessaria una modifica, in particolare, come ho detto, in riferimento al nostro rapporto con gli amici ebrei. L’ho modificata in modo tale che vi fosse contenuta la nostra fede, ovvero che Cristo è salvezza per tutti. Che non esistono due vie di salvezza e che dunque Cristo è anche il Salvatore degli ebrei, e non solo dei pagani. Ma anche in modo tale che non si pregasse direttamente per la conversione degli ebrei in senso missionario, ma perché il Signore affretti l’ora storica in cui noi tutti saremo uniti. Per questo gli argomenti utilizzati da una serie di teologi polemicamente contro di me sono avventati e non rendono giustizia a quanto fatto.

Pio XII

Pio XII ha fatto tutto il possibile per salvare delle persone. Naturalmente ci si può sempre chiedere:  “Perché non ha protestato in maniera più esplicita”? Credo che abbia capito quali sarebbero state le conseguenze di una protesta pubblica. Sappiamo che per questa situazione personalmente ha sofferto molto. Sapeva che in sé avrebbe dovuto parlare, ma la situazione glielo impediva.
Ora, persone più ragionevoli ammettono che Pio XII ha salvato molte vite ma sostengono che aveva idee antiquate sugli ebrei e che non era all’altezza del Concilio Vaticano II. Il problema tuttavia non è questo. L’importante è ciò che ha fatto e ciò che ha cercato di fare, e credo che bisogna veramente riconoscere che è stato uno dei grandi giusti e che, come nessun altro, ha salvato tanti e tanti ebrei.

La sessualità

Concentrarsi solo sul profilattico vuol dire banalizzare la sessualità, e questa banalizzazione rappresenta proprio la pericolosa ragione per cui tante e tante persone nella sessualità non vedono più l’espressione del loro amore, ma soltanto una sorta di droga, che si somministrano da sé. Perciò anche la lotta contro la banalizzazione della sessualità è parte del grande sforzo affinché la sessualità venga valutata positivamente e possa esercitare il suo effetto positivo sull’essere umano nella sua totalità.
Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati, ad esempio quando una prostituta utilizza un profilattico, e questo può essere il primo passo verso una moralizzazione, un primo atto di responsabilità per sviluppare di nuovo la consapevolezza del fatto che non tutto è permesso e che non si può far tutto ciò che si vuole. Tuttavia, questo non è il modo vero e proprio per vincere l’infezione dell’Hiv. È veramente necessaria una umanizzazione della sessualità.

La Chiesa

Paolo dunque non intendeva la Chiesa come istituzione, come organizzazione, ma come organismo vivente, nel quale tutti operano l’uno per l’altro e l’uno con l’altro, essendo uniti a partire da Cristo. È un’immagine, ma un’immagine che conduce in profondità e che è molto realistica anche solo per il fatto che noi crediamo che nell’Eucaristia veramente riceviamo Cristo, il Risorto. E se ognuno riceve il medesimo Cristo, allora veramente noi tutti siamo riuniti in questo nuovo corpo risorto come il grande spazio di una nuova umanità. È importante capire questo, e dunque intendere la Chiesa non come un apparato che deve fare di tutto – pure l’apparato le appartiene, ma entro dei limiti – bensì come organismo vivente che proviene da Cristo stesso.

L’Humanae vitae

Le prospettive della “Humanae vitae” restano valide, ma altra cosa è trovare strade umanamente percorribili. Credo che ci saranno sempre delle minoranze intimamente persuase della giustezza di quelle prospettive e che, vivendole, ne rimarranno pienamente appagate così da diventare per altri affascinante modello da seguire. Siamo peccatori. Ma non dovremmo assumere questo fatto come istanza contro la verità, quando cioè quella morale alta non viene vissuta. Dovremmo cercare di fare tutto il bene possibile, e sorreggerci e sopportarci a vicenda. Esprimere tutto questo anche dal punto di vista pastorale, teologico e concettuale nel contesto dell’attuale sessuologia e ricerca antropologica è un grande compito al quale bisogna dedicarsi di più e meglio.

Le donne

La formulazione di Giovanni Paolo II è molto importante:  “La Chiesa non ha in alcun modo la facoltà di conferire alle donne l’ordinazione sacerdotale”. Non si tratta di non volere ma di non potere. Il Signore ha dato una forma alla Chiesa con i Dodici e poi con la loro successione, con i vescovi ed i presbiteri (i sacerdoti). Non siamo stati noi a creare questa forma della Chiesa, bensì è costitutiva a partire da Lui. Seguirla è un atto di obbedienza, nella situazione odierna forse uno degli atti di obbedienza più gravosi. Ma proprio questo è importante, che la Chiesa mostri di non essere un regime dell’arbitrio. Non possiamo fare quello che vogliamo. C’è invece una volontà del Signore per noi, alla quale ci atteniamo, anche se questo è faticoso e difficile nella cultura e nella civiltà di oggi.
Tra l’altro, le funzioni affidate alle donne nella Chiesa sono talmente grandi e significative che non può parlarsi di discriminazione. Sarebbe così se il sacerdozio fosse una specie di dominio, mentre al contrario deve essere completamente servizio. Se si dà uno sguardo alla storia della Chiesa, allora ci si accorge che il significato delle donne – da Maria a Monica sino a Madre Teresa – è talmente eminente che per molti versi le donne definiscono il volto della Chiesa più degli uomini.

I novissimi

È una questione molto seria. La nostra predicazione, il nostro annunzio effettivamente è ampiamente orientato, in modo unilaterale, alla creazione di un mondo migliore, mentre il mondo realmente migliore quasi non è più menzionato. Qui dobbiamo fare un esame di coscienza. Certo, si cerca di venire incontro all’uditorio, di dire loro quello che è nel loro orizzonte. Ma il nostro compito è allo stesso tempo sfondare quest’orizzonte, ampliarlo, e di guardare alle cose ultime.
I novissimi sono come pane duro per gli uomini di oggi. Gli appaiono irreali. Vorrebbero al loro posto risposte concrete per l’oggi, soluzioni per le tribolazioni quotidiane. Ma sono risposte che restano a metà se non permettono anche di presentire e riconoscere che io mi estendo oltre questa vita materiale, che c’è il giudizio, e che c’è la grazia e l’eternità. In questo senso dobbiamo anche trovare parole e modi nuovi, per permettere all’uomo di sfondare il muro del suono del finito.

La venuta di Cristo

È importante che ogni epoca stia presso il Signore. Che anche noi stessi, qui ed ora, siamo sotto il giudizio del Signore e ci lasciamo giudicare dal suo tribunale. Si discuteva di una duplice venuta di Cristo, una a Betlemme ed una alla fine dei tempi, sino a quando san Bernardo di Chiaravalle parlò di un Adventus medius, di una venuta intermedia, attraverso la quale sempre Egli periodicamente entra nella storia.
Credo che abbia preso la tonalità giusta. Noi non possiamo stabilire quando il mondo finirà. Cristo stesso dice che nessuno lo sa, nemmeno il Figlio. Dobbiamo però rimanere per così dire sempre presso la sua venuta, e soprattutto essere certi che, nelle pene, Egli è vicino. Allo stesso tempo dovremmo sapere che per le nostre azioni siamo sotto il suo giudizio.

‘Attack on Ratzinger’: Italian book assesses Benedict’s papacy

source: http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/attack-ratzinger-italian-book-assesses-benedicts-papacy

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.

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.

• John L Allen Jr’s blog

Publication of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Norms on Most Serious Crimes

Source: http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2010/07/publication-of-cdf-norms-on-most.html

VATICAN CITY, 15 JUL 2010 (VIS) – The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith today published its new “Norms concerning the most serious crimes“. Given below is the text of an explanatory note on the new measures, issued by Holy See Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J.

In 2001 the Holy Father John Paul II promulgated a very important document, the Motu Proprio “Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela”, which gave the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responsibility to deal with and judge a series of particularly serious crimes within the ambit of canon law. This responsibility had previously been attributed also to other dicasteries, or was not completely clear.

The Motu Proprio (the “law” in the strict sense) was accompanied by a series of practical and procedural Norms, known as “Normae de gravioribus delictis”. Over the nine years since then, experience has naturally suggested that these Norms be integrated and updated, so as to streamline and simplify the procedures and make them more effective, and to take account of new problems. This has been achieved principally by the Pope attributing new “faculties” to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; faculties which, however, were not organically integrated into the initial Norms. This has now come about, within the context of a systematic revision of those Norms.

The serious crimes to which the regulations referred concerned vital aspects of Church life: the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance, but also sexual abuse committed by a priest against a minor under the age of eighteen.

The vast public echo this latter kind of crime has had over recent years has attracted great attention and generated intense debate on the norms and procedures applied by the Church to judge and punish such acts.

It is right, then, that there should be complete clarity concerning the regulations currently in force in this field, and that these regulations be presented organically so as to facilitate the work of the people who deal with these matters.

An initial clarification – especially for use by the media – was provided recently with the publication on the Holy See website of a brief “Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations”. The publication of the new Norms is, however, quite a different thing, providing us with an official and updated legal text which is valid for the whole Church.

In order to facilitate the reading of the Norms by a non-specialist public, particularly interested in the problems of sexual abuse, we will seek to highlight a number of important aspects:

Among the novelties introduced with respect to the earlier Norms, mention must be made, above all, of measures intended to accelerate procedures, such as the possibility of not following the “judicial process” but proceeding by “extrajudicial decree”, or that of presenting (in particular circumstances) the most serious cases to the Holy Father with a view to dismissing the offender from the clerical state.

Another Norm intended to simplify earlier problems and to take account of the evolution of the situation in the Church concerns the possibility of having not only priests but also lay persons as members of the tribunal staff, or as lawyers or prosecutors. Likewise, in order to undertake these functions it is no longer strictly necessary to have a doctorate in canon law, but the required competency can also be proved in another way; for example, with a licentiate.

Another aspect worthy of note is the increase of the statue of limitations from ten years to twenty years, with the possibility of extension even beyond that period.

Another significant aspect is establishing parity between the abuse of mentally disabled people and that of minors, and the introduction of a new category: paedophile pornography. This is defined as: “the acquisition, possession or disclosure” by a member of the clergy, “in any way and by any means, of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen”.

Regulations concerning the secrecy of trials are maintained, in order to safeguard the dignity of all the people involved.

One point that remains untouched, though it has often been the subject of discussion in recent times, concerns collaboration with the civil authorities. It must be borne in mind that the Norms being published today are part of the penal code of canon law, which is complete in itself and entirely distinct from the law of States.

On this subject, however, it is important to take note of the “Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations”, as published on the Holy See website. In that Guide, the phrase “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed” is contained in the section dedicated to “Preliminary Procedures”. This means that in the practice suggested by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it is necessary to comply with the requirements of law in the various countries, and to do so in good time, not during or subsequent to the canonical trial.

Today’s publication of the Norms makes a great contribution to the clarity and certainty of law in this field; a field in which the Church is today strongly committed to proceeding with rigour and transparency so as to respond fully to the just expectations of moral coherence and evangelical sanctity nourished by the faithful and by public opinion, and which the Holy Father has constantly reiterated.

Of course, many other measures and initiatives are required from the various ecclesiastical bodies. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is currently examining how to help the bishops of the world formulate and develop, coherently and effectively, the indications and guidelines necessary to face the problems of the sexual abuse of minors, either by members of the clergy or within the environment of activities and institutions connected with the Church, bearing in mind the situation and the problems of the societies in which they operate.

This will be another crucial step on the Church’s journey as she translates into permanent practice and continuous awareness the fruits of the teachings and ideas that have matured over the course of the painful events of the “crisis” engendered by sexual abuse by members of the clergy.

In order to complete this brief overview of the principal novelties contained in the “Norms”, mention must also be made of those that refer to crimes of a different nature. In this case too it is not so much a case of introducing new substance as of integrating rules that are already in force so as to obtain a better ordered and more organic set of regulations on the “most serious crimes” reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

These include crimes against the faith (heresy, apostasy and schism) for which competency normally falls to ordinaries, although the Congregation becomes competent in the case of an appeal; the malicious recording and disclosure of sacramental Confession about which a decree of condemnation was published in 1988; and the attempted ordination of women, about which a decree was published in 2007.

Benedict XVI, Cardinal Schonborn and Cardinal Sodano

Source: http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2010/06/communique-concerning-audience-with.html

VATICAN CITY, 28 JUN 2010 (VIS) – The Holy See Press Office released the following communique early this afternoon:

“(1) The Holy Father today received in audience Cardinal Christoph Schonborn O.P., archbishop of Vienna and president of the Austrian Episcopal Conference. The cardinal had asked to meet the Supreme Pontiff personally in order to report on the current situation of the Church in Austria. In particular, Cardinal Schonborn wished to clarify the exact meaning of his recent declarations concerning some aspects of current ecclesiastical discipline, and certain of his judgements regarding positions adopted by the Secretariat of State – and in particular by the then Secretary of State of Pope John Paul II – concerning the late Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer, archbishop of Vienna from 1986 to 1995.

“(2) Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, and Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B. were subsequently invited to join the meeting.

“In the second part of the audience certain widespread misunderstandings were clarified and resolved, misunderstandings deriving partly from certain statements of Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, who expressed his displeasure at the interpretations given to his words.

“In particular:

“(a) It must be reiterated that, in the Church, when accusations are made against a cardinal, competency falls exclusively to the Pope; other parties may have a consultative function, while always maintaining due respect for persons.

“(b) The word ‘chiacchiericcio’ (gossip) was erroneously interpreted as disrespectful to the victims of sexual abuse, towards whom Cardinal Angelo Sodano nourishes the same feelings of compassion, and of condemnation of evil, as expressed on various occasions by the Holy Father. That word, pronounced during his Easter address to Pope Benedict XVI, was taken literally from the pontifical homily of Palm Sunday and referred to the “courage that does not let itself be intimidated by the gossip of prevalent opinions”.

“(3) The Holy Father, recalling with great affection his own pastoral trip to Austria, via Cardinal Christoph Schonborn sends his greetings and encouragement to the Church in Austria, and to her pastors, entrusting the journey to renewed ecclesial communion to the celestial protection of the Blessed Virgin, so venerated at Mariazell”.
OP/ VIS 20100628 (370)

The Pope “Rethinks” Clerical Celibacy. In Order to Reinforce It

Source: Sandro Magister

• It is the sign, he says, that God exists and that one allows himself to be seized by passion for him. This makes it a great scandal, and the desire is to eliminate it. The complete transcript of Benedict XVI’s latest statement on this issue. And of a surprising preview of it, from 2006

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1343736?eng=y

Sex Abuse: How does the Church select its seminarians?

Source: RomeReports TV

Until fifty years ago it was easy to enter the seminary. Usually you needed only a letter of recommendation from the pastor and pass a brief interview with the bishop. Times have changed. Now candidates must overcome more hurdles. And there are tools such as psychological tests to assess if they qualify to be priests. For example, are they able to live a life of celibacy?

Sex Abuse: Does this happen only in the Catholic Church?

Source: Rome Report TV News Agency

Between 1995 and 2009, German police received 138,000 complaints of child sexual abuse. Of these, 147 were committed by priests or religious. That is, less than 0.1% of the total. Child sexual abuse is not a problem unique to the Catholic Church. Paradoxically, the majority of abuse takes place in the family, where between 60 and 70 percent of such assaults are committed. The main culprit is the father ((35.8%)), but also the mother ((30.8 (%)), brothers and sisters ((2%)), other relatives ((4.8%)), or a new partner ((2.1%)).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74CFEA_TNR0