Vaticanisti Abounding

Here's another one:  Catholic Outsider from Alejandro Bermudez, editor of Catholic News Agency. It's a young little blog, but it's pretty interesting, with a couple of recent posts on Benedict's style of interacting, including a primer on who gets to meet with the Pope these days. Answer: hardly anyone.

(Michael met up with an old friend on his trip last week, a priest who'd just returned from a few-months sabbatical in Rome, the kind of stay during which in the past, the priests would have probably had the chance to meet the Pope. Nope!)

(And to be honest, I find this totally understandable. The Pope is almost 79 years old and he knows it. Can you imagine being elected Pope when you're 79? Can you even conceive of it? This is a man who knows his gifts, seems to be intent on honestly discerning how God can best use him in the time he has, and knows how to reserve his energy. I think it also shows, to the haters of various types, how this Pope understand the office - as being, essentially, not about him, but about Christ, and that indeed, the business of the Church, while it finds an important unifying anchor in the Papacy, is broadly based. I like it.)

Anyway, I happened upon this blog while I was seeing what Magister had said in his blog recently (as if I can understand it), and came upon his latest entry, which refers to the Catholic Outsider in the context of a few comments about the long article about the death of John Paul and the election of Benedict in the most recent issue of The Atlantic Monthly.

Paul Elie is a writer whom I admire - his The LIfe You Save May Be Your Own - a study of O'Connor, Percy, Merton and Dorothy Day in the context and in relationship to one another - was really excellent and has had a profound, continuing impact on me as I consider the purpose and nature of my own work.

But this article, while, of course, well-written, doesn't strike a chord with me. Perhaps it is because I've read both Allen and Weigel's books on the same period, as well as a million articles. I probably should go back and re-read it, putting myself in the place of the average Atlantic reader who hasn't been immersed in this material for almost a year.

For there is not much new here in terms of basic news, but what is worth commenting on here is the interpretation. The short version is that Elie attributes quite a bit more, for lack of a better word, angling for the papacy on Ratzinger's part than any other observer I've read so far. Here is how he puts it:

The events of the twelve months from the onset of John Paul's last illness up to the present—a year of two popes—complete a process that has been under way since the turn of the millennium. John Paul's poor health prompted Ratzinger, always confident of the soundness of his own approach, to speak and act more boldly than ever. John Paul's physical weakness made Ratzinger (seven years younger) seem spry and vigorous beneath his head of white hair; John Paul's thick, clotted speech made Ratzinger's gentle enunciations seem the voice of clarity. John Paul's struggle to carry on despite his ailments precluded the notion that Ratzinger's own limitations—advanced age, a divisive public image, an attraction to thoughts more than to thinkers—were drawbacks in any important sense.

Did Ratzinger want to be pope? Certainly—provided that this was what God and the other cardinals wanted of him. More and more, it seemed, he was wanted. Beginning in 2000 circumstances at the Vatican seemed to call Ratzinger to the papacy—to "convert" him or turn him around to the office, as he would put it. He saw the papacy diminished by the pope's illness, and the Church weakened by scandals. He was clearly "head and shoulders above the rest of the cardinals," one of his aides told me, "and he knew it"; he at once recognized his mastery of the mechanisms of Vatican power and trusted himself to use them properly. He did not—dared not—wait for John Paul to die; the Church was going off course again. So he prayed for guidance and then stepped in.

And here, really, is the essence of the interpretation, following Elie's discussion of his (mostly anonymous) sources:

My interlocutors told me how Ratzinger deliberately took charge as John Paul faltered, and described what Ratzinger hadn't liked about John Paul's approach to the papacy. They provided the commentary that made it possible to form a clear picture of the conclave

The piece is long and detailed, and not online, of course. I'll take issue with one point, and then let three Vaticanisti make some corrections.

I am interested in Elie's insistence on implying that Ratzinger's assumption of certain roles (for example, engaging in substantive meetings with bishops on ad limina visits when John Paul was unable to do more than just greet them) or wrangling with an issue in a different way that John Paul seemed prone to do (Dominus Iesus, for example, interepreted by Elie and others as a way to balance out, not just the religious relativism and indifferentism rampant even within Catholicism, but to certain symbolic gestures by John Paul II himself) - that all of this amounts to indicating a desire for the papal office, or, more generally, a desire to run the church. Which is, of course, why Ratzinger kept trying to resign and return to Germany - a point which Elie mentions but ignores the significance of.

I think what is missing in this piece is an understanding of how serious Christians understand service and discipleship. No one argues that ego can always get injected into the mix, or that motives, even of good people, are always pure and unmixed. But Elie, while not ascribing outright deviousness to Ratzinger, does indeed imply that he was angling for the job of running the Church his own way. But even based on his own evidence, one can come to a very different conclusion, based, as I said, on a different understanding of what should motivate Christians, and, indeed, does motivate many of them: to discern the call of the Spirit to do what is necessary. So if John Paul was unable to engage substantively with visiting bishops, and if ad limina visits are supposed to serve a certain purpose which and if the Pope cannot engage or make use of the information that might come out of those meetings...why should everything come to a halt? Someone needs to step in and hear those concerns and make sure that the process works the best it can under the circumstances. And if, during those meetings, Ratzinger was, indeed, interested and attentive (which is what I've heard , and what Elie reports) - why does that imply that he's interested because he's trying to curry favor or make a good impression in order to serve his own interests - for that is the implication of this article. Why can't it be that Ratzinger truly was concerned and interested? One of the things that has struck me about this Pope since I started reading and paying attention to him, is not just how intellectually deep and adept he is, but of how understanding he is of the human condition, and not just abstractly, but as it is lived in 2006. That "desert" imagery in his homily at his inaugrual Mass sealed the deal for me on that score, and nothing I've heard since has disappointed me.

I could go on with more examples, but I think you get my point. If I'm working in a parish in which the pastor, for example, is alienating people right and left, and if I try, within the limits of my role, to ameliorate that situation, am I angling for the pastor's job? If I perceive that the other religion teacher tends to emphasize, let us say, the more affective aspects of religious faith, so I therefore decide to utilize my own gifts and emphasize the more cognitive aspects, does that mean I'm trying to take her job? Not really. It means that in this matter of ministering in the Body of Christ, there is this constant shifting dynamic of what is done and by whom. If Cardinal Ratzinger discerned that certain points of faith needed to be emphasized by his Congregation...so?

Now for some other critiques:

Rocco corrects Elie on a point of Anglican attire - Elie makes some hay out of his understanding that at the opening of the door at St.-Paul-Outside-the-Walls during the Holy Year in 2000, and to inaugurate the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Anglican Archbishop Carey was vested in his full episcopal vesture, implying equivalence between Anglican and Roman Catholic orders. Not so, says Rocco:

First off, as the picture above can testify, Carey was vested in the choir dress of the Church of England -- cassock, rochet and stole -- not a cope, mitre or crozier in sight on George Cantuar. The Vatican people would have sooner cloaked the Door in macrame', dyed-green mac-and-cheese and multicolor Christmas lights than let an Anglican parade around in a patriarchal basilica wearing pontificals...

Secondly, and back to the start of this post, the Catholic Outsider has not one, but three posts on what he says are the inaccuracies in the article, giving the greatest space to the theory that there was a movement centered behind Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires.

To think that Cardinal Bergoglio “would  have considerable appeal among the progressives, who have long sought a pope  from Latin America,” is pure naïveté or wishful thinking. Most provably, it is just the conclusion of an outsider. For most of the cardinals, if not all, Bergoglio’s record as tough theologian and doctrinal enforcer is very well known.

In short: the hypothesis that Argentinean Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio running closely second to Cardinal Ratzinger at the beginning of the Conclave is, at best, a legend.

A legend Cardinal Bergoglio debunked personally when I asked him about it in Rome last October.
“Pavadas!,” he responded, using the typically Argentinean expression for “foolish.”

Most likely, Elie wrote his article long before it was published, so did not have time to follow the complete saga of such version of the conclave. In Vatican circles,  that story is completely passé.

Finally, another person, who's very in-the-know, echoed, in a note to me, Elie's complete misunderstanding of Bergoglio, saying that he is, if anything more "conservative" than Benedict, as well as critiquing Elie's presentation of the Vatican as a closed place dense with secrets. "It's a sieve" he says, echoing what anyone who's read John Allen's All the Pope's Men has picked up. The trick is to discern the wheat from the chaff.

So, enough inside baseball. The broadest point you might take from this post is reflecting on the difference between the way the Church sees the roles we play and the decisions we make in the institution and the way the world sees it.

The way the Church sees it ideally, I should say. Power can play a huge role in the lives of people working in the Church. I've seen it, and require no instruction on the point. My point is that, even admittedly from waaaaaay outside, it seems incorrect to intepret Ratzinger's actions, even implictly, as expression of some inner sense that he himself should be Pope, and thus ignoring the perspective that says, "If I'm in this place...what does God want me to do now?"

Comments

[Schonborn Site]

It might be useful to add another point into the mix: many people tend to identify JP2's reign as paradigmatic of the papal office.

As a result of his unique and lengthy pontificate a whole generation of papal observers do not really have an active grasp of the way other 20th-century Popes have approached the office (less personal contact, more administrative focus, etc.)

After all, Benedict's papacy has in many ways been a return to a more traditional conception of the Papacy, which while neither here or there, nevertheless agrees with your observations about the way each (intellectually and spiritually mature) servant of the Church must try to discern and employ his own talents.

Wonderful Post, I look forward to following through the rest of the sources!

[Jeff]

"Wondeful post", indeed. Probably the most incisive and astute piece of analysis I've ever read from you, and that's saying quite a bit.

[Samuel J. Howard]

Rocco is himself wrong.

Another picture is at:

http://tinyurl.com/dctr2

It's not a stole though, it's a tippet or preaching scarf.

Since a stole is a Catholic sign of order it would have been just as bad for the Anglicans to being wearing a stole as to be wearing a mitre.

[Naomi]

In, I think, Salt and Light, Ratzinger speaks of many proponents of women's ordination as misunderstanding the nature of Holy Orders as a power relationship. He said they tended to see the Church in terms of power reationships, and that altered their view of what ordination was, and the meaning of its not being available to them.

Oh dear, I'm not paraphrasing well; it was a moment of insight (and shifted viewpoint) for me.

Perhaps Elie, also, is looking at people and events as if "power-over" were the natural human goal? But I think your interpretation is more correct, Amy.

[Sue]

I hope someone will forward Amy's work to everyone involved - Elie, the editors at the AM, etc. Maybe it should also be printed and mailed, in case any of the recipients are negative toward blogs....this is way, way too insighful and important to just be preached to the choir.

[Kevin Miller]

Re: the idea that Ratzinger was being especially forward in those last years of JPII's pontificate, e.g. with Dominus Iesus - if you go to the CDF page on the Vatican site, you'll see a number of important substantive documents on various issues from the '70s and '80s - on topics like abortion, euthanasia, and reproductive technologies.

Re: Elie's claims at the beginning of the article about what happened in the conclave - they appear to be based on that anonymous cardinal's diary that we heard about in the media some months ago - and that may or may not be authentic.

I think there are a number of problems with the article, including these two, and the ones mentioned in Amy's post, and others also.

[Caroline]

I have trouble with the assumption that wanting a powerful job is necessarily a bad thing and that if B16 ever wanted to be Pope, he should be ashamed of it and we should be embarrassed for him. He was competent, he knew he was competent, and competent people enjoy doing what they do competently. If the gift comes from God, why shouldn't the desire to use the gift to its fullest and the pleasure in using the gift also come from God and why can't a person be just plain honest about it?

When I saw the first picture of B16 on the balcony my first reaction to him was how radiant he looks, he is happy to be Pope, he lets his joy be seen. Thank God for no humility pose! I want a Pope who is happy being Pope because He knows that God wants him to be Pope and because he knows himself well enough to know that he is best suited for the job. And he doesn't hide it.

[thomas tucker]

Pure common sense. good post.

[Kevin Miller]

Caroline: The question is whether things like Dominus Iesus are evidence that Ratzinger wanted to be pope. I think that argument is procrustean. And as Amy points out, it's at odds with then-Card. Ratzinger's clearly- and oft-stated wishes to retire back to Germany. One can question the article's argument without denying that Ratzinger is happy accepting and doing God's will, including accepting his election as pope.

Another thing about the article. Historians (Church and/or secular) sometimes make certain (pseudo-)Hegelian assumptions to the effect that everything has to be an effort to counter ("balance out") something else. Chalcedon countered Ephesus, Constantinople II countered Chalcedon, etc., etc., ... Dominus Iesus countered Assisi. But it doesn't always work that way. The Fathers of the early councils rightly saw themselves as standing in continuity with one another. And I know of no good reason to think that Ratzinger - or JPII (who was, after all, still pope at the time, and who wasn't exactly comatose) - saw DI the way that the article portrays it.

[anon]

It is common knowledge in Rome that the Conclave was over before it began. Ratzinger had his acceptance speech, which was written in Latin, proofed by a latinist at the Geregorianum days before he was even elected. He had done a good job of insuring the Conclave's outcome. In fact, he had done a masterful job.

[anonymous seminarian]

"It is common knowledge in Rome..."

You are going to have to do better than that if you want to convince us that this is anything but a conspiracy theory.

[Fr. Tim]

I wish "anon" well, but I don't believe that for a moment. Card. Ratzinger didn't run for the Papacy. I live here in Rome. He didn't want to become Pope.

[Colleen]

Reminds me of the various Paul "I withstood him [Peter] to his face" interpretations.

All goes back to the struggle to overcome our own personal bad traits which as an added joy helps us to see the good traits in others. Or something like that!

[TSO]

Journalists are especially suspectible to seeing everything in terms of power politics, which is sad because that misses the whole point of the Church and ultimately life itself. As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in "Salt of the Earth":

"There is an ideology that fundamentally traces all existing institutions back to power politics. And this ideology corrupts humanity and also destroys the Church. Here is a concrete example: If I see the Church only under the aspect of power, then it follows that everyone who doesn't hold an office is oppressed. And then the question of, for example, women's ordination, as an issue of power, becomes imperative. I think this ideology produces a totally false point of view, as if power were the only category for explaining the world and the communion present in it. If belonging to the Church has any meaning at all, then the meaning can only be that it gives us eternal life. We are not in the Church in order to exercise power as if in some kind of association."

[J. Wolf]

Elie's book was very good in many respects, but his rather sour or bitter sensibility leaked through in many places. I mean his tendency to cast certain matters touching on Catholic orthodoxy in a negative light, using rhetorical tricks familiar from the National Catholic Reporter and Commonweal. He brings this same sensibility to bear, somewhat more nakedly and frankly, in the Atlantic piece, caricaturing anything having to do with theological conservatism as dark, manipulative, and repressive. He has fine writerly gifts, but Elie's vision of Catholicism is ultimately rather reductionist, relying on familiar but dated categories developed by church progressives of the 1960s.

[Ignacio]

"Bergoglio’s record as tough theologian and doctrinal enforcer is very well known"

By whom? That is hogwash. Pure and simple.

The guy who wrote this does not know Bergoglio firsthand, that is for sure. The good Cardinal is a thorough theological lightweight. And about being an enforcer... well, he does enforce his "mediocrity police" here: whoever shines theologically or pastorally here is promptly persecuted, silenced or "expelled" from the diocese. To wit: the recent cases of Fr. Cambiasso of St. Luke parish or Fr. Podesta, parish priest of Mater Admirabilis. Both were "invited" to leave the Archdiocese in December for the "crime" of being orthodox and known among the faithful.
I'd love to hear something well informed about Card. Bergoglio in the "international" Catholic media. Unfortunately, that never happens.

[Chris]

Elie, dude,

Read the very bottom of Dominus Iesus when you get a chance. It won't take long. You will quickly see that someone besides Ratzinger signed off on the document. That was the reigning pope, John Paul II. So it was just a way to balance out, not just the religious relativism and indifferentism rampant even within Catholicism, but to certain symbolic gestures by John Paul II himself? The Pope signed it. So you're going to say Ratzinger coerced him to sign off on it, too? Relatively speaking, he wasn't that frail in 2000.

Sorry, that scenario is not plausible.

[Christella Bernardene Krebs]

Paul Elie is a heretic.
He tells us not to listen to Rome or the Pope anymore; but only oneself!.
He says Catholics are now alienated!

..One has to be very careful on the ground they tread when they "critique" Our Pope. It just might turn out to be blathesphemy*, in grave error, and against the wishes of Christ who brought Papa to the position he is in today.
Those who look at Catholicism as a man-made up institution, are not Roman-Catholics; therefore they can "critique" as much as they want. (It does not mean that we must go along with their "mal-misinformed" conclusions or "off the bat" thinking.)
Christ himself prepared Joseph Ratzinger before he was born for the times we are now experiencing; and I know this for a fact...And I could care less what anyone else thinks contrary to this. Papa is an enormous, grace-filled teacher! His power is given through pure gentleness, inspiration and love...with the direct hand of Jesus upon his shoulders!
The members of the RFC Online Forum love Papa, as the true "Vicar of Christ" in every sense that that implies. Our Papa is more than special. God Chose Joseph Ratzinger. And nothing anyone else will say will turn me from this knowledge.
The final chapters of the "Ratzinger Report" are not that long; and if you did read it, you would understand when we say Joseph Ratzinger is not "political", and what he visions for the direction of the Church and it's ills, even today...(although it was written 20 years ago!) is still the only solution in the year 2006. It would be the same if the year were 3006: The solution is simple, not complex....Because it is not man alone, or anything of this mortal-world, that could bring about the ultimate good...only in Christ does mankind have true Hope.
Paul Elie's article and state of mind is very slanted.
He misunderstands Papa completely.
His reasoning about Liberation theology is way off the batter.
He does not see the Orthodox Ratzinger vision.
John Allen and Peter Seewald both had an "epiphany" of the true, clear-vision & understanding of the Triumph of Jesus Christ through the Holy Roman-Catholic Church (via Joseph Ratzinger) for this post-future "Heavenly" Eternity [after years of being "in the clouds" of the worldly-state of confusion]. This world will be what it may; we can only alleviate so-much, as "good" humans on this "vale of tears". Yet, it is our moral obligation to do so. And how we can do so, is only through the venue of the revealed Holy Roman Catholic Church [in our mortal-time through Christ: the love enthroned in the Holy Eucharist on earth, in Freedom and with Truth.] No political system can ever accomplish this alone. None. For without truth there can be nothing. Truth must prevail. How we make way for the world to accept the Truth is another matter. But, if we follow the precepts given unto man as revealed by Our Lord and Savior, and know His truths....(And the only way to know His Truth is through the frequent reception of the Holy Eurcharist at Mass, and in His Adoration, in all that that entails: His being within us, in one obedient body.)...then therein is found Peace and pure Love; there is no other sure way. There is no such thing as a Paradise on temporal earth....Still, the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the closest we can now get!
Hopefully, someday Paul Elie might just wake-up and turn around as well

But, as of now, if you want to fall away from the teachings, then listen to Paul Elie...
You will regret it for Eternity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "DEPOSITUM FIDEI": The Magisterium of the Holy Roman-Catholic Church [with its only headquarters within the Vatican] is literally promised Divine assistance and Divine protection against Doctrinal errors. Anyones preaching elsewise...[and YES, the Holy Roman-Catholic Church is not a democracy or an human-institution]...is not only in Schism, but rest-assuredly does not have the Holy Spirit guiding them: Indeed they are pawns of Satan himself.
Anyone who considers himself/herself holier or "more-Catholic" than the Pope, will find themselves no Roman Catholic at all, as well as in a deep state of confusion.
Anyone who preaches that "the Devil has swept through the Vatican" is himself under the possession of Satan. The Roman-Pope (with his Curia) is indeed the head of the bride: Christ is in fact "married" to "her". (Holy-Mother Church is as pure as the Virgin Mary, and, it is through "her" that Christ reveals His One and True Face.)

[Lisa]

Hi Amy!

Having read John Allen's, George Weigel's and Robert Moynihan's books, I am with you in your analysis. Frankly, I do not know what Mr. Elie and his "interlocutors" wanted. Would they rather that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stood by while some very important aspects of life at the Vatican -- aspects that have a great impact on the Church worldwide -- ground to a standstill? How do we know that John Paul II did not in fact ask his "trusted friend" to help him keep an eye on things in those final, painful years of his illness, knowing that he himself would be unable to do many things he used to do before? Knowing the character of Joseph Ratzinger, he would certainly have kept such a request secret, out of respect for John Paul. Moreover, as Dean of the College of Cardinals, why should we even be surprised if Cardinal Ratzinger took on greater responsibility during the last years of John Paul's papacy? He was with John Paul virtually from the start of his papacy -- even John Paul's enemies know that these two are "theological soulmates".

One also wonders as to the inner feelings of Mr. Elie's "interlocutors". The friendship between John Paul and Benedict is well-known -- it is possible that these "interlocutors" looked upon such a friendship with not a small degree of envy, hence the rather questionable tone of their "reports" to Mr. Elie. As you have said, it's a matter of "interpretation". Those who know Joseph Ratzinger well and understand his commitment to his faith and to his Pope will certainly not view his increased visibility during the last years of the John Paul papacy as "angling" for the position. Those who, on the other hand, have other motives in mind will see things differently -- and regrettably, inaccurately.

I wonder, sometimes, has this world become so cynical that it is impossible to believe that a man would do something simply because it's the right thing to do? Why must we always look for ulterior motives in the things people do? Or perhaps some quarters are simply threatened by the presence of a truly holy man, one who they know has the moral high ground and the moral authority to speak the truth, and thereby compel them to admit errors in themselves? I find it ironic that the Elie article came out just after the Holy Father's speech to the Diplomatic Corps of the Holy See, a speech that did not hesitate to "tell it like it is".

Now more than ever does the Holy Father need our prayers ...

[Dennis]

Elie's article was problematic in a number of ways, as the critiques above have indicated. I was especially annoyed by the following quotes toward the end of the article:

"...Benedict, for all his learning, remains unschooled in the American experience, and one suspects that, at nearly 79 years-old, he is too far along to catch up on the work"

Ah yes, it's the Pope's understanding of America that's deficient, rather than vice versa!

And then he closes with this: "...we ought to turn away from the question of what the Pope believes and consider just what it is that we believe - turning our attention away from Rome at long last and back to the world in which the real religious dramas of our time are taking place."

So, after nearly 30 pages devoted explaining the death of one Pope and the election of another, Elie concludes that the Pope really doesn't matter, what matters is what's inside you and what you believe. Each of us is his own little self-contained Pope and Magisterium. Apparently Elie thinks that "what the Pope believes" is just some arbitrary personal preference - nevermind the Deposit of Faith, Tradition, the Magisterium, etc. - that has nothing to do with Truth and more to do with personal grasping for power. We should just be good little Americans and listen to ourselves, rather than some old guy in Rome who's "unschooled in the American experience" of doing your own thing!

What piffle. It's a shame The Atlantic Monthly devoted such a huge amount of space to such a disappointing and ultimately shallow article, ruinging what could have been a great subject.

[JP]

A few months after Pope Bendedict was elevated, I told my wife, "Just watch, dissenters will be looking back on JPII with nostalgia. Oh what a progressive Pope he was!" I actually thought it may take 3 to 5 years, or until Pope Benedict issued a few encyclicals that rubbed the intellegentsia the wrong way.

Already, people are overstating the late Pope JPII's illness. Yes, his body was frail, but his mental and spiritual faculties were intact in 2000. If one read other encylicals, one could readily see JPIIs hand in Dominus Iesus. Prehaps, in a few years, there will be theories out there that Pope Benedict thwarted the "real(ie progessive)" JPII over the period of JPIIs pontificate, and that Benedict's main concern wasn't the love of the Church, but his own "will to power".

[Julia]

Googling Paul Elie I came upon an article by him concerning Catholic writers. It's very sad. He wants very much to believe in the Church and seems to think that this is the condition of all or most Catholics today - wanting to believe that Catholicism is the way to God, but not sure about that and not even sure if there is a God. He says that the Catholicism of Percy, O'Connor, Merten is no longer possible today - that kind of firm belief is gone. Kinda explains the tone of the article in Atlantic - seeing the Church as an organization like any other.

http://www.catholicsinpublicsquare.org/papers/winter2001commonweal/elie/elie1.htm

[Christella Bernardene Krebs]

Please read this analysis by Sandro Magister:
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=44944&eng=y

[Christella Bernardene Krebs]

Satan has many forces (and faces) doing his dirty-work in fighting his arch-enemy Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).
Included within this "crop", speaking outlandish, and totally insane [thoroughly twisted] tales against Our Papa are the following individuals and groups:
the South-American "Liberationists" like Gustavo Gutierrez of Peru, Leonardo Boff and Gerson Camarotti of Brazil (voice of “O Globo”), Belgium's heretical "Cardinal" DANNEELS and his co-hort Lucio Brunelli (Vatican commentator for the Italian state media company RAI),
and (yes) even the more fanatical-fundamental Evangelical "christians" who believe in the "Apocalyptic eminent doom",
(and included with them as well are the anti-Rome "catholic" ultra-trads: "Bishop" Richard Williamson's followers [Michael Hoffmann II, Gabriel Garnica, "Fr." Nicholas Grüner, Marian Horvat, Atila S.Guimarães, Michael J. Matt, John Vennari, etc. and their newspaper, "The Remnant"]: who are writing that Our Papa is the anti-Christ, and soon all Rome will burn! They are pushing for [what they conceive-of as] the "final-war" in Isreal as well; and are against anything Our Papa says for peace in the Middle-East. (That is the real reason you are pouring so much money into Isreal and the rebuilding of the Temple on the Mount: not for peace...but for an Apocalyptic-ending!) Is there no way out of their madness and hate? Why cannot they just open their hearts and listen with pure intent? Has Satan taken such control over them, that they are truly blinded and possessed with vehemance against Our Papa and true-Roman-Catholicism?

These people and groups are trying to control the Mass-media, so the average Joe does not know who Pope Benedict XVI really is or what he is trying to accomplish. Preventing Our Papa's homilies, Angelus messages, catecheses, speeches, and now his encyclical from reaching the public's ears. As Sando Magister says: "in order for these words to be spread all over the world, they at least need to be translated and diffused in the main languages....Apart from the slowness, it emerges that Benedict XVI was not pleased with some of the translations ..., which he himself had to correct." Even some of Our Papa's books have been poorly or mis-translated sometimes on purpose! Many have experienced a long delay in their release to the American public, as in the case of the English translation of the "Compendium to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church", "Without Roots" and "Europe in the Time of Upheaval"! Remember, The Cathechism had to wait until 1996 for the definitive 2nd edition to appear!

This is not a fantasy or a conspiracy "theory". There are definitely those forces out there who are working over-time to thwart any program of Pope Benedict XVI.
Thank goodness they did not succeed on 19 April 2005.
Reportedly, from the exhortcism of a young possessed-man (at the very time of the Conclave), demons were supposed-to-have exclaimed: "We tried, but we were not just strong-enough" !

[Christella Bernardene Krebs]

Despite all the work that Satan and his legions have tried, in their attempts to stop Pope Benedict XVI, the Lord has been able to still accomplish his purposes....
Speaking yesterday about his First Encyclical, Our Papa said:
" Time has passed before the text was ready and translated. Now the fact that it will be published precisely on the day in which we pray for the unity of Christians seems a gift of Providence. I hope it might illuminate and help our Christian life."

SATAN WILL NEVER WIN!

"I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."
[Ratzinger:"Salt of the Earth"]

May Our Papa's radiant-light continuously shine forth to illuminate Christ for the world!