May 30, 2012 — Benedict Speaks on the “Vatileaks”

“Events in recent days regarding the Curia and my collaborators have brought sadness to my heart.” —Pope Benedict XVI, during his Wednesday General Audience in St. Peter’s Square today

Pope Benedict spoke publicly today for the first time about the “Vatileaks” scandal which in recent weeks has seen published dozens of private documents from his own apartments (and the word circulating here is that more documents are about to appear).

In his brief remarks, the Pope first expressed his sadness, then noted that, despite his sadness, his faith in Christ, and in Christ’s care for His Church, has not been shaken, but remains firm.

“Events in recent days regarding the Curia and my collaborators have brought sadness to my heart, though (I have) the firm conviction, that despite human weakness, despite difficulties and trials, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Lord will never fail to give His aid in sustaining the Church on her journey,” Benedict said, speaking to crowds in St. Peter’s Square who had gathered for his ordinary Wednesday General Audience.

The Pope then made two observations: (1) that there have been many exaggerations and false reports in the media about this case (some Italian papers have printed stories which refer to the Holy See as a “nest of vipers”); and (2) that he himself still has deep trust in the work of his collaborators and advisors in the Curia.

“Nevertheless, some entirely gratuitous rumors have multiplied, amplified by some media, which went well beyond the facts, offering a picture of the Holy See that does not correspond to reality,” the Pope said. “I would like therefore to reiterate my confidence and my encouragement to my staff and to all those who, day in and day out, faithfully and with a spirit of sacrifice, quietly help me in fulfilling my ministry.”

Here is a link to a video from Rome Reports which shows the Pope’s words today. I recommend clicking on it and watching it: http://www.romereports.com/palio/pope-talks-about-vatileaks-expresses-his-distress-english-6931.html

Unanswered Questions

The key figure thus far in this case is Paolo Gabriele, 46, the Pope’s valet or butler (photo above, helping the Pope to adjust his red cape).

Gabriele appears to have betrayed the Pope’s trust by copying and disseminating secret Vatican documents from the Pope’s own apartments. He is now being held under arrest in a holding room inside Vatican City, and is being questioned. He has told Vatican officials that he is willing to cooperate with them, leading some Italian papers to speculate that, in the end, charges against him may even be dropped, and he may never go to trial.

However, it must be emphasized that there still remain many things about this case that are unknown or unclear.

We do not even know for sure, with absolute certainty, that Gabriele is the source of the documents published thus far. By this I mean, Gabriele could have collected the documents, but not handed them over. So even on this most fundamental point, though it seems clear that Gabriele was the source of the published documents, we still lack conclusive evidence.

Did Gabriele begin to copy documents years ago, starting in 2006, at the time he began to work closely with the Pope, or only more recently? We do not know.

Was there from the beginning a plan to publish the documents? Or were the documents at first collected merely for personal use, and only recently did the idea develop to turn the documents over for publication? If there was a plan from the beginning, was there anyone else involved with the plan? Was there someone else, or more than one person, who told Gabriele to look for documents on particular subjects? And if so, what was the criteria used in selecting the documents? We don’t know.

Were some documents perhaps gathered by other, unknown people, then handed over to Gabriele, whose “parallel archive” in this scenario became a kind of central collection center?

Did Gabriele, in short, work alone, or not? And if he did not work alone, who were his collaborators, advisors, supporters, accomplices?

And how many documents, precisely, did he steal? At first there were reports in the Italian press that “stacks” and “boxes” of documents were found when Vatican police raided his home, just outside St. Anne’s Gate. Then, Gariele’s attorney issued a statement saying that this was simply not true. So were there “stacks” of documents found, or not? We simply do not know.

Nor do we know if there may be documents already handed over to others which were not among the documents found in Gabriele’s home. There is simply no way of knowing whether or not there are dossiers that have already been placed in the possession of others outside of the Vatican, and not yet published.

These are just some of the unanswered questions in this case. There are many more.

Rome Reports has done a nice summary of the case, providing videos and pictures of each of the main actors, at the following link: http://www.romereports.com/palio/whos-who-in-the-vatileaks-case-english-6942.html

What Provisional Conclusions Can We Draw?

Recognizing that we are in the dark about many aspects of this case, what can we say with some certainty at this point?

First, we can say that there has been an astonishing breach of Vatican privacy and, hence, of Vatican security. This case is comparable to the theft and publication of dozens of documents on very private matters from the desk of a national president. How would we judge the matter if the private papers of a Vladimir Putin, a Barack Obama, an Angela Merkel, or a Shimon Peres (leaders of Russia, the United States, Germany, and Israel, respectively) were taken from their very desks and published? We would feel that there had been a breach of trust at the highest level in each of these countries; that the ordinary safeguards against such activity had broken down; that one or more people in the inner circles of these leaders had taken it upon themselves to make public that which ordinarily is not meant to be public.

Second, we can say that in all the documents published, not one single dcoument published thus far casts a poor light on the Pope himself.

The Pope, up to now, has come out of this unprecented, confusing situation as a man who, at every opportunity, seeks the truth. In this sense, thus far, the Pope himself has not been harmed by the “Vatileaks” affair.

But, and this is the third point, we can say that the Curia has not come out of the scandal as well as the Pope has. The Curia has come across, in the leaked documents — and in the very fact that the documents were collected and then leaked — as a quite human place of powerful, sometimes mean-spirited, cross-currents and interest groups.

Benedict’s Credibility Strengthened

The Catholic Church is a fascinating, complex, living, global, ancient institution. There are more than 4,500 Catholic bishops around the world, and some 1 billion people who belong to the Church.

From the time of Constantine, the Church — due to the decline of the civil structures of the Roman Empire — has had to play a public, civic role, as well as a private, sacramental role. This, in part, explains the emergence and growth of the Roman Curia.

But it is the second role which is the Church’s essential mission: to care for souls, to save souls, to foster holy lives, to prepare souls for holy deaths and the passage to a better world, a deeper, more enduring (eternal) reality than this passing one.

We live in a world which diminishes, or even condemns, this sacramental, transcendental role of the Church, because the world wishes to proclaim without opposition that this passing world is the only reality there is, that there is no transcendant order at all, at least none with any reality whatsoever. That eternal blessedness is only a pious dream — that eternal misery, as well, is an illusion.

Any diminishment of the Church’s authority, any blackening of the Church’s reputation, any confusion sown in Church ranks, serves the purposes of those who do not wish their own immorality, or acts of fraud and oppression, to be condemned.

And if there is, either in a chaotic, unpremeditated, or in a coordinated, premeditated, way, a new world order coming into being which wishes to have free reign throughout the planet, and which, to that end, desires a Church passive, subordinate, divided, it serves the purposes of the architects of that order to have the Pope paraded before the world as an impotent old man, unable to care for the affairs of his own household.

The Curia and the Church seems to be in disarray, and so, in a sense, not qualified to offer advice, or direction, or wisdom, to a world sorely in need of all three.

In this sense, the effect of this “Vatileaks” scandal thus far, whether planned or not, may have been to diminish the dignity and authority of the Pope, of his Curia, and of the Church as a whole.

But that may not be the final result of this story.

The odd things about human affairs is that they can sometimes turn out differently than the planners of events intend.

And in this case, there is already emerging something entirely different than what seems likely to have been the original intent.

Instead of isolating the Pope even further, leaving him alone and impotent, the “Vatileaks” affair is winning sympathy and support for the aging Pope.

And therefore, if Benedict continues in the way he has up until now, steadily, patiently, wisely, speaking with authority, with eloquence, with charity but in truth, this strnage case may actually end up giving him an even larger and more attentive audience, so that his words, in our troubled 21st century world, where economic, social, envrionmental, and moral crises are deepen and intensifying, may find their way into hearts, and bear fruit.

This “Vatileaks” crisis might in this sense be a blow to the credibility of the Curia, but not a blow to the credibility of this Pope.

Indeed, Benedict’s credibility seems day by day to be strengthened, as he stands, patient and often alone, againt the forces that would sow confusion, and reap the disintegration, of the Church he leads.

May 29, 2012 — The Becciu Interview

Pope Benedict “Saddened”

Pope Benedict is said to be “saddened” by the discovery that one of his closest aides, Paolo Gabriele, 46, his valet or butler, has betrayed his trust, copying and disseminating secret Vatican documents from the Pope’s own apartments.

Some in Rome are concerned that the emotional strain of these events could harm the health of the Pope, who is now 85.

And there is even a steady flow of voices now in the press asking whether the pontiff should not perhaps seriously consider resigning. A front-page headline from the German tabloid Bild made this suggestion this morning. Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli has taken the voices seriously enough to write on his VaticanInsider website that the Pope is the last person in the Vatican who should consider resigning at the present moment. “Yesterday, in his column in Il Giornale, the journalist Giuliano Ferrara expounded his dream once more. He said he wished the Pope would resign, in order to send a strong message to the rest of the Church. It would be a jolt of such proportion that the Pope would be able to influence his succession. In the past months I already expressed all my doubts regarding Ferrara’s proposal. Today I just want to add that Benedict XVI is the last person who ought to resign in the Vatican at the moment.” (Link: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/blog-sacri-palazzi-en/detail/articolo/vatileaks-gianluigi-nuzzi-15474/)

Even after a second Vatican press briefing in two days by Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, S.J. on the “Vatileaks” affair, there continue to be more questions than answers in this strange case.

Gabriele is still under arrest inside the Vatican. He will face his first round of formal preliminary questioning by Vatican judges “later this week or early next week,” Lombardi said today.

The spokesman confirmed that an unspecified number of other individuals also had been questioned by Vatican police recently, a process that could be expected to continue, but no one else had been charged or arrested.

“The Pope is informed about everything and can’t help but be saddened, however, he remains serene” concerning the latest crisis, Lombardi told journalists.

Gabriele, the dark-haired assistant often pictured sitting in the front seat of the popemobile next to the driver (photo), was arrested the evening of May 23 by Vatican police after private Vatican documents were found in his home near the Vatican’s St. Anne’s Gate.

Lombardi said today that in the next few days Piero Antonio Bonnet, a Vatican magistrate, would begin the second stage of the formal inquiry, questioning Gabriele in the presence of his two lawyers and Nicola Picardi, another Vatican magistrate, who conducted the preliminary investigation.

Father Lombardi said the investigation would continue until enough evidence has been collected and then Bonnet would either call Gabriele to stand trial or would acquit him, Father Lombardi said.

Dozens of private letters to Pope Benedict and other confidential Vatican correspondence and reports, including encrypted cables from Vatican embassies around the world, were leaked to an Italian journalist, Gianluigi Nuzzi. He published the documents in a book, His Holiness: The Secret Documents of Benedict XVI, which was released May 17.

In the book’s introduction, Nuzzi said the main source for the texts told him he was acting with a “small group” of Vatican insiders concerned about corruption within the Vatican.

So what do we know?

Our knowledge is very fragmentary.

We know that dozens of authentic documents, perhaps hundreds, perhaps even thousands — no exact figure has been given — have been “leaked” from the Vatican.

We know that several dozen were published in Nuzzi’s book, and that more may soon appear in a new book Nuzzi has said he is completing.

And we know that these publications have served to focus the world’s attention on the Vatican, with people everywhere, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, wondering “what is going on in the Vatican?”

In order to help answer that question, the Vatican’s own newspaper today for the first time addressed the case, publishing an interview with the man who is arguably the #3 man in the Curia, Archbishop Angelo Becciu. Becciu is the “Sostituto” or Deputy Secretary of State under Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Secretary of State who has been attacked in recent days in the Italian press for his alleged mismanagement of the Curia.

The main point of the interview is that these leaks have shaken Pope deeply, but that he continues to be “determined” in his leadership of the Church.

Here is the complete text of the interview.

A conversation with Archbishop Angelo Becciu, Substitute of the Secretariat of State

From the Osservatore Romano, May 30, 2012

The papers stolen from the Pope

Bitterness and sorrow at what has happened in the past few days in the Vatican but also determination and trust in coping with a situation which, quite frankly, is difficult. These are the sentiments that can be perceived  in the Substitute of the Secretariat of State – Archbishop Angelo Becciu, who, because of his office, works every day in close contact with the Pope – in an interview with L’Osservatore Romano on the subject that is attracting the attention of vast numbers of the media across the world: the arrest, last 23 May, of Paolo Gabriele, Benedict XVI’s  aiutante di camera (“gentleman of the chamber”), for having been found in possession of a large number of private documents belonging to the Pope.

What can be said of the state of mind of those who work in the Holy See?

Archbishop Becciu: With the people I have met in the past few hours, we looked each other in the eye and I saw dismay and anxiety, but I also noted the determination to continue the silent and faithful service to the Pope.

This is an attitude breathed every day in the life of the Holy See’s offices and in the small Vatican world, but which obviously does not make news in the media storm unleashed after the serious and, in many ways, disconcerting events of the past few days.

In this context, the Substitute weighs his words carefully to emphasize “the positive outcome” of the investigation, even though the outcome was regrettable. Reactions across the world, moreover, on the one hand justified, on the other “are worrying and disconcerting because of the manner of the information which has given rise to speculation that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.”

Would it have been possible to give a quicker and fuller response?

Becciu: There has been, there is and there will be strict respect for the individuals and procedures, as prescribed by the Vatican laws. As soon as the event had been ascertained, on 25 May the Holy See Press Office disseminated the news, although it came as a shock to all and is causing some dismay. Moreover, the investigation continues.

How did you find Benedict XVI?

Becciu: Saddened. Because, given what it has  been possible to find out so far, someone close to him seems to be responsible for conduct that is unjustifiable from every point of view. Of course, sorrow for the person involved is what the Pope feels most deeply. Yet the fact remains that he suffered a brutal act: Benedict XVI saw published papers stolen from his house, letters that were not merely private correspondence but indeed information, reflections, expressions of conscience and even outbursts which he only received by virtue of his ministry. For this reason the Pontiff is particularly sorrowful and also because of the violence suffered by those who wrote these letters or writings addressed to him.

Can you express an opinion on what happened?

Becciu: I consider the publication of the stolen letters an immoral act of unheard of gravity. Above all, I repeat, because it was not only a violation, already very serious in itself, of the confidentiality to which anyone would be entitled, as rather a vile offence to the relationship of trust between Benedict XVI and anyone who turns to him even to express, in conscience, protests. Let us reason: the Pope was not merely robbed of letters. Violence has been done to the consciences of those who turn to him as Vicar of Christ, an assault has been made on the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter. In many of the documents published we find ourselves in a context we presume to be of total trust. When a Catholic speaks to the Roman Pontiff, he is duty bound to open himself as if he were before God, partly because he feels that he is guaranteed absolute confidentiality.

There was a desire to justify the publication of the documents on the basis of criteria for the Church’s cleanliness, transparency and reform.

Becciu: Sophisms do not go very far. My parents not only taught me not to steal but also never to accept stolen goods from others. To me these seem to me to be simple principles – perhaps to some people too simple – but it is certain that someone who loses sight of them, easily loses him- or herself  and also brings others to ruin. There can be no renewal that tramples on the moral law, even on the basis of the principle that the end justifies the means, a principle which, among other things, is not Christian.

And what answer should be given to those who claim the right to give an account of something?

Becciu: I think in these days, on the part of journalists, that in addition to their duty to explain what is happening, there should be an ethical shock, namely, the courage to take a clear step back from the initiative of a colleague whom I do not hesitate to call criminal. “The truth will set you free”: this is the transparency that does good not only to the Church but also to the world of information.

According to various comments, the papers published reveal a murky world within the Church and in particular within the Holy See.

Becciu: Behind certain articles  I seem to see an underlying hypocrisy. On the one hand the central government of the Church is accused of being absolutist and monarchical, and on the other, people are scandalized because a few write to the Pope expressing ideas or even complaints about the organization of this same government. Many documents published do not reveal conflicts or revenge but rather the freedom of thought which, on the contrary, the Church is accused of not permitting. In short, we are not mummies; rather, different viewpoints or even contrasting evaluations are normal.  If someone feels misunderstood he has every right to turn to the Pope. What is shocking about this? Obedience does not mean renouncing the right to have an opinion of one’s own, but expressing one’s opinions sincerely and fully, in order to adapt to the superior’s decision. And not out of calculation but out of adherence to the Church that Christ desired. These are fundamental elements of the Catholic viewpoint.

Struggles, poisons, suspicions: is the Vatican really like this?

Becciu: I do not perceive this milieu and it is regrettable that the Vatican should have such a distorted image. But it must be food for thought and stimulate all of us to do our utmost to make a life on which the Gospel has left a deeper impression shine out.

In a word, what can be said to Catholics and to those who are nonetheless looking at the Church with interest?

Becciu: I have spoken of  Benedict XVI’s sorrow but I must say that the Pope is not lacking in the serenity that leads him to govern the Church with determination and clear-sightedness. The World Meeting of Families is about to open in Milan. These will be days of festivity where it will be possible to breath the joy of being Church. Let us make our own the Gospel parable of which Benedict XVI reminded us a few days ago: the wind blows and beats against the house but it will not collapse. The Lord sustains it and no storms will be able to demolish it.

g.m.v. (Gian Maria Vian, the editor of the Osservatore Romano)

May 30, 2012

======================

The Pope more than a month ago named three cardinals to lead a special investigation of the “Vatikeaks” affair: Julian Herranz, Jozef Tomko, and Salvatore De Giorgi.

Some observers say the Pope constituted this commission so that other cardinals in the Curia could be interviewed by them.

The first meeting of the three was on April 24, just over one month ago.

Here are brief biographies of the three men who are among those the Pope seems to trust most in the Vatican today.

Julián Herranz Casado (born 31 March 1930) is Spanish. He served as president of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts in the Roman Curia from 1994 to 2007, and was elevated to the cardinalate in 2003.

One of two cardinals—along with Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne—who belongs to Opus Dei, Herranz Casado is the organisation’s highest-ranking member in the Church’s hierarchy. He is also considered one of the foremost experts in canon law, and to have been one of the Vatican’s most influential figures during the period shortly before the death of Pope John Paul II.

Born in Baena in the Province of Córdoba, Spain, Herranz Casado joined Opus Dei in 1949. He was ordained as a priest of Opus Dei on 7 August 1955 after obtaining doctorates in medicine from the Universities of Barcelona and Navarra and in canon law from the Angelicum in Rome. He taught canon law at the University of Navarra and travelled worldwide on behalf of Opus Dei until 1960, when he began to work for the Roman Curia.

During the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), Herranz Casado served as an assistant of study on the commissions for discipline of clergy and the Christian people. In 1983, he was appointed secretary for the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law.

Herranz Casado received his episcopal consecration on 6 January 1991 from John Paul II himself, with Archbishops Giovanni Battista Re and Justin Francis Rigali serving as co-consecrators, in St. Peter’s Basilica.

On 9 December 1994, he was named President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts for the Roman Curia, a position in which he was responsible for advising the Pope on matters of Church law.

According to Vatican journalist Sandro Magister, by the end of 2004, Herranz Casado was “constantly gaining influence” in the internal affairs of the Vatican. Along with Joseph Ratzinger, Angelo Sodano, and the Pope’s private secretary, Archbishop Stanisław Dziwisz, Herranz Casado is believed to have been largely responsible for leading the Curia at times when the Pope was incapacitated by illness. Herranz finds conspiracy theories about Opus Dei particularly offensive, claiming that it has “no hidden agenda; the only policy is the message of Christ.”

He was one of the cardinal electors in the 2005 papal conclave yet was not generally considered a strong candidate for the papacy himself; instead, he was described as a highly influential insider, potentially playing the role of a “kingmaker” at the conclave. It has been reported that, both before and after Pope John Paul’s death, Herranz convened meetings of cardinals at a villa in Grottarossa, a suburb of Rome.

Pope Benedict XVI accepted Herranz’s resignation as President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts on February 15, 2007, after 12 years of service.

Jozef Tomko  was born on March 11, 1924. He served as Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples from 1985 to 2001, and was elevated to the cardinalate in 1985.

Tomko was born in Udavské, near Humenné, in Czechoslovakia (now part of the Republic of Slovakia). He studied at the Theological Faculty of Bratislava, and then traveled to Rome to study at the Pontifical Lateran Athenaeum and Pontifical Gregorian University, from where he obtained his doctorates in theology, canon law, and social sciences. Tomko was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Luigi Traglia on March 12, 1949.

From 1950 to 1965, he served as vice-rector and later rector of the Pontifical Nepomucenum College. He taught at the International University Pro Deo from 1955 to 1956 as well.

Tomko entered the service of the Roman Curia in 1962, as an adjunct in the Book Censorship Section of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was named Undersecretary of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops in 1974.

He received his episcopal consecration on September 15, 1979, from John Paul II, with Archbishop Eduardo Martínez Somalo and Bishop Andrew Gregory Grutka serving as co-consecrators. Tomko was later named Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples on April 24, 1985.

John Paul II created him Cardinal the consistory of May 25, 1985. On the following May 27, Tomko rose to become full Prefect of the Congregation (an office once known as the “Red Pope” for its influence) and thus Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Urbaniana University. During his tenure, Tomko became a close confidant of Pope John Paul, and served as a special papal envoy to several religious celebrations and events to an array of different countries.

Tomko was appointed President of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses on October 23, 2001, ending his 16-year-long tenure as Prefect of Evangelization of Peoples. He lost the right to participate in any future papal conclaves upon reaching the age of 80 on 11 March 2004.

Salvatore De Giorgi (born 6 September 1930) is Archbishop Emeritus of Palermo in Sicily.

He was born in Vernole, in Apulia (Southern Italy). He was ordained as a priest in 1953 and became a bishop in 1973. From 1987 to 1990, he served as archbishop of Taranto. In 1990, he was appointed General Chaplain of Italian Catholic Action. He was named archbishop of Palermo in 1996. At the same time, he was also elected President of the Sicilian Episcopal Conference.

De Giorgi was proclaimed a Cardinal in 1998 and was one of the cardinal electors who participated in the 2005 papal conclave that selected Pope Benedict XVI.

He retired as Archbishop of Palermo on 19 December 2006, and was replaced by Archbishop Paolo Romeo, who had been apostolic nuncio to Italy and San Marino.

Cardinal De Giorgi is noted as a writer and journalist. He has been the author of several religious publications.

 

May 28, 2012 — Lombardi Briefing

No cardinal is under suspicion of being the mastermind behind the “Vatileaks” affair which is rocking Rome, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., the Pope’s spokesman, told journalists in the Vatican Press Office shortly after noon today.

Nor has the Pope constituted a special team of lay investigators, led by a woman, to look into the case and report back directly to him, Lombardi said.

Both rumors were reported this morning in the Italian press. (A headline in one paper said “Cardinals Now Under Suspicion.”)

Such headlines are simply without any basis in reality, Lomabardi told the assembled journalists. He asked all of the reporters present to show restraint and professionality in reporting this dramatic and developing story.

Lombardi then read a declaration from one of the two lawyers representing the Pope’s butler, Paolo Gabriele, 46, who is charged with stealing and disseminating secret Vatican documents.

The lawyer, Carlo Fusco, said that Gabriele is now cooperating with Vatican investigators, who are questioning him.

Fusco said his client is “very serene and calm,” despite the whirlwind of speculation surrounding his arrest.

And he confirmed that Gabriele has told the Vatican judge investigating the case that he would “respond to all the questions and will collaborate with investigators to ascertain the truth.”

There has been no information about what Gabriele is telling his questioners. We do not know if he has implicated others in the theft of the documents, or whether he has offered some explanation, or defense, of his actions.

All we know for sure is that a large number of very private documents, many evidently from the papal apartments — including some evidently from the Pope’s own desk — seem to have been photocopied and leaked to Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi.

Nuzzi’s latest book, His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI, appeared only in mid-May. It contains images and transcripts of dozens of authentic documents that paint a picture of chaos and corruption inside the Roma Curia.

The Vatican warned of legal action against Nuzzi already in January after he broadcast letters from a top Vatican administrator to the Pope in which the administrator begged not to be transferred for having exposed alleged corruption that cost the Holy See millions of euros in higher contract prices. The prelate, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, is now the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States.

Nuzzi is also the author of Vatican SpA, a 2009 volume laying out shady dealings of the Vatican bank based on authentic documents left in the estate of a deceased Vatican official, Monsignor Renato Dardozzi, whose family turned the documents over to Nuzzi after Dardozzi died in 2003.

Much of the leaked documentation in the new book concerns issues within Italy: a 2009 scandal over the ex-editor of the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference; a secret dinner between Benedict and Italy’s president; and a 2011 letter from Italy’s pre-eminent talk show host, Bruno Vespa, to the Pope enclosing a check for (EURO)10,000 for the Pope’s charity work – and asking for a private audience with the Pope in exchange.

But there are international leaks as well, including diplomatic cables from Vatican embassies from Jerusalem to Cameroon. Some concern the conclusions of the Pope’s delegate for the disgraced Legion of Christ religious order in a memo to the Pope last fall, Cardinal Velasio de Paolis. (He warned that the financial situation of the order, beset by a scandal involving its founder, “while not grave, is serious and pressing.”)

Nuzzi opens his book with a chapter explaining how he obtained the documents.

In these pages, it seems clear that he dealt with more than one person. He describes a meeting with two men, then with the two and a third, who may have been Paolo Gabriele.

Unless these passages are entirely fabricated, it seems certain that there were at least two others who collaborated with the Pope’s butler in delivering these documents.

The confusion and doubt caused by these leaks is harmful to the Church’s image, of course.

But this crisis could conceivably offer Pope Benedict an opportunity: he could use the moment to carry out a thorough house-cleaning.

In this sense, the scandal surrounding the leak of these documents could be transformed into an opportunity for Benedict to purify the Church.

Handled in this way, the leaks scandal could become the most important moment, the defining moment, of this pontiticate.

May 27, 2012 — Pentecost, #2

“Cooperatores veritatis” (“Co-workers of truth”) –The Latin motto chosen by Joseph Ratzinger in 1977, when he was consecrated a bishop on May 28th; today is the 35th anniversary of that episcopal consecration

“The herb on which wild strawberries grow is more warm than cold. This herb brings mucus to the person who eats it and is not beneficial as medicine. Indeed, the berries themselves make mucus in the person who eats them. They are not good for a healthy or sick person to eat because they grow near the earth and because they also grow in putrid air.” –St. Hildegard of Bingen, warning against strawberries as a dangerous food; Pope Benedict announced during his noon Regina Caeli message today that he will declare her, along with St. John of Avila, a Doctor of the Church on October 7, at the beginning of the Bishops’ Synod on the New Evangelization (for which Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington has been designated Relator-General, or chief spokesman)

Benedict’s Motto

Pope Paul VI named Professor Father Joseph Ratzinger the bishop of Munich and Freising on March 24, 1977. Ratzinger was consecrated a bishop two months later, on May 28th, 1977 — 35 years ago today.

The Vatican’s newspaper, the Osservatore Romano, devotes a page to the anniversary in its edition this morning. In the paper’s report, journalist Astrid Haas notes that the new bishop chose as his episcopal motto the Latin phrase cooperatores veritatis (“co-workers of the truth”), taken from the third epistle of St. John.

She adds:  “In his autobiography written 20 years later, Ratzinger explained: ‘I chose two words from the third letter of St. John for my episcopal motto, cooperatores veritatis, above all because it seemed to me that they might well represent the continuity between my previous work and my new duties: even with all the differences, it was a matter, and it is always a matter, of the same thing: to follow the truth, place oneself in its service. And from the moment that, in the modern world, the concept of ‘truth’ has almost disappeared, and yet everything collapses if there is not truth, this episcopal motto seemed to me the most in keeping with our time, the most modern, in the best sense of the term.”

Five days later, on June 2, 1977, came the announcement that Ratzinger would be made a cardinal in the consistory of June 27 that year, which made it possible for him to be present at both conclaves in 1978.

====================

Saint Hildegard and Saint John of Avila, Doctors

Pope Benedict XVI announced today, on this Feast of Pentecost, that he will officially proclaim Saints Hildegard of Bingen and John of Avila Doctors of the Church on October 7, first day of the ordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops during the “Year of Faith.” (More details at the end of this letter.)

=====================

The Anderson Memorandum

A fascinating and important memorandum, signed by Carl Anderson, an American who is the head of the 2-million member Knights of Columbus and is a member of the committee which oversees the “Vatican bank,” is circulating on the internet.

Here is a link to a PDF of the “Anderson memo”: http://media2.corriere.it/corriere/pdf/2012/Memorandum-IOR260512.pdf

The background to this story is that the Holy See is a sovereign state, and as such, has full right to regulate its own financial and banking institutions. At the same time, there are international banking “transparency” regulations that the Holy See is being asked to adhere to, and the process is not yet complete.

This has led to accusations that the Vatican’s financial operations are insufficiently “transparent.”

Almost three years ago, Prof. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was brought in to shepherd the Vatican’s financial activities through this transitional period.

But Gotti Tedeschi has just been fired, prompting numerous questions about what he did, or did not, do, and why he was fired.

And Anderson’s memo attempts to answer these questions.

Anderson is one of the five laymen who make up the Supervisory Board of the Institute for Religious Works (the so-called “Vatican bank,” though it isn’t really a bank). That board on Thursday gave a vote of “no confidence” to the then-President of the Institute, Gotti Tedeschi.

Gotti Tedeschi, who was present at the meeting (he was the 5th lay member of the board), seeing that the vote was about to be taken, resigned on the spot, and left the meeting an hour before the vote to fire him was actually taken.

So this week in Rome was marked by surprises.

Not only did we have the shocking revelation that one of the men closest to the Pope in recent years, his valet or butler, Paolo Gabriele, 46, had (evidently) betrayed the Pope’s trust and stolen large numbers of private documents from the Pope’s apartment, but we also had the resignation of the head of the “Vatican bank,” in whom his superiors no longer had any confidence.

Are the two events connected?

By all accounts, no. No connection at all…

And yet…

In the Anderson memo, which is a point-by-point account of the meeting which led to Gotti Tedeschi’s resignation and the vote of “no confidence,” there is a suggestion that Gotti Tedeschi also had made public “secret documents” that should not have been made public.

In short, here there seems to be a second case in one week of Vatican employees in very sensitive posts using private documents in improper ways which end up harming the Holy Father and his interests.

Anderson, who in the 1980s worked in the Reagan White House and is the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of the world’s largest Catholic family fraternal service organization, was invited on the basis of this experience to be one of the five Institute for Religious Works (Istituto per le opere di religione or IOR) board members two and a half years ago.

What emerges from Anderson’s memo about the last meeting of the board with Gotti Tedeschi is a surprising picture of a Vatican bank president who was often absent from important meetings and who took “imprudent” decisions.

In the memo, Anderson faults Gotti Tedeschi for “failure to carry out basic duties incumbent upon the President to perfom” and “failure to keep the Board informed.”

Anderson, significantly, also cites Gotti Tedeschi for “failure to provide the Board with any formal explanation for the dissemination of documents last known to be in the President’s possession.”

This sounds very much like a rebuke for revealing the content of private, internal Vatican documents.

But Anderson told an Italian journalist in an interview that “the dismissal of the president at the same time as the arrest of the Pope’s butler (for the theft and dissemination of secret documents) is just a coincidence, nothing more. The board meets approximately every three months, and the problem of the vote of confidence regarding Gotti Tedeschi was on the agenda for a long time.”

Gotti Tedeschi, a prominent Italian economist (and said to be a member of Opus Dei), was brought into this post in order to help the Vatican comply with international regulations regarding transparency in financial transactions (for example, in order to prevent the laundering of money collected through illicit activities, like cash gained though drug-dealing or prostitution, or other activities of organized crime).

Under his tenure, however, at least one major transfer of more than $20 million of IOR-administered funds (scheduled to be transferred from an Italian bank to a German bank) was blocked by Italian banking authorities (the funds, after almost two years, still seem to be in a sort of banking “limbo”).

Gotti Tedeschi told me personally, more than a year ago, that Italy’s action to block this transfer was based on a “technicality” in filling out forms, on a “misunderstanding” which, he said, would soon be cleared up.

But the matter had not been cleared up, and the funds remain blocked.

In fact, all the operations of the “Vatican bank” in Italy have come under closer scrutiny, making it more difficult than in the past for the Church to move funds and do its banking business.

And this difficulty has begun to hinder the Church in carrying out her evangelizing mission throughout the world.

In this sense, what has happened is harming the freedom of the Church to be herself. And there has not been, evidently, enough competent leadership to resolved these problems.

In a recent interview with Reuters, Anderson rejects accusations by Gotti Tedeschi that he has been ousted because he wanted the bank to be more transparent.

“Categorically, this action by the board had nothing to do with his promotion of transparency,” Anderson said. “In fact, he was becoming an obstacle to greater transparency by his inability to work with senior management.”

Gotti Tedeschi’s ouster is significant in internal Vatican politics, some observers say, because it seems to lessen the prestige of the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Pope’s right-hand man, who was instrumental in bringing Gotti Tedeschi in from Spain’s Banco Santander to run the IOR in 2009.

Now that Gotti Tedeschi is abruptly gone, there is considerable perplexity about what the Vatican should do next.

Indeed, the perplexity is so great that it is even dividing the cardinals who make up a five-member committee above the lay oversight committee Anderson sits on.

Anderson in an interview told an Italian journalist: “We renew our committed effort to pursue transparency. This matter is not under discussion and requires good relations at management level. If there was lack of transparency, it was on Gotti Tedeschi’s part towards the board and the IOR’s management. The council is now looking forward to searching for a new and excellent president to recommend to the Cardinals’ committee and we will search for a person with the right competence and profile to proceed on the path of transparency.”

But the cardinals’ committee is now itself divided, according to the following report, posted recently on the VaticanInsider website (link here http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/vaticano-vatican-papa-el-papa-pope-15430/); I bold-face what I think are the significant passages:

Cardinals divided. Bertone’s management under fire

Commission divided: pressure from lay people

BY GIACOMO GALEAZZI

VATICAN CITY

The IOR events divide the cardinals. Thursday the lay governing council of the ‘Vatican bank’ fired its president, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, with a series of accusations. But most people know that the ‘pope’s strongbox’ is looked after by a double management. Above the lay-supervisory council is the cardinals’ commssion which met on Friday, but was unable to release a statement.This was an unprecedented event and a sign that an agreement has not yet been reached. The committee includes Cardinals Attilio Nicora, Jean-Louis Tauran, Telesphore Placidus Toppo and Odilo Pedro Scherer, led by the Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone. Apparently Nicora and Tauran criticized Bertone over his management of Gotti Tedeschi’s dismissal and the issue of the negotiation which would lead the Holy See to finally join Ocse’s ‘white list’ , a record of financially virtuous countries.

The experts from Moneyval, the European Council group that deals with rating countries’ measures against money laundering and terror funding, are still monitoring the Vatican’s regulations and procedures. Moreover Nicora resents Bertone for taking power away from the Aif, the Vatican internal information authority that he leads, slowing down the journey towards financial transparency. It is hard to tell if the clash within the cardinals’commission involves the evaluation of Gotti Tedeschi’s work. But there are no doubts that this will have repercussions on the nomination of the new president. At the moment the favourite to succeed Gotti Tedeschi is vice-president Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz, a banker from Piacenza. But the there are many theories. The ideal candidate is the former leader of  Bundesbank, Hans Tietmeyer, from Germany, who would be a welcome choice for the Pope, but he is very old. Now within the cardinals’commission there are two distinct currents. On one side those (Nicora, Tauran) who believe that transparency, the need to comply with international standard to be included in the ‘white list’ is paramount, on the other those who like Bertone believe that this line of action must be followed with moderation, since the Vatican is unqiue and cannot be compared with other sovreign states. Apparently Moneyval concluded, after the first inspection, last November, that the new regulation was ‘too vague.’ It therefore went through quite substantial changes.

All this did not happen without heated debates and internal conflicts  (at the very time of the leaks and poison pen threats).On the 25th of January,  the regulation was urgently modified and completed with changes to the AIF powers of supervision, whose inspections are now regulated.  Despite discomfort and some opposition from various departments, the Holy See’s intention is to have rules that truly comply with international standards. There are still many aspects to adjust and clarify and this new ‘storm’ at high levels in the IOR could provoke damages that are hard to predict.

==========================

A Sad Month of May

So the last two week have seen the publication of His Holiness, a book by Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi, who received the secret papal documents, (perhaps from the now accused Pope’s butler, Paolo Gabriele; but Nuzzi says he was given the material by people loyal to the Church who wanted to expose corruption, and that he did not pay anything for the documents); then the arrest of Gabriele on Wednesday; then the firing of Gotti Tedeschi on Thursday; then the announcement of Gabriele’s arrest on Friday.

A sad May for the Vatican’s image…

These events prompted Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former archbishop of Milan, to appeal to Church leaders “to urgently win back the trust of the faithful.” Martini, writing in an Italian newspaper, said the Pope had been “betrayed” just as Jesus was betrayed 2,000 years ago, and that the Church would have to emerge from these scandals cleaner and stronger.

However, few believe that Gabriele acted on his own. Some say he may have been an unwitting pawn in a larger power struggle.

“Either he lost his mind or this is a trap,” a friend of Gabriele’s in the Vatican told the newspaper La Stampa. “Whoever convinced him to do this is even more guilty because he manipulated a simple person.”

==============

Two New Doctors of the Church

Hildegard of Bingen, though already on the list of Catholic saints, was never been officially canonized. So to remove all doubt,  Benedict XVI recently extended the liturgical cult of St. Hildegard of Bingen, to the Universal Church, which automatically inscribes her in the catalogue of saints.

And today he announced he will make her a “Doctor” of the Church on October 7.

Hildegard, from Germany, is mostly known for her religious visions and prophecies. She was one of the most active women of her time, writing about theology and morals, but also about medicine and science. She even found the time to compose 78 musical pieces.

In a 2010 series of audience talks about women’s contributions to the Church, Pope Benedict dedicated two talks to St Hildegard.

He said she was a worthy role model for Catholics today because of “her love for Christ and his Church, which was suffering in her time, too, and was wounded also then by the sins of priests and lay people.”

In St Hildegard’s time, there were calls for radical reform of the Church to fight the problem of abuses made by the clergy, the Pope said.

But she “reproached demands to subvert the very nature of the Church” and reminded people that “a true renewal of the ecclesial community is not achieved so much with a change in the structures as much as with a sincere spirit of penitence”.

St John of Avila is one of the Catholic Church’s greatest heroes, even if relatively little is known about him outside Spain, where he is patron of the nation’s priests.

So great was John of Avila’s impact on Spain that it is fair to say that at least six of that country’s great saints were directly inspired by him – namely, St John of the Cross (with whom he is often confused), St Teresa of Avila, St Peter of Alcantara, St Ignatius of Loyola, St John of God, and St Francis Borgia. The latter two were personally converted to a deeper love of God through his ministry, whilst all the rest received spiritual direction from him.

============================

Supplementary Note: Health and Nutrition from the Middle Ages by St. Hildegard von Bingen, Germany’s “First Nutritionist”

By Jennifer McGavin, About.com Guide

(Link: http://germanfood.about.com/od/introtogermanfood/a/Hildegard_von_Bingen.htm)

Saint Hildegard von Bingen lived from 1098 to 1179 in Germany. She joined a Benedictine convent in Disibodenberg and became the Abbess at the age of 35. St. Hildegard had visions all her life, which helped her see God’s wisdom and be seen as a prophet. She wrote down what God told and showed her through these visions and published many volumes on science, medicine and theology.

She was also very outspoken, going on missionary trips and preaching in other cloisters and in market places. Today, there is a revivalist culture around her teachings, especially her teachings on how to eat to stay healthy and many of her medicinal and herbal remedies.

St. Hildegard’s Life Rules

Strengthen the soul through prayer and meditation by encouraging talents and virtues, and working against weakness and vice.

Regular detoxification through special “cures” or treatments, such as bloodletting, wormwood wine cure (and many others), fasting and purging therapies which are supposed to strengthen the body.

When the soul, body and mind are equally strong, then the four life juices and elements are balanced. This allows the organism to work optimally and feel healthy. The balance is easily disturbed however, through incorrect eating and drinking habits, and lusts…

Eating Healthy

Hildegard von Bingen had many ideas on how to eat healthily. Some people have decided to eat by these rules in the modern day and there are whole internet clubs devoted to her nutrition teachings. Hildegard’s lessons still influence German cookery to an extent and these rules have helped shape some of the cultural food ideas that you may encounter when in Germany.

Foods are divided according to their “healing” capabilities.

Healthy Foods – beans, butter, spelt, sweet chestnuts, fennel, spice cakes, roasted spelt porridge, lettuce salad with dill or garlic or vinegar and oil. honey, carrots, garbanzo beans, squash and its oil, almonds, horseradish, radishes, raw sugar, red beets, cooked celeriac, sunflower seed oil, wine vinegar, cooked onions.

Healthy Meats – poultry, lamb, beef, venison, goat.

Healthy Fish – grayling, trout, bass, cod, pike, wels catfish, pike perch.

Healthy Fruits – apples, cooked pears, blackberries, raspberries, red currants, cornels, cherries, mulberries, medlar, quinces, sloe berries, grapes, citrus, dates.

Healthy Drinks – beer, spelt coffee, fruit juice thinned with mountain spring water, fennel, rose hip or sage teas, wine, goat milk.

Healthy Spices – water mint, mugwort, Spanish chamomile root, nettles, watercress, burning bush root, gentian root, fennel, psyllium, galangal root, raw garlic, spearmint, cubeb, lavender, lovage, fruit of the bay tree, saltbush, poppy, nutmeg, cumin, clove, parsley, polemize, wild thyme, tansy, sage, yarrow, licorice root, rue, hyssop, cinnamon.

Stay away from “Kitchen Poisons” – eel, duck, peas, strawberries, fatty meat, cucumbers, domestic goose, blueberries, elderberries, cabbage, crabs, leeks, lentils, nightshades (like potatoes), olive oil, mushrooms, peaches, plums, refined sugar, millet, raw food, tench (a fish), plaice (a fish), pork, white wheat flour, sausage. In case of disease such as cancer, no animal protein should be eaten at all.

How to Eat and When to Eat According to Hildegard

Your first meal should be a warm one, to warm the stomach. This meal helps the stomach function well over the rest of the day. A good meal is toasted spelt bread, spelt coffee or fennel tea, and warm, roasted spelt porridge with dried fruit.

The first meal should be taken late in the morning, shortly before midday or around midday. Only the sick and weak should eat earlier, to gain strength.

Chew fennel seeds before eating to aid the digestion and freshen the breath.

Drink in moderation. Drink with your meals but not too much, or you can thin out the good juices in your body too much. Water alone is not a healthy drink, but water mixed with fruit juice or made into herbal tea can be healthy.

Raw food can hurt the body. Hildegard warns against incorrectly made dishes which are not cooked.

St. Hildegard’s highest rated foods are spelt, chestnuts, fennel and chickpeas (garbanzo beans). “Spelt creates a healthy body, good blood and a happy outlook on life,” she writes. Meat should be from animals which eat grass and hay and don’t have too many offspring. Butter and cream from the cow are good, but milk and cheese are better from the goat. Sunflower seed and pumpkin seed oils are good; olive oil is reserved for medicinal purposes.

Recap: Nutritional Tips from Saint Hildegard

—The first meal should be warm
—Healthy people should eat late
—2 to 3 meals per day
—drink at mealtime
—a short nap at midday is healthy
—do not eat too much and make sure your food and drink is neither too warm or too cold
—raw foods are hard on the stomach
—cook your dishes
—take a walk after the evening meal

Source work: http://www.hildegardvonbingen.de

====================

Eating Strawberries

So, should we avoid strawberries? Even though Hildegard would say “yes,” perhaps this point isn’t a matter of faith. In any case, time for a walk…

May 27, 2012 — Pentecost

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak.” –John 16:13

“But what is Babel? It is the description of a kingdom in which people have concentrated so much power they think they no longer need depend on a God who is far away.”–Pope Benedict XVI, Pentecost Sunday homily today

A Homily about Unity

Today, a lovely, warm, sunny day in Rome, is the Feast of Pentecost — the feast commemorating the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles in Jerusalem.

It was also a day when Vatican officials continued to investigate the theft of documents from the Pope’s apartment, following the arrest Wednesday night of the Pope’s butler, Paolo Gabriele, 46, on charges that he removed the private documents and handed them over for publication. (Gabriele, who has a wife and three small children, in being held inside the Vatican in a room in a building near the Domus Santa Marta, at the back of St. Peter’s Basilica, apart from his family, which also lives inside the Vatican, a few hundred yards away in the corner of Vatican City near the Osservatore Romano offices, behind St. Anne’s Church.)

New revelations in the case are expected soon.

In his homily, the Pope today said Pentecost, with the ability of people to understand the apostles in their own languages, was in a sense the “reversal” of the tragic multiplication of languages and incomprehension which occurred after the building of the Tower of Babel.

No Decision on the Society of St. Pius X

Pope Benedict did not use the occasion of Pentecost to issue a decision on the Society of St. Pius X, though some had expected him to make an announcement on the matter today. In the Vatican press office, one well-informed French journalist noted that the Society of St. Pius X has decided to hold its summer meeting in late July, not in June, suggesting that they expect the decision will not be taken during June, but before the end of July. A well-informed traditional Austrian website, kreuz.net, reports on the basis of Vatican sources that the decision will be taken after the June 29 feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. (Link: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2012/05/sspx-unification-postponed.html)

More Arrests Soon?

Meanwhile, Vatican watchers say there may be new revelations soon in the case of the documents stolen from the Pope’s apartment. One Italian source wrote today that it is possible that one or more high-ranking prelates may be implicated, and perhaps another layperson, a woman.

“The investigators have not overlooked the possibility that there may be accomplices,” Giacomo Galeazzi writes in VaticanInsider. “An additional arrest in the next few hours is a possibility.”

===========================

Here is the complete text of the Pope’s homily for Pentecost Sunday in a Vatican Radio translation from the original Italian. I highlight several phrases which seem important in the current circumstances. 

Pope: Pentecost is a feast of unity, understanding and sharing

Dear brothers and sisters,

I am happy to celebrate this Holy Mass with you – a Mass animated by the Choir of the Academy of Santa Cecilia and by the Youth Orchestra, which I thank – on this Feast of Pentecost.

This mystery constitutes the baptism of the Church, it is an event that gave the Church the initial shape and thrust of its mission, so to speak. This shape and thrust are always valid, always timely, and they are renewed through the actions of the liturgy, especially.

This morning I want to reflect on an essential aspect of the mystery of Pentecost, which maintains all its importance in our own day as well. Pentecost is the feast of human unity, understanding and sharing.

We can all see how in our world, despite us being closer to one another through developments in communications, with geographical distances seeming to disappear – understanding and sharing among people is often superfical and difficult.

There are imbalances that frequently lead to conflicts; dialogue between generations is hard and differences sometimes prevail; we witness daily events where people appear to be growing more aggressive and belligerent; understanding one another takes too much effort and people prefer to remain inside their own sphere, cultivating their own interests.

In this situation, can we really discover and experience the unity we so need?

The account of Pentecost in the Acts of the Apostles, which we heard in the first reading, is set against a background that contains one of the last great frescoes of the Old Testament: the ancient story of the construction of the Tower of Babel.

But what is Babel? It is the description of a kingdom in which people have concentrated so much power they think they no longer need depend on a God who is far away.

They believe they are so powerful they can build their own way to heaven in order to open the gates and put themselves in God’s place.

But it’s precisely at this moment that something strange and unusual happens.

While they are working to build the tower, they suddenly realise they are working against one another.

While trying to be like God, they run the risk of not even being human – because they’ve lost an essential element of being human: the ability to agree, to understand one another and to work together.

This biblical story contains an eternal truth: we see this truth throughout history and in our own time as well. Progress and science have given us the power to dominate the forces of nature, to manipulate the elements, to reproduce living things, almost to the point of manufacturing humans themselves.

In this situation, praying to God appears outmoded, pointless, because we can build and create whatever we want.

We don’t realize we are reliving the same experience as Babel.

It’s true, we have multiplied the possibilities of communicating, of possessing information, of transmitting news – but can we say our ability to understand each other has increased? Or, paradoxically, do we understand each other even less? Doesn’t it seem like feelings of mistrust, suspicion and mutual fear have insinuated themselves into human relationships to the point where one person can even pose a threat to another?

Let’s go back to the initial question: can unity and harmony really exist? How?

The answer lies in Sacred Scripture: unity can only exist as a gift of God’s Spirit, which will give us a new heart and a new tongue, a new ability to communicate.

This is what happened at Pentecost. On that morning, fifty days after Easter, a powerful wind blew over Jerusalem and the flame of the Holy Spirit descended on the gathered disciples. It came to rest upon the head of each of them and ignited in them a divine fire, a fire of love, capable of transforming things.

Their fear disappeared, their hearts were filled with new strength, their tongues were loosened and they began to speak freely, in such a way that everyone could understand the news that Jesus Christ had died and was risen.

On Pentecost, where there was division and incomprehension, unity and understanding were born.

But let’s look at today’s Gospel in which Jesus affirms: “When he comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to the whole truth”.

Speaking about the Holy Spirit, Jesus is explaining to us what the Church is and how she must live in order to be herself, to be the place of unity and comunion in Truth; he tells us that acting like Christians means not being closed inside our own spheres, but opening ourselves towards others; it means welcoming the whole Church within ourselves or, better still, allowing the Church to welcome us.

So, when I speak, think and act like a Christian, I don’t stay closed off within myself – but I do so in everything and starting from everything: thus the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of unity and truth, can continue to resonate in people’s hearts and minds, encouraging them to meet and welcome one another.

Precisely because it acts in this way, the Spirit introduces us to the whole truth, who is Jesus, and guides us to examine and understand it.

We do not grow in understanding by closing ourselves off inside ourselves, but only by becoming capable of listening and sharing, in the “ourselves” of the Church, with an attitude of deep personal humility.

Now it’s clearer why Babel is Babel and Pentecost is Pentecost. Where people want to become God, they succeed only in pitting themselves against each other. Where they place themselves within the Lord’s truth, on the other hand, they open themselves to the action of his Spirit which supports and unites them.

The contrast between Babel and Pentecost returns in the second reading, where the Apostle Paul says: “Walk according to the Spirit and you will not be brought to satisfy the desires of the flesh.”

St Paul tells us that our personal life is marked by interior conflict and division, between impulses that come from the flesh and those that come from the Spirit: and we cannot follow all of them.

We cannot be both selfish and generous, we cannot follow the tendency to dominate others and experience the joy of disinterested service.

We have to choose which impulse to follow and we can do so authentically only with the help of the Spirit of Christ.

St Paul lists the works of the flesh: they are the sins of selfishness and violence, like hostility, discord, jealousy, dissent.

These are thoughts and actions that do not allow us to live in a truly human and Christian way, in love. This direction leads to us losing our life.

The Holy Spirit, though, guides us towards the heights of God, so that, on this earth, we can already experience the seed of divine life that is within us.

St Paul confirms: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace.”

We note how the Apostle uses the plural to describe the works of the flesh that provoke the loss of our humanity – while he uses the singular to define the action of the Spirit, speaking of “the fruit”, in the same way as the dispersion of Babel contrasts with the unity of Pentecost.

Dear friends, we must live according to the Spirit of unity and truth, and this is why we must pray for the Spirit to enlighten and guide us to overcome the temptation to follow our own truths, and to welcome the truth of Christ transmitted in the Church.

Luke’s account of Pentecost tells us that, before rising to heaven, Jesus asked the Apostles to stay together and to prepare themselves to receive the Holy Spirit. And they gathered together in prayer with Mary in the Upper Room and awaited the promised event.

Like when it was born, today the Church still gathers with Mary and prays: “Veni Sancte Spiritus! – Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love!”. Amen.

May 26, 2012 — Benedict Alone

Tomorrow, Sunday, May 27, is the Feast of Pentecost. Some in Rome expect Pope Benedict to use the occasion to issue a decision on the Society of St. Pius X (the traditional Catholic followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.) If such a decision is issued, it will be an historic day for the Church; if a decision is not issued, it is expected in the near future.

Meanwhile, many of you will have heard that the Vatican, after weeks of investigation, has discovered at least one source of a flood of secret Vatican documents that have been published in recent months in Italy.

The Vatican has placed under arrest and is questioning an Italian layman, Paolo Gabriele, 46, as a key suspect in the case.

Gabriele is an assistant to the papal chamberlain (called the “Camerlengo,” currently Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Secretary of State) and as such, is the equivalent of the “Pope’s butler” — and so, as in a mystery novel, it appears that “the butler did it.”

Gabriele has been physically close to the Pope for years. Originally hired under the pontificate of John Paul II — on the recommendation, it is said, of the rector of the Church of Santo Spirito in Sassia, a few steps from the Vatican, a church dedicated to the devotion of Divine Mercy of St. Faustina Kowalska — for five years he has helped to vest Pope Benedict each morning, serve him his food at lunch and dinner, and prepare his sleeping quarters each night. Because he has carried out such a trusted, and delicate, role, he had in his possession all the keys to the papal apartments, entrances and elevators.

So he would have had the access, which only a handful of people have, enabling him to steal private documents from the Pope’s own desk.

The number of people who have access to the Pope’s private study is very limited, and includes his butler and his two personal secretaries, Monsignors Georg Gaenswein and Alfred Xuereb.

Still, as Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli writes, “doubts are growing in the Holy See” that Gabriele acted alone.

Tornielli writes: “The Vatican Gendarmerie found a large wad of confidential documents in an apartment in Via di Porta Angelica, in Rome, where the Pope’s butler Paolo Gabriele lives with his wife and three children. This just-over 40-year-old man from Rome has been working in the Pope’s apartment since 2006, entering the Pope’s Family after a period serving Mgr. James Harvey, Prefect of the Papal Household. But is he really a poison pen letter writer or just a scapegoat to save the skin of someone higher up? This is the question many in the Vatican are asking… The butler is in fact considered by many in the Holy See as a simple, good person who is devoted to the Pope.”

In this same vein were remarks yesterday by the Pope’s spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J.

“Everyone in the Vatican knows him, there is a feeling of surprise and grief, as well as great sympathy for his family, who are well-liked,” Father Lombardi told journalists. “We hope that his family can get over this ordeal.”

Gabriele faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in jail if convicted.

La Stampa newspaper yesterday quoted an anonymous priest, who it said had once been Gabriele’s confessor, as expressing strong doubts about the butler’s guilt.

“He loves the Pope so much that he would never betray him,” the priest said. “I have known Paolo for years… I have accompanied him spiritually and I can state that I found him a person who loves the Church and is very devoted to the Popes, John Paul II to begin with and now Benedict XVI. What is going on is incomprehensible to me because everyone in the Vatican held Paolo in high esteem. I never heard anyone speak ill of him or any gossip about him, which is rare because in our environment you often hear slander.”

Italian media said that the Pope was “saddened and shocked” by this “painful case.”

Last month, the Pope set up a special commission of three senior cardinals — Julian Herranz, Joseph Tomko and Salvatore De Giorgi — to probe the leaks of private documents to the Italian media, to the embarrassment of the Holy See. (Note: If Church officials fear their letters to the Pope may end up on the front pages of the world’s newspapers, then they may think twice before writing openly and truthfully to the Pope; the loss to the Church in such a case is very serious.)

This arrest is the first public result of the special investigation, which is ongoing.

There is almost certainly more to this story than has yet come to light. One Italian report suggested that, though many here regard Gabriele very highly, there is conjecture that he might be a “hothead” or fanatic (“esaltato” is the Italian word used) desirous of “taking justice into his own hands.” If this were so, the article suggests, there might have been a risk of harm to the Pope himself.

Here is the sentence in Italian: “Ma se sulla volonta’ di colpire il vertice della Chiesa sembra ci siano pochi dubbi, qualcun altro azzarda che il maggiordomo fosse un esaltato, mosso da furore giustizialista. E dunque il Papa era esposto anche a altri piu’ gravi rischi.” (Link: http://paparatzinger5blograffaella.blogspot.it/2012/05/maggiordono-infedele-ancora-in-camera.html)

May 20, 2012 — Capodanno

“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” — Gospel of St. John, 15:13

Mass in Rome

There are some men who sum up the character of a nation. One such man was Vincent Robert Capodanno.

Capodanno represented what was best about America, and now those who remember him would like the Catholic Church to proclaim that he was a saint.

As part of that effort, a memorial Mass will be celebrated in his memory tomorrow in Rome, at the Church of Santa Susanna at 6 p.m. It would be gratifying if some who are in Rome and read this note would consider attending the Capodanno Mass.

Memorial Mass:
6 p.m., Church of Santa Susanna, on Monday, May 21, is in memory of Servant of God Father Vincent R. Capodanno. A Navy Lieutenant Chaplain, serving with the Marines in Vietnam, Father Capodanno was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for sustaining three separate combat wounds while anointing Marines who were dying. All are welcome to participate in this special Mass.

Our Location:

The Church of Santa Susanna
Via XX (Venti) Settembre 15
00187, Roma, Italia
Tel: 06,4201.4554 Fax: 06.474.0236
(from the USA: 011-3906-4201-4554)

Who Was Capodanno?

Vincent Robert Capodanno was born into an Italian Catholic family on Staten Island in 1929. He attended Catholic schools and entered the Maryknoll Missionary Society after his first year in college and was sent on to the Maryknoll seminary to complete his education. He was ordained in June of 1957.

Fr. Capodanno’s first missionary assignment was to Taiwan where he served in many capacities for seven years, usually among the poor and disadvantaged. After a brief return to the U.S., he was reassigned to a Maryknoll school in Hong Kong.

Seeking new challenges, as he himself said, Fr. Capodanno requested a new assignment and in December 1965, after finishing officer’s candidate school, he received his commission as a U.S. Navy chaplain.

His first assignment came in 1966 when he joined the First Marine Division in Vietnam. When his tour was complete, he requested that it be extended and he served as chaplain in a Navy hospital. After serving briefly at the hospital, he reported to the 5th Marine Division.

The “Grunt Padre”

As a chaplain with the Marines, Fr. Capodanno quickly earned a reputation for selfless and untiring service to his men. He became affectionately known as the “Grunt Padre” among the fighting men. As a chaplain he had no command authority as did the other officers, yet because of the special love and kindness he offered, and his willingness to share the ordinary hardships of the most junior Marines, he inspired a loyalty surpassing that of the very finest officers.

His division chaplain, David Casazza, once inquired what father did when he was with the troops. He replied “I am just there with them – I walk with them and sit with them; I eat with them and sleep in the holes with them – and I talk with them – but only when they are ready to talk. It takes time, but I never rush them.”

This compassionate Marine chaplain never feared danger. When troops assembled for combat operations, he was with them. When they went in to the heat of battle, he was with them. During the fiercest fighting, all the infantry men would watch over Fr. Capodanno because they knew he would be moving among the men, ministering to those in greatest need, even to the very front line – never concerned with his own safety – concerned only with his men. The men had an unspoken resolve to “watch over our padre.”

Father Capodanno went among the wounded and dying, giving last rites and taking care of his beloved Marines. Always watching out for them, as they watched out for him.

Wounded in the face and suffering a severe shrapnel wound that nearly severed his hand, during the epic battle of Dong Son in September 1967, Father Vince moved to help a wounded Marine only yards from an enemy machine gun.

Father Capodanno died from a machine gun blast taking care of this young Marine. When his body was recovered, he had 27 bullet wounds.

As a young seminarian, Vincent Capodanno had written to his superior about a book he was given to read, Radiating Christ, and said “this book will be a great help (to me) in directing God’s light to the shadows throughout the world. The book’s author, Fr. Raoul Plus, was a French military chaplain in World War I.

The descent and incarnation described in Radiating Christ had now, in the end, brought Fr. Vincent to suffering and burial. The more he united himself with his Marines, the more he was united to Christ. As the Lord suffered with and for those He loved, so Fr. Vincent endured the harsh trials of war with and for those he served in love, for the sake of Christ and in imitation of Him.

On December 27, 1968 he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor in recognition of his selfless sacrifice.

On May 21, 2006 Fr. Capodanno was officially declared “Servant of God” as the cause for his sainthood moves forward.

What is needed now is a miracle, that is, an incident of supernatural healing due to the intervention of this holy priest. Therefore, people who wish to pray for a healing may consider praying for the intercession of the slain “Grunt Padre,” and if a miraculous healing occurs, report what has happened to Church authorities.

May 10, 2012 — Zaleski’s Choice

“The Church (in Poland) didn’t want to hurt the Pope (John Paul II), but actually, more harm was done by keeping silent.” —Father Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski, 55, a Polish Roman Catholic and Armenian Catholic priest, author and activist. Born in 1956, in Cracow, Poland, Isakowicz-Zaleski was an activist of the anti-communist student opposition in Cracow in the late 1970s, became a Solidarity chaplain in Cracow’s Nowa Huta district in the 1980s and also the founder of a number of group homes for handicapped people. Following the end of communist rule, he became an avid supporter of the renewal of the Polish Church in the post-communist period based on truth-telling about what had happened under communism, including revealing who had collaborated with the regime.

“I am only interested in the truth (Chodzi mi tylko o prawde)“ —title of Father Zaleski’s latest book, published in Poland this spring, which alleges, without naming names, that there is powerful “homosexual mafia” within the Church hierarchy in Poland (and also in Rome) today

“The need for truth is more sacred than any other need.”—Simone Weil (1909-43), one of the most original, brilliant, intense, and enigmatic thinkers of the 20th century. Politically, Weil was left wing and and active in the trade union movement and the education of workers in France. After the outbreak of the Second World War and the Nazi occupation of France, Weil sought ways to be involved in the Resistance, but at risk because of her Jewish ancestry, in 1942, after a short detour in the US, she finally settled in London. Determined to share in the privations of the people she had left behind, and further weakened by overwork, and overcome by self-doubt and depression, Weil died in August 1943. She was just 34.

It is, however, as a religous thinker and mystic that Weil left her most indelible legacy. Her relationship to Christianity was vexed and complex. She finally came to regard herself as a Christian, but, so far as is known, she was never baptised. George Herbert’s poem “Love bade me welcome”, introduced to her by a young English priest in the late 1930s, struck and moved her deeply. She learned it by heart, and would often recite it to herself during periods of what she called “affliction”. For Weil the essence of faith was not credal belief but prayer in the form of attente, a “waiting” on God. God’s wholly and holy otherness, God’s kenosis in creation and in Christ, God’s compassion — and  passionate and relentless honesty — were at the heart of her “theology”

“Christ likes us to prefer truth to himself, because, before being Christ, he is truth. If one turns aside from him to go towards the truth, one will not go far before falling into his arms.”—Ibid.

======================

A Difficult Letter

This is a complex, difficult letter to write. And I do not have enough time to do the various matters justice, so what I write here is merely a sketch.

There are a number of important things happening right now in the Church. There is the battle for religious freedom between the Church in the United States and the administration of President Barack Obama. There is the investigation by the Holy See of the American women religious orders. (Many note that the average age of the nuns in many of these orders is now approaching, or surpassing, 70; there are simply very few new vocations for most of these orders.) There is the turmoil in the Church in Ireland, rocked by allegations of harsh treatment and abuse of children, where the cardinal primate just resigned. And there is Pope Benedict’s imminent decision on whether to welcome the Society of St. Pius X, the traditional Catholic group founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, back into full reunion with the Holy See. The decision is expected before month’s end (and the Society’s reaction to that decision will then soon follow). There is no doubt that the welcoming of a group of 500 traditional priests back into full communion with Rome—and I intentionally do not go into the question of what that relationship has been up to now—is a matter of considerable importance, as these priests, and their lay congregations, would inevitably be a powerful group on behalf of a traditional Catholic position in future theological debates over the Church’s relationship to the secular world and over the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, which is another way of saying that there will be voices in the secular media and on the “left” ready and willing to denounce the Pope harshly if he does move to “regularize” the situation of the Lefebvrists. Forewarned is forearmed.

But there are also other issues, and three in particular: first, to simplify, is the issue of “gender,” by which I mean the whole issue of human sexuality, sexual morality, the nature and role of the family, and even the demographic question—and this does not exhaust the issue; second, again to simplify, the issue of the globalized economy, and the role of human work, and of private losses placed as debts on the backs of the tax-paying public, to the point of constructing an enormously unbalanced, and unjust economy, which may require our children and grandchildren to pay off debts incurred recklessly during recent decades; third, and once again, to greatly simplify, there is the revolution occurring in genetics and genetic research, which promises to provide great benefits to humanity, to human health and well-being, but which is also fraught with the potential to bring great problems, even great evils, some of them catastrophic.

The second and third questions will have to be addressed in future reports.

But the first question is worth bringing up here, if only in passing, because traditional Church teaching is being challenged in this matter in nearly every Western country.

A Journey to Poland and Austria

We at Inside the Vatican ended our annual Easter pilgrimage on April 9, the day after Easter. (On these pilgrimages, we bring a small group of friends, generally no more than 12, to meet with Vatican officials, including cardinals, here in Rome, and to visit places like Assisi, Norcia, Subiaco, Castel Gandolfo.)

On April 9, we traveled to the village of Manoppello, Italy, where, on display in the local church is a mysterious image of the face of Christ on a small rectangle of ancient, precious, almost transparent, silk-like fabric. (Pope Benedict took the matter so seriously that he visited the shrine personally on September 1, 2006).

Upon our return to Rome, we spent the evening with Paul Badde, author of an important book on the image, The Face of God: The Rediscovery Of The True Face of Jesus (Ignatius, 2012, cover image below), and his wife, Ellen.

Badde has made a significant contribution to the understanding of both the image in Manoppello, and the Shroud of Turin, and I think it is no exaggeration to say that the English edition of his book, just out, may mark the beginning of a new era and opportunity for scholars of the Shroud of Turin, as well as of the Holy Face of Manoppello.

I mention this image because there is no doubt that Pope Benedict has been calling ever more frequently in reason years for all of us to look “toward Christ” and, in particular, to seek “the face of Christ.”

And I bring this up because it is this which must be at the heart of our search now, as we try to find a way forward for the Church, and the faith, in a secularized world, which is preaching a new anthropology, a new future for humanity, and, in a sense, a new “face” for the “messiah” of our age, a “face” without a transcendent dimension, a face which can be designed, and produced, by the new “gods” of our age, who are, as in the time of the Caesars, only men.

After the Easter pilgrimage, and the interesting visit with Badde and his wife, I went to Poland, and then to Austria.

In Cracow, I met with Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz (photo left), formerly, and throughout his entire pontificate (1978-2005), the personal secretary of Pope John Paul II, and also with Father Tadeusz-Isakowicz Zaleski, the priest who was silenced in 2006 by Cardinal Dziwisz because he discovered the names of 39 Polish clerics who collaborated with the Communist regime.

I also had the chance to visit the Shrine of Divine Mercy, where St. Faustina Kowalska lived, and the Shrine of the Black Madonna at Czestochowa, not far from Cracow.

I was deeply moved by the piety I saw at this latter shrine. A German priest was celebrating Mass directly in front of the venerated icon for a group of German Catholics. Throughout the Mass, quietly, reverently, people, Germans and Poles alike, moved with tiny sliding motions on their knees along a marble pathway made smooth by countless legs, and then, having left the chapel, wrote down their special petitions to Our Lady and dropped the writings into little slots at the back of the church.

I asked that I might find some way to write more clearly and effectively, and to serve to build up, and not to tear down, to bring healing, not throw salt into wounds, to bring hope, not hopelessness, to bring understanding, and compassion, and peace, not confusion and condemnation and conflict.

All writing springs from a desire to communicate, to share, and so does this writing. One seeks the right words in order to send thoughts, images, insights, to a reader, a hearer, a receiver. One seeks to send news, bare facts, but also to send a context for that news, a way of understanding it, even by telling a story (or  a parable) so that the words can be digested, integrated into a complete, balanced, worldview. One seeks to do this — so one tells oneself — because one wishes to serve truth, to serve understanding, to serve reason (that is, the Logos, that is, Christ, “the anointed one”), to the exclusion of all ideologies and all false gods.

And one can hesitate, before writing, or before finishing writing, and clicking on the “Send” button, because one senses, with unease, and with a certain sorrow, which cannot be easily set aside, that one has not given sufficient context, that what one sends will not serve to build up truth in charity, but only to burden souls with “news” that cannot be assimilated, that cannot nourish.

“Truth-telling” Pros and Cons

In 2006, Cardinal Dziwisz had just returned to Poland after a quarter century in Rome to become the archbishop of Cracow.

One of the decisions he took was to forbid a priest—Zaleski—from revealing information on clerics who had cooperated with the Communist secret services during the years when the Soviet Union controlled Eastern Europe.

Zaleski, a Solidarity priest, had been beaten up twice in 1985 by Polish secret police. These attacks came in the wake of the notorious murder of fellow Solidarity priest Jerzy Popieluszko in 1984.

By the late 1980s, Zaleski had decided to devote his life to a work of Christian charity: to helping mentally handicapped people, who were virtually abandoned under the communist regime. Zelski launched a Foundation and began to raise funds to create centers for the care of mentally handicapped people throughout Poland. Today, he has 30 such centers around Poland, caring for hundreds of handicapped men and women.

In about 2005, a friend of his came to him and said, “Father Tadeusz, there is a dossier also on you in the Secret Police files.”

“Really?” Father Radeusz replied. He had not known of it.

“Yes,” his friend told him. “Would you like to see it?”

Zaleski said he would. He soon received permission to have access to his own secret file. He expected to find only a page or two. He found more than 500 pages, and a video of one of his two beatings.

“I was shocked at the size of my file,” he told me.

He realized that some of his actions and movements had been followed by people close to him — by collaborators of the regime who were inside the Church. But who were those collaborators? Zaleski decided to find out, with devastating consequences…

The Warsaw Business Journal on June 5, 2006, wrote the following:

“(Konrad Stanislaw) Hejmo, (Michal) Czajkowski, (Mieczyslaw) Malinski — in the last year, three priests’ names have already made it into the headlines, as they were all suspected of cooperating with communist secret services (SB, Sluzba Bezpieczenstwa, the Security Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs). Fathers Hejmo and Maliński were close to the late Pope John Paul II, while Father Czajkowski was accused of informing on Father Jerzy Popieluszko — a legend of the Solidarity movement who was murdered by the SB.

“Last week, Father Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski, who was conducting research on SB agents in the church in Kraków, called a press conference to reveal information he came across while looking through the archives of the National Remembrance Institute (IPN). He claimed to know the names of 28 SB collaborators within the Kraków church, eight of whom are already dead.

“A couple of hours before the meeting with journalists, Father Zaleski was summoned to the curia and handed a letter from Cardinal Dziwisz, which forbade him from talking to the press about his findings or continuing his research. ‘As the illegal sullying of somebody’s good name is a crime and by announcing that you are going to reveal the names of clerics suspected of collaboration with SB, you have come very close to committing one. I hereby give you a canonic reprimand pursuant to the relevant regulations,’ Dziwisz wrote.

“Father Zaleski, a famous priest within the Solidarity movement in Nowa Huta, told the journalists: ‘I accept this decision in the spirit of obedience towards Kraków’s archbishop,’ but later added: ‘I have a moral right to talk about my generation. It is the generation of people who in the 1980s stayed in Poland, survived the times of Solidarity and martial law.’ This was a clear allusion to Cardinal Dziwisz, who lived in Vatican between 1978 and 2005.”

But within a few weeks, Zaleski published the results of his research.

==================

Communist Collaboration in Poland

Many historians argue that a significant segment of the clergy in Poland and other Eastern bloc countries collaborated to varying degrees with the Communist secret services.

The Polish Church publicly apologized in 2006 for priests who collaborated with the SB, but has tried to keep their names secret.

Most researchers who have delved into the archives of the Sluzba Bezpieczenstwa (Security Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs) estimate that thousands of the country’s priests, monks and nuns at the time — as many as 10% of the total — collaborated with the secret police to some degree.

The Archbishop of Warsaw, Cardinal Jozef Glemp, told an Italian news agency in 2006 that the overall percentage was 15%. The percentage was likely to have been much higher in major cities and university towns, some historians say, where surveillance was heavier.

When Father Zaleski decided to begin publishing disclosures in May 2006, Cardinal Dziwisz forbade him to do so or to speak to the press because it would undermine “love for the Church and Christ.” The cardinal issued an order prohibiting any member of the clergy from delving into Krakow’s secret police archives without his authorization.

Still, Father Zaleski published a book identifying 39 priests whose names he found in Krakow’s secret police files, three now bishops in the Polish Church.

The name for the collaborators was TWs (= Tajny wspolpracownik) “secret collaborator.” Father Zaleski found the 39 priests identified as “TWs”; four of them became bishops. Of the 39, 22 answered Zaleski’s request for comment, the majority denying that they were collaborators, and 4 admitted that they were. One, the Rev. Janusz Bielanski, resigned as rector of Wawel Cathedral in Cracow on January 8, 2007, citing the allegations.

In May 2006, the Rev. Michal Czajkowski, co-president of Poland’s Council of Christians and Jews, was accused of having spied for the secret police for 24 years. He resigned his posts and issued an apology.

Rev. Mieczyslaw Malinski, who had been close to John Paul II, worked for the SB in the 1980s. Malinski admitted having had contacts with the secret police but denied that he was a spy.

Rev. Konrad Stanislaw Hejmo, a Dominican priest posted to the Vatican, passed information to the secret service’s antichurch branch. Hejmo admitted giving the information but denied that he was a spy.

Pope Benedict picked Stanislaw W. Wielgus in early December 2006 to succeed Cardinal Glemp as Archbishop of Warsaw. A Polish daily newspaper, Gazeta Polska, reported December 20, 2006, that the bishop had spied on dissidents and fellow clerics from 1978 when he signed the cooperation agreement with the Sluzba Bezpieczenstwa (Security Service, SB), until Communism collapsed in 1989. In fact, Wielgus was recruited by the SB in 1967 when he was a philosophy student at the University of Lublin in eastern Poland, more than a decade before he signed the cooperation agreement. Archbishop Wielgus admitted that he had collaborated with the SB, on January 5, 2007. “By the fact of this entanglement, I have damaged the Church,” he said. He abruptly resigned at a Mass meant to celebrate his new position January 7, 2007. “A roar of shock arose from the crowd inside the cathedral and stunned many people watching the proceedings live on television,” the New York Times wrote on January 8, 2007. “The Vatican had announced the resignation a half hour earlier, though few had heard the news…. Outside the cathedral, scuffles erupted between supporters and detractors of the bishop among the hundreds of Catholics gathered beneath umbrellas in the rain. Some of his supporters shouted that ‘Jews’ were trying to destroy the Church. Anti-Semitism, long present in Poland, is a particular problem within some conservative branches of the Polish Catholic church.”

(Here is a link to the site that contains the information in the paragraphs above: http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Communist_Collaboration

========================

Meeting Zaleski

It was a long and winding road to reach Father Zaleski. He lives on the outskirts of Cracow, in a residential complex set up to provide living, eating, studying and recreation facilities for dozens of mentally retarded men and women.

At my first glimpse of Zaleski, I was struck by his smile. It was broad and warm. He said he had a few minutes to talk, and offered a drink of tea. When ten minutes became an hour, he suggested we retire to the dining facility, and we dined on the same food as the rest of the community.

Now, the odd thing about our conversation was that it had little to deal with the communist past, and much to deal with the present situation of the Church.

“I have just been to see Cardinal Dsiwisz,” Zaleski told me. “We met three days ago.”

“You were just with him?” I asked.

“Yes,” Zaleski told me. “And we have come to a new understanding. That is very gratifying to me.

“He agreed to allow me to give a presentation to diocesan officials. I think he thought I would not influence anyone. And I gave a presentation. In the end, a majority supported me, especially among the younger priests.”

“What was your presentation about?” I asked.

“The present situation of the Church in Poland,” Zaleski said. “The situation is grave because there are individuals, and not only in Poland, but also in Rome, and in the United States, who are part of a homosexual mafia which wishes to impede the careers of anyone who is not part of this group.”

Here is a link to a recent article about Zaleski’s claims: http://www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/93469,‘Gay-mafia-in-Polish-Church-claims-controversial-priest

This is the text of the article:

“Gay mafia” in Polish Church, claims controversial priest

March 16, 2012

A controversial priest and Solidarity veteran has claimed that the Church in Poland is compromised by a “gay mafia” which “can destroy anyone” in its path.

“The gay lobby in the Church can destroy anyone who gets in its way,” claims Father Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski in his latest book, ‘I am only interested in the truth’ (Chodzi mi tylko o prawde).

The priest is not new to controversy, having caused a storm in 2006 by publishing research which alleged collaboration of priests with the communist-era security services.

In his latest volume, which takes the form of an interview with the editor of the conservative, right wing journal Fronda, the priest claims that Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, Archbishop of Krakow, had specifically requested him to avoid homosexual references in the earlier book about communist collaboration.

When asked in the current publication whether “homosexuality is a problem in the clergy”, the priest replied that “the higher up you go, the worse it gets.”
He also claimed knowledge of one curia where “from the bishop down to the butler, everyone working there is of such a tendency.”

Isakowicz-Zaleski argued that “it cannot be so that someone receives an important position solely because of his homosexuality.”

He also claimed that during his research into the communist-era files, he discovered a custom whereby clergymen were sent to Rome when the Curia “was unable to cope with the homosexuality of a priest.”

Isakowicz-Zaleski added that “homosexual circles have always had a strong influence at the Vatican.”

The priest, who runs a charitable foundation near Krakow, is descended from a prominent Polish-Armenian family and is a figurehead for the Armenian Catholic Church in Poland.

“Super agent”

When researching his 2006 book, Isakowicz-Zaleski says that after he found evidence of widespread collaboration by priests with the communist authorities, he was told by the Krakow archdiocese to “throw the material in the incinerator”.

When he persisted with the research, Krakow’s Cardinal Dziwisz – a longtime aid to John Paul II — condemned his “irresponsible and harmful” activities, warned him to stop “throwing accusations” and banned him from speaking to the media.

Poland’s then Roman Catholic primate, Cardinal Jozef Glemp, accused Isakowicz-Zaleski of behaving like a “super agent” himself, who pursued priests in a one-man witch hunt. (pg/nh)

==========

How Others View Zaleski’s Accusations

Zaleski’s accusations have been, for the most part, downplayed. He is often characterized as “reckless” in making unsubstantiated charges.

What seems to be Zaleski’s main source, the communist state police archives, may contain false allegations, these critics say.

For example, the communist authorities may have wished to destroy someone by labeling him as a homosexual when that person was not, in fact, a homosexual. In other words, Zaleski often can’t be sure of his allegations because his sources may be unreliable, even intentionally misleading. In this sense, his critics argue, Zaleski may be falling into a trap, and damaging the Church by spreading and giving credence to these police reports.

For example, the website “VaticanInsider” recently ran a story on Zaleski and his claims by Marek Lehnert, a Polish journalist who has worked in Rome for many years. The essence of the “line” in Lehnert’s report is that “the evidence… does not seem watertight.”

Here is a link to Lehnert’s story: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/polonia-poland-14114/

And here is the text of the article:

“A gay lobby is controlling careers in the Vatican”

April 4, 2012

This is the theory put forward in a new book by Polish priest Fr. Zaleski. But no names are mentioned in the work and the “evidence” provided by the Polish communist secret police does not seem watertight

By MAREK LEHNERT, ROME

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”: in recent days Fr. Tadeusz Isakowicz Zaleski has been continuously repeating these words from the Gospel of St. John (8:32). The chorus has not stopped since the publication of his new book “I care about the truth.” In this long interview, the priest, who during communist times was known for his unconditional support of Solidarnośc and is now known for the unusual investigative spirit with which he sifts through documents kept in the National Memory Institute (IPN), reveals — amongst other things — the existence of a so-called “gay lobby”. Both on a national and Vatican level.

Isakowicz Zaleski, however, launches accusations and then shies away: aside from the case of Mgr. Juliusz Paetz, who was forced to resign from his position as Archbishop of Poznan by John Paul II after being accused of molesting his seminarians, no other name is mentioned in the book. “Given the controversy surrounding my accusations, I will only reveal the names before the relevant commission which the Polish Church decides to establish,” the priest said.

This is a strange attitude coming from a person who claims he is certain that his readers are well aware of what and about whom he is talking about. “These things are universally known,” Isakowicz Zaleski retorted. “I demonstrate that one of the problems of the Polish Church today is the lack of transparency with regard to certain questions,” he added.

He believes enemies of the Church take advantage of the situation. This was the case when the identities of clerics who collaborated with the Polish secret police were revealed during the communist regime. And it is still the case today, in relation to homosexuality, which according to him is “omnipresent”. There are dioceses, Fr. Tadeusz wrote, in which everyone has such tendencies, from ordinary bishops to housekeepers. But no names are given; everyone knows who they are anyway. It is the same in the Vatican — because “the situation worsens the higher up you go” — where there is a strong gay lobby that guarantees the careers of its members, the author says.

The Polish Catholic Church, at least the hierarchy, is in no hurry to discuss things with Isakowicz Zaleski and take his revelations into account (thus fuelling the scepticism of the press which wants names). The only voice raised on the subject is that of Fr. Józef Augustyn, a Jesuit who for years has been willing and able to publicly discuss some of the most burning questions regarding the sexual conduct of the laity and the clergy.

According to the Jesuit, the problem of homosexuality in the clergy does indeed exist, but Fr. Isakowicz Zaleski has exposed it “in an ambiguous and superficial way.” The crux of the issue, he says, is not the phenomenon itself “which we have little power to influence, but our attitude towards it.”

The theory put forward in the book about the esistence of “a powerful sexual conspiracy within the Church,” does not hold water in the face of questions that spontaneously spring up. The author bases his theory on Polish secret police documents but the Polish Jesuit asks himself whether this is a reliable source. The more serious the accusations, the stronger the evidence needs to be, Fr. Augustyn added, saying that he could not find any such evidence in the book. All it presents are insinuations and fallacies. Not to mention the “dangerous generalisations”, for example, the section on the Vatican. The truth which Isakowicz Zaleski seems so fond of is not only to be found in information: it should also lie in the reasons that pushed someone to supply this “news”, the Jesuit concludes in the interview with Polish Catholic news agency KAI.

=========

I asked Zaleski if he had any doubts about his allegations.

“Are you sure you are not making exaggerated or false accusations?” I asked him. “Where do you get your information? Are you sure it is reliable?”

Zaleski told me he bases his accusations on emails and written reports and letters he has received from priests and lay people all over Poland, as well as from Rome — where he studied 20 years ago — and from the United States.

=====================.

Zeleski was born in Cracow on September 7, 1956; he is now 56. He is both Roman Catholic and Armenian Catholic. He was ordained in 1983.

On May 3, 2006, he was awarded the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta, one of Poland’s highest Orders, and in 2007, he was awarded the Order of the Smile and Polish Ombudsmans Order of Paweł Włodkowic.

In 1988, as a priest of the workers, he participated in the strike in Nowa Huta’s Lenin Steel Mill. At the same time, he began helping the poor and the handicapped, together with nuns from local convents. In 1987, he co-founded charitable Foundation of Brother Albert Chmielowski. Currently, he is director of the Foundation, which owns a shelter in the village of Radwanowice in the suburbs of Cracow.

He lost several members of his family in a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Poles in modern Western Ukraine (formerly inside pre-1939 eastern Polish territory), has for years been fighting to commemorate the Polish victims. In 2008 he unsuccessfully appealed to the Government of Poland, stating that it should officially condemn the Volhynian Genocide. He stated that political correctness in Poland makes it impossible to mention these tragic events. He frequently criticizes not only members of the Polish Government, together with president Kaczynski, but also Roman Catholic hierarchy, such as Primate Jozef Glemp and Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, claiming that they have neglected sufferings of Poles in Western Ukraine and they do not protest when Ukrainian nationalists are awarded orders.

===============================

Before leaving Zaleski, I asked him how he felt about living and working for 25 years with mentally handicapped people. “Is it a heavy duty for you?” I asked. “Do you find it burdensome?”

“It is better than life in most other places in our society,” Zaleski said. “In the curia, certainly. You know, here someone says to me, ‘I love you,’ and he is telling the truth. He does love me. And here someone says ‘I hate you!’ and he is also telling the truth. He does hate me! There are no lies here. There is no deceit. I like living without lies and deceit. I like living with these people, whom the world calls ‘retarded.’ I think they are far advanced beyind most of us. They live a life in the light, in truth.”

===============================

I left Zaleski not sure what to make of him. Surely he is a feisty personality. Surely he is a fighter, as he proved in the days of the struggle against communism. And surely he loves Christ and his Church, especially the “little ones,” as his lifetime of work with the mentally handicapped clearly shows. But is he right in his allegations? Has he discovered the truth, or has he spread false reports?

With this question in my mind, I set out south for Vienna, where another case has arisen arousing much controversy and debate, involving an old friend, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn — a case that just today led the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to write to Schoenborn asking him to explain what has happened in his diocese…

(to be continued)

May 3, 2012 — “Pro Multis”

“Qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur.” —The words of the consecration of the wine in the Mass, meaning literally “(my blood) which is poured out for you and for many”

“But when He added pro multis He wanted that there be understood the rest of those chosen (electos) from the Jews or from the Gentiles. Rightly therefore did it happen that for all (pro universis) were not said, since at this point the discourse was only about the fruits of the Passion which bears the fruit of salvation only for the elect.” —Roman Catechism (the Catechism produced after the Council of Trent), 1566

“That consensus is shattered.” —Pope Benedict XVI, letter to German bishops. April 14, 2012, referring to the consensus after the Second Vatican Council that the words “pro multis” could be better translated as “for all” instead of “for many”

A Decisive Letter

By now many of you will have heard that, just after Easter, Pope Benedict, though resting at Castel Gandolfo, picked up his pen to write a decisive letter to the German bishops’ conference.

In his letter, dated April 14 (copy below both in German and in English translation), Benedict insisted that the German-speaking bishops translate the Latin words “pro multis” (literally: “for many”) used at the moment of the consecration of the wine during Mass (in both the old and new liturgy) literally as “for many” (“für viele”) and not “for all” (“für alle”), as they had been doing.

This action—both the way the Pope acted and the argumentation he used—has theological, philosophical, liturgical, ecclesial and moral implications; one could write a dissertation about it, and I am sure some will, someday.

But, essentially, for our purposes here and now, it means three things:

(1) that Pope Benedict, though now 85, and obviously more tired than he was a few years ago, is still able to take decisive action, and this suggests we may expect more decisive actions from him in future, despite his age;

(2) that Benedict continues to employ dialogue, reason, and persuasion as his preferred tools in contested matters; rather than simply saying “translate it this way, and that’s final,” he spends considerable time and effort to engage his interlocutors (the German bishops) and explain to them why the words should be translated in the way he wishes; and

(3) that Benedict continues, through a process of slow steps—too slow for many traditionalists, too fast for most progressives—to restore traditional Catholic teaching, in keeping with his prime task as Pope of defending the depositum fidei (“deposit of the faith”) against temptations to innovate—powerful temptations, which have in the post-conciliar period swayed many to give up what was handed down in order to keep in step with a presumed “spirit of the times” which has often turned out to be a spirit of confusion and of rejection of key Catholic doctrines, despite protestations to the contrary.

In short, Benedict is still decisive, he still has a powerful, reasoning mind, and seems today, in fact, more intent than ever to defend the deposit of the faith.

But I would stress one point in this regard: those who fear “the conservative Pope,” fearing that burdens too heavy to bear will once again be placed upon the shoulders of the faithful, should know that Benedict, pyschologically and pastorally, has never been, and is not now, a cruel person, a rigorist who would demand that people obey his commands, or even Church rules, without understanding them, their goal and value, and therefore without assenting to them in conscience; rather, as a professor and as a pastor, he values reason, and the assent of reason, as a complement to willing assent to Church teaching. This is the essence of his pastoral method.

He privileges the person, and that aspect of the person which is most precious, the conscience, and continues to attempt to form that conscience, even in our age of considerable confusion, and ignorance.

And the goal of this effort is not to make people submit to a distant, incomprehensible “diktat,” but to defend and restore a form of Christian worship, and of Christian life, which brings to men and women the graces of clarity, truth, reason, and, ultimately, blessedness, which is the true name of happiness.

So when Benedict acts to restore an element of Catholic tradition, he is not acting to curtail human joy, but to protect true human joy, though not many seem to understand this, and so criticize him sharply.

That said, the main point has been made.

It remains to be said that Benedict was so anxious to persuade the German bishops of the rightness of this translation, that he took the time to explain the whole post-conciliar period, in miniature, rather than simply quoting the Roman Catechism, which dealt with this matter in a quite clear way 450 years ago.

This is what the Roman Catechism, promulgated after the Council of Trent says about the words “pro multis”:

“But the words which are added for you and for many (pro vobis et pro multis), were taken some of them from Matthew (26: 28) and some from Luke (22: 20) which however Holy Church, instructed by the Spirit of God, joined together. They serve to make clear the fruit and the benefit of the Passion. For if we examine its value (virtutem), it will have to be admitted that Blood was poured out by the Savior for the salvation of all (pro omnium salute sanguinem a Salvatore effusum esse); but if we ponder the fruit which men (homines) will obtain from it, we easily understand that its benefit comes not to all, but only to many (non ad omnes, sed ad multos tantum eam utilitatem pervenisse). Therefore when He said pro vobis, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen (delectos) from the people of the Jews such as the disciples were, Judas excepted, with whom He was then speaking. But when He added pro multis He wanted that there be understood the rest of those chosen (electos) from the Jews or from the gentiles. Rightly therefore did it happen that for all (pro universis) were not said, since at this point the discourse was only about the fruits of the Passion which bears the fruit of salvation only for the elect (delectis). And this is what the words of the Apostle aim at: Christ was offered up once in order to remove the sins of many (ad multorum exhaurienda peccata Heb 9:28); and what according to John the Lord says: I pray for them; I do not pray for the world, but for those whom you gave to Me, for they are Yours (John 17:9). Many other mysteries (plurima mysteria) lie hidden in the words of this consecration, which pastors, God helping, will easily come to comprehend for themselves by constant meditation upon divine things and by diligent study. (translated from the Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 4 (264.7-265.14), taken from the original Latin in Catechismus Romanus seu Catechsimus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos …. Editio critica. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1989, p. 250. Cf. The Catechism of the Council of Trent. Trans. John A. McHugh & Charles J. Callan. Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.: New York, 1934, pp. 227-28.)

Here is some background to this story:

On October 17, 2006—so, more than 5 years ago—the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments sent a circular (No. 467/05/L) to Presidents of Episcopal Conferences on the question of the translation of “pro multis.” It noted that a 1974 declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had pointed out that “for all” is not a literal translation of “pro multis,” nor of the words “περὶ πολλῶν” in Matthew 26:28 or “ὑπὲρ πολλῶν” in Mark 14:24. “For all,” it said, is not so much a translation as “an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.” It then directed the Episcopal Conferences to make an effort, in line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, to translate the words pro multis “more faithfully.”

So the Pope was dealing with an issue that the Vatican had asked the German bishops to address more than five years ago.

In English-speaking countries, the revised translation was ordered to be used from 2011 on, and this has taken place.

Some German-speaking episcopal conferences have been more reluctant to make the change. Now, in his April 14, 2012, personal letter to the German bishops, Pope Benedict XVI stresses the importance of using the literal translation.

=======

Here is a useful summary published today by Sandro Magister, though he does not name the author of the piece. His remarks about John Paul II’s attitude to this particular issue are very interesting, and especially important is the story he tells of the protest of Cardinal Ratzinger a few days before John Paul’s death in 2005 against a wording used in a text John Paul did sign, but perhaps (this article suggests) while not in full possession of his faculties. I send the piece in its entirety, with those two sections bold-faced:

Vatican Diary

“For many” or “for all”? The right answer is the first

Benedict XVI writes as much to the German bishops. And he wants the whole Church to respect the words of Jesus at the Last Supper, without inventing others like in the postconciliar missals. The complete text of the pope’s letter

by ***

VATICAN CITY, May 3, 2012 – The Churches of various nations of the world are restoring one after another, in the Mass, the words of the consecration of the chalice taken verbatim from the Gospels and in use for centuries, but in recent decades replaced almost everywhere with a different translation.

While the traditional text in its foundational Latin version still says: “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei […] qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur,” the new postconciliar formulas have read into “pro multis” an imaginary “pro omnibus.” And instead of “for many,” they have translated “for all.”

Already in the last phase of the pontificate of John Paul II, the attempt was made by a few Vatican officials, including Joseph Ratzinger, to revive in the translations fidelity to “pro multis.” But with no success.

Benedict XVI has taken the situation in hand personally. Proof of this is in the letter that he wrote last April 14 to the bishops of Germany.

The complete translation of the letter is reproduced further below. In it, Benedict XVI summarizes the main issues of the controversy, to substantiate better his decision to restore a correct translation of “pro multis.”

But in order to understand the context thoroughly, it is helpful to recall a few elements here.

*

In the first place, in addressing his letter to the bishops of Germany, Benedict XVI also intends to address through them the bishops of the other German-speaking regions: Austria, the German cantons in Switzerland, South Tyrol in Italy.

If in Germany, in fact, although with strong resistance, the episcopal conference  recently opted to translate “pro multis” no longer with “für alle,” for all, but with “für viele,” for many, in Austria this is not the case.

And not in Italy either. In November of 2010, in a vote, out of 187 voting bishops only 11 sided with “per molti.” An overwhelming majority voted in favor of “per tutti,” indifferent to the Vatican guidelines. Shortly beforehand, the episcopal conferences of the sixteen Italian ecclesiastical regions, with the sole exception of Liguria, had spoken out for the retention of the formula “per tutti.”

In other parts of the world they are returning to the use of “for many”: in Latin America, in Spain, in Hungary, in the United States. Often with disagreement and disobedience.

But Benedict XVI clearly wants to see this one all the way through. Without impositions, but urging the bishops to prepare the clergy and the faithful, with appropriate catechesis, for a change that must come no matter what.

After this letter, it is therefore easy to predict that “per molti” will also be restored in the Masses celebrated in Italy, in spite of the contrary vote of the bishops in 2010.

The new version of the missal, approved by the Italian episcopal conference, is currently under examination by the Vatican congregation for divine worship. And on this point it will certainly be correct according to the pope’s guidelines.

*

A second annotation concerns the continual obstacles that the restoration of a correct translation of “for many” has encountered on its way.

Until 2001, the proponents of more “free” translations of the liturgical texts appealed to a document put together in 1969 by the “Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia,” the secretary of which was Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, an unsigned document unusually drafted in French, ordinarily cited by its first words: “Comme le prévoit.”

In 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship published an instruction, “Liturgiam Authenticam,” for the correct implementation of the conciliar liturgical reform. The text, dated March 28, was signed by Cardinal Prefect Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez and by  archbishop secretary Francesco Pio Tamburrino, and had been approved by John Paul II in an audience granted eight days before by Cardinal Secretary of State Angelo Sodano.

Recalling that the Roman rite “has its own style and structure that must be respected in so far as possible in translation,” the instruction recommended a translation of the liturgical texts that would be “not so much a work of creative inventiveness as one of fidelity and exactness in rendering the Latin texts into a vernacular language.” Good translations – the documents prescribed – “must be freed from exaggerated dependence on modern modes of expression and in general from psychologizing language.”

The instruction “Liturgiam Authenticam” didn’t even cite “Comme le prévoit.” And it was a voluntary omission, to deprive that text definitively of an authority and officiality that it had never had.

But in spite of that, the instruction encountered extremely strong resistance, even within the Roman curia, so much so that it was ignored and contradicted by two subsequent pontifical documents.

The first is the encyclical of John Paul II “Ecclesia de Eucharistia” of 2003. In paragraph 2, where it recalls the words of Jesus for the consecration of the wine, it reads: “‘Take this, all of you and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven’ (cf. Mt 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25).” The “for all” there is a variation that has no basis in the biblical texts cited, evidently introduced from listening to the translations present in the postconciliar missals.

The second document is the last of the letters that John Paul II customarily addressed to priests each Holy Thursday. It was dated Policlinico Gemelli, March 13 2005, and in the fourth paragraph said:

“‘Hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur.’ The body and the blood of Christ are given for the salvation of man, of the whole man and of all men. This salvation is integral and at the same time universal, because no one, unless he freely chooses, is excluded from the saving power of Christ’s blood: ‘qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur.’ It is a sacrifice offered for ‘many,’ as the Biblical text says (Mk 14:24; Mt 26:28; cf. Is 53:11-12); this typical Semitic expression refers to the multitude who are saved by Christ, the one Redeemer, yet at the same time it implies the totality of human beings to whom salvation is offered: the Lord’s blood is ‘shed for you and for all,’ as some translations legitimately make explicit. Christ’s flesh is truly given ‘for the life of the world’ (Jn 6:51; cf. 1 Jn 2:2).”

John Paul II had his life hanging from a thread, he would be dead about twenty days later. And it was a Pope in this condition, without even the strength to read anymore, who was made to sign a document in favor of the formula “for all.”

At the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which had not been given the text ahead of time, the matter was noted with disappointment. So much so that a few days later, on March 21, Monday of Holy Week, in a tumultuous meeting of the heads of some dicasteries of the curia, Cardinal Ratzinger registered his protests.

And less than a month later, Ratzinger was elected pope. Announced to the world with visible satisfaction by Cardinal Protodeacon Medina, the same who had signed the instruction “Liturgiam Authenticam.”

*

With Benedict XVI as Pope, the restoration of a correct translation of “pro multis” immediately became an objective of his “reform of the reform” in the liturgical arena.

He knew that he would encounter tenacious opposition. But in this arena he has never been afraid of making tough decisions, as proven by the 2007 motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” for the liberalization of the Mass in the ancient rite.

One fact of great interest is the manner in which Benedict XVI wants to implement his decisions. Not exclusively with peremptory orders, but through persuasion.

Three months after his election as Pope, he had the congregation for worship, headed at the time by Cardinal Francis Arinze, conduct a survey among the episcopal conferences to find out their views on the translation of “pro multis” with “for many.”

Having gathered these views, on October 17, 2006, at the instructions of the pope, Cardinal Arinze sent a circular letter to all the episcopal conferences, listing six reasons in favor of “for many” and urging them—wherever the formula “for all” was in use—to “undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful” in view of the change.

It is the catechesis that Benedict XVI suggests be made in Germany in particular, in the letter he sent to the German bishops last April 14. In which he points out that it does not appear to him that this pastoral initiative authoritatively suggested six years ago has ever been undertaken.

Two marginal notes on the papal text: 1) The “Gotteslob” is the common book of hymns and prayers in use in the German-speaking Catholic dioceses. 2) The citation “May thanks be given to the Lord who, by his grace, has called me into his Church…” is the last verse of the first stanza of a song frequently sung in German churches: “Fest soll mein Taufbund immer stehen.”

======================

And here is some further background information on this matter.

Pro multis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pro multis is a Latin phrase that means “for many” or “for the many”. Not having the definite article, Latin does not distinguish between these two meanings.

The phrase is part of the longer phrase “qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum” used, with reference to the blood of Christ, in the consecration of the wine in the Roman Rite Mass.

In the definitively approved English translation this longer phrase appears as “which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins”.

The phrase “poured out for you” comes from Luke 22:20 only. “Poured out for many” (in the original Greek, the phrase is not “for the many”) from Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24. “For the forgiveness of sins” from Matthew 26:28 only. 1 Corinthians 11:25, the earliest account of Jesus’ words over the cup at his Last Supper, mentions none whatever of these phrases in relation to the consecration of the wine.

The variety of these accounts indicates that the writers did not intend to give the exact words that Jesus used, probably in Aramaic. The only words that are considered essential for the consecration of the wine at Mass are “This is my blood”, though the form of the sacrament, which varies according to the liturgical rite (Roman Rite, Byzantine Rite, etc.) contains other words as well.

In its initial translation of the Order of Mass, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy rendered the phrase “qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum” as “which will be shed for you and for all men, so that sins may be forgiven”. (The word “men” was later omitted because of complaints that it could be understood as referring only to males.) This version was approved by the Episcopal Conferences of English-speaking countries in 1973 and confirmed by the Holy See…

The 1973 translation was confessedly a non-literal translation, and objections were raised against it not only for this reason but also on the grounds that it could be taken to mean that all are in fact saved, regardless of their relationship to Christ and his Church. Some even claimed that use of the “for all” translation made the consecration invalid.

In defense of the 1973 translation, it was said that the literal translation, “for many”, could nowadays be taken to mean “not for all”, contradicting the declaration in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 that Christ died for all, though not all choose to avail of the redemption won for them by the shedding of Christ’s blood…

In the Apostolic Constitution Cum occasione of 31 May 1653 Pope Innocent X declared that it is orthodox Catholic teaching to say that Christ shed his blood for all human beings without exception. Indeed, the traditional blessing of a Paten found in the Pontificale Romanum includes the phrase, “Jesus Christ Thy Son, Who for our salvation, and of everyone (pro nostra omniumque salute), chose to immolate Himself to Thee, God the Father on the gallows of the Cross.”

It is also orthodox Catholic teaching that not all will necessarily avail of the redemption obtained by the shedding of Christ’s blood. While Christ’s redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are actually saved. This seems never to have been authoritatively defined, since it has remained uncontroversial.

The Roman Catechism, also known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, stated: “If we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.”

It would be heretical to interpret “for many” in the words of consecration of the wine as indicating that there were some for whom the shedding of Christ’s blood was in itself incapable of redeeming (its value). So the Roman Catechism interpreted “for many” in the context of the consecration form as referring to the effect actually accepted by individuals (its fruits). It declared: “When therefore (our Lord) said: ‘For you’, he meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom he was speaking. When he added, ‘And for many’, he wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.”

In this, the Catechism drew on the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who in his Summa Theologica interpreted “for you” as a reference either to the elect among the Jews, for whom the Old Testament sacrifices were offered, or to the priest and faithful partaking of Mass, and “for many” as referring either to the elect among the Gentiles or to those for whom Mass is offered…

It would also be heretical to interpret “for all” in the words of consecration of the wine as indicating that, without any exception, everybody must in concrete fact receive the benefit won by the shedding of Christ’s blood. So the Holy See has interpreted “for all” in the 1973 English translation of the consecration form as referring to the value of the shedding of Christ’s blood and to his intention. On 25 January 1974, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that there was no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated using “for all” as a translation of “pro multis”, since “for all” corresponds to a correct interpretation of Christ’s intention expressed in the words of the consecration, and since it is a dogma of the Catholic faith that Christ died on the Cross for all (cf. John 11:52, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Titus 2:11, 1 John 2:2)…

===========

Lombardi editorial: For you and for many

The Holy See spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., clarifies the correct interpretation of the wording to be used during the consecration of the wine during mass

(Taken from VATICANINSIDER)

According to the rules of Mass, “the translation of the phrase ‘for many’ – which is more faithful to the Biblical text – is to be preferred to the translation ‘for all,’ a modification of the Biblical translation which was intended to clarify the universality of the salvation which was brought about by Christ.” The Holy See’s spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi confirmed this in a statement to Vatican Radio, explaining the content of a letter which Benedict XVI sent in recent days to German bishops, on the question of the correct interpretation of the wording to be used for the consecration of the wine during mass. Fr. Lombardi stressed that “There is no doubt that Jesus died so that everyone might be saved. This, along with the profound significance of the words that are used for the institution of the Eucharist, should be explained to the faithful through the use of solid catechesis.”

Indeed, “The words which are used for the institution of the Eucharist are fundamentally important for Pope Benedict, because these words lie at the heart of the Church. By saying ‘for many,’ Jesus is saying that he is the Servant of Yahweh who was foretold by the prophet Isaiah. When we say ‘for many,’ therefore, we both express our fidelity to the word of Jesus, and recognize Jesus’ fidelity to the words of the Scripture.” This question – Lombardi stressed – is of “profound theological and spiritual significance” to all Christians. Indeed, “When the Lord offers himself ‘for you and for many,’ Fr. Lombardi explained, we become directly involved and, in gratitude, we take on the responsibility for the salvation which is promised to everyone.

“The Holy Father – who has already touched upon this in his book about Jesus – is providing here profound and insightful catechesis about some of the most important words in the Christian Faith. The Pope concludes by saying that, in this Year of Faith, we must proceed with love and respect for the Word of God, reflecting on its profound theological and spiritual significance so that we might experience the Eucharist with greater depth,” Fr. Lombardi said.

Fr. Lombardi ended, stating that, in the letter the Pope wrote from Castel Gandolfo during his brief Easter visit, he “concludes by saying that in this Year of Faith we must make efforts to proceed in this direction. We hope to really do so.”

====================

The complete text of Pope Benedict’s April 14 letter to the German bishop, in English (translation found at: http://incaelo.wordpress.com/translations/10761-2/)

Letter to the German Bishops’ Conference
Your Excellency!
Venerable, dear Lord Archbishop!

During your visit of 15 March 2012 you let me know that, regarding the translation of the words “pro multis” in the canon of the Mass, there is still no consensus among the bishops of the German language area. There now seems to be the danger that, with the soon to be expected publication of the new release of ‘Gotteslob’, some parts of the German language area will keep the translation “for all”, even though the German Bishops’ Conference had agreed to use “for many”, as was desired by the Holy See. I promised you I would express myself in writing about this serious issue to prevent a split in our most inner prayer room. The letter, which I send through you to the members of the German Bishops’ Conference, will also be sent to the other bishops of the German language area.

Let me first say a few words about the origin of the problem. In the 1960s, when the Roman Missal was translated into German under the responsibility of the bishops, there was an exegetical consensus that the words “the many” and “many” in Is. 53, 11 and further was a Hebrew expression to indicate the community, the “all”. The word “many” in the accounts of Matthew and Mark was accordingly considered a Semitism to be translated as “all”. This is also related directly to the Latin text that was to be translated, that the “pro multis” in the Gospel accounts refer back to Is. 53, and must therefore by translated as “for all”. This exegetical consensus has know shattered; it no longer exists. In the German translation of Sacred Scripture the account of the Last Supper states: “This is my Blood, the Blood of the Covenant,  which is shed for many” (Mark 14:24, cf. Matt. 26:28). This indicates something very important: The rendering of “pro multis” with “for all” was not a pure translation, but an interpretation, which was and remains very reasonable, but is already more than translation and interpretation.

This mingling of translation and interpretation belongs in hindsight to the principles which, immediately after the Council, directed the translation of the liturgical books into the vernacular. It was understood how far the Bible and the liturgical texts were removed from the language and thought of modern man, that even when translated they would remain largely incomprehensible to the participants of the divine service. It was a new endeavour that the sacred texts were, in translation, disclosed to the participants of the service, yet still remained removed from their world, yes, would now even be more visible in their removal. One not only felt justified but even required to mix interpretation into the translation and so shorten the way to the people, whose hearts and minds would be reached through these words.

To a certain degree, the principle of a substantive but not necessarily justified literal translation of the source texts remain. As I [pray the liturgical prayers time and again in various languages, I notice that it is often hard to find a common ground between the various translation, and that the underlying common text often only remains visible from afar. Added to that are the undermining banalisations which constitute the real losses. In this way it has, over the course of the years, become more clear to me that the principle of the non-literal but structural equivalence as a translation guideline has its limits. Following such insights, the translation instruction Liturgiam authenticam, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 28 March 2001, has once more placed the literal translation in the foreground, but of course without dictating a singular vocabulary. The important insight which lies at the basis of this instruction is already expressed in the distinction between translation and interpretation, outlined above. This is necessary for both the Word of Scripture as the liturgical texts. One the one hand, the sacred Word should, if possible, be presented as itself, even with the strangeness and questions it contains in itself; on the other hand the Church has been given the task of interpreting, by which – within the limits of our respective understanding – the News which the Lord has intended comes to us. An empathic translation can also not replace the interpretation: it is part of the structure of Revelation that the Word of God is read in the interpreting community of the Church, that faithfulness and realisation are combined.The Word must exist as itself, in its own shape which is perhaps strange to is; the interpretation must be measured to the faithfulness to the Word itself, but at the same time be made accessible to the modern ear.

In this context the Holy See has decided that in the new translation of the Missal the words “pro multis” must be translated as such and not at the same time interpreted. The simple translation “for many” must come in the place of the interpretative ” for all”. I would like to point out that in both Matthew and in Mark there is no article, so not “for the many”, but “for many”. As the decision of the fundamental ordering of translation and interpretation is, as I hope, understood from this, I am yet aware that this represents a tremendous challenge for all who have the task of interpreting the Word of God in the Church. Since for the regular visitors of the church this will almost inevitably seem to be rupture at the heart of the holiest. They will ask: did Christ not die for all? Has the Church changed her teaching? Can and is she is allowed to do so? Is this a reaction against the heritage of the Council? We all know, through the experience of the last fifty years, how deeply the changes in the liturgical forms and texts affects the people; how much must a change in the text of such a central point affect the people? While this is the case, it has long been held that the translation of “many” was to be preceded by a thorough catechesis on the difference between translation and interpretation, a catechesis in which the bishops must inform their priests, through which they must make themselves clear to their faithful, what it is about. This catechesis is a basic requirement before the new translation comes into force. As far as I know, such a catechesis has, until now, not been given in the German language area. The intention of my letter, dear brothers, is to most urgently ask for such a catechesis to be established, to then discuss it with the priests and immediately make it available to the faithful.

Such a catechesis must first briefly explain why after the Council the word “many”was translated in the Missal with “all”: to clearly express the universality of the salvation desired by and coming from Jesus. This leads to the question: If Jesus died for all, why do the words of the Last Supper then say “for many”? And why do we then keep these institutional words of Jesus? Added to this must be that Jesus, according to Matthew and Mark, said “for many”, but according to Luke and St. Paul “for you”. This apparently narrows the circle even more. But from here one can also reach the solution. The disciples know that the mission of Jesus transcends them and their inner circle; that He came to gather together all the scattered children of God (cf. Joh. 11:52). This “for you” makes the mission of Jesus very concrete for those present. They are not some anonymous element of some vast totality, but everyone knows that the Lord died particularly for me, for us. “For you” reaches into the past and into the future; I have been named very personally; we, who gather here, are known as such by Jesus. In this way, “for you” is not a constriction, but a specification which is valid for every community that celebrates the Eucharist, unites itself concretely to the love of Christ. In the words of consecration, the Roman Canon has united the two Biblical reading and reads: “for you and for many”. At the reform of the liturgy, this formulation was then taken over for all prayers.

But once again: Why “for many”? Did the Lord then not die for all? The fact that Jesus Christ, as incarnated Son of God, is the Man for all Men, the new Adam, belongs to the basic certainties of our faith. I would like to remind you of but three passages in Scripture: God gave His Son “up for the sake of all of us,” Paul writes in the Letter to the Romans (Rom. 8:32). “One man died for all,” he says in the Second Letter to the Corinthians about the death of Jesus (2 Cor. 5:14). Jesus has “offered himself as a ransom for all”, it says in the First Letter to Timothy (1  Tim 2:6). But then it is right to ask ourselves once again: When this is all so clear, why then does the Eucharistic Prayer say “for many”? Well, the Church took this formulation from the institution narrative from the New Testament. She does so out of respect for the Word of Jesus, to remain true to Him, also in the Word. The respect for the Word of Jesus is the  reason for the formulation of the prayer. But then we ask: why did Jesus say this Himself? The true reason for that is that Jesus, in this way, revealed Himself as the servant of God from Is 53, identified Himself as the form that the word of the prophet was expecting. Respect of the Church for Jesus’ Word, faithful to Jesus Word from Scripture, is this double faithfulness the solid basis for the formulation “for many”. In this chain of reverent loyalty we join the literal translation of the Word of Scripture.

As we have said before, that the “for you” in the Lucan-Pauline tradition does not constrict, but rather specifies, so we can now say that the dialectic of “many” – “all” has its own significance. “All” exists on the ontological level – the being and action of Jesus includes all of mankind, past, present and future. But factually, in the concrete community of those who celebrate the Eucharist, it involves only “many”. In this way one can see an threefold significance in the ordering of “many” and “all”. Firstly, it should mean for us, who may sit at His table, surprise, joy and gratitude, that he has called me, that I am with Him and can know Him. “Thanks to the Lord, who has called me out of mercy into His Church…” Then, secondly, this is also a responsibility.How the Lord reaches the other – “all” – in His own way remains a mystery. But without a doubt it is a responsibility to be called to Him and His table, so that I may hear: For you, for me has He suffered. The many carry a responsibility for all. The community of the many must be the light on the candles, the city on the hill, leaven for all. This is a calling that applies to everyone personally. The many, who we are, must consciously experience their mission in responsibility for the whole. Finally, a third aspect may be added.  In modern society we have the feeling that we are far from “many”, but very few – a small number that is continuously decreasing. But no – we are “many”: “After that I saw that there was a huge number, impossible for anyone to count, of people from every nation, race, tribe and language,” the Revelation of John tells us (Rev. 7:9). We are many and we stand for all. In this way both words, “many” and “all”, belong together and relate to each other in responsibility and promise.

Your Excellency, beloved brother bishops! With all the above I wanted to indicate the basic content of catechesis, which should prepare, as soon as possible, priests and laity for the new translation. I hope that all this may serve towards a more profound celebration of the Eucharist and becomes part of the great task that lies before in he “Year of Faith”. I would hope that the catechesis will soon be presented, to become part of the liturgical renewal for which the Council has worked from its very first session.

With Easter blessing, I remain in the Lord,

Benedictus PP XVI.

==============

Here is the text in the original German, found at the website of the German bishops’ conference: http://www.dbk.de/presse/details/?presseid=2091&cHash=a73624e1fe19363371ca03c812dbf396

SCHREIBEN VON PAPST BENEDIKT XVI.
AN DEN ERZBISCHOF VON FREIBURG UND VORSITZENDEN DER DEUTSCHEN BISCHOFSKONFERENZ, DR. ROBERT ZOLLITSCH

Vatikanstadt
14. 4. 2012

Seiner Exzellenz
dem Hochwürdigsten Herrn
Dr. Robert Zollitsch
Erzbischof von Freiburg
Vorsitzender der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz
Herrenstraße 9

D-79098               F R E I B U R G

Exzellenz!
Sehr geehrter, lieber Herr Erzbischof!

Bei Ihrem Besuch am 15. März 2012 haben Sie mich wissen lassen, daß bezüglich der Übersetzung der Worte „pro multis“ in den Kanongebeten der heiligen Messe nach wie vor keine Einigkeit unter den Bischöfen des deutschen Sprachraums besteht. Es droht anscheinend die Gefahr, daß bei der bald zu erwartenden Veröffentlichung der neuen Ausgabe des „Gotteslobs“ einige Teile des deutschen Sprachraums bei der Übersetzung „für alle“ bleiben wollen, auch wenn die Deutsche Bischofskonferenz sich einig wäre, „für viele“ zu schreiben, wie es vom Heiligen Stuhl gewünscht wird. Ich habe Ihnen versprochen, mich schriftlich zu dieser schwerwiegenden Frage zu äußern, um einer solchen Spaltung im innersten Raum unseres Betens zuvorzukommen. Den Brief, den ich hiermit durch Sie den Mitgliedern der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz schreibe, werde ich auch den übrigen Bischöfen des deutschen Sprachraums zusenden lassen.

Lassen Sie mich zunächst kurz ein Wort über die Entstehung des Problems sagen. In den 60er Jahren, als das Römische Missale unter der Verantwortung der Bischöfe in die deutsche Sprache zu übertragen war, bestand ein exegetischer Konsens darüber, daß das Wort „die vielen“, „viele“ in Jes 53, 11f eine hebräische Ausdrucksform sei, um die Gesamtheit, „alle“ zu benennen. Das Wort „viele“ in den Einsetzungsberichten von Matthäus und Markus sei demgemäß ein Semitismus und müsse mit „alle“ übersetzt werden. Dies bezog man auch auf den unmittelbar zu übersetzenden lateinischen Text, dessen „pro multis“ über die Evangelienberichte auf Jes 53 zurückverweise und daher mit „für alle“ zu übersetzen sei. Dieser exegetische Konsens ist inzwischen zerbröckelt; er besteht nicht mehr. In der deutschen Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift steht im Abendmahlsbericht: „Das ist mein Blut, das Blut des Bundes, das für viele vergossen wird“ (Mk 14, 24: vgl. Mt 26, 28). Damit wird etwas sehr Wichtiges sichtbar: Die Wiedergabe von „pro multis“ mit „für alle“ war keine reine Übersetzung, sondern eine Interpretation, die sehr wohl begründet war und bleibt, aber doch schon Auslegung und mehr als Übersetzung ist.

Diese Verschmelzung von Übersetzung und Auslegung gehört in gewisser Hinsicht zu den Prinzipien, die unmittelbar nach dem Konzil die Übersetzung der liturgischen Bücher in die modernen Sprachen leitete. Man war sich bewußt, wie weit die Bibel und die liturgischen Texte von der Sprach- und Denkwelt der heutigen Menschen entfernt sind, so daß sie auch übersetzt weithin den Teilnehmern des Gottesdienstes unverständlich bleiben mußten. Es war ein neues Unternehmen, daß die heiligen Texte in Übersetzungen offen vor den Teilnehmern am Gottesdienst dastanden und dabei doch in einer großen Entfernung von ihrer Welt bleiben würden, ja, jetzt erst recht in ihrer Entfernung sichtbar würden. So fühlte man sich nicht nur berechtigt, sondern geradezu verpflichtet, in die Übersetzung schon Interpretation einzuschmelzen und damit den Weg zu den Menschen abzukürzen, deren Herz und Verstand ja von diesen Worten erreicht werden sollten.

Bis zu einem gewissen Grad bleibt das Prinzip einer inhaltlichen und nicht notwendig auch wörtlichen Übersetzung der Grundtexte weiterhin berechtigt. Da ich die liturgischen Gebete immer wieder in verschiedenen Sprachen beten muß, fällt mir auf, daß zwischen den verschiedenen Übersetzungen manchmal kaum eine Gemeinsamkeit zu finden ist und daß der zugrundeliegende gemeinsame Text oft nur noch von weitem erkennbar bleibt. Dabei sind dann Banalisierungen unterlaufen, die wirkliche Verluste bedeuten. So ist mir im Lauf der Jahre immer mehr auch persönlich deutlich geworden, daß das Prinzip der nicht wörtlichen, sondern strukturellen Entsprechung als Übersetzungsleitlinie seine Grenzen hat. Solchen Einsichten folgend hat die von der Gottesdienst-Kongregation am 28. 3. 2001 erlassene Übersetzer-Instruktion Liturgiam authenticam wieder das Prinzip der wörtlichen Entsprechung in den Vordergrund gerückt, ohne natürlich einen einseitigen Verbalismus vorzuschreiben. Die wichtige Einsicht, die dieser Instruktion zugrunde liegt, besteht in der eingangs schon ausgesprochenen Unterscheidung von Übersetzung und Auslegung. Sie ist sowohl dem Wort der Schrift wie den liturgischen Texten gegenüber notwendig. Einerseits muß das heilige Wort möglichst als es selbst erscheinen, auch mit seiner Fremdheit und den Fragen, die es in sich trägt; andererseits ist der Kirche der Auftrag der Auslegung gegeben, damit – in den Grenzen unseres jeweiligen Verstehens – die Botschaft zu uns kommt, die der Herr uns zugedacht hat. Auch die einfühlsamste Übersetzung kann die Auslegung nicht ersetzen: Es gehört zur Struktur der Offenbarung, daß das Gotteswort in der Auslegungsgemeinschaft der Kirche gelesen wird, daß Treue und Vergegenwärtigung sich miteinander verbinden. Das Wort muß als es selbst, in seiner eigenen, vielleicht uns fremden Gestalt da sein; die Auslegung muß an der Treue zum Wort selbst gemessen werden, aber zugleich es dem heutigen Hörer zugänglich machen.

In diesem Zusammenhang ist vom Heiligen Stuhl entschieden worden, daß bei der neuen Übersetzung des Missale das Wort „pro multis“ als solches übersetzt und nicht zugleich schon ausgelegt werden müsse. An die Stelle der interpretativen Auslegung „für alle“ muß die einfache Übertragung „für viele“ treten. Ich darf dabei darauf hinweisen, daß sowohl bei Matthäus wie bei Markus kein Artikel steht, also nicht „für die vielen“, sondern „für viele“. Wenn diese Entscheidung von der grundsätzlichen Zuordnung von Übersetzung und Auslegung her, wie ich hoffe, durchaus verständlich ist, so bin ich mir doch bewußt, daß sie eine ungeheure Herausforderung an alle bedeutet, denen die Auslegung des Gotteswortes in der Kirche aufgetragen ist. Denn für den normalen Besucher des Gottesdienstes erscheint dies fast unvermeidlich als Bruch mitten im Zentrum des Heiligen. Sie werden fragen: Ist nun Christus nicht für alle gestorben? Hat die Kirche ihre Lehre verändert? Kann und darf sie das? Ist hier eine Reaktion am Werk, die das Erbe des Konzils zerstören will? Wir wissen alle durch die Erfahrung der letzten 50 Jahre, wie tief die Veränderung liturgischer Formen und Texte die Menschen in die Seele trifft; wie sehr muß da eine Veränderung des Textes an einem so zentralen Punkt die Menschen beunruhigen. Weil es so ist, wurde damals, als gemäß der Differenz zwischen Übersetzung und Auslegung für die Übersetzung „viele“ entschieden wurde, zugleich festgelegt, daß dieser Übersetzung in den einzelnen Sprachräumen eine gründliche Katechese vorangehen müsse, in der die Bischöfe ihren Priestern wie durch sie ihren Gläubigen konkret verständlich machen müßten, worum es geht. Das Vorausgehen der Katechese ist die Grundbedingung für das Inkrafttreten der Neuübersetzung. Soviel ich weiß, ist eine solche Katechese bisher im deutschen Sprachraum nicht erfolgt. Die Absicht meines Briefes ist es, Euch alle, liebe Mitbrüder, dringendst darum zu bitten, eine solche Katechese jetzt zu erarbeiten, um sie dann mit den Priestern zu besprechen und zugleich den Gläubigen zugänglich zu machen.

In einer solchen Katechese muß wohl zuerst ganz kurz geklärt werden, warum man bei der Übersetzung des Missale nach dem Konzil das Wort „viele“ mit „alle“ wiedergegeben hat: um in dem von Jesus gewollten Sinn die Universalität des von ihm kommenden Heils unmißverständlich auszudrücken. Dann ergibt sich freilich sofort die Frage: Wenn Jesus für alle gestorben ist, warum hat er dann in den Abendmahlsworten „für viele“ gesagt? Und warum bleiben wir dann bei diesen Einsetzungsworten Jesu? Hier muß zunächst noch eingefügt werden, daß Jesus nach Matthäus und Markus „für viele“, nach Lukas und Paulus aber „für euch“ gesagt hat. Damit ist scheinbar der Kreis noch enger gezogen. Aber gerade von da aus kann man auch auf die Lösung zugehen. Die Jünger wissen, daß die Sendung Jesu über sie und ihren Kreis hinausreicht; daß er gekommen war, die verstreuten Kinder Gottes aus aller Welt zu sammeln (Joh 11, 52). Das „für euch“ macht die Sendung Jesu aber ganz konkret für die Anwesenden. Sie sind nicht irgendwelche anonyme Elemente einer riesigen Ganzheit, sondern jeder einzelne weiß, daß der Herr gerade für mich, für uns gestorben ist. „Für euch“ reicht in die Vergangenheit und in die Zukunft hinein, ich bin ganz persönlich gemeint; wir, die hier Versammelten, sind als solche von Jesus gekannt und geliebt. So ist dieses „für euch“ nicht eine Verengung, sondern eine Konkretisierung, die für jede Eucharistie feiernde Gemeinde gilt, sie konkret mit der Liebe Jesu verbindet. Der Römische Kanon hat in den Wandlungsworten die beiden biblischen Lesarten miteinander verbunden und sagt demgemäß: „Für euch und für viele“. Diese Formel ist dann bei der Liturgie-Reform für alle Hochgebete übernommen worden.

Aber nun noch einmal: Warum „für viele“? Ist der Herr denn nicht für alle gestorben? Daß Jesus Christus als menschgewordener Sohn Gottes der Mensch für alle Menschen, der neue Adam ist, gehört zu den grundlegenden Gewißheiten unseres Glaubens. Ich möchte dafür nur an drei Schrifttexte erinnern: Gott hat seinen Sohn „für alle hingegeben“, formuliert Paulus im Römer-Brief (Röm 8, 32). „Einer ist für alle gestorben“, sagt er im zweiten Korinther-Brief über den Tod Jesu (2 Kor 5, 14). Jesus hat sich „als Lösegeld hingegeben für alle“, heißt es im ersten Timotheus-Brief (1 Tim 2, 6). Aber dann ist erst recht noch einmal zu fragen: Wenn dies so klar ist, warum steht dann im Eucharistischen Hochgebet „für viele“? Nun, die Kirche hat diese Formulierung aus den Einsetzungs-Berichten des Neuen Testaments übernommen. Sie sagt so aus Respekt vor dem Wort Jesu, um ihm auch bis ins Wort hinein treu zu bleiben. Die Ehrfurcht vor dem Wort Jesu selbst ist der Grund für die Formulierung des Hochgebets. Aber dann fragen wir: Warum hat wohl Jesus selbst es so gesagt? Der eigentliche Grund besteht darin, daß Jesus sich damit als den Gottesknecht von Jes 53 zu erkennen gab, sich als die Gestalt auswies, auf die das Prophetenwort wartete. Ehrfurcht der Kirche vor dem Wort Jesu, Treue Jesu zum Wort der „Schrift“, diese doppelte Treue ist der konkrete Grund für die Formulierung „für viele“. In diese Kette ehrfürchtiger Treue reihen wir uns mit der wörtlichen Übersetzung der Schriftworte ein.

So wie wir vorhin gesehen haben, daß das „für euch“ der lukanisch-paulinischen Tradition nicht verengt, sondern konkretisiert, so können wir jetzt erkennen, daß die Dialektik „viele“ – „alle“ ihre eigene Bedeutung hat. „Alle“ bewegt sich auf der ontologischen Ebene – das Sein und Wirken Jesu umfaßt die ganze Menschheit, Vergangenheit und Gegenwart und Zukunft. Aber faktisch, geschichtlich in der konkreten Gemeinschaft derer, die Eucharistie feiern, kommt er nur zu „vielen“. So kann man eine dreifache Bedeutung der Zuordnung von „viele“ und „alle“ sehen. Zunächst sollte es für uns, die wir an seinem Tische sitzen dürfen, Überraschung, Freude und Dankbarkeit bedeuten, daß er mich gerufen hat, daß ich bei ihm sein und ihn kennen darf. „Dank sei dem Herrn, der mich aus Gnad’ in seine Kirch’ berufen hat…“. Dann ist dies aber zweitens auch Verantwortung. Wie der Herr die anderen – „alle“ – auf seine Weise erreicht, bleibt letztlich sein Geheimnis. Aber ohne Zweifel ist es eine Verantwortung, von ihm direkt an seinen Tisch gerufen zu sein, so daß ich hören darf: Für euch, für mich hat er gelitten. Die vielen tragen Verantwortung für alle. Die Gemeinschaft der vielen muß Licht auf dem Leuchter, Stadt auf dem Berg, Sauerteig für alle sein. Dies ist eine Berufung, die jeden einzelnen ganz persönlich trifft. Die vielen, die wir sind, müssen in der Verantwortung für das Ganze im Bewußtsein ihrer Sendung stehen. Schließlich mag ein dritter Aspekt dazukommen. In der heutigen Gesellschaft haben wir das Gefühl, keineswegs “viele“ zu sein, sondern ganz wenige – ein kleiner Haufe, der immer weiter abnimmt. Aber nein – wir sind „viele“: „Danach sah ich: eine große Schar aus allen Nationen und Stämmen, Völkern und Sprachen; niemand konnte sie zählen“, heißt es in der Offenbarung des Johannes (Offb 7, 9). Wir sind viele und stehen für alle. So gehören die beiden Worte „viele“ und „alle“ zusammen und beziehen sich in Verantwortung und Verheißung aufeinander.

Exzellenz, liebe Mitbrüder im Bischofsamt! Mit alledem wollte ich die inhaltlichen Grundlinien der Katechese andeuten, mit der nun so bald wie möglich Priester und Laien auf die neue Übersetzung vorbereitet werden sollen. Ich hoffe, daß dies alles zugleich einer tieferen Mitfeier der heiligen Eucharistie dienen kann und sich so in die große Aufgabe einreiht, die mit dem „Jahr des Glaubens“ vor uns liegt. Ich darf hoffen, daß die Katechese bald vorgelegt und so Teil der gottesdienstlichen Erneuerung wird, um die sich das Konzil von seiner ersten Sitzungsperiode an gemüht hat.

Mit österlichen Segensgrüßen verbleibe ich

im Herrn Ihr

BENEDICTUS PP XVI