The Dam Break

"However, the recent developments (in the Vatican) indicate a veritable dam break" - "This flood could destroy what has still remains" - kath.net interview with Papal biographer Peter Seewald about the rupture between Francis and Benedict XVI.

Munich (kath.net/rn)

kath.net: Mr. Seewald, on the occasion of the announcement of the newly nominated cardinals and the future prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Der Spiegel titled: "Pope Francis clears Benedict's Legacy." The Frankfurter Rundschau wrote: "Francis finally breaks with Benedict." Were you surprised by the headlines?

Seewald: Not really. On the one hand, they correspond to the wishful thinking of relevant media, on the other hand, it was observed that the course of Pope Francis has radicalized, or let's say, unveiled, as he has gotten older. If then a competent collaborator like Archbishop Georg Gänswein is banished from the Vatican and at the same time a protege is appointed as the highest guardian of the faith, whose qualification for the most important office in the Catholic Church appears questionable, that is already a statement.

kath.net: The future head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Argentine Victor Fernández, defined his future task with the words, "harmonious growth will preserve Christian teaching more effectively than any control mechanism."

Seewald: This not only sounds vague but also seems grotesque in view of the dramatic crisis of the Church in the West. It must give one pause that Pope Francis simultaneously states that in the past the Congregation used "immoral methods." How could that not be seen as an allusion to the former Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger? As well as an attempt to legitimize the change in direction."

kath.net: In your most recent book, Benedict's Legacy, you quote the words of praise that Francis had for his predecessor.  He praised him as a "great Pope": "Great for the power of his intelligence, his contribution to theology, great for his love for the Church and for people, great for his virtues and his faith".

Seewald: That moved me a lot.  And it's also apt.  No knowledgeable observer would not recognize Ratzinger as one of the most important teachers on the throne of Peter.  Today, however, one has to ask oneself whether Bergoglio's confessions were just lip service, or even smokescreen.  We all remember Ratzinger's warm words at the Requiem for John Paul II. Words that touched the heart, of Christian love, of tongues, of respect.  But no one remembered Bergoglio's words in the Requiem for Benedict XVI. They were as cold as the whole ceremony, which could not have been brief enough not to do an inch too much honor to the predecessor.

kath.net: What's that called?

Seewald: Quite simply: If you are serious, you try to cultivate and use the legacy of a "great pope" - and not to damage it.  Benedict XVI  Did it.  In dealing with the legacy of John Paul II, he underlined the importance of continuity and the great traditions of the Catholic Church, without at the same time closing himself off to innovations.  Francis, on the other hand, wants to break out of continuity.  And thus from the teaching tradition of the Church.

kath.net: But doesn't it always need changes, progress?

Seewald: The Church is on the way.  But She doesn't live by Herself.  It is not a placticene mass for the liking of the respective leadership.  For Ratzinger, renewal lay in the rediscovery of the core competence of the Church – in order then to become the source that society needs in order not to become intellectually, morally and spiritually deserted.  Reform means preserving in renewal, renewing in preservation, to bring the testimony of faith into the darkness of the world with new clarity.  The search for the contemporary should never lead to a surrender of the true and valid and to an adjustment to the current situation.

kath.net: And that's different now?

Seewald: One gets the impression.  The appointment of the future Prefect of Faith clearly expresses what the headlines quoted at the beginning mean with the destruction of Benedict's legacy.  While Francis dismissed Cardinal Müller, who had been appointed by Benedict, at the first possible opportunity, he and his long-time Argentinian henchman are now bringing someone into office who immediately announced a kind of self-dismantling.  He wanted to change the catechism, put the statements in the Bible into perspective, and put celibacy up for discussion.

kath.net: Victor Fernández is considered the Pope's ghostwriter.

Seewald: Yes, for speeches that are often quite meaningless, or for the controversial encyclical “Amoris Laetitia”.  With building blocks that critics described as “illegible to wishy-washy” and that experts see bordering on heresy.

kath.net: Francis is still considered a “reformer pope”.

 Seewald: The beginning made you sit up and take notice.  I was impressed by his commitment to the poor, the refugees, to the unbreakable protection of life.  At the same time, the astonished public observed that Bergoglio did not keep many of his promises, saying "huh" and "hott" once, contradicting himself again and again and thus causing considerable confusion.  Added to this were the many cases in which he ruled harshly, deposed people he did not like and closed valuable institutions created under John Paul II.

kath.net: Bergoglio certainly saw other tasks for himself than Benedict.

Seewald: You can't blame him for that.  However, the latest developments point to a veritable dam bursting.  And in view of the dramatic decline of Christianity in Europe, this could result in a flood that destroys what has still held out.

kath.net: A strong word.

Seewald: The latest news from the Vatican reminded me of an essay by Georgio Agamben that has become famous.  In his text about the "mystery of evil", the most discussed philosopher of our time, Benedict XVI.  in the game.  As a young theologian, Ratzinger once distinguished between a church of the wicked and a Church of the just in an interpretation of Augustine.  From the beginning the Church was inextricably mixed.  It is both the Church of Christ and the Church of Antichrist.  According to Agamben, there is also the idea of ​​the katechon...

kath.net: Excuse me?

 Seewald: With regard to the 2nd letter of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, this means the principle of stopping.  A term that is also interpreted as a "barrier" for something or for someone who holds back the end of time.  Benedict XVI  was something like a "stopper", says Agamben.  Against this background, his resignation inevitably provoked a separation of the "beautiful" from the "black" Church, that span in which the wheat is separated from the chaff.  A steep thesis.  But the pope emeritus apparently saw it the same way.  When I asked him why he couldn't die, he replied that he had to stay.  As a memorial for the authentic message of Jesus, as a light on the mountain.  "In the end, Christ will triumph," he added.

 kath.net: Did the development that is now emerging in the Vatican come as a surprise to you? 

 Seewald: From the very first day of his pontificate, Pope Francis tried to distance himself from his predecessor.  It was no secret that the two not only had opposite temperaments, but also opposite ideas about the future of the Church.  Bergoglio knew that he could not hold a candle to Ratzinger in his theological brilliance and nobility.  He concentrated on effects and was supported by the media, which did not want to take a closer look so as not to have to see that behind the Pope, who was portrayed as open-minded and progressive, was a sometimes very authoritarian regent, as Bergoglio was already known in Argentina  was.

Certain journalists turn the staging of a “reformer pope” into a real business model for their books: the “fighter in the Vatican”, who defends himself against the “wolves”, in particular against the “shadow pope” Benedict and his reactionary clique.  In truth, there never was a shadow pope.  As pope emeritus, Benedict had avoided anything that might give the slightest impression that he would rule into the pontificate of his successor.  And if you wanted to look around for the "wolves", you can see that they all fell by the wayside.

kath.net: It was said that no piece of paper would fit between the ex-Pope and the incumbent.

Seewald: Well, that was more of a wishful thinking.  There was the photo of the first encounter.  Two men in white.  Two popes, and both alive.  It was a shock that had to be dealt with.  Bergoglio promoted the image of unity by occasionally making positive comments about his predecessor.  Benedict trusted him.  Conversely, Francis had no qualms about getting rid of one of his predecessor's pet projects with the stroke of a pen.

kath.net: What do you mean by that?

 Seewald: The Apostolic Exhortation "Summorum Pontificum".  It liberalized access to the classical Liturgy.  Ratzinger wanted to pacify the Church without questioning the validity of the Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1969.  "In dealing with the liturgy," he explained, "the destiny of faith and Church is decided."  Francis, on the other hand, describes traditional forms as a "nostalgic disease".  There is the "danger" of going backwards as a reaction to modernity.  As if you could control trends, longings, needs through prohibitive decrees.  The Bolsheviks had already tried in vain.

kath.net: Apparently there was a survey according to which the majority of the world episcopate was in favor of a withdrawal.

Seewald: That's not true.  On the one hand, the survey was only answered by a few bishops at all, on the other hand, as far as I know, the majority of them had by no means spoken out against Benedict's "Summorum Pontificum".  The results were probably never published.  And how unstylish that the Pope Emeritus had to learn about the change from "L'Osservatore Romano".  For him it was like a stab in the heart.  His health never recovered from it.  Shortly after his death, everyone could see how Bergoglio tightened his pace.

kath.net: You mentioned the Gänswein case?

Seewald: With which Bergoglio didn't do himself any favors.  It makes him unbelievable.  One cannot, Bible in hand, continually speak of brotherly love, mutual respect, and mercy while trampling on those virtues.  The brutality and public humiliation with which a worthy man like Gänswein was dumped is unprecedented.  Not even the habit of saying a word of thanks to a departing employee, as is customary in the smallest company, was followed.

 kath.net: The media speak of an "act of revenge" against Gänswein.

Seewald: But revenge for what?  Because someone here showed no subservient mentality while maintaining loyalty, but rather the maturity that Bergoglio always demands?  Because he published a book that is important and necessary given the ongoing misrepresentations of the work and person of the German Pope?  A book in which Francis is anything but bad?  The Pope downgraded Gänswein, but he meant the one Gänswein stands for.  And the legacy you want to put aside like you put your closest collaborator aside.  For the translation of the Gänswein book into German, Herder-Verlag, as I was told by publishing circles, was not allowed to use the translators for the Vatican as usual.  The job had been strictly forbidden to them.

kath.net: Once again on the personal details of Fernández, the future prefect of faith.  When he was to become rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, there were reservations.

Seewald: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had doctrinal concerns and the Congregation for Education considered him unsuitable for such an important leadership position.  It was then enforced by the Archbishop of Buenos Aires at the time: Jorge Mario Bergoglio.  As pope, Bergoglio clears the way to Rome for him by redefining the duties of a Prefect of the Dicastery of Faith.  It is not so much about preserving the doctrine as it is about a growing understanding of the truth "without committing to a single form of expression".  In plain language: without committing yourself.

What is needed is less a guardianship, wrote Francis of Fernández in the register, but that of a promoter of the charism of theologians, whatever that may mean.  The reality is always more important than the idea.  To put it plainly: what is currently in demand.  Above all, Fernández should “take into account the most recent magisterium” – that of Francis.  Bergoglio had previously watered down the article issued by John Paul II on the organization of the Dicastery, which dealt with the protection of the "truth of faith and the integrity of morals".

kath.net: What is to be seen of Francis' word about the "immoral measures" taken by the former Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Seewald: That's infamous.  The statement is intended to discredit the high level of the Congregation under Cardinal Müller and Ratzinger in order to make relativism hopeful.  It's bad that the anti-Church media read the "Panzer Cardinal" and "hardliner" of Joseph Ragthinger.

The "Spiegel" picked up the template immediately and once again spoke of the former "religious policeman" who was also responsible for the withdrawal of Hans Küng's license to teach.  Complete nonsense, just like most of the common clichés about the former cardinal.  As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger saw himself as anything but a persecutor and certainly not as someone who operates with “immoral methods”.

Immediately after he took office, bishops, theologians and priests who were objected to were no longer scolded, as was previously the case, but invited to Rome in important cases in order to personally deal with the different opinions.  Ratzinger strengthened the rights of authors and, for the first time, gave theologians accused of dogmatic deviation the right of defense.  As a black legend tells, there was never a formal oath of silence towards Leonardo Boff.  The dispute was not about liberation theology, but about Boff's questionable Christological statements.

kath.net: Instead of a Church from above or a Church from below, Ratzinger recommended a "Church from within".

Seewald: Especially in unstable times, he explained, the Church must think twice as much about its own.  Only through her resolute ethics can she become a real advisor and partner in the difficult questions of modern civilization.  In contrast to other theologians, judged the liberal Munich theologian Eugen Biser, "who discarded stone by stone from the old building because it did not fit into their new building", Ratzinger always remained "true to the origin".  He took seriously Jesus' eternal warning to his Church, which Christ expressed in a dramatic word to Peter according to the Gospel of Mark: “Away with you, Satan!  you want to trip me up;  because you do not have in mind what God wants, but what people want.”

kath.net: It is said that Fernández initially rejected the appointment as prefect of the faith.

Seewald: Only when the pope assured him that he didn't have to deal with sexual abuse in the Church did he give his okay.  Here, too, there is a clear difference in orientation.  While Fernández denied responsibility for the abuse, Ratzinger, as prefect, drew it into his area because he saw crimes being swept under the carpet and victims left alone.  However, Fernández is not a blank slate on this subject.  The Argentine newspaper "La Izquierda Diario" reported that the future Prefect of Faith, as Archbishop of La Plata, had "covered up in various forms" at least eleven cases of sexual abuse by priests.  The best-known case was that of former prison chaplain Eduardo Lorenzo, who committed suicide in 2019 and avoided arrest by the police.

 kath.net: Is dealing with abuse a downside in Bergoglio's pontificate?

Seewald: Two examples: Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels hit the headlines in 2010 because, as archbishop, he covered up child abuse by priests and then covered for a bishop who abused his own nephew.  This did not prevent Pope Francis from appointing him Synodal Chair of the Family Conference in Rome in autumn 2014.  Danneels was one of the driving forces of the so-called "Mafia of St. Gallen", a group of cardinals that Bergoglio already wanted to push through as pope at the 2005 conclave;  which almost succeeded.

Francis also had no problem appointing the known abuser Theodore McCarrick, the former Archbishop of Washington, to Vatican bodies.  Benedict XVI  had taken action against McCarrick, while Francis entrusted him with negotiations with the People's Republic of China.  This led to an agreement, where the underground Church Benedict XVI.  still supported, was subordinated to the state authorities.  Since then, banners with inscriptions such as "Love the Communist Party" have been hanging in China's churches.  In early April this year, the Communists appointed a new bishop for Shanghai without consulting the Vatican.  Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin protested, but Pope Francis decided to “heal the canon law irregularity”, i.e. to nod off the case.

kath.net: How sustainable can the election of the new candidates, who will be created as cardinals at the consistory in September, have an impact?

 Seewald: In the meantime, around 70 percent of future papal electors have been put into office by Francis.  "Unlike his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI," analyzed the Vatican observer Ludwig Ring-Eifel of the KNA, "Francis has largely called into the College of Cardinals those men who are on his theological line."  The College of Cardinals is becoming “more and more a reflection of his thinking and his origins”.

What is striking is not only the sharp increase in the proportion of Hispanics, but also the age of the new purple wearers.  Mostly around 60 years old, they should not only influence the next conclave, but eventually also the one after that.  However, as is well known, the Holy Spirit still has a say in this.  And many who are rejoicing today that Francis is doing away with Benedict's legacy could be weeping bitterly tomorrow.

 kath.net: THANK YOU for the interview!

 Great kath.net book tip!

 Benedict XVI

 one life

 By Peter Seewald

 Hardcover, 1184 pages

 2020 Droemer/Knaur

 ISBN 978-3-426-27692-1

 Price Austria: 39.10 euros

AMDG