LA STAMPA'S VATICAN INSIDER: The accusation is explicit: the Pope emeritus intervenes with a text that might represent "a pastoral and theological line parallel to that of the Pope", and thus lends itself to being used as a weapon for those opposing Francis.

Pubblicato il 15/04/2019

Ultima modifica il 15/04/2019 alle ore 17:12

DOMENICO AGASSO JR
VATICAN CITY

For the first time in six years the Vatican fits tight for "two popes". Or rather, for the Pontiff and the Emeritus. Benedict XVI’s "notes" on pedophilia risk creating a fracture in this unique situation: the coexistence of two successors of Saint Peter within the "enclosure of Peter". So far the balance has been maintained thanks to the affectionate relationship between the two popes, in addition to the prudence of the emeritus, but now the Holy See suffers from the weight of this coexistence. A "constitutional" question therefore arises on the role of the emeritus. Starting from the assumption that the pope is bishop of Rome, referring to the indications "for the ministry of the bishops", which reads: "the Bishop Emeritus always carries out his activity in full agreement with the diocesan Bishop and in deference to his authority. In this way all will understand clearly that the diocesan Bishop alone is the head of the diocese, responsible for its governance".

Le notizie più importanti della settimana e non solo. Scopri Top10 e La cucina de La Stampa
Benedict XVI's notes on paedophilia open the "constitutional" question and unleash accusations against his entourage. Beyond the content of Ratzinger's text - in which he criticizes progressive theology and writes that the spiritual collapse that caused paedophilia began in 1968 - has never before form become substance like in this affair. In the Vatican the air is heavy. Because many people believe that with this unusual statement Ratzinger was not "hidden from the world" as he had announced after the renunciation of the papacy. And what aggravates the situation is the chosen theme, decisive for Bergoglio’s pontificate of and for the Church as a whole.
The accusation is explicit: the Pope emeritus intervenes with a text that might represent "a pastoral and theological line parallel to that of the Pope", and thus lends itself to being used as a weapon for those opposing Francis.
And among the "oddities" noted there is for example the lack in the document of any mention of emblematic cases such as that of Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, who began to commit the first sexual abuse in the '40s, well before '68, and was anything but the progressive current. At the same time Ratzinger's affirmations are considered by the conservative and traditionalist galaxy as necessary and urgent words of truth to save the "boat of Peter" that is allegedly sinking. As Cardinal Robert Sarah would tweet: "We must thank the Pope Emeritus for having had the courage to speak. His analysis of the crisis of the Church is of fundamental importance".
All eyes are focused above all on Ratzinger's entourage, accused of wanting to insist on making Ratzinger's pontificate continue in some way, confirming the thesis that the true and great Pope is the German, not the Argentine one. The number one clue would be the way this media operation was set, with the involvement of Catholic and non-Catholic media that in the United States are part of the apparatus in continuous propaganda against Pope Francis.
In addition, the authenticity of the article is questioned. As Luis Badilla, director of the Seismograph, near the Vatican, says: "The iron circle around Ratzinger has not rarely taken the place of the Pope Emeritus". And as Gian Franco Svidercoschi, former deputy director of Osservatore Romano, author of the pamphlet "Church, freed from evil. The scandal of a believer in the face of paedophilia" (Rubbettino), writes: uncertainty "is due, for Ratzinger's precarious health conditions, not only physical". And then "an acrimony emerges that does not belong to him". And if "someone can answer that it is not so - he continues - then why hasn't he limited himself to transmitting these "notes" to Francis?" For Svidercoschi "the fact that both Parolin and Francis have been informed does not attenuate the gravity of a gesture inevitably interpreted as an attack on Bergoglio". Also because, "how could one answer "no" to a request from the Pope Emeritus?". Moreover, Benedict's staff, with this "international anti-Francis coordination, also puts Ratzinger in difficulty, forcing him to a role he doesn't want. He thus suffers yet another imposition". He explains: after his resignation "he wanted to call himself Father Benedict and not take the title of emeritus, nor be dressed in white and live in the Vatican. But then someone forced him".