Back on November 10, well-respected Vaticanista Sandro Magister reported:
Precisely when the G20 summit in Cannes was coming to its weak and uncertain conclusion, on that same Friday, November 4 at the Vatican, a smaller summit convened in the secretariat of state was doing damage control on the latest of many moments of confusion in the Roman curia.
In the hot seat was the document on the global financial crisis released ten days earlier by the pontifical council for justice and peace. A document that had disturbed many, inside and outside of the Vatican.
The secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, complained that he had not known about it until the last moment. And precisely for this reason he had called that meeting in the secretariat of state.
The conclusion of the summit was that this binding order would be transmitted to all of the offices of the curia: from that point on, nothing in writing would be released unless it had been inspected and authorized by the secretariat of state.
The PCJP document was indeed a subject of controversy. For example, some, such as the astute Mark Brumley, pointed out the difficulties that would be involved in implementing its proposals.
In anticipation of and in response to the controversy, I tried to provide some perspective to help people situate it in the overall scheme of things, including whether or not it represented an act of the Magisterium.
Magister’s piece on the document was widely hailed in the blogosphere and viewed as an indication that the document had caused a secret, closed-door Vatican smackdown.
I thought about blogging on the topic at the time, but I wanted to wait and see how the story matured.
Sandro Magister is a well-respected Vaticanista, and I always take what he has to say seriously, but it’s notoriously difficult to get accurate behind-the-scenes information on what’s going on at the Vatican, particularly in the fever swamp of Italian journalism. (N.B. ours is even worse when it comes to getting Vatican stories right!)
I wasn’t surprised, then, when John Thavis of Catholic News Service, provided a different take on the story, writing:
Then in mid-November, an Italian blogger reported that the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, had been blindsided by the text and had ordered that, from now on, all such documents must have the prior approval of his office.
Wait. Actually, I was surprised by that. “An Italian blogger?” I have great respect for bloggers (I am one), but Magister’s accomplishments go beyond merely having a WordPress account. He’s a well-respected Vaticanista. (Did I mention he’s a well-respected Vaticanista?)
And what’s with this referring to an individual public source but not giving his name? That’s just bad journalism—especially in the Internet age, when people expect not just the name of the person you’re responding to but a link directly to the piece you’re responding to. Even if Catholic News Service policy prohibits links in online stories for some foolish reason, you should at least give the name of the person you’re responding to so people can Google him, see what he said, and make up their own minds what the merits of his account versus yours are.
It’s one thing to grant anonymity to a non-public source (Magister did that, and I don’t blame Thavis for it, either), but when you’re responding to someone who has put his remarks on the public record, not giving his name is wrong.
“An Italian blogger” is wholly inadequate.
But on with the story. According to Thavis:
The real back story was far different, according to informed sources. Months ago, in view of the upcoming G-20 meeting in France Nov. 3-4, Vatican officials discussed how to make a contribution to the discussion on international monetary reform.
Three years earlier, the Vatican had been invited to a U.N.-sponsored International Conference on Financing for Development in Qatar, and the Vatican delegation had published a position paper on financial abuses. That paper was prepared by the justice and peace council, but it was presented as an official statement of the Holy See.
This year, however, because the Vatican is not a member of the G-20 and had not been invited to its meeting, Vatican officials decided that a statement on financial reform should come in the form of a “note” by the justice and peace council, rather than a formal statement of the Holy See.
The important thing was that the council’s members and consultants worked with the Secretariat of State throughout the drafting process. The “Second Section” of the Secretariat of State, which deals with foreign affairs, not only discussed the document’s approach but reviewed and “adjusted” its content before publication, sources said.
So the idea that Cardinal Peter Turkson’s justice and peace council had pulled a fast one on Vatican higher-ups was baseless. But the story got legs because of a misunderstanding that occurred about the same time.
Every year, Pope Benedict XVI—like his predecessor—issues a message for the World Day for Migrants and Refugees. The message is prepared by the pontifical council that deals with migration issues, and receives final approval by the Secretariat of State.
This year, however, extensive excerpts of the pope’s migration message were inadvertently published five days early on the website of the Vatican Information Service. The text was removed after several hours, but there was enough embarrassment to prompt action by Cardinal Bertone. He issued instructions that all documents bearing the pope’s signature must be released through the Secretariat of State, and not circulated ahead of time by other Vatican agencies.
That led some to mistakenly conclude that Cardinal Bertone was reacting to the document on financial reform, and reining in radical Roman Curia elements at the justice and peace council. On the contrary, Vatican sources said, no document on sensitive global economic issues would ever be published without the “nulla osta” of the Secretariat of State.
Thavis’s story, like Bertone’s, is based on anonymous sources, which is par for the course at the Vatican (and, these days, seemingly everywhere). It thus provides an interesting counter-portrait, though one should be aware that Thavis’s anonymous sources are not necessarily any more reliable than Magister’s. And they may both have distinct spins they want put on the basic facts.
For example, Thavis states that the idea that the PCJP had “pulled a fast one on Vatican higher-ups” was unsubstantiated. But did Magister claim that a “fast one” had been pulled?
What he said was that Bertone “complained that he had not known about it until the last moment.” That’s not saying that the PCJP was responsible for this or that it tried to pull a fast one. They may well, as Thavis states, have been in touch with the Secretariate of State all along and yet, for whatever reason, Bertone did not learn of the document until relatively late in the game—at least late enough that he wished he had known about it earlier.
So I’m not seeing Thavis’s facts and Magister’s facts as conflicting on this point.
That being said, do they conflict on others? Would Magister revise his account in any way in light of further developments?
In his latest piece, Magister writes:
With respect what www.chiesa originally reported, it should be noted that the requirement of advance review by the secretariat of state applies exclusively to texts that bear the signature of the pope, and not to those simply signed by the heads of one of the offices of the Roman curia.
The memo therefore cannot refer, strictly speaking, to the document from the pontifical council for justice and peace presented at the Vatican press office on October 24, entitled “Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of global public authority.” A document not signed by Benedict XVI, but only by the heads of that dicastery.
It is likely, instead – as reported by the agency of the United States bishops, “Catholic News Service,” in an article on November 17 – that the memo in question was prompted by a mishap that took place with Benedict XVI’s message for the 98th World Day of Migrants and Refugees, presented at the Vatican press office on October 25.
In effect, large sections of this pontifical document had been released by the “Vatican Information Service,” the online agency of the Holy See, five days before the date set for its publication.
This does not change the fact that at the summit held at the secretariat of state on November 4, to address such incidents, there was also talk of the document on the international financial system issued autonomously by the pontifical council for justice and peace, the object of strong criticism after its publication, inside and outside of the Vatican.
From this summit came the authoritative statement from the archbishop substitute, who in the Vatican chain of command comes right after the pope and the secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.
So it seems like Magister is in part modifying his original story but in part sticking with it.
He then does what so few news sources do, and for which he deserves much applause, which is to reprint the actual document he’s talking about—the memo that came out of the Secretariate of State’s meeting.
I’ve always been a believer in showing what the actual documents say, as it allows people to make up their own minds in a much more informed way than if they aren’t simply relying on somebody’s summary of an unseen text.
So be sure and check out Magister’s latest post for the text of the document.
It makes for a fascinating glimpse into inner workings of the world of Vatican documents.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
I appreciate your fisking of a story that is pretty much inside baseball.
Does the PCJP share in any way in the magisterium of the papacy? For that matter, does any doctrinal document support the proposition that the pope himself speaks infallibly on “peace and justice” issues? JPII himself spoke against the then-impending US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Infallible? Don’t think so.
If there is no “infallibility” attached to “worldly” (i.e., not touching directly on faith or morals) advice, why bother? Shut the PCJP down and save everyone the annoyance.
Seems this Cardinal can’t control his responsibilities ? Seems that same disability infects many Diocese in the USA. Surely the one responsible for this can be pinpointed & removed. The USCCB could also pinpoint the radicals inside the CCHD & fulfill their obligations to the faithful, instead of constantly defending these misfits !
What do I think? I think this is the kind of thing that makes my task more and more difficult. I’ve spent countless hours trying to dispel the beliefs of my conservative, non-Catholic friends who are convinced that the Catholic Church is a front for socialism, or even Communism. I’ve spent more countless hours trying to convince my liberal Catholic friends and relatives that their notion of a socialist Church is nonsense and unprovable. The more these kinds of things are publicized, how ever mishandled or unauthorized, the more I’m beginning to have doubts myself. What’s a good Catholic to do, Jimmy?
Indeed, what is a good Catholic to do?
The PCJP document was of course, laudable in the perfectly sensible intentions it recommended. Who doesn’t want a better economic system, more stable currencies, and all that?
But the notion that creating a sort of U.N.-operated version of the Federal Reserve with worldwide authority run by the sort of bureaucrats who’re currently presiding over the disintegration of the Euro and attempting to steer a middle course between allowing the PIIGS to collapse into chaos and subsidizing their profligacy on the backs of the comparatively better-behaved French and Germans?
That “bright idea,” which was the PCJP’s recommendation, is idiotic, sad, ignorant, embarrassing, juvenile. It’s the kind of plan a high-school debate team would propose in a debate tournament, if they weren’t a particularly good team. Grown men should be ashamed of suggesting it, but apparently these particular grown men don’t know enough about the topics they’re commenting on to know that.
So we loyal folk are left scrambling to explain that no, this isn’t a Magisterial document, and that the parts of it which reflect Magisterial teaching are all of the unobjectionable parts dealing with “how things ought to be,” and that the parts suggesting practical action to get there are neither necessarily reflective of the opinion of the Roman Pontiff, nor in any way connected to that part of the Pope’s authority which is protected by the charism of infallibility.
At least, I hope very much that Benedict XVI, for whom I have much respect, does not think that what the PCJP recommended is actually a good idea. I love my “German Shepherd,” as they say; I’d hate to find that in any area of opinion, even ones mostly disconnected from the duties of his office, he was as disconnected from reality as all that. I mean, I know: All men disappoint, if you give them long enough, even saintly ones. But please, God, for the glory of Your name and the sake of the faithful, don’t let the pope be as blind as that.
Honestly, when I read the PCJP’s idea of a plan to solve our economic difficulties, I felt it better matched the kind of mushy-headed thinking I’d expect from from Katharine Jefferts Schori and John Shelby Spong, than from anyone who ought to be associated with the Vicar of Christ.
The proposed solutions are what caused the present problem in the first place.
I am just a simple old lady who was brought up in a simple Catholic Church [so I thought] and now with communications as it is, is just learning the machinations of the inner workings of the Church.[thanks to the internet].
Now I know why there are cafeteria-catholics. The governing body of the Catholic Church is too big, just as the governing body of the U.S. is too big. “The one hand does not know what the other hand is doing”. That is my answer without all the fancy jibe given above. [and somebody corrected me when I said the Pope should have been advised of the pedophilia, saying the Pope’s role is ‘teacher’?] How much does the Pope know of what is going on. How much did the Pope know of what was going on in Argentina—-my Argentina friend hates the Pope and the Catholic Church for that big problem & is now an avid Baptist. If the Pope is too old to handle these huge important matters, then there should be a younger Clergyman by his side who can handle it, not spread around to different groups or Bishops who always “mess-up”. My opinion.
With all due respect to Sue, while communication at the Vatican can be confusing to may including myself, I do not like the comments about this somehow being the Pope’s fault. He can only do so much and many around him in the curia oppose his ideas. He only knows as much as he is being told and I get tired of people trying to say the Pope should do this or that. He as enough to take from the Media as it is. If you want to be critical of somebody for this it should be Pope Paul VI who came up with the idea of all these pontifical agencies after Vatican II. Also as far as “Cafeteria Catholics” are concerned they either follow Church Teaching or they are Protestants who started the Pick and Choose from of Christianity.
Joannie: I did say that if the Pope is too old [and most are old when elected Pope] then there should be someone by his side who can handle these things [like president & vice-president] and I am not saying that is the title to be used, just an example. I was not ‘blaming’ the Pope, I was blaming the communications. Then you say “many of the Curia oppose his ideas” and so many “cafeteria Catholics” oppose ideas also”. [The Curia sounds like our Congress] Many in the Church get confused with the rules, first there is wear a hat in church, then they dispensed with that, then it is standing while receiving the Eucharist instead of kneeling, and dispensing with the Altar Rail and it goes on and on. These little changes does not bother me, it is the larger problems within the Church that does. Someone once told me that the Catholic Church is not a democracy, okay then why do our Bishops get away with so much. Shouldn’t there be someone close to the Pope to see that the Bishops follow Catholic teaching. I remember the old European women who went to church and obeyed every last rule, [because they were told to] but today people are more educated and they discern things in their way. I still say the Pope should have been advised about the pedophilia, that is/was a huge problem. As someone stated, pedophilia is a world problem, but you expect the Catholic Church to do better.
What’s a good Catholic supposed to do, Mark? Continue explaining to non-Catholics that the Church is “holy” not perfect; that infallibility is the Pope’s not the Curia’s. The commission that advised Pope Paul VI on birth control got it all wrong. What we got was Humanae Vitae, the most profound, prophetic magisterial teaching on the cultures of life and death,that even Blessed John Paul could only expand on in Evangelium Vitae. Remember even two in Jesus’ “Curia” (the apostles John and James) wanted to destroy the Samaritan town they had just evangelized! New American Bible (1970) says “He (Jesus) turned to them only to rebuke them.”
I agree 100% with the former navy pilot who opines
that the pontifical council for justice and peace
serves no useful purpose and should be disbanded.
The very notion of “justice and peace” has been
tainted by the support given to anarchist and
socialist entities in the US by nominally Catholic
philantropic organizations without proper oversight.
A most flagrant example was the seven million dollar
donation by the Campaign for Human Development to
the community organizers known as ACORN, later exposed
as a most unsavory collection of charlatans. Our own
diocesan paper still supports the CCHD and distributes
their envelopes in the pews of our churches. The
Turkson initiative is being praised beyond measure and
the Vatican’s effort to turn the world’s finances
over to a “world body” was described as “essentially
in agreement” with the objectives of the Occupy Wall
Street movement. I rest my case.
Anton: You mentioned ACORN, check out NACA another “community organization”.
I think we need to protect our Pope, as there are those even high up in the hierarchy who are trying to undermine Christ’s Church.
“What do you think?”
## That these words are worrying and idiotic in equal measure: “It is the task of today’s generation to recognize and consciously to accept these new world dynamics for the achievement of a universal common good. Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world Authority and to regional Authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalized world.”
My answer: go to Hell. Or, in the words of Gen. Mark Clark (I think it was ?): “Nuts”. Brumley’s words can hardly be bettered, so kudos to him - the really damning thing about that Vatican tosh is that it shows just how out of touch these people are. When churchmen talk eyewash like this, they leave no reason for anyone to take them seriously on matters they are meant to be competent to pronounce on. That quotation from the document says, in effect: world government is inevitable, so you might as well not resist. Britain did not stand against Hitler or Napoleon by taking that attitude ! I’ll follow Rome for religion, but its politics can go to blazes.
This speech is the kind of thing the EU gives us already, and that the would-be politicians in the PCJP want to make universal:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/trichet-repeats-call-european-finance-ministry-abdication-national-sovereignty
The commentary needs reading - it is entirely justified. Are people in the US aware that the European Conference of Catholic Bishops is pro-EUSSReich ? You are now. This Catholic yearning for big, big, big, BIG government is not limited to one lunatic document - the document is one symptom of a serious & widespread infection. Those Catholics who abhor big government in the US can hardly cheer it on when it is rampant in the CC’s political attitudes, which are not those of the common law tradition. The CC is corporatist through & through - the individual, and political freedom, count for little:the giganta-state is all. Which plays into the hands of Fascism & Communism.
@manticore…that was General McAuliffe serving the 101st Airborne Div.
WWI, the Battle of the Bulge in which my husband took part in. As to your remarks, I agree with you entirely. “Nuts” to a ‘world authority’... I am so afraid for our country. These progressives are not for doing our country any good at all. As I mentioned before my new Argentinian friend, who loves this country is so afraid also, she knows what happened in Argentina, she was there.
@Sue: Thanks - I thought it was Patton, or Clark; so TY for the correction :) US military history isn’t my subject - being British doesn’t help.
@manticore: My son-in-law is British and when I visited England with him and my daughter, I spent much of my time talking WWII with his Dad who was also a soldier in WWII. The Catholic Church has always leaned more toward the Democrat Party in the U.S. Our Progressive Democrats want us to be more like the Europeans with a bigger and bigger government who controls every aspect on one’s life. They hate to use the word socialism, but that is what it is. Today’s President & his administration are not doing this country any good, in my opinion.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.