Rorate Caeli provides a translation and summary from an Italian news magazine on its predictions for how Pope Benedict will be shaking up the Vatican in 2006. I’m not sure if I agree with everything, but it’s an interesting look.
Archbishop Angelo Comastri, tasked by the Pope with helping plan the reconstruction of the Curia, would become head of the Congregation for Clergy. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos would retire from that post, but remain in charge Ecclesia Dei affairs.
Archbishop Piero Marini, who heads the office for papal liturgies, would get Comastri’s old post as Vicar for Vatican City, while Marini’s deputy, Francesco Camaldo, a Benedict favorite, would take his place.
A couple of other curial moves are mentioned. I note that some of the biggest moves are not mentioned. Who will head the Secretariat of State, the second-highest ranking post in the Vatican and perhaps most influential worldwide after the Pope himself? It will be interesting to see how that settles out.
A word of caution: The Italian press is infamous for making claims and predictions and forecasts based on the flimsiest pretexts so you would do well to take such articles with a very large grain of salt. And in this papacy where everything is played very close to the vest, that applies even more. The old Roman aphorism is that those who speak don’t know and those who know don’t speak.
Technorati Tags: cardinal, Catholic, Church politics, pope, Pope Benedict, Vatican
It’s not clear to me what makes this a revolution rather than just a series of routine appointments and reassignments.
I agree with Charles. How would these men change the way that things are done in the Vatican?
What I would like to know, as most people, is Benedict going to make bishops enforce the laws of the church regarding those who support abortion, same sex marriage, etc?
First, to those who have questioned the word, it was not I who called it a “revolution”, but Panorama (“rivoluzione”).
Second, it is NOT a mere change of positions. A major restructuring of the Curia is planned, by yhe Pope and Abp. Comastri (see second item). In my modest opinion, it will probably be the most important restructuring of the Curia in 100 years, since the overhaul of Pope St.Pius X. Let us just wait…
OK, New Catholic, a restructuring to what end? Just what is this revolution all about? I would love to see the right kind of revolution at the Vatican. Why isn’t this a mixture of prelates retiring, prelates tired of their jobs and wanting a new portfolio, Benedict appointing people he likes and admires, and reorganizing the Curia to make it more efficient based on Benedict’s intuitions about curial efficiency and effectiveness.? Shuffling the deck is not, per se, a revolution of any kind.
Why and how is this resturcturing so important? Why is Panorama talking about a revolution?
I think there are grounds to hope that the “rift” with the traditionalists can be healed through Benedict’s efforts and that there will be slow improvements in the state of the liturgy through his leadership. I think that Benedict is as well equipped as anyone to reconcile with the Orthodox and that progress can be made under his pontificate. What is this revolution?
The English-speaking Catholic establishment is trying to underplay or misrepresent what Benedict XVI said on December 22nd. They don’t like it. Have you noticed that Sandro Magister has been absent from conversation lately?
You should read it for yourself. But translations are hard to find, for obvious reasons…..Go here—http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=4944
Pope Benedict’s emphasis becomes more well known all the time.
And you should read what Sandro Magister has written about it.
In English, http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=44072&eng=y
It’s called Pope Ratzinger Certifies the Council – The Real One
And in Italian, http://blog.espressonline.it/weblog/stories.php?topic=03/04/09/3080386 (where I got the chinese translation above!)
The old lady in the back—yeah, the one with the rosary—scores a touchdown after all.
What are you talking about? Catholic World News covered the address and linked to AsiaNews’ translation the day after it was given. It isn’t hard to find, but is available from a major Catholic news site.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=41398
So, you have the transcript of the whole address in English online?
That’s what the link is for.
Yes, but isn’t it interesting that it appeared in the Asian new, in English of all things, and nowhere else? Who translated it, I wonder?
And why has commentary about the striking things he said been so absent?
AsiaNews is edited by Fr Bernardo Cervellera. I presume he translated it. The service is affiliated with one of the Vatican congregations.
Phil Lawler at CWNews has commented on it. I think his comments were only sent to subscribers.
Cool. Thanks for the answers, Domenico.
Now I wonder why it wasn’t picked up by anyone else. Did the CNS, for instance, pick it up?
Magister’s complaint is that translations of the speech are appearing only slowly on vatican.va.
Really. Did you see his blog?
And that still doesn’t explain why the likes of CNS haven’t picked up on such an important address, right before Christmas and all. You guys did, even though you had to go find it at AsiaNews. What’s up with them?
I mean, really, this is not the topic of the week. This is the BIG topic—the correct interpretation of Vatican II by a brand new pope, after 40 years of strife. You’d think they’d see fit to give it a paragraph or two and a link, wouldn’t you?
Somewhere recently I read a number of principles for interpreting Vatican 2 from the Synod of Bishops in 1985. Among other things the prinicple is stated that the council should be understood in continuity with the past and not as a rupture with the past.
What is Benedict saying now that is any different from what has been said continuously by the Popes over the last 40 years?
The one new thing I see is an explicit teaching that Dignitatis Humanae is a change in policy rather than a change in doctrine. But this is implicit in the principle – already ennunciated – that the council is not a rupture with the past.
This comment may be addressed to Lefebvrists who have expressed concerns about the orthodoxy of DH.
Possibly he is adopting more of the language of the traditionalists who accept the council to the effect that it was pastoral and not doctrinal.
Because the UNCATHOLIC bishops who have a strangle hold on some of the media (both Catholic and NON) are working on their spin, of course!
OK, Mr. Williams, then please direct us to these pronouncements by past popes who have said exactly what Pope Benedict said in his Dec. 22 speech. To say “the Council must be interpreted according to Tradition” is not enough: an intellectual strategy for this interpretation must be put forward, and Benedict has done just that.
Yes, New Catholic. The statements of Benedict XVI are different from statements of the past because he does not shrink from admitting that there has been a hermaneutic which runs counter to the Church’s tradition and doctrine and that this hermaneutic has been pushed consistently by some interests. This was not admitted before even though this has been the case for 40 years.
Pope Benedict has a solid intellectual hold on what has gone wrong and where we are now AND he is not averse to talking about it honestly. This is a change.
Charles, do you really believe that there were never two competing hermaneutics about the council?? I don’t believe anyone is THAT blind.
Regarding appointments in Rome, keep an eye on Cardinals Marc Ouellet of Quebec City and Joachim Meisner of Cologne. Just a hunch.
Doesn’t Canada need Cdl. Ouellet more than Rome does?
Good show. We need orthodoxy at the top. I have read a bit about Ouellet.
Ron, nothing personal at all, but I hope you don’t know something we don’t know, ‘cause Canada definitely needs Ouellet more than Rome does. (Of course, he would be awesome in Rome as well – just one of those multi-talented kind of guys. Like Ratzinger.)