Archbishop Georg Gänswein has claimed that a movement is not only out to destroy Benedict XVI’s life and work but also views the recent accusations of mishandling abuse as an opportunity to erase him from the official memory of the Church.
In Feb. 9 comments to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, the pope emeritus’ personal secretary said he believed a movement exists “that really wants to destroy the person and the work [of Benedict XVI].
“It has never loved him as an individual, his theology, his pontificate,” he said.
Archbishop Gänswein added that members of this movement see recent attacks against him as “an ideal opportunity for a reckoning, like a quest for a damnatio memoriae [condemnation of memory so a person is excluded from official accounts].”
“Each individual case of sexual abuse is appalling and irreparable,” he said. “The victims of sexual abuse have my deepest sympathy, and I feel great sorrow for each individual case.”
But Benedict denied personally mishandling abuse cases, each detailed in an appendix to the letter compiled by four lawyers acting on Benedict XVI’s behalf. The three canonists and one attorney said all four charges made against him in a newly published report on sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising were false.
Benedict had been accused of mishandling these cases of sexual abuse when he was archbishop of Munich and Freising from 1977 to 1982, but the lawyers insisted that then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger was unaware at the time that any of the priests involved had records of sexual abuse.
They also described how, in an 82-page memoir they had submitted on Benedict’s behalf to the Munich investigators for their report, the former pontiff had mistakenly stated he did not take part in a meeting in 1980 to discuss the transfer of a priest to the diocese for therapy.
The lawyers corrected the record at the end of January, stating that then-Archbishop Ratzinger did take part in the meeting, but a mistake was made by one of Benedict’s lawyers in transferring files. The collaborators missed the erroneous entry, and Benedict XVI, under time pressure in which he “had to verify his memory in a few days,” also failed to notice the mistake.
Benedict’s enemies nevertheless used the error to launch attacks on the pope emeritus, with theologians and others accusing him of lying and perjury.
Bishop Georg Bätzing, head of the German bishops’ conference, said last month he expected Benedict XVI to apologize for his handling of abuse cases while at the same he expressed appreciation for Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the current archbishop of Munich, despite Cardinal Marx facing at least two cases himself of mishandling abuse.
In his interview with Corriere della Sera, Archbishop Gänswein said that anyone who knows Benedict “knows that the accusation of having lied is absurd” and added that “a distinction must be made between making a mistake and lying.”
He referred to comments made in L’Osservatore Romano by Cardinal Fernando Filoni, who wrote of Benedict’s “profound and very high moral and intellectual honesty” and explained that “I never found in him any shadow or attempt to hide or minimize anything….”
The above comes from a Feb. 10 story by Edward Pentin in the National Catholic Register.
It is tragic and sad how some would try to tarnish the beloved reputation and memory of this holy, humble, wise Pope, who taught with such clarity, charity and grace. May we continue to pray for Pope-emeritus Benedict. As the Spirit-inspired St. Paul said to bishops and priests in Asia Minor, “For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” Acts 20:27-32
I mostly agree with your beautiful thoughts but I can’t help thinking Benedict has done more to tarnish his legacy by resigning the papacy than the current sharks now swimming in ecclesiastical waters. Sadly he has been forced into silence lest he appear to differ with Pope Francis, whose agenda appears to be nothing like Benedict’s might have been had he remained in office. Nevertheless he has defended himself ably. Holy, yes, and intellectually brilliant; humble, yes, but was it wise for him to abandon the flock at such a crucial moment in church history? Like Celestine V’s resignation hundred’s of years earlier, Benedict’s has been received variously. In my comfortable chair here in Los Angeles, I think him a coward who should have refused the vote of the conclave. Easy to pass judgment from where I sit–harder to know what was really going on. But respectfully, thanks for your contribution, Deacon Craig. May my thoughts elevate to yours.
I do not doubt C. Ratzinger’s honesty, and he will forever be appreciated by me and many others for Summorum Pontificum. That said, his abdication makes me think he should have refused the vote of the conclave, even if by doing it would send J. Bergoglio to the chair of Peter years ahead of time. His “pope emeritus” title IMO besmirches the papal office as much as his actions during his pontificate honored it. Yes I know my perspective is schizophrenic, or illogical, or ignorant. Maybe all three. I just can’t wrap my mind around this man. Best for this reader to suspend judgment about what confounds me re: Benedict.
One thing that working for the church has taught me is that there are evil people who work for the church and evil clerics and evil vowed religious. The good and orthodox Catholics are like sheep in the midst of wolves, even within the church.
I, too, found out this hard truth. You have to fix your eyes always on Christ, and follow Him by your own convictions, seeking Salvation by yourself, guided unseen, by Him. Reminds me of the early Christians, who faced painful persecution amd death! Or, the wandering monks and hermits, who left the world, alone, seeking Christ! Or, St. Francis, when he left his father’s home, and left the world, and gathered his little band of followers– they didn’t have a place to live, either, at first. It is very, very hard, as Christ predicted! And His own Jewish people– plus one of his own Apostles, Judas– betrayed Him, to His death! Christ’s true teachings are very revolutionary, for the sinful, “fallen” world, that does not know Him! Oh, what a hardship, what a struggle, what painful loneliness– or else, to be harmed by imposters, “wolves in sheep’s clothing”… take your pick! It helps to find a group of like-minded, orthodox Catholics, and join them! Today, Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world! And even– in our own Church!
I see a lot of people who don’t know the Faith. Others who do not accept the faith. Others who just want to justify themselves or their political party. Good Christians are sheep and some of the sheep bite.
There are wolves in sheep’s clothing and just plain wolves who are tolerated out of a misguided compassion.
Bohemond recommended an interview with Cardinal Mueller at National Catholic Register. He talked about how the problem-makers in Germany are secularists who don’t want to lose their jobs in the Church.
Ring a bell?
He’s Pope Emeritus, not the Pope.
Downvotes are from schismatics who think Benedict’s resignation was invalid. Don’t listen to any of them. Francis is the Pope, the one and only Pope, legitimately reigning over the Church.
But, Archbishop Ganswein was Pope Benedict’s secretary when he was Pope and continued on as Pope-emeritus Benedict’s secretary. The archbishop worked for Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005, Gänswein was appointed Principal Private Secretary to His Holiness. A year later Pope Benedict XVI gave him the title Prelate of His Holiness. So, he spent about as much time as a Pope’s secretary as he has as a Pope-emeritus’s secretary. It seems his time as secretary to a Pope is more relevant to the story than his time as the secretary to a retired Pope.
I haven’t seen any CCD readers claim Benedict is still the Pope. No grand conspiracy here.
Would it be wrong call Leon Panetta or Jared Kushner presidential advisers, even though Presidents Clinton and Trump are out of office?
We don’t call them ex-president advisers.
Abp. Ganswein is still Prefect of the Pontifical Household. In the evenings, he takes care of matters of Pope Benedict’s household. Originally, according to news reports, Abp. Ganswein objected to Pope Benedict’s plans to resign. He said it was all very painful for him. And he also objected at first, to the new pope’s plans not to live in the papal apartments.
not pope either – “I haven’t seen any CCD readers claim Benedict is still the Pope.”
I’m a CCD reader and I claim Benedict is still the Pope.
RP Well, then either I stand corrected about your error (ask the Pope-emeritus himself) or you’re posting an anonymous false flag deception (and really don’t believe Benedict is still Pope). Do you post here often? So, sadly, you’re either wrong or deceptive (to put in nicely).
You are in grave error.
I am sorry. Truly sorry.
We will pray for you.
Not the Pope?
For a start, you might try Patrick Coffin’s new video, “Seven Pieces of Evidence”: https://rumble.com/vume9o-seven-pieces-of-evidence-that-francis-is-an-antipope.html.
This is what has happened to Patrick Coffin?
Oh what a shame!
I will pray for you and for Patrick Coffin to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit concerning this and any other errors you may hold.
Seriously grieved.
“Catholics who refuse to even consider this evidence are forced to defend and domesticate the worst pope in history”
Stop! You are not supposed to consider it. This is a bad thought. If you consider it, you are going to give the devil a chance to work on you and mislead you.
Don’t do it.
Pope Francis is not the worst Pope in history. Even if you think he is a bad Pope.
He is the perfect Pope to follow St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. He is doing what they did not have the time to do because they were fighting the devil in the arena of Truth. Now, it is time to learn to do all this with Love. How does one love, how does one spread the love of Christ and the Gospel, the Salvation of Christ? God wills that all people be saved.
RP, all of the 7 reasons are utterly ridiculous. The Pope is not some kind of wizard. He is a Catholic man who has been elected to an office. The office can be resigned. There are not magic powers that remain with a Pope if he does not say the right words.
While I unequivocally believe that Francis is Pope, I thought that Cardinal Ratzinger made a few errors in his departure from the papacy that invited this kind of conspiracy theory by this Coffin guy. I don’t think he should have called himself Pope Emeritus. First of all, emeritus status should be given by a third person, not by the person themselves. When my term was up as Chairman of the board of an organization, I didn’t say, “I am honored to have served in this capacity and I now wish to be called Chair Emeritus”. That was an honor best bestowed by my successors. Secondly, he ought to have renounced all the titles of the papacy. His should call himself Cardinal Ratzinger. He should not sign papers with the name Benedict, especially not with the PP after his name. He should not wear the papal white, but ought to have worn the black cassock and other vestments of a Cardinal. And finally, he ought to have done what he promised, to go off and live a life of a monk, silent to the world, at least not publishing anything until after his death. I do think it’s fine for him to live int the Vatican, consult with the Pope, etc., just as Presidents of the US often call on ex-presidents of all parties for advice. He might, except for his age, even participated in the conclave. His counsel could be (and perhaps has been) invaluable to the Roman Pontiff(s) who follow him.
Thank you YFC. I find myself in agreement about Benedict’s life after resignation on all points, especially the impropriety of giving himself the emeritus title. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the whole Benedict resignation, and your post has helped.
Gosh. Thank you.
My honest reaction to the letter was: Why is it all about him?
And his secretary trying to cry victim is really not good.
St. John Chrysostom said that the hardest thing for someone to give up is their reputation.
I imagine every priest who got falsely accused of abuse and got hung out to dry by the Church is going “Let me see…he is upset because he was called a liar.”
The Lord permits these things so we know what to pray for. Pray for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as he is approaching death.
The modernists want to destroy his restoration work in trying to steer the church back to her Catholic identity and roots.
He is being unjustly accused as so many other priests and because he is the last Catholic Pope.
Despite the swirl of debate and the politics of personal interpretation concerning liturgy and doctrine since Vatican II, it is with hope to realize that the contributions of Pope Benedict the XVI and Pope John Paul II are what will allow the Church to pass through the swirling tides. With Pope John Paul, particularly, it was his encyclicals that answer the questions of modernity in an irrefutable way, such as “The Gospel of Life”, “The Splendor of Truth” and “On The Third Millenium” (connected to the significance of the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary), while Pope Benedict was fundamental in the development of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, whenever I use it for RCIA or high school Confirmation prep, is like a light shining in the darkness. Also, I came to realize what a wonderful teacher, like a good high school teacher, who can teach in a simple way, yet lead one to deeper truths, when he wrote his “Jesus of Nazareth” books, and even his simple, but profound books on Saints Throughout The Year and on the Apostles. These contributions will outlast the controversies
Hear, hear!!!
I just think of all those children, raped and abused by priests, bishops. This has been going on a very long time. If it was one of your children, believe me, you’d care. But no, the focus is on Ratzinger, naturally. What speaks volumes is that he was replaced, and the Catholic church never did something like this for centuries. It must have been a monumental liability to keep Ratzinger as pope. Billions and billions of dollars of lawsuit settlements, and billions more no doubt in the making. Yes, they all knew about this, it was one of their secrets. Even Matilda Joslyn Gage wrote about priests sexually abusing children in her classic “Woman, Church and State” published in 1898. It was common knowledge in the towns what priests were doing to children, and so nothing is new. Holding that institution accountable is going to be an epic effort. They need outside regulators to go through their records, because we all know that self regulation just doesn’t work.
“It must have been a monumental liability to keep Ratzinger as pope….”….is that whatXi Jinping said?
Sounds like a bunch of fruits in the Vatican are sitting around on barstools “dishing” on Pope Benedict.
This and they will be forgotten in no time and Benedict will be safe in Heaven.
Once again, this website is removing thumbs down.
Nothing done from admin – glitch on the thumbs?
It showed the thumbs down after I hit it but when I came back on they were gone and now they are back. Or someone else’s.
But thanks.
I remember with clarity the number of Catholics who couldn’t stand Pope Benedict during his pontificate, including the Religious Education director at my church in San Diego who never missed an opportunity to take a swing at him for being “entrenched in his ways”. At the time it was de rigueur for liberal Catholics to disrespect the Pope. Now, we have the same very “tolerant” liberal Catholics who get their knickers in a knot and lecture us for our seeming disobedience to Pope Francis. You can’t make this up.
Exactly. This means, “Silent Observer” that a Catholic’s regard for popes, whatever their pastoral decisions may be, must be one of unbiased and unswerving reverence which is traditionally the case. This is because just as the “tolerant liberals” have no moral ground to demand obedience from those on the right to Pope Francis’ decisions, so those on the right–should a more conservative pontiff be elected in the next conclave–would have no moral ground to demand from the “tolerant liberals” obedience to that future conservative pope. You’re catching on. Therefore the only tenable position is one that I and many like me have taken: obedience to whoever the pope is, humility in the face of their decisions, and reverence to whichever pontiff is on Peter’s throne.
Sigh. Insufferable comes to mind.
This means, “Silent” that as long as those on the right persist in their negativity towards the present Pope, they will have no moral ground in the future to demand obedience from the “tolerant liberals” to a new pope should he turn out to be conservative. Obey the Magisterium.
jon, you are correct when you say that we need to obey, be humble; also be docile.
I do not understand why in your next post you are pitting Catholics against each other.
A Pope is not conservative or liberal.
Depending on a person’s own beliefs (which may be in error) and/or understanding (which may be poorly formed), he may appear to be so.
If you have a problem with the Pope, then you have a problem with Christ.
Read an excellent article from Cdl.Mueller in the NC Register to see what is really going on.
“problem”, again, I am making a point there. I am using labels that these people use and understand (ie, “liberal”, “traditional” etc) to make the point that whatever decision a pope makes, Catholics are called to adhere to it.
jon, I hear you. I think using the labels reinforces error and factions.
You have an understanding that many here do not have but I think the people that you are trying to help see you as attacking them.
bohemond, I read the article you suggested.
More reasons to participate in your diocese listening sessions or survey.
“label,” I will continue to use their “labels” if I determine them to be suitable to convey my message. Doubtful that your fear that these labels reinforce “error and factions” is really a danger as many here are already immersed in such errors. Therefore using these erroneous labels to make a further point is advantageous. It’s called “communicating where they’re at.” And if they think I am “attacking” them so be it.
Labels I agree with you. Often Jon makes good points but his need to always have the last word makes it seem he is attacking them, causing him to create straw men, weakening his argument.
cd: We the laity are supposed to take guidance from the Church, (doctrine, dogma etc) not the other way around. In essence the people running this Synod (Jesuits) are seeking to change the Church’s teachings (though they will never admit to it) so its fits what the world teaches. They want to approve abortion, gay marriage, contraception, all the sacraments of the secular world.
Recapitualting “YFC’s” point here, this side-issue about “labels” from “label” is itself becoming a “straw man”. Therefore let us not be dissuaded from the main point coming from “Silent Observer’s” epiphany which I thought is a good one to dwell upon for folks on the “left” of the commentariat here and folks on the “right”. Namely, that by disobeying Pope Francis now, those on the “right” will have no moral ground to stand upon in the future if they were to admonish the “left” to follow a future pope whom the “right” happens to like and to agree with. We’re seeing this now: namely, those on the “left” do not have the moral authority these days to call on the “right” to follow Pope Francis’ “Traditionis custodes”—because the “left” had at times ignored Pope Benedict (“Silent Observer’s” point). Therefore, recapitulating my earlier point: the ones who have the moral ground to demand that the “right” follow Pope Francis’s motu propio are people like me, who had remained loyal and obedient to whichever man is the pontiff. Sorry to be tooting my own horn here, but let us not be dissuaded from this point, despite this “straw man” issue of “labels.”
Those are sins, not sacraments, bohemond.
The purpose of the Synod is not to take guidance on moral issuers from lay people.
I have answered a survey and it did include things like that and that made me think that those people in my diocese who made up the survey did not understand the directions in the synod. I don’t understand it well either but that is not what it is.
You must do your part and leave the rest to God. It is His Church.
bohemond, I am glad to see that you understand the danger of following lay Catholics. So many are led astray by them. Not just those who want the Church to approve mortal sin but also those who think the Church is not the Church, or the Pope is not the Pope, etc.
So folks, because valuable “epiphanies” seldom make appearances in “Silent Observer’s” commentaries here, do focus your thoughts on it (that is on “liberals” getting “their knickers in a knot” because the “right” seem to disregard the Pope). Such “epiphanies” here are rare, people. Ruminate about that. Do that instead of quibbling about these “labels.”
cd. this fix is already in, the subversive Jesuits will get the results they want to approve things like gay marriage and abortion. This constant listening and accompaniment instead of those in charge teaching the hard truths of the Church, has lead to situation we are in.
bohemond, the Catholic Church is not going to approve gay marriage and abortion. It is not going to happen.
With Jesuits running things, you can be that it will happen,
The Jesuits are not running the Synod.
The hard truth of the Church is actually quite simple; LOVE. So many have such a hard time with that most difficult yet most fundamental truth which the Gospels proclaim and that Jesus embodied in his very incarnation, death, and resurrection. Instead of saving, we condemn. Instead of healing, we spread lethal lies. Instead of proclaiming Good News, we revel in division and distrust. We can do better. We must.
But you have to have the correct understanding of love. It’s not what the rainbow people want it to mean.
Love according to the LGBT is license to do what ever their perverted desires demand of them
The Church is God’s love for mankind where He gives us His Salvation.
People can reject His Love.
We are to love Him and love our neighbor.
Sometimes, love requires us to reprove our neighbor, but we do not condemn them.
All healing comes from God. We can pray for it.
Jesus told us that he came to bring division but that we are to be united.
Jesus told us to be as innocent as doves but as wiley as foxes.
He sends us as sheep among wolves.
Members of the brethren are held to high standards but we fail and we fall.
Being a Christian is easy and hard at the same time. We all can improve our conversation skills and our capacity to do works of mercy.
An admonishment to love more is always appropriate. We can only increase in love if we pray for it.
Bohemond– many Catholics today, may be unaware of (or refuse to believe) the many seriously dsturbing Catholic news stories right now, of interviews in which many German bishops– plus, the Relator-General of the Synod on Synodality, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, S.J.—- state that Catholic teaching on sexuality is “out of date,” and that they approve of gay “marriage,” and sexually active gay priests. (They also believe in women priests, and married priests, but those are not morally serious issues.) What is truly horrible, is that Hollerich and the German bishops, boldly claim that they hope to change “out-of-date” Church teachings on sexuality, in the Catechism. This is a terrible thing for our Church, and for countries around the world! These top Church prelates have a huge moral and religious responsibility, which millions of people– Catholic and non-Catholic– all depend on, worldwide. There will be another big discussion of this problem on Thurs. Feb. 17th, on EWTN’s “World Over Live” news program.
The Church does not have the authority to ordain women.
The situation in Germany and Cardinal Hollerich need our prayers.
I do not think you are reporting the situation accurately.. It can be confusing.
If you would like to give some sources, I would like to have them.
no authority– yes, the Church cannot ordain women. Sources– Our Church has a serious problem with top leaders who are actually Catholic dissenters and refuse to accept Church teachings on sexual morality and want to change the Catechism to state that gay sex acts and gay marriage are perfectly acceptable.
By sources, I meant links to where you are getting that information. I believe that you are mis-reading it.
Pope Benedict’s doctor advised him to resign from the papacy. He could barely walk, used a platform with wheels, and was too sick to travel. In days of long ago, they had no modern medicine, as they do, today. Modern medicine only developed, historically, very recently, in the 20th century. Why must the office of the Papacy have a “do or die” tradition, like traditional monarchies — even when a Pope is elderly and extremely ill? As regards the issue of ongoing discoveries of mishandling of sex abuse crimes by Catholic prelates– I think Pope Benedict gave an honest reply, in his case. But overall, I think the Catholic Church– as well as other churches, and secular institutions– have not always properly dealt with crimes of sex abuse, all through history. They have all taught the virtue of Chastity– but have not always seemed to take Chastity– and sex abuses of men, in any field– very seriously, nor the sufferings of victims. A “double standard” has always existed, for men– very irresponsible! Only a very few good souls, in every era– are really mature, responsible, trustworthy, self-sacrificing, and Christlike in Virtue. Religious and moral training needs to be better, for all. I would never totally trust our Church, any other church, nor any religious group, nor secular groups, either (like the Boy Scouts, etc.) — they must always be watched like a hawk.
““label,” I will continue to use their “labels” if I determine them to be suitable to convey my message. Doubtful that your fear that these labels reinforce “error and factions” is really a danger as many here are already immersed in such errors. Therefore using these erroneous labels to make a further point is advantageous. It’s called “communicating where they’re at.”
This is Dan. As you see I quoted Jon above, but with the purpose of letting him know my take on his use of labels. My entire take was censored by Cal Catholic, which is their right, of course. I am disappointed they chose to post Jon’s words without my commentary after it, thus inviting the confusion of Silent Observer. It would have been much more prudent for the editors to have refused to print my entire post. As it stands, it makes no sense for anyone to quote another absent comment. I am sure the editors would agree. As to the original post, let Jon imagine what I might have said, should he have the slightest interest.
Dan, ok. that explains that. I thought it was weird but sometimes my posts get uploaded before I finish. My post telling him “you do you.” did not make it either.
Well– it looks like “Napoleon jon” is highly favored by the CCD editors. He always writes very, very long, never-edited, extremely pompous, egotistical, nasty, extremely overly-critical diatribes, attacking anyone and everyone, conceitedly pontificating, on and on and on. The only comments he ever writes– are to rudely attack another nice, decent Catholic Mass-goer, and jump down their throats for some insane reason. Other than that– he never writes anything. No Christian thoughtfulness, respect, consideration, kindness, understanding, nor sensitivity to anyone.
“Napoleon” – I was trying to give you a “thumbs-up” but it was no-go. He is allowed to denigrate “you people, you lot” with impunity.
Silent Observer– The “thumbs” system is not always useful. It often only reflects the very disrespectful, ignorant and bigoted opinions of others. I always ignore it.
…. aha … now we know who “Dan” is ….
… “jon” … The Great Tooter of Horns.
I know love and have known love. Your response, “correct understanding”, is ridiculous in that understanding Gods love for us and appreciating it and acknowledging it can never be an incorrect understanding of love. And by the way, the rainbow is itself a sign of Gods mercy and love for us, his creation. Sad that you don’t correctly understand that.
With the scandalous revelation that Pope Benedict XVI as an archbishop failed to properly respond to sex abusing priests, many traditionalist Catholics are running a full on salvage operation of the emeritus Pope’s reputation. This article is just one of many examples of their efforts. They want to reward Pope Benedict XVI with sainthood for chasing the liberals out of the Church and giving the Trads permission to celebrate their beloved traditional Latin Mass. Stay tuned.