Scalfari Interview: Knowing What We Know Now…

036-letter-writing-correspondence-q90-1974x1052

 

 

And it came to pass Bishop Gaenswein allowed the world to know the Pontiff Emeritus had written a sort of commentary of the draft of the Papal interview with Civilta’ Cattolica, the 12,000 word exercise due to the fact that Bishop Francis does not like giving interviews.  

This interview was scandalous enough. But it could be that without Benedict’s notes (which might have led to adjustments in the end) it could have been even worse.

Soon thereafter, Francis writes a long letter to Scalfari, even more scandalous than the interview to Civilta’ Cattolica, and inter alia lets the first bomb about “conscience” and “salvation for atheists” explode. Shortly after the letter, he doubles with the notorious interview, which was more a carpet bombing in Dresden style. 

Knowing what we know now, we can safely conclude as follows: 

1) Benedict must have received a draft of the interview already checked by Francis, then elementary courtesy demands no other behaviour. You don’t ask a Pontiff Emeritus to OK a draft you have not checked for accuracy first. He is not your under-under assistant just come out of the Seminary. Francis, then, does receive drafts, and he does read them.

2) Benedict does not receive, as far as we know – but it would be strange if Gaenswein would just keep this covered – neither the draft of the original letter to Scalfari, nor the draft of the Scalfari interview. Am I bad in thinking Francis feared he would receive not four, but fourteen pages of comment? Why, otherwise, would one avail oneself of the services of a fine theologian in the first occasion, but not in the second and the third? 

3) How can even the blindest Pollyannas now declare that the Pope does not receive and reads drafts of interviews? Or that he is so reckless that he gives them green light for publication without even reading them? After we know he asked the draft of the Civilta’ Cattolica interview to be read by the Pontiff Emeritus? Really?

Just three thoughts, really. But I wanted to share them.  We should not forget old scandals just because we are confronted with ever new ones.

Mundabor

Posted on March 21, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. Archbishop Ganswein has a way of promoting himself, even if it means going to extremes to convict people with more worthy incentives for their actions than he apparently displays.

    • It may be, but I very much doubt the Archbishop is making himself many friends with this, and I think Francis’ entourage has him in his sight already.

      My impression is rather that Gaenswein is seriously grated at how Francis is – implicitly, that is: by contrary actions – treating Benedict, and can’t avoid extracting a little pebble from the show every now and then. But then again this is no Maradiaga: he will know what he says, and I can’t imagine he hasn’t discussed it with Benedict, either.

      M

%d bloggers like this: