I don’t think Francis will resign, I don’t see a war between the cardinals
An interview with an Italian journalist about the synod in Prague, criticism of Pope Francis, and the trial in the Vatican.
Photo:Adam Rábara
New: Family account
Give the gift of a reading Attitude
for a close member of your family for free.
Vaticanist Andrea Gagliarducci, who works for the Italian agency ACI Stampa, its American sister Catholic News Agency, as well as the National Catholic Register, participated in the continental synod meeting in Prague (February 5-12) as a member of the editorial board. She recorded the events at the event and created a draft of the final document.
We asked the Italian journalist about his view of the debate in Prague, and also about several topics related to current events in the Vatican and the church.
The Continental Synod in Prague has ended. Do you agree with the view that German representatives were left almost alone in the sense that most countries were against German positions?
I see about two points here. What we perceive from the synodal journey in Germany is much more advanced than what is the goal of the worldwide synodal journey. I have the impression that the Germans are trying their best to achieve some results. However, the German delegation did not seem negative about the Prague meeting. Maybe she was disappointed, but not negative.
In general, the German approach is not the approach of other European churches. There is an obvious dividing line between the German way and the way of others. And that’s even if we look at churches with a similar nature, such as French or Belgian ones. The same concerns, sometimes even the same solutions, but different approaches.
Weekly summary of events in the Christian world from the editor of World of Christianity.
Did anything surprise you during the meeting?
If we talk about surprise, I was very surprised that many felt the need to emphasize the importance of the priest and the bishop. Let’s say that even France, in its speech, which was very open, very “progressive”, if we want to use a sociological term, still talked about the importance of priests returning to evangelization. It was not a matter of course.
The chairman of the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences, Lithuanian Archbishop Grušas, said during the event that the difference between the West and the East is visible in Prague. How do you see it?
There are significant differences that stem from history. They cannot be denied, and when you put all the churches together, you realize that these differences exist. It is a different type of approach, a different type of experience. In the East, secularization is still accompanied by the memory of religious persecution. In the West, secularization is also the cause of hidden discrimination against Christians, as various reports show. The difference seems important to me. Let’s move on to some “Vatican” topics. After the death of Benedict XVI. and the Australian Cardinal Pell, we witnessed the criticism of Pope Francis in different ways. Monsignor Gänswein’s book, then Cardinal Pell’s article, and so on. František himself criticized it during the return flight from Africa. How do you rate what happened in January? Above all, I think it was the media that gave weight to the statements of Gangway, Müller, and even Pell. They didn’t say anything other than what they always said, their attitudes were known. But the timing…… of course, the circumstances were specific. It would probably be good if Gänswein’s book had not been published so immediately after the Pope’s death, and perhaps some things could have been said differently. But criticism of Francis was already there before and did not come out until the death of Benedict XVI. However, Pope Francis reacted to the media and media perception, not to reality. He spoke to his critics, but none of them seem to have even thought about the answer he gave on the plane. The Pope was reacting to media perception, and that cannot represent the whole reality.
Photo:/Adam Rábara
For example, Ross Douthat wrote in the New York Times that there is a war between the cardinals, and other authors, such as Massimo Franco of Corriere della Sera, think that we have entered a phase of the pontificate in which everything will be tougher. Is the term “war between the cardinals” too strong, or does it correspond to reality?
The word war is strong because we don’t realize that when we talk about the church, we often talk about isolated positions or small groups.
War is fought with armies. I don’t believe there is a war going on between the cardinals, simply because no one would want to be pope and face such a difficult situation as it has.
However, I believe that everything has become harder because of Benedict XVI. with his presence, guaranteed the peace and tranquility that is missing now. If there was no harshness towards Pope Francis, I think it is thanks to the presence of Benedict XVI.
There was also a theory that Francis was waiting for Benedict’s death so that he could resign himself. Today, however, it seems that he wants to complete, for example, the synod and also the reform of the Roman Curia and the Roman Diocese. Your view?
I do not believe that Pope Francis would ever consider resigning. Rather, I believe he pretends to do it, but can only think of it if his health gives him some expectation.” There is only one essential question about the direction of the church: will the church still be able to evangelize?”
Sure, we’re seeing an acceleration in decisions, which is noticeable, but it could also mean that things have matured for him. And then, of course, he’s at an age where he rushes to finish what he started.
How do you evaluate the Pope’s words, which he said at a meeting with Jesuits in Africa, about the fact that the service of the Pope is for life and that resignations of popes should not become a “fashion” or a normal thing? The Pope seems to have changed the discourse a bit on this issue, doesn’t he?
I do not believe that Pope Francis will ever change his mind, and I have never considered the possibility of Francis resigning.
The Pope played a little game – as he always does – by suggesting that there were possibilities of abdication, but he always spoke only of extreme situations, such as an obstacle on his part.
What about the letter he wrote after his election that he mentioned now?
Even in that case, the very letter of resignation, which he says he left to Cardinal Bertone, leaves doubts about the interpretation: who would take care that the office of the Pope finds itself in chaos, because of some obstacle on the part of the Pope to carry out his function? How can such an obstacle be defined?
These are more like school hypotheses that the Pope expresses. But it never seemed to me personally that he wanted to resign under any circumstances. Only in extreme cases.
According to Vaticanist Ivereigh, the “anti-Franciscans” have come to believe that Francis’ pontificate is coming to an end in the last year and have decided to launch an initiative to elect a pope at the next conclave who will reverse the church’s current direction. Is it too much of a fantasy?
I am convinced that such a portrayal of the church is not good for the church or reality. There are no opposing blocks, rather there are many nuances. Plots of this kind would require preparation and organization that I do not observe.
And what does it mean to reverse the current direction of the church? Where should it go, and where should it return? Because if the current direction means, for example, the cancellation of the release of the old rite, then it is a minimal thing, it is not an act of direction of the church.
