It is not an attack on Francis but contains remarks that do not help unity. How do the passages about the relationship between the two popes in the book of Benedict’s former secretary sound in a broader context?
Exactly seven days after the funeral of Pope Benedict XVI. , the book of his secretary, Georg Gänswein, titled Nothing but the Truth: My Life Alongside.
The book caused controversy even before it was released on the market because of the passages that refer to the relationship between the emeritus pope and his successor.
The words of Pope Francis from the sermon on the Feast of the Epiphany about the fact that we should worship God and not “false idols that seduce us with the lure of prestige and power, with the lure of false news” were interpreted by many as a message to the author of the publication.
Cardinals Pietro Parolin, Marcello Semeraro, and Walter Kasper also reacted, according to whom it would be better to remain silent. Now is not the right moment for something like that, said the 89 -year-old German prelate.
Benedict’s objections to the Jesuits and the attitude of Francis
The book begins by telling how Joseph Ratzinger chose him as his secretary, then goes on to write about the challenges that the later Pope dealt with as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It also touches on several dimensions of the pontificate, such as the choice of the secretary of state and the betrayal of those closest to them – the Vatileaks case. It also details Benedikt’s decision to resign and the days when it happened.
Subsequently, the Francis-Benedict relationship is analyzed in the eighth chapter, The Relationship of the Two Popes, and partly in the ninth chapter (Busy Silence in the Monastery). From the 330-page book, passages on this sensitive topic make up less than 20 percent of the content.
At the beginning of chapter 8, Gänswein recalls that Benedict publicly promised “respect and obedience to the new pope” even before the election of Francis.
He added that when celebrating Masses in retirement – in Italian during the week and in Latin on Sundays (Gänswein pointed out that according to Paul VI’s missal) – Benedict always mentioned “Pope Francis” in the Eucharistic prayer.
He also returned to the conclave in 2013; according to his own words, he didn’t even have time to congratulate the newly elected Pope from Argentina when he overtook him by saying he wanted to call Benedict to help him with this. Then, the German monsignor details the story with the phone call to Castel Gandolfo.
Joseph Ratzinger’s secretary is trying to clarify Benedict’s public words that he did not count on the election of Cardinal Bergoglio. According to Gänswein, the outgoing pope may have mistakenly believed that the Argentine cardinal had already passed 80.
In retrospect, it seems to Gänswein that Benedict tipped someone from the favored trio: Archbishop Angelo Scola of Milan, prefect of the Canadian Congregation for Bishops Marc Ouellet, and Archbishop Odilo Pedro Scherer of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
He knew Jorge Bergoglio, but there were few opportunities for them to meet each other, because “the Argentinian archbishop did not like to travel to the Vatican”.
Ratzinger’s secretary shattered the idyllic idea that there was harmony between Francis and Benedict right after the funeral.
Gänswein marks the episode of 2007 as a significant, albeit indirect, contact between Ratzinger and Bergoglio. It was at the time when the Superior General of the Jesuits, Peter Hans Kolvenbach, offered his resignation to the Pope and, at the same time, was preparing the election of his successor.
At that time, Benedict formulated a letter through State Secretary Bertone with reservations regarding the theological and ecclesial training of young Jesuits and the observance of the fourth religious vow, which consists of obedience to the Pope for Jesuits.
The State Secretariat proposed to Father Kolvenbach to involve the Jesuit Cardinal Bergoglio in the preparations for the new elections, which would provide an opinion on the state of the order and the hypothetical establishment of commission supervision over the Jesuits.
According to Gänswein, the new Superior General, Father Adolfo Nicolás, after meeting with Pope Francis on March 17, 2013, heard from the new pontiff words of trust that were in opposition to the idea of supervision over the religious order, while the father was supposed to report to Benedict on the pope’s behalf “the inappropriateness of this problematic course and received a promise that it won’t happen.”
Gänswein does not comment further on the episode. He wanted to point out that Benedikt’s reservations were not taken into account by his successor, or instead, he stood up for “his.”
But what follows is a more positive passage about how Benedict was personally affected by the words of Pope Francis on March 15, 2013, when he praised Benedict in front of the cardinals, saying that “he lit a flame in our hearts that will continue to burn thanks to his prayer that will support the Church on his spiritual missionary journey.”
There is no difference in housing.
In the book, Monsignor Gänswein also returns to the subject of Benedict’s successor’s residence. He recalls how he showed Francis the rooms in the Apostolic Palace and how the pontiff told him some time later that “he normally sleeps like a log, but after seeing the room where he should stay, he slept badly.” And he asked Gänswein to find him smaller accommodation in the Vatican.
Let’s remind you that even after the resignation of Benedict, Francis kept Gänswein in the position of Prefect of the Papal House, which is a function connected, for example, to planning and accompanying foreign delegations to private audiences with the Pope or assisting in general audiences.
Benedict’s secretary was looking for solutions but interpreted to the new pontiff that they would need fixing with service and security. At the same time, he reminded Francis that many people passing by St. Peter’s Square in the evening looked up to the light in the windows of the Pope’s room in the Apostolic Palace as a point of reference. If the current Pope moved, people would perceive it with nostalgia.
Gänswein felt that the distance of thousands of kilometers from Rome made Francis insensitive to this dimension, and he described how he thought about this decision regarding his predecessor’s residence. “Even Benedikt was surprised by this, but his wise conclusion was that he can’t be forced if he doesn’t want to.”
In the next part, he writes that he must question the claims of critics who created a contradiction between the popes on the issue of housing. According to him, the personal quarters of the last popes were equivalent to the suite of Pope Francis in the House of Saint Martha; at the same time, the other spaces – from the kitchen and dining room to the chapel – are equally accessible, albeit as part of the hotel part of the house.
“Indeed, I can testify based on how we found the papal suit in 2005, John Paul II. certainly did not live in the comfort of a prince, and even the subsequent adjustments were not too lavish for the Holy See,” says Gänswein, adding that many non-Catholics also respect the office of the Pope.
According to Gänswein, this contrasting position between an incumbent and an emeritus pope always made Benedict sad, especially when it came from within the Vatican.
Msgr. Gänswein signed a document in Latin the day before the funeral, which was placed in Benedict’s coffin.
In the book, we also find moments where Archbishop Gänswein does not hide Benedict’s gratitude to his successor.
For example, when in June 2016, Benedict XVI. celebrated the 65th anniversary of his priestly ordination, he gave a kind of eulogy for Pope Francis when he also said that his “goodness is the place where I live, I feel protected.”
The publication also contains passages about the visits of Francis to the Mater Ecclesiae monastery, we read that the incumbent pope always brought wine and an Argentinean cream dessert to the visit. Benedict retaliated with limoncello made from lemons from the monastery garden and traditional Bavarian sweets.
However, we find less sweetness in the next part of the book.
After comments from Benedikt, Francis no longer asked for feedback
Half a year after his election, Pope Francis gave an extensive interview to the Jesuit magazine La Civiltà Cattolica, which was conducted by the editor-in-chief Antonio Spadaro.
The Italian publicist Massimo Franco later wrote in the book The Monastery that Pope Francis sent Benedict a printed interview with two blank pages, which meant a request for possible critical comments.
According to Gänswein, however, it was different. The Acting Pope handed him an envelope with a copy of the Jesuit Quarterly only after the interview was published on September 19, 2013, and asked him if Benedict could look at it and possibly comment on it. Benedict took it seriously, carefully read the 30 pages, and summarized the comments in a letter Gänswein handed to Pope Francis.
In the introduction, Benedikt said he read the text with pleasure and “with complete approval.” However, he needed to comment on two points. One was about abortion and contraception, and the other was about homosexuality.
In the letter, Benedict alluded to Francis’ words that he “did not talk much” about these topics and that “the pastoral mission is not obsessed with the disparate transmission of several doctrines.” In his own words, Benedict agrees with this. Still, he needs to add something to it. He recalls his 23 years during the pontificate of John Paul II, who, according to him, led the “fight for life” not as moralizing but as a fight for the Creator. Since the mentioned practices go directly against the Creator, they express “no” to God’s presence in human life.
According to Benedict, this perspective is often missing in pro-life movements. Hence, rebalancing is necessary, “but the public struggle against this concrete and practical negation of the living God certainly remains a necessity.”
Even on the topic of homosexuality, Benedict appreciates that in Francis’ words, he finds a balance that is also present in the catechism in the sense that, on the one hand, there is respect for the person, pastoral love, and then the doctrine of faith.
Nevertheless, Pope Emeritus wanted to add one aspect: a consequence of public propaganda in this area.
According to him, propaganda is not at all interested in the good of homosexual persons but only in the manipulation of being and the radical negation of the Creator. “I know that many gay people disagree with this manipulation and feel that their life issue is being used in an ideological war. Therefore, a strong and public resistance to this pressure is inevitable. We must realize this resistance without losing the balance in pastoral care between the shepherd’s love and the truth of the faith,” he wrote to Francis.
Gänswein did not stop teasing when he stated that he took the letter to Francis, who asked him to convey his thanks to Benedict, “but I do not know whether and how he adopted these considerations.”
Subsequently, Benedict’s secretary tells how Francis sent a copy of the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium to the Pope Emeritus in November of the same year, while he did the same for his other encyclicals and exhortations and always signed himself with the words “filially and brotherly Francis.”
“However, specific requests for comments on these texts no longer came,” comments Monsignor Gänswein.
In addition, he notes that some of Francis’ statements in the Evangelii Gaudium text sounded “foreign” to the emeritus pope, given Benedict’s theological sensibility. He enumerates three specific points, for example, 41: “For it happens that believers – accustomed to their speech, which they understand – when they listen to the flawless orthodox language, they take away something that does not correspond to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.”
To balance this, Gänswein adds that Benedict has also publicly expressed that Pope Francis governs the church with the best effort for the good of the current church with the responsibility of Peter’s successor.
According to Gänswein, a “misunderstanding” caused Pope Emeritus to be listed as a co-author of Sarah’s book, which he then asked the African cardinal to correct. The German monsignor quotes the entire letter in which Benedict explains everything to his successor (he said he did not reply, only confirmed the acceptance).
The African cardinal does not fare well at all in the description of the incident in Gänswein’s book; its author is very critical of him, which can also be explained by the fact that he associates his dismissal from the post of Prefect of the Papal House with this scandal.
Don Georg and František did not sit down.
We come to a passage that is more about Gänswein’s relationship with the incumbent pope than memories of Benedict.
The author openly writes that only a few months after the election of the Argentine pope, it appeared to him that an appropriate atmosphere of trust had not been created between them, while Francis had been leaving more and more responsibilities to the vice-prefect Leonardo Sapienza from the beginning.
He mentions an example from 2014 when he and Pope Francis were supposed to visit the Community of St. Aegis in the Roman quarter of Trastevere, but the Pope told him the day before – in front of the others – that he didn’t have to go with him, let him take time off.
The next day, the community’s founder, Andrea Riccardi, called Gänswein to ask what problem he or Benedikt had with them. Archbishop Gänswein then complained to Francis that it had humiliated him, to which the pontiff told him that he did not realize the problem and apologized, “but then added that humility is beneficial.”
According to Gänswein, this was repeated several times, especially when visiting Roman parishes.
Archbishop Georg Gänswein and Pope Francis accompanied by Mons. Leonardo Sapienza is separated after the funeral of Benedict XVI.
Then, Gänswein deals with his accommodation in the Vatican and describes how Francis forbade him to move into the Apostolic Palace, the original apartment of the prefect of the Papal House, which was undergoing renovation. Therefore, Gänswein lived temporarily in the monastery with Benedict.
When he came to Francis personally in January 2020 to explain the case with Sarah’s book, the Pope allegedly told him to stay in the monastery, where Benedict needs his care, and to make him a shield ( fascia scudo ).
“You will remain perfect, but from tomorrow, you will not return to work,” said the acting pope, according to Gänswein. “I was shocked and speechless,” he describes the decision to take away his executive powers as prefect of the Papal House.
When Gänswein reported this to Benedict, he is said to have remarked ironically: “It seems that Pope Francis no longer trusts me and wants you to be my guardian.” And Gänswein immediately asked the question with a laugh: “Should I be a guardian or a supervisor?” According to it was a protest against the case with Sarah’s book.
Benedict was said to be sorry for how this case developed, and at the end of his letter to Pope Francis dated February 13, 2020, he also dedicated a paragraph to his secretary, when he defended him by saying that he did the right thing in the Sarah case and that now he “feels under attack from of all parties and needs the father’s word.”
A few days later, the acting Pope confirmed to Gänswein that nothing would change, and he did not even respond to Benedict’s second appeal in a letter dated February 17.
When Gänswein returned from the hospital in September of that year, where he was diagnosed with renal syndrome, he met František, who told him that the de facto removal from the post of prefect was not a punishment. To Gänswein’s objection that everyone sees it that way, he is said to have said: “Many write against me or you and are not worth mentioning.”
Gänswein claims that, according to the doctor’s statement, his health problems may also have a psychosomatic origin.
Amoris laetitia and the pre-conciliar liturgy
How did Benedict perceive the apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis Amoris Laetitia, which includes in a footnote the possibility of access to the sacraments even for divorced and remarried people?
According to Gänswein’s account, after reading the text, the pontiff emeritus “became perplexed, and although he appreciated many passages, he wondered about the meaning of some which would ordinarily amount to a mere citation of a source, but in this case represented significant content.”
It is said that even in the following months, Benedikt still needed to understand the motive of why a certain ambiguity was left in the document. According to Gänswein, he did not agree with the strategy of keeping several interpretations in circulation and then cutting out one (meaning Francis’ letter to the Argentine bishops).
The Pope Emeritus was said to have been surprised by the absence of any hint of an answer to the four cardinals who wrote a letter (so-called Dubai) to Francis asking for an explanation of some doubts. The cardinals also demanded an audience with Francis, which did not happen. According to Gänswein, František was usually willing to meet and talk.
However, for completeness, he also noted in his memoirs that even Benedict did not personally receive any of the four critical cardinals.
The most direct criticism of Benedict towards Francis recorded in this book concerns the decision to tighten the rules for serving the pre-conciliar liturgy.
Benedict XVI is said to have carefully read Francis’ motu proprio Traditions custodes in L’Osservatore Romano, and when asked by Gänswein for his opinion, the pontiff emeritus noted that a sitting pontiff has responsibility for decisions like this and must do what he thinks is best for the church. “But from a personal point of view, he saw the decisive change of course and considered it a mistake because it jeopardized the attempt at peace that had been established fourteen years before.”
Benedict also considered it wrong to forbid the celebration of Mass in the old rite in parish churches “because it is always dangerous to drive a group of believers into a corner, to make them feel persecuted and to make them feel the need to protect their identity at all costs in the face of the enemy.”.
As Gänswein claims, this seemed inconsistent with Benedict’s intentions to allow an extraordinary form of the Mass. He also “remained a mystery” why the survey results among bishops, which Francis referred to and conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, were not published.
Likewise, the German secretary notes that Benedict was also surprised why there was a transfer and dismemberment of competencies in this matter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and also the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.
