Ratzinger was afraid (Adagio), page 19
The lifting of the excommunication was officially announced on Saturday, January 24, at noon. No Vatican statement against the bishop's delirious antisemitic rants preceded it. What should have been a day of celebration for the Church, turned into a nightmare. A huge controversy erupted, finally pushing the Vatican to launch a belated damage-limitation exercise. An official statement was drafted, but it was changed at the last minute to avoid stirring more trouble. A reference to “the schismatic act based on the refusal of the Catholic doctrine as expressed in the Second Vatican Council”, was struck out from the final press release, which came out with some delay, on February 4. Another key message was kept: it stated that while the papal decision had “freed the four bishops from a serious canonical penalty,” it had “not altered the juridical position of the Society of St. Pius X which, at the present time, enjoys no canonical recognition within the Catholic Church,” and stressed that the four bishops had “no canonical function in the Church” and could not “legally exercise a ministry within her.”
In the Apostolic Palace the atmosphere was tense for days. Monsignor Georg Gänswein, conveying the Holy Father's regret for what had happened, insisted on checking the statement word for word to prevent any more false moves. The changes he made reveal how Benedict XVI had been wrong-footed by his aides, as nobody had warned him about Williamson's remarks. “Perhaps I would add that the Holy Father was not aware of them at the time of the lifting of the excommunication,” Gänswein wrote to Bertone with his fountain pen, in tiny handwriting. The message got through immediately, and the statement was amended accordingly. There were other modifications: Ratzinger removed most of the references to himself to make it less of a personal issue. For example, a passage on the future recognition of the SSPX was changed from “the Holy Father does not intend to overlook an indispensable condition” to “an indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of St. Pius X is their full recognition of Vatican Council II and of the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.” The polemic did not stop there, on the contrary: it raged for months between the Jewish community, Germany, the Vatican and the SSPX.
Benedict XVI at odds with Merkel
Benedict XVI tried to intervene in Germany, where the situation seemed more delicate. Local Bishops and Cardinals seemed split over the issue, and, above all, there was almost a diplomatic incident with the German government. On February 17, a confidential note was sent from Ratzinger's private apartment, with some minor Italian grammatical mistakes, to Monsignor Filoni, Bertone's Substitute. It is perhaps the first time that we can read personal instructions from a pope to his closest advisors at a time of crisis. Ratzinger was unhappy both with some German Cardinals and with the Holy See's diplomats in Berlin. The Williamson case was still unresolved, and had unexpectedly turned into an international affair.
The situation had precipitated a few days earlier, on February 3. On that morning's Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Bertone made a hasty claim that the “crisis” with the Jewish community was over, since he had received conciliatory signals from the Rabbinate of Jerusalem and the Israeli side. He was proven wrong within a matter of hours. German Chancellor Angela Merkel launched a frontal attack against the Holy See: “The Pope and the Vatican should clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial of the Holocaust,” she said. “I do not believe that sufficient clarification has been made,” she added. The Holy See's diplomacy seemed taken aback. After a few hours the Vatican's spokesman, Father Lombardi, following consultations with Bertone, tried to limit the damage. He recalled all of Benedict XVI's recent stances against antisemitism and his unconditional solidarity with “Jewish brothers”. But it was not enough. The Chancellor's words spread around the world.
The response from the Vatican was timid. The Pontiff saw Merkel's remarks as a serious and undue interference in internal Church matters. He was particularly furious about the half-hearted reaction from the Apostolic Nuncio in Berlin, Monsignor Jean-Claude Périsset. The diplomat should have filed an official complaint and rejected the accusations. The note sent to Filoni stated as much:
The reaction of the Nuncio to Mrs Merkel’s remarks (Attachment 1 to February 4 letter) is too bland – merely an information. In fact, clear words of protest were needed against such interference in Church matters.
The incident did not escalate to the level of a full-blown diplomatic row. The priority was to quickly close the matter so that efforts to end the schism with the Lefebvre bishops could continue. Besides, on the following day, the spokesman of the German government, Ulrich Wilhelm, insisted that the Chancellor had spoken “on a political question of principle,” dismissing suggestions she wanted to interfere with Church matters.
In fact, it was no longer purely a problem of diplomatic relation with other States. What had happened exposed once again shortcomings in the Roman Curia's crisis management skills. There was growing unease with the status quo, to the point that some Cardinals in Rome openly voiced their dissent. Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, in an interview with Vatican Radio explicitly complained about the Curia's mishandling of the crisis. Nobody, he said, “can be happy with the misunderstandings that have happened.” Criticism was also addressed against Dario Castrillón Hoyos, the President of the Commission Ecclesia Dei and lead negotiator with the SSPX, and Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. The two Cardinals, however, had acted on behalf of Benedict XVI, so the criticism was implicitly also against the Holy Father.
Trouble was brewing outside of the Vatican walls too, specifically in the German Church. Benedict XVI was increasingly discouraged. He asked for information on the attacks he was constantly being subjected to. Here is what he wrote privately to his collaborators:
I am astonished that the Nuncio “fully shares the suggestions” of Card. Lehmann, who has said that the Holy Father should apologize to the Jews and to the People of the Church. Leaving aside this strange declaration, the Cardinal has made more far more appropriate remarks in his interview to the newspaper Die Welt, February 1, but even there there are several inaccuracies: I have never been to Paris for the dialogue with Lefebvre; Lefebvre had actually signed the agreement, but retracted his signature the day after etc. But overall, the interview is good. The Nuncio has forwarded the reactions of Card. Meisner and Lehmann; I also know what H.E. Mgr Zollitsch, President of the German Bishops’ Conference, has said. But I hear that the Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart has criticized the Holy Father, as well as the Archbishop of Hamburg. It would be necessary to know all the reactions of the German Bishops. Several faculties of theology (Münster, Tübingen, Freiburg, maybe others as well) have released statements. It would be necessary to have a look at them. I have the intention to write, whenever the “media tsunami” dies down, a letter to the Bishops [author’s note: Benedict XVI did so two weeks later] to fully clarify the position of the Holy See, but I want to wait for more complete information.
To sum up, the lifting of the excommunication was still a hot issue, and a deeply divisive one. Given the circumstances, it really seems incredible that nobody noticed Williamson's reckless interview on the eve of the publication of the decree on the excommunication. The minutes of a meeting that took place on January 22, 2009, suggests this was the case. Bertone had summoned: Castrillón Hoyos90 William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of The Faith; Giovanni Battista Re; Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, Prefect of the a Congregation for the Clergy; and two Monsignors, Fernando Filoni and Francesco Coccopalmerio, who would later become a Cardinal.
It was the eve of the official announcement. The meeting had been convened to iron out all the details and prevent any hiccups, but the objective, as we have seen, failed. Bertone handed out a copy of the decree, and opened the discussion on “the situation that will arise following the publication of the decree lifting the excommunication of the four bishops on Saturday, January 24, 2009, at noon Rome time.” The Secretary of State raised two specific issues: he asked whether the decision “applies to the ecclesiastic, the clergy and the faithful” and stressed the need to “properly explain the gracious decision of the Pope.” Bertone consulted Re and the others on whether it was “opportune to add an explanatory note to the aforementioned decree.” The minutes of the meeting give a clear picture of how inward looking the Vatican's hierarchy has been:
First of all, Card. Re reported on how he was informed about the decree, and how, with the approval of the Holy Father, after some modifications, he had signed it; the modifications were very minor, to make the text clearer. The Cardinal remarked that, since Card. Gantin had signed the decree formalizing the excommunication against Mgr Lefebvre and the four bishops he had ordained in 1988, he agreed that the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops should sign the decree lifting the penalty.
Concerning the lifting of the excommunication also to other priests from the Society of Saint Pius X, a debate immediately started. Mgr Coccopalmerio expressed his belief following the lifting of the excommunication, the four bishops would be in full communion with the Church. Presbyters and Deacons should first ask explicitly to be admitted into the full communion. Card. Levada referred to Campos, remarking that while the excommunication was lifted for both bishop and clergy, in that case the diocese and the clergy were united. He emphasized, recalling what H.E. Mgr Rifan had written in a text that was handed out to those present, that the four bishops had on several occasions made declarations or written statements that required a clarification or a public correction before their absolution. Concerning the reintegration of the Lefebvrists of Campos in Brazil, Card. Hummes said that he had always claimed it was fortuitous, despite the problems and criticism it had generated. Indeed, the Cardinal emphasized that it was very important to reintegrate the first generation of Lefebvrists, as a second generation would be far less receptive and more indifferent to its possible return to its Church of origin. Therefore, the Cardinal supported the Pope's decision to lift the excommunication on the Lefebvrists bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X. The lifting of the excommunication was fundamentally an act of mercy and unresolved doctrinal issues should not impede it. Certainly – the Cardinal continued – a further path would have to be followed concerning doctrinal issues. He concluded stating that he agreed with the proposal to attach an explicatory note to the decree of remission of the penalty of excommunication.
Card. Castrillón, on his part, offered an interpretation of the intentions of the Holy Father, saying that with the lifting of the excommunication he wanted to restore unity with an act of clemency. He stressed, in particular, that as soon as the bishops felt inside, rather than outside of the ecclesiastical community, dialogue on unresolved issues would be easier. Moreover, he remarked that this first step did not
imply that all problems had been solved and even the Holy Father himself has spoken of resolving issues in a gradual manner.
Card. Re underlined that the lifting of the excommunication did not amount yet to full communion, but was rather a gesture aimed at favouring a process of reconciliation.
Mgr Substitute then asked for the decree to be read out to discuss whether some of the issues had already been tackled and resolved in the document itself.
In fact, as the Secretary of State read it, many doubts were dispelled and everybody broadly agreed on the text, despite some exceptions. H.E. Mgr Coccopalmerio, for example, would have liked to replace “full communion” (in the penultimate paragraph) with “full reconciliation.” However, since the decree had already been circulated among the relevant people, it did not seem appropriate to modify it; the wording could have been taken up in the press release.
On the issue of whether the excommunication would also be lifted for the priests, the following emerged:
1. The priests who, due to illegitimate ordination, ran into canonical penalties should somehow profess their allegiance to the Holy Father and to the Church and this should happen taking into account the number of priests and their identification. This could be agreed with the responsible members of the Society; the general superior could do it in the name of all priests and deacons.
2. Concerning the current situation in relation to celebrations and pastoral activities, the principle supplet Ecclesia must be applied, since a solution for everybody could not be found immediately.
3. It was then remarked that the decree itself was also a provocation to bishops, priests, members of the clergy and the faithful to state their intentions as regards to ecclesiastical communion and reconciliation.
Thus it was seen as no longer necessary to add an explanatory note, as had been done in 1997 by the
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, in order not to complicate matters. Any need for clarifications would be considered at a later stage.
Finally, Mgr Substitute solicited opinions on the press release that would accompany the publication of the decree. All those present agreed with the submitted draft, except for a small change at the end of the text, described hereby: “The Holy Father has been inspired in his decision by the wish for complete reconciliation and full communion as soon as possible.”
It remained fully clear that such an act of clemency on the part of the Holy Father still had to be followed by a procedure leading to full reconciliation and clarification of the canonical situation of the Society of Saint Pius X, which, while it had not been formally recognized, was de facto acknowledged as the counterpart in the negotiations, given that it was mentioned in the decree.
Concerning the Society itself, it was said that, without a formal decree of recognition, its current status would remain applicable donec aliter provideatur.
It was also decided that Mgr Coccopalmerio would prepare an article for L’Osservatore Romano in the coming days. Interviews were ruled out, as was a press conference on the document, which seemed sufficiently clear.
Card. Levada remarked that there were open issues and that a collegial effort on the part of the relevant Congregations was required to tackle them. The Cardinal indicated that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could start immediately the required examination, following regular procedures, of the doctrinal issues to be discussed in the ensuing path of dialogue foreseen by the decree; he also mentioned the possibility to invite Card. Castrillón to the meeting in Feria Quarta on the matter.
Everybody agreed on forwarding the decree and the press release to the heads of Dicastries and to the Pontifical Representations, and, through them, to the Episcopal Conferences.
The meeting ended at 7.50 p.m. with prayers.
Germany mon amour
Benedict XVI’s attention to reactions from the German Catholic community to the Williamson affair was a good indicator of how sensitive the Holy See was to events in Germany. Both concerning German Cardinals and domestic politics. But, as it emerged in November 2011, following the Apostolic Journey the Holy Father had made in September to the country, the Vatican was also interested in relations with the Evangelical Church. Once again, the hapless Nuncio to Berlin, Monsignor Périsset, came into the picture. He flagged up to Bertone criticism the Evangelical Church had made against the Holy Father, after his ecumenical meeting with Protestants in Erfurt, in the Chapter House of the former convent of the Agostinians. Vatican experts had studied the speeches from the November 6-9 annual plenary session of the Evangelical Synod, in Magdeburg, in the state of Saxony-Anhalt. They highlighted two of particular interest: one by Rev. Nikolaus Schneider, Chair of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), and one by Katrin Göring-Eckardt, who as well as being the Chair of the Synod of the EKD, was a Vice President of the Bundestag, the German federal parliament. Bertone summarized the situation in a report “to the benevolent attention of the Holy Father”:
Mgr Périsset says that we must compare the two speeches criticizing the Holy Father in Erfurt, widely reported in the German press, with the positive things Mr. Schneider and Mrs. Göring-Eckardt have said, especially in relation to the speech in the Chapter House. Anyhow, the two leaders [of the Evangelical Church, author’s note] have felt a certain discrepancy between that meeting and the homily of Pope Benedict XVI in the following ecumenical act. The Apostolic Nuncio is concerned about Mrs Göring-Eckardt saying that: “we do not need at all to be recognized as a Church by Rome.” Indeed, some of the comments by Mr. Schneider and Mrs. Göring-Eckardt on the speeches of the Holy Father are surprising. Schneider emphasized that God “secularized” (verweltlicht) himself in Christ, somehow polemically referring to the concept of entweltlichung from the speech of the Konzerthaus in Freiburg. On this note, Mr. Schneider criticized the Pope for the comparison ex negativo between the ecumenical dialogue and political negotiations, which, according to Schneider, have nothing to do with ecumenism. Göring-Eckardt made some stinging remarks in her speech, for instance when she said: “In the Chapter House we Evangelicals considerably lowered the average age”; or: “The fact that, in the Church of the Agostinians, the others (i.e. the Catholics) never mentioned either Martin Luther or the Reform clearly reveals a certain lack of arguments on their side.” The report was sent first to the Second Section. H.E. Mgr Mamberti has noted: “To Section AAGG for its competence. During the audience on November 30, 2011, I asked the Holy Father if he had seen the documents. He answered negatively and asked me to prepare a memo.” Hence, please submit this documentation to the benevolent attention of the Holy Father.
Female priesthood
A few months earlier, another difficult dossier landed directly on Benedict XVI’s desk. It came from Australia: Monsignor William M. Morris, Bishop of Toowoomba, a small Diocese near Brisbane, in South-East of Australia, was at the centre of a scandal of growing dimensions. There were three charges against him. Firstly, in a pastoral letter for the Advent, in 2006, Morris had suggested that female priesthood was a valid solution to the crisis of vocations: an unacceptable proposition from the point of view of the doctrine, according to which women cannot be accepted into priesthood because Jesus only chose men as apostles. Secondly, Morris had proposed to let some protestant pastors celebrate mass to make up for the shortage of priests. Thirdly, he introduced collective absolutions, foregoing individual confessions. To his defence, the Bishop pointed out the huge size of his Diocese and the limited number of parishes: just 35 over 487,456 square kilometres.
