Pope Benedict XVI sympathises with Nigeria over air crash


Dakar, Senegal, 12/15 - Pope Benedict XVI has expressed his profound sympathy over the Nigerian private jetliner crash that killed 107 people, including more than 70 students of a Catholic school in Abuja.

In a message sent on his behalf by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano to Bishop Alexius Obabu Makozi of Port Harcourt, the Nigerian southern oil-city where the crash occurred Saturday, the Pope expressed "his closeness to the victims' relatives."

"Saddened by news of the great loss of life in the air tragedy near Port Harcourt, the Holy Father asks you kindly to convey his heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims," the message read in part.

"He commends the dead to the eternal mercies of Almighty God and invokes the divine blessings of strength and peace upon all who mourn and upon all engaged in the work of relief," it added.

More than 70 of the victims of the ill-fated Sosoliso DC-9 on a domestic Abuja-Port Harcourt flight were students of the Loyola Jesuit College, Abuja, who were on their way home for the Christmas holidays.

The plane burst into flames just before landing at the airport where relatives had been waiting for the passengers' arrival.

The only three survivors of the crash are in critical condition in hospital

Antonio Socci, who writes for the Italian newspaper Il Giornale, wrote an interesting column today, 12/16/95, that may well be a footnote to the history of two Popes. Read on, in translation -
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Socci

Finally I can reveal something about Joseph Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla.

In the autumn of 2004, at the Frankfurt Book Fair [world’s largest annual book fair], a new book by Wojtyla, “Memoria e Identita” to be published by Rizzoli, was the object of much anticipation because its editor, in the presence of the head of the Vatican Press Office, called attention to the upcoming publication by saying something that came as a shock.

Carelessly, he suggested the notion that the Pope would “rehabilitate” Communism (in the new book). In fact, the next day, all the newspapers had front-page stories about the Pope who, they claimed, now judged Communism to have been a ”necessary evil” and “useful,” somewhat like medicine that tasted unpleasant but was good for mankind - an idea that was both false and misleading.

Incredibly, the man who had given voice to the “church of silence,” the man who for years the Italian press had branded as a visseral anti-communist, the man who was considered public enemy number one by the regimes of eastern Europe and whom they wanted to physically eliminate, the man who brought the winds of liberty to eastern Europe, was now, toward the end of his days, being misrepresented as someone whose true colors were only now coming out!

It was a great insult to a man who was a great witness for Christ, especially in view of his suffering and very likely terminal condition, and it was a serious imprudence on the part of the Vatican functionaries who seemed to back up that strange announcement. Even Avvenire [the daily newspaper of the Italian bishops conference] – despite a thousand prudent safeguards – showed a certain embarassment.

But I came to understand that something was malfunctioning in the Vatican machinery because of a fortunate circumstance. Just at that time, in fact, I was in close contact over a period of two days with Cardinal Ratzinger. As I had the chance to talk to him at length, I asked him about the questionable “preview”.

He told me that the book did not exist (as yet) so he found the pre-publicity strange, especially since it raised such an outcry. He explained that the Pope had notes about several private conversations that he wished to review and rewrite, and I understood that he himself had received assurances from the Papal apartments that the book would be different.

It was obvious that the Pope himself could no longer work on the draft of the book, considering the state of his health. In addition, although the cover (when the book eventually came out) curiously named John-Paul II as the author, the book should not be conidered a magisterial text written by a Pope - it is a book of Karol Wojtyla’s personal reminiscences, which therefore do not involve his office. That is a very important distinction in the Catholic Church.

The book finally came out in February 2005, almost coinciding with the Pope’s death. It is a truly beautiful book, a suggestive and profound interpretation of the 20th century. It has no equivocations: Wojtyla ranks communism and nazism among the evil ideologies of satanic origin. Without leaving out others, such as all the current nihilistic ideologies which do not value human life.

But the book itself, although it has sold very well, did not make news. No first-page stories, no callng attention to its harsh words on abortion, nothing resembling the confused and clamorous pre-announcement the preceding autumn!

In which not only the presumed “rehabilitation” of communism (non-existent, as we saw) was shocking, but its presumed theological framework even more so. In fact, after the abovementioned citation of communism as “an evil that was in some way necessary to mankind and to the world,” a further citation was that “in certain concrete situations of human existence, evil shows itself useful to some degree in that it creates occasions for doing good.”

A passage from Goethe was then cited in which he “qlaifies the devil” as “a part of that force that always wishes evil but always works for good.” It is startling to hear that Satan works for good! However, the passage expresses quite well Goethe’s gnosticism: to him, God and the devil were two sides of a coin, two faces of the same entity – completely contrary to Christian doctrine, and in fact, absolutely blasphemous.

In fact, shortly after citing Goethe, John Paul (in the book) cites Saint Paul (“Defeat evil with good”), and evidently, it is the apostle’s words that express his convictions, not Goethe’s. However, because of simplification from the autumn announcement, the passage added a theological equivocation to the political.

Last week, Benedict XVI delivered a homily on the feast of the Immculate Conception, and L’Espresso’s Vatican expert Sandro Magister did not miss the fact that Ratzinger cited the same passage from Faust. But hr noted that Benedict “turned around” the interpretation that had been attributed to John Paul.

Here is what Benedict said: “We think that evil at bottom is good, that we need a littlle of it in order to experience the fullness of being. We think that Mephistopheles, the tempter, was right when he said he was the force 'that always wishes evil but always does good'(Goethe, Faust I, 3). We think that compromising a bit with evil, keeping for ourselves a bit of freedom from God, is basically good, perhaps even necessary. But if we look at the world around us, we can see that it is not so. That evil always poison - it does not uplift man, it debases and humiliates him; it does not make him greater, purer, richer, but damages him, dinimishes him.”

Should we conclude from this that Benedict is correcting John Paul as Magister seems to suggest? I think not.

It is clear that Wojtyla’s thinking on such a decisive question of doctrine coincides with that expressed by Ratzinger. But I think that the “preview” of “Memory and Identity” had created a colossal equivocation, and I sincerely think that although the context of the book itself makes everything clear, the citation of Goethe was unfortunate, especially since Wojtyla was not a reader of Goethe, so it would be interesting to know who was responsible for putting it in. It would have been better not to have brought it up at the preview than to have done so and therefore be constrained afterwards to put it in the book.

On the other hand, Ratzinger had previously cited that passage from Goethe in one of his own books ("Fede, Verita, Tolleranza") published even before that preview of “Memory and Identity.” I reported that in this column when the polemics erupted over “necessary evil”.

The cardinal had written: “Evil is not in fact – as Hegel said and as Goethe wanted to show us in Faust – any part of what we need, but it is rather the destruction of being. It cannot be reperesented, as Mephistopherles in Faust does, with the words –‘I am a part of that force which perennially wishes evil and perennially does good.' If good had need of evil, then evil would not really be evil, it would be a necessary part of the world dialectic.”

That philosophy, Ratzinger added, had been used to justify the massacres under communism, which was built on the dialectics of Hegel turned into political praxis by Marx. “No, evil does not belong to the dialectic of being – it attacks it at the root.” God is “pure light and pure goodness.”

When that column appeared, a certain Gravagnuolo called me “anti-Pope” and other endearments in the pages of Unita (the Communist newspaper). Some communists don’t study and therefore do not understand the things they speak of. It is useless to recommend that they read Ratzinger and Wojtyla. They think only of propaganda. And to justify a horrendous story.

Theresa,
thank you very much for this article...very inspirational.
It makes me read Papas' homilies more carefully.
Our Papa is genius.

Santa Maria Consolatrice Parish Church, Rome
From AGI, an Italian news agency, we have this early report on Pope Benedict’s first parochial visit today as Bishop of Rome to the parish of Santa Maria Consolatrice in Casalbertone, a working district of Rome, of which he, as Cardinal Ratzinger, had been titular bishop from 1977-1993.

The Pope arrived at 9 a.m. on the dot in a black Lancia Thesis with an open sunroof. He stopped to greet the small crowd waiting just outside the church door – many of them he had confirmed years ago.


Despite the cold, thousands awaited the Pope since the early hours on the Piazza of Santa Maria Consolatrice. Besides the parish clergy, on hand to welcome the Pope were his Vicar in Rome, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, as well as two ex- parish priests of the Church who have gone onto higher office: Mgr. Giovanni Canestro, who became Archbishop of Genoa, and Mgr. Ennio Appignanese, who became Archbishop of Potenza.


Another ex-parish priest of Casalbertone, Mgr. Franco Camaldo, accompanied the Pope. He is now #2 in the Office of Pontifical Celebrations.

The Pope celebrated the Mass with Cardinals Ruini, Canestro and Appignanesi.

“The Pope has returned to bring you good news,” the Pope said in his extemporaneous homily. “The Redemption is the good news for the world today, in which God is mostly absent. It is a world dominated by fear and uncertainty. A world of darkness, in which many need to be anesthetized in order to continue living.”



“To all, therefore,” he continued, “I wish to repeat the liberating words said by the Archangel to Mary at the Annunciation: Be happy and rejoice. Mary is the great conoler who invites us to share joy – not as luxurious gifts which cost time and money – but genuine joy, that which we can communicate with a smile or a gesture of pardon.”

He told them, “It is for me a great joy to be with you this morning and to celebrate the Holy Mass for you and with you. It is for me a true homecoming. This is the Roman parish to which I first came on October 15, 1977 – Don Ennio Appignanesi was then the parish priests, and his vicars were Don Enrico Pomili, now your parish priest, and don Franco Camaldo, the ceremonial authority assigned to me by Monsignor Marini. Our ties were not any less when I became titural bishop of Velletri Segni, and it has become even more concrete today as I am now Bishop of Rome, and therefore your bishop.”

“Dear friends, thank you for your presence. I bring you all my wishes for a merry Christmas,” he said at the end.

Another agency, Apcom, reported that although there was only “a small crowd” in front of the church when the Pope arrived, there was a crowd of more than 10,000 in the church square by the time he left at 11:20.

It appears most of the parishioners had followed their parish priest’s advice: “Those who are unable to get into the Church because there is not enough space should stay home and watch the Mass on Telepace and Sat 2000, then you can come to greet the Pope when he leaves.”

The crowd’s enthusiasm recalled to many the reception here for Pope John Paul II when he visited the parish on April 2, 1995 – 10 years before he died.


At that time, Cardinal Ratzinger was there to welcome John Paul II. Who would have thought then that 10 years later, he would succeed John Paul as Pope?

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 18/12/2005 18.35]

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 18/12/2005 20.03]

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/12/2005 4.34]

This is probably one of the most positive accounts yet to appear about Pope Benedict XVI in the English mainstream media.
As it is also an appreciation of his 8-month-old Papacy, READ AND REJOICE!


December 26, 2005–January 2, 2006 Vol. 166, No. 25

A Man On A Mission


After eight months on the job, Pope Benedict XVI has created a charisma all his own
BY JEFF ISRAELY


The man who would become Pope Benedict XVI began the year behind a desk. Granted, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was no ordinary shuffler of Vatican papers; indeed, he had long been celebrated by Church conservatives as the architect of Pope John Paul II's doctrinal policy and vilified by progressives as the panzerkardinal who defended Catholic orthodoxy with the impenetrability of a tank. Yet Ratzinger's quotidian reality was essentially that of an exalted Catholic Church bureaucrat. Working the day shift at Church headquarters for 23 years meant studying and safeguarding the Gospels, not preaching it.

On March 31, Ratzinger was in his Vatican office when the phone rang with bad news. John Paul's long and brave battle with failing health looked to be nearing its end, and as the dean of the College of Cardinals it would be Ratzinger's duty to formally notify his brother Cardinals once the Pope had died. Ratzinger hurried into a black Mercedes and was driven from the office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, around the one-lane road behind St. Peter's Basilica, to the elevator that would bring him up to the Pope's private quarters. It was around noon when the Cardinal approached the Holy Father's bedside. John Paul's condition had deteriorated that morning. The same throat infection that had twice sent him to Gemelli hospital had begun to spread through his body. Apart from his curial position, Ratzinger was there as one of the Pope's dearest friends, and Vatican insiders have quietly speculated about this final encounter between the two men. Some, according to Vatican sources, actually believe the Pope prophesied to Ratzinger that the German would be his successor. Whatever form the conversation took, the Church administrator was indeed chosen three weeks later by his brother Cardinals to succeed John Paul II.

The new Pope has stepped onto the world stage with grace, warmth and an understated clout, qualities that make him our choice for European Newsmaker of the Year. A man often described as methodical and contemplative — even downright shy — has created a charisma all his own, one that seems to defy our turn-up-the-volume, look-at-me times. At 78, Benedict is the archetype of the quiet, lifelong believer who suddenly sees it is his turn to speak up, a rejuvenated old soul surprisingly well-equipped for his final mission. Father Joseph Fessio, who has known the Pope since the 1970s, said his former professor "actually seems healthier, younger, more radiant, more at peace" since assuming the papal throne.

Yet Ratzinger's peaceful countenance belies an energetic soul. The new Pope is a man on a mission, determined to reassert Catholic orthodoxy in the face of the challenge of modern times, and to make the Church once again a central part of the life of Europe, a geographical entity once coterminous with Christendom but now the most secular place on earth. Ratzinger's public image may be more cuddly than many expected it would be, but his beliefs have not budged. He has made it clear that traditional Church teachings on abortion, female clergy and homosexuality will not be challenged so long as he's in charge. After the release of a new Vatican document that would prohibit any person who was openly gay — even if celibate — from becoming a priest, the writer Andrew Sullivan, a gay Catholic, said Benedict "has identified a group of people and said, regardless of how they behave or what they do, they are beneath serving God. It isn't what they do that he is concerned with. It's who they are."

Yet away from the most controversial issues, the Pope has shown an ability to preach eloquently about the core issues of modern existence — good and evil, charity and consumerism, and the slippery slope of instantaneous self-fulfillment. Ratzinger, says a top aide to a progressive European Cardinal, "has a brilliant way of summing up a concept in a single sentence. He can clean off the window of modern history, and give you a clear vision of what's wrong with our society."

The new Pope's mission is the same one that has driven him since he was ordained in his native Bavaria. But Ratzinger's essential beliefs were rarely seen more clearly than during — and after — his predecessor's final hours. On the evening of April 1, a veteran aide to Ratzinger recounted how, that morning, his boss had gathered together employees in the doctrinal office for a reciting of the rosary, and then informed them of his visit to see John Paul. "I've never seen him that emotional," the Vatican official said. Ten days later, it fell to Ratzinger to lead the service for John Paul's funeral. It may have been the most-watched such ceremony in human history, with over 1 million faithful and dozens of world leaders jammed in and around St. Peter's Square, and tens of millions more watching on television. Ratzinger was a study in serenity, guiding the elaborate liturgy with poise, and delivering a moving, plainspoken homily. It was the first public proof to the faithful — and to voting Cardinals — that he was a man who could shepherd a worldwide flock. In the days that followed, Ratzinger was called upon to lead a series of closed-door, preconclave meetings with his fellow Cardinals, who would later speak of his attentiveness and multilingual skills, and even a sense of humor. For the good of the Church, there could be no angling for the papacy while he was called upon to be the sole pilot for an institution that momentarily had no one in charge. Rather, there was an assumption of responsibility. "After John Paul died," a Rome-based Cardinal recalled recently, "Ratzinger seemed to be carrying the entire Church on his shoulders." Hours before the voting was to begin, he gave his last speech as Cardinal, an impassioned defense of orthodoxy in which he denounced "the dictatorship of relativism." The next day, he was Pope. Beaming from the loggia above a drizzly St. Peter's Square, Papa Benedetto XVI told the world that the Cardinals had elected "a humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord."

He quickly got down to business. Benedict fast-tracked John Paul's road toward sainthood, named his own successor in the doctrinal office and prepared his first encyclical (due out around Christmas). In August, he visited his native Germany for World Youth Day, where he made a historic visit to the Cologne synagogue, spoke out forcefully against terrorism in a meeting with German Muslim leaders, and won over some 1 million young people — many of whom had originally signed up to see their beloved John Paul. It was then, perhaps, that the world appreciated that the new head of the Catholic Church would not be a mere caretaker.

Benedict's public appeal comes from a manner that is always composed. His voice has a singsong cadence and his smile lights up his aging face. He doesn't mince words. "True revolution can only come from God," he told the youth gathering in Cologne. The new Pope has managed to fill John Paul's shoes without trying to match his oversized magnetism, and in so doing has revealed a side of his character that perhaps he didn't even know he had. Angelo Cardinal Scola of Venice, who has known Ratzinger since 1971, says the papacy has brought out the best in his mentor. Ratzinger, Scola told Time, "has the gift to be able to speak, at the same time, to the most simple and the most cultured of people. In 35 years, every single time I have seen or heard him, I have learned something new."

The new Pope himself seems ready to learn. Over the summer, he met in a one-month span with the leaders of the ultratraditionalist Lefebvrites and then with Hans Küng, a Swiss-born progressive theologian who has loudly disagreed with much of Cardinal Ratzinger's doctrine. He showed no sign of giving ground on either flank, but he listened. At October's Synod of Bishops, he introduced the first-ever open discussion period, and took part in it. "That the Pope himself spoke up was evidence that he wants a direct and immediate dialogue with his brother Bishops — a precious sign of a healthy collegiality," says Scola, whom Benedict picked to preside over the three-week-long meeting. And he reaches out, above all, to his flock. Benedict has already produced a series of penetrating homilies, using language that often doesn't quite sound like it should come from a Pope. In a passage on sin, he wrote of the temptation to "think that bargaining a little with evil, reserving some freedom against God, is good, perhaps even necessary. But if we look at the world, it is not so. Evil always poisons." His predecessor's poetic touch made the world take notice. Benedict will connect by the power of his prose.

But for all his learning and his sense of mission, the great surprise of Benedict's papacy so far — at least to those who didn't personally know him — has been a quiet humanity. At the end of a general audience in August, the Pope had set aside time for a long line of the ill and elderly to personally greet him. A girl, perhaps 9 or 10 years old, approached, holding her mother's hand and gripping a teddy bear. Her hair was cut short and her face was puffy from medication. The Pope looked straight in the little girl's eager eyes, and brushed his hand with a blessing across her forehead. And then, without missing a beat, he reached over and blessed the teddy bear in the same way. Among those for whom doctrine is key, Benedict's unshakable convictions will earn him both fans and foes. For those of us less sure of our faith — and even those with none at all — the new Pope reminds us, simply, that a missionary's work is never done.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 18/12/2005 18.36]

Nominated for "Person of the Year," in a field that listed "Mother Nature" as a "person" and pitted the Pope against the author of the Harry Potter series, for instance, the Pope, Mother Nature and J.K. Rowling all lost out to the Good Samaritans - Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates. But here is how the Pope was cited on the list of "People Who Mattered in 2005".

PATRICK HERTZOG / AFP / GETTY

For years Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger seemed too polarizing a conservative to succeed John Paul II. But his closeness to the late Pontiff, his intellectual substance and his high profile entering the conclave turned him into the obvious choice.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 18/12/2005 18.26]

Viva Papa Benedetto!!

well said gracelp.... Awesome Time Europe article on Papa B.

POPE: THANKS AUSTRIA AND "CHILD OF LIGHTS" FOR TREE
(AGI) - Vatican City, Dec. 17 -

Pope Ratzinger exchanged a moving embrace with Juergen Lengauer, the 11 year old Austrian boy who lit the numerous lights on the large Christmas Tree in St. Peter's Square.

Juergen, who saved his two year old brother last summer after he had accidentally fallen inside a swimming pool, was named "the child of lights" this year, and last Monday, he lit the candle of light in the Bethlehem Grotto, which reached Lienz after many stops and which was today given to Benedict XVI.



"I am happy to receive you with great friendship on the occasion of the presentation of the fir tree in St. Peter's Square which comes from Eferding Forest," said the Pope receiving the delegation led by the region's prime minister, Josef Puhringer, and by Mons. Ludwig Schwarz, Bishop of Lienz.

"This majestic fir tree will remain by the nativity scene until the end of Christmas festivities and will be admired by the many pilgrims who come to the Vatican from all parts of the world," the Pope added.

The Pope wanted to thank the "dear friends" who came from Austria not only for "the great tree", but also "for the other smaller ones which will ornate the Apostolic Palace and various parts of the Vatican."

"With your much appreciated gifts you wanted to demonstrate the spiritual closeness and the friendship which for a long time have tied Austria to the Holy Sea, in the noble Christian tradition which has enriched with its spiritual values the culture and literature and art of your Nation and of Europe as a whole," the German Pope said.

"I would like to assure you that the Pope is close to you and that his prayers accompany the path of Christian communities and the entire Austrian nation," he concluded.



Together with the great fir tree offered by the Austria, which has a height of about 30 meters off, the Municipality of Eferding also donated 32 smaller trees to the Vatican (some of which were decorated by children and disabled people), which these days will decorate the Pontifical apartments, the Aula Paolo VI, the Clementine Hall, barracks of the Swiss Guards and the Police and the apartments of Cardinals.

Meanwhile, work is continuing on the nativity scene which will stand by the Christmas tree. Located by the obelisk, it will occupy an overall area of about 400 sq meters and will be inaugurated on the evening of December 24.
The front of the scene extends over 25 meters and stands about 9 meters tall. "The planimetric development is set in such a way as to facilitate its vision from any part of the square," explained a statement by the engineer Massimo Stroppa, Director of Technical Services for the Vatican.
"The overall figure and the architecture of the scene evokes the typical landscapes of Palestine and the holy areas of that land," it added.



And this picture I found in the photo section send by @Nessuna@



If you want to see how looks like choy in front of Nativity scene...look on Papa.

[Modificato da Maklara 19/12/2005 12.21]

I think I have read an article on the CRF about a Pope's friends, who every Xmas brought from Bavaria him these red flower.....I don't remember quite well.
I just love this picture, the whole scene is so....heanvelly.

[Modificato da @Nessuna@ 20/12/2005 5.27]

ahh...now I know what he's looking at. Thanks for the article Maklara..great picture too.

VATICAN CITY, Dec 19 (AFP) - Pope Benedict XVI on Monday condemned recent rioting in suburbs of French cities with large populations of immigrant origin but told France it had to rise to the challenge revealed by the unrest.
"Your country has just lived through a difficult period, in social terms, which has shown a deep dissatisfaction among some young people," he told the new French ambassador to the Vatican, Bernard Kessedjian.
"This situation seems to have touched not only the suburbs of major cities, but more deeply all sections of the population."
The pope said the violence "could only be condemned" but argued that it sent a message that had to be heard.
He said "young people (need) an ideal of society and a personal ideal to give them reason to live and hope."
Pope Benedict spoke of the contribution made by foreign workers and their families and said "the challenge consists today of living the values of equality and fraternity, part of the values quoted in France's motto."

aww,Papa looks so happy and choyful under the tree and nativity.
are thosew flowers Ponsietta(sp)? looks like so..

Yes, gracelp, these flowers are poinsettias. In germany we call it "Weihnachtsstern". Looking very beautiful and they are available in different colours. Papa seems to love them too

With apologies to Dr. Moynihan, but I could not resist a parenthetical comment to an assertion in the first paragraph of the editorial. Not to mention my lament that his magazine does not concede online browsers - who are not subscribers to his magazine - to even see the magazine's covers. We have access to this editorial because it is the magazine's online "free newsflash" for this month, for which we are thankful, of course.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Last Year and This Year
["Inside the Vatican" editorial for January 2006, by Dr. Robert Moynihan]

In this issue of Inside the Vatican, the cover photo is of our "Man of the Year," Pope Benedict XVI, walking in his white papal robes, waving. He looks very happy, joyful, serene. This is perhaps the most remarkable thing so far about his pontificate: that it has been quiet, serene, even, one might say, happy. ["One might say"??? Does anyone doubt that Benedict radiates anything other than the joy he preaches?]

Who would have expected it? The "image" the world had of Joseph Ratzinger the "Grand Inquisitor," intransigent head of the former "Holy Office of the Inquisition," has been totally shattered by the reality of Benedict. And so we confront the issue of image and substance, of appearance and reality. Who was Joseph Ratzinger, really? And who is Benedict XVI? Are they the same man? Or has something changed?

One thing is clear: it is in the transition from "Jospeh Ratzinger" to "Benedict XVI" that the story of this pontificate will be written. Every Pope is two men. This is so because every Pope has two names. This Pope was Joseph Ratzinger (as previous ones were Karol Wojtyla, or Eugenio Pacelli). Now he is Benedict XVI (and Wojtyla was John Paul II, and Pacelli was Pius XII). As men, they have the name their parents gave them, the names they bore as children, their baptismal names; as successors of Peter, they have new names, the ones chosen at the moment of election to the papal throne.

What does this mean? It means that there is a tension within each person who takes the throne of Peter, a tension at the crossroads of his most intimate identity: his name. Each Pope was one man; now he is another.

As Joseph Ratzinger, this Pope had a very particular identity. He was a German, from Bavaria, the son of an anti-Nazi police officer, who grew up under the totalitarian Nazi regime, in the pre- conciliar Church. He was a theologian who studied Augustine and Bonaventure, who labored at the Second Vatican Council in the strength and passion of his youth, who became a professor, then a bishop, then a cardinal, and indeed, arguably the most influential of all the cardinals in the Church for a quarter century.

And then, on April 19, 2005, just a few days before [after, actually] his 78th birthday, he changed his name. He was no longer Joseph; he was Benedict. And the 16th in a long line of Benedicts.

There has been a remarkable silence in Rome for nine months. The new Pope's inner circle is very small and tight. There have been no "leaks" in this pontificate.

So what has been going on? Benedict has been "putting on" his new name. He has been adjusting to the dramatic change that occurred in his identity on April 19. (One way he has been doing this is by praying the rosary daily with his personal secretary.) He is no longer Joseph Ratzinger, but Benedict. He is becoming Benedict to himself, and will become Benedict before our eyes during 2006 and after. We will all soon see who Benedict really is.

What are the problems Benedict faces? They are many, and yet finally reducible to just one: the faith. To teach the faith. To bear witness to the faith. To believe in Christ, to preach that belief, to live that belief. We all know the consequences of the loss of faith: selfishness, sin, cruelty, oppression, strife, division, suffering, disease, tears, hatred, death. And so, for anyone who loves God and his fellow man, the remedy for the sorrows of this world is evident: faith. The results of faith are equally clear: generosity, self-sacrifice, tenderness, mercy, peace, unity, serenity, healthy laughter, love, life.

The overall "plan" of Benedict's pontificate can be nothing other than this -- as it is the overall plan of all Popes: to preserve the faith. To defend the faith. To teach the faith. To confirm others in the faith.

The many problems in the Church, and in the world, which worry all of us -- economic problems, debts, poverty; political problems, international tensions, wars and rumors of wars; personal problems, sickness, sadness, loneliness; ecclesial problems, the breaking of vows, the commission of sins -- all these problems can only be addressed from the foundation of the faith handed down to us from the beginning.

In this issue, we chose Benedict as our "Man of the Year" because he is the one all Catholics look to now to teach the faith, preach the faith, defend the faith, that is, to be the Vicar of Christ on earth.

And we have chosen nine other men and women to round out our "Top Ten People of 2005," people who, each in his or her own way, are bearing witness, not perfectly, yet truly, to that faith which is the hope of the world and of mankind.

Is the faith weak? Yes. But in this weakness, there is humility, and in humility, there is the seed of strength.

Are there wars in the world? Yes. But there are also peacemakers, and through faith and perseverance in the faith, those who work for peace will not cease their efforts.

Are there sexual sins committed? Yes. But there are also those who strive for purity, who seek chastity, and they provide a powerful witness in this fallen world.

Has the Church gone off the rails? Humanly speaking, we are in difficulty. Many parish churches are closing, many priests sinful, many Christians lukewarm, many children not taught except by secular computer games, many old people not accorded dignity, and some of the most passionate believers seem arrogant, intolerant, uncharitable. So the Church does seem to be passing through a collective "dark night."

Into this "dark night" has come Pope Benedict. It will be his task to shine the light of faith into this present darkness.

- Dr. Robert Moynihan

ON THE OTHER HAND...

Some of the media still can't see the light. They are still comparing Papa unfavorably to JPII and buying into the stereotypes and criticisms of Joseph Ratzinger. Try not to let your blood pressure get out of hand.

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051217/en_afp/yearvaticanpope_0512...

MEDICINE AND CONSCIENCE

I'm not sure this is the right place to post this link but since Papa is quoted in it a number of times in defense of life, I am putting it here. It is an excellent article about the fight doctors now face in trying to heal according to God's law and their own consciences when the forces of governments and non-believers are trying to make them take just the opposite path. If the article weren't so long, I'd post the whole thing here.
www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=128...

The Pope used the traditional Christmas meeting with the Roman Curia today - the first in his Papacy - to review the most important events that happened in the Church in 2005, including the 40th anniversary of the end of Vatican-II. Particularly with regard to what the Pope had to say about VAtican-II, the following press release from the Vatican does not do justice to his seven-page address, which must be read in full, but whose English translation is not yet available.

---------------------------------------------------------------

VATICAN CITY, DEC 22, 2005 (VIS) - This morning in the Clementine Hall, the Holy Father held his traditional annual meeting with the cardinals, archbishops, bishops and members of the Roman Curia for the exchange of Christmas greetings.

In his address, Benedict XVI mentioned "the great events that profoundly marked the life of the Church," such as: the death of John Paul II, World Youth Day in Cologne, Germany and the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the closing of Vatican Council II.

Benedict XVI pointed out that no Pope had written as many texts as John Paul II, or visited "the whole world and spoken directly to human beings of all continents. Nonetheless, in the end, his was a journey of suffering and silence," and from this cathedra, Pope Benedict added, "he taught us an important lesson."

Speaking of John Paul II's last book, "Memory and identity," the Pope explained how "it left us with an interpretation of suffering that was not a theological or philosophical theory, but a fruit matured over a personal journey of endurance which he underwent, supported by faith in the crucified Lord." In this work, Benedict XVI went on, the late Pope "shows how deeply touched he was by the spectacle of the power of evil during last century." Faced with the dilemma of whether some limit against evil exists, the response from his book is: "divine mercy."

"Of course we have to do all we can to alleviate suffering and to prevent the injustice that causes the suffering of the innocent," said Benedict XVI. "Nonetheless, we must do everything possible for human beings to discover the meaning of suffering, to accept suffering and to unite it to Christ's suffering. In this context, he emphasized how the worldwide response to the Pope's death became a recognition of his complete submission to God for the sake of the world.

On the subject of World Youth Day in Cologne, which was held in August, the Holy Father indicated that the theme of that event, "We have come to adore Him," contained two distinct images: that of pilgrimage, of man who "goes in search of truth, of just life, of God," and that of adoration. This word, he added, takes us through to October's Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist, and the Year dedicated to this Sacrament.

"It moves me to see," the Pope continued, "how the joy of Eucharistic adoration is increasing throughout the Church, and how its fruits are appearing. During the period of liturgical reform, Mass and Eucharistic adoration outside of Mass were often seen as being in opposition." However, "receiving the Eucharist means adoring Him Whom we receive."

Benedict XVI then offered some reflections on the 40th anniversary of the closure of Vatican Council II, considering the outcomes of the event and how it had been received.

"Problems in its reception," he said, arose from "two contrasting interpretations: ... the interpretation of discontinuity and rupture," which found favor among the media and a certain segment of modern theology, and "the interpretation of reform," of renewal and continuity within the one Church. The former of these two interpretations, said the Pope, "risks leading to a fracture between pre-conciliar Church and post-conciliar Church."

As for "the interpretation of reform," Benedict XVI recalled "Pope John XXIII's well known words, ... when he said that the Council 'wishes to transmit doctrine pure and whole, without attenuating or falsifying it." It is necessary, added Pope Benedict, "for this certain and unchangeable doctrine, which must be faithfully respected, to be more deeply studied and presented in a way appropriate to the needs of our time."

"It is clear that the commitment to express a particular truth in a new way calls for fresh reflection and for a new and living relationship with that truth. ... In this sense, the plan proposed by John XXIII was extremely demanding, just as the synthesis of faithfulness and dynamism is demanding. But wherever this interpretation has been the guideline for the reception of the Council, there new life has grown and new fruits have matured. Forty years after the Council, ... the positive aspects are greater and more vibrant than they appeared in the years around 1968."

Benedict XVI then went on to observe how Paul VI, in closing the Council, indicated "a specific motivation for which the 'interpretation of discontinuity' could appear to be the more convincing. In the great debate concerning the human being that characterizes modern times, the Council had to dedicate itself specifically to the subject of anthropology," to raise questions "on the relationship between the Church and her faith on the one hand, and man and the modern world on the other." In other words, "the Council had to find a new definition of the relationship between the Church and the modern age."

The Pope outlined the difficulties that have marked this relationship: including the trial of Galileo, the French Revolution, the clash with liberalism, the two world wars, and without overlooking the ideologies that gave rise to nazism and communism, or the questions raised by scientific progress and the historical and critical interpretation of Holy Scripture.

"It could be said that three tiers of questions were formed that now awaited a response: ... a new definition of the relationship between faith and modern science; ... a new definition of the relationship between the Church and the modern State, ... which is associated more generally with the problem of religious tolerance; ... and a new definition of the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel."

The Holy Father indicated how all these sectors risked giving rise to some form of discontinuity which, nonetheless, was not without a certain continuity of principles. "It is precisely in this continuity and discontinuity at various levels that the true nature of reform lies. And in this process of novelty in continuity we found we had to learn to understand, in more concrete terms than before, that the Church's decisions regarding contingent things (for example, certain forms of liberalism or the liberal interpretation of the Bible) had themselves to be contingent, precisely because they referred to a particular real situation which was itself changeable. We had to learn to recognize that, in those decisions, the lasting element was expressed only by principles, principles that remained in the background and motivated decisions from within."

Benedict XVI then dwelt on the subject of religious freedom and recalled that Vatican Council II, recognizing an essential principle of the modern State and adopting it with a Decree on religious freedom, returned to the most profound heritage of the Church. ... The ancient Church's natural practice was to pray for emperors and political leaders, considering this to be her duty but, ... she refused to worship them, and thus clearly opposed the religion of State. ... A missionary Church, knowing she is held to announce the message to all peoples, must commit to the freedom of faith."

"Vatican Council II, with the new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, reconsidered and even corrected certain historical decisions. But in this apparent discontinuity, [the Church] actually maintained and deepened her intimate nature and her true identity." Yet "those who expected that with this fundamental 'yes' to the modern age, all tensions would melt away, and that this 'openness to the world' would render everything harmonious, had undervalued the interior tensions and contradictions of the modern age."

"In our time too, the Church remains 'a sign of contradiction.' ... The Council could not seek to abolish this Gospel contradiction in the face of the dangers and the errors of mankind. What it did seek to do was to set aside erroneous and superfluous contradictions and present to our world the requirements of the Gospel in all its greatness and purity."

He concluded: "The step taken by the Council towards the modern age ... is part of the perennial problem of the relationship between faith and reason, which is presented in ever new forms. ... And so, today, we can turn our gaze back with gratitude to Vatican Council II: if we read and accept it guided by a correct interpretation, it can become a great force in the ever necessary renewal of the Church."

Here's a better report on the Pope's address to the Curia earlier today, from Catholic News Service:

www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0507301.htm

Year-end wrap-up: Pope reflects on a historic 2005
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- By any measure, it was an extraordinary year for Pope Benedict XVI.

Most of the world has followed the highlights through the lens of the mass media -- his election in the April conclave, his visit to Germany in August, his growing popularity and even his fashionable ecclesial clothing.

On Dec. 22, the pope offered a personal look at the year in review. Although he spoke for nearly an hour, he barely mentioned his own election -- a demonstration of the humility he has shown from the beginning of his pontificate.

Instead, he focused on the death of his predecessor, World Youth Day, the closing of the eucharistic year and the commemoration of the Second Vatican Council.

And, of course, on Jesus. Born in a manger, the pope said, Jesus has a power "completely different from the destructive power of violence," and far more effective.

The occasion was the pope's annual pre-Christmas encounter with the Roman Curia. The pope wore his red velvet cape trimmed with ermine, the Clementine Hall was decorated with poinsettias, and a Christmas tree was bedecked with lights.

The idea was to exchange season's greetings with Vatican officials; Pope Benedict gave them a nine-page speech.

He began by paying tribute to Pope John Paul II, saying the late pope's fame as a world traveler and communicator only made his final days of suffering and silence more powerful.

Interestingly, it was a TV image that stuck out in Pope Benedict's mind: when the late pope was shown in his apartment the week before his death, gripping a cross as he watched the Way of the Cross broadcast from Rome's Colosseum.

Pope Benedict recalled his own first papal trip, a visit to Germany to preside over World Youth Day. But his biggest memory was not the cheering and chanting that greeted him from the immense crowd. Instead, he said, it was the sound of silence -- the "intense silence of those million young people" as they prayed together in a field before the exposed Eucharist.

The pope said the rediscovery of adoration in the church was also evident at the world Synod of Bishops in October, which closed the Year of the Eucharist. He said eucharistic adoration and the Mass were once seen in opposition, but that seems to have been overcome in the modern church.

The pope saved his most detailed analysis for Vatican II, which ended 40 years ago. It's a subject that has generated decades of debate within the church, including some critical comments by the pope when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The pope said there was no denying that the reception of Vatican II has been difficult for the church. In explaining why, he said there was a right way and a wrong way to understand the council.

The wrong way, he said, sees the council as a break with the past -- a view that often has the sympathy of the mass media. Its proponents think the council's documents are imperfect, and so "one should follow not the texts of the council but its spirit," he said.

He said the proper understanding of the council, on the other hand, understands the council's reforms in continuity with the church's tradition and its basic teachings.

At this point, the pope went off into a lengthy and complex reflection on the church's relationship with the modern world. He said the council's great task was to help heal the rift between the church and modernity, in three specific problematic relationships: faith and science, church and state, and Christianity and other religions.

Given the bold statements that came out of the council on these relationships, it was natural that some would see only the apparent discontinuity with church tradition, instead of understanding them as an evolution of core Christian beliefs, he said.

But that would be to misconstrue the council's intent, he said.

"The church is, before and after the council, the same one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, moving forward through the times," he said.

After the pope arrived to applause in the packed Vatican hall, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, head of the College of Cardinals, gave a speech that concentrated on the pope's election.

Pope Benedict mentioned the conclave in passing, recalling that he felt "not a little fear" at being chosen and added: "Such a task was completely outside what I could have imagined as my vocation."

He said that only with "a great act of trust in God" was he able to give assent to his election.

Last spring, after the 26-year papacy of Pope John Paul, many people needed time to get used to the idea that Cardinal Ratzinger was now Pope Benedict.

Eight months later, as he delivered a speech his listeners could ponder well into the new year, it was difficult to imagine anyone else sitting on the papal throne.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/12/2005 3.18]

As reported earlier in POPE-POURRI, it is official. Herewith, a translation of a German news agency report with further details about the Foundation that's buying the house:
--------------------------------------------------------------

Munich/Passau, December 22, 2005 (dpa) -A Church foundation will purchase the house where Pope Benedict XVI was born in Marktl-am-Inn.

The Foundation will be called “Stiftung Geburtshaus Papst Benedikt XVI,” with headquarters in Marktl. Its principal objective is "to present the Pope’s personal and spiritual development”, according to the Archdiocese of Munich and the Diocese of Passau.

The house owner is ready to finalize the sale and has formally made the Foundation an offer. The Bavarian dioceses and the Foundation expect a successful conclusion of the deal in the first half of 2006.

The initiative for the Foundation came from the relatives of the late Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne, who died in 1978. The Frings family will be the principal donor to the foundation.
Frings comes from Neuss, but it is not known whether his family still lives in the Rhineland. Pope Benedict was a theological adviser to Cardinal Frings during the Second Vatican Council.

Bids up to 5 million Euros were made for the building, which was built in 1745 and is a protected historical building. The present owner acquired it in 1999. She decided to put it up for sale because of the constant flow of tourists since the Pope’s election.

Mayor Hubert Geschwendter of Marktl welcomed the news as the best Christmas present for the community. “We are happy that the Papsthaus will be assured of appropriate use now that it will be acquired by the Church.” He said the community
had always wished for such an outcome in the interest of all visitors.

As we know now, the Pope took advantage of the traditional Christmas reception for the Roman Curia yesterday to review the events of 2005 from the perspective of the Church. He devoted a large part of his discourse to his thoughts about Vatican-II, 40 years after it ended, thus delivering one of the most important statements he has made in the first year of his Papacy. It tells us exactly what he thinks of the Council's outcome from the perspective of someone who had an active part in it and who must now work for what he perceives to be the tasks it set forth.

Herewith is Sandro Magister's commentary on the address, followed by the part of the address devoted to Vatican-II, from the first available English translation, provided by Asia News.
www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=44072&eng=y
----------------------------------------------------------------

Pope Ratzinger Certifies the Council – The Real One

In his pre-Christmas address to the Roman curia, Benedict XVI demolishes the myth of Vatican II as a rupture and new beginning. He gives another name “reform,” to the proper interpretation of the Council. And he explains why.

by Sandro Magister


ROME, December 23, 2005 – Benedict XVI has on two occasions satisfied the great curiosity about his comments on Vatican Council II, at the fortieth anniversary of its conclusion.

The first was on Thursday, December 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception.

The second was on Thursday, December 22, during the traditional meeting between the pope and the Vatican curia for the exchange of Christmas greetings.

The homily on the feast of the Immaculate Conception was the overture.

The address to the curia was the main act.

In his homily on December 8, pope Joseph Ratzinger focused his attention on “the inner structure” of Vatican Council II. And he pointed to Mary Immaculate as “the orientation of its entire process” and “the key to understanding it:”

“[Mary] illuminates the inner structure of the Church's teaching, which was developed at the Council. The Second Vatican Council had to pronounce on the institutional components of the Church: on the bishops and on the pontiff, on the priests, lay people and religious, in their communion and in their relations; it had to describe the Church journeying on, ‘clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification’ (Lumen Gentium, n. 8). This ‘Petrine’ aspect of the Church, however, is included in that ‘Marian’ aspect. In Mary, the Immaculate, we find the essence of the Church without distortion.”

But in his address to the curia on December 22, Benedict XVI went to the heart of the most controversial question. He asked:

“Why has the reception of the Council been so difficult for such a great portion of the Church up until now?”

And he replied:

“The problems have arisen from a struggle between two conflicting forms of interpretation. One of these has caused confusion; the other, in a silent but increasingly visible way, has brought results, and continues to bring them.”

He called the first form of interpretation “the hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture.” The second he called “the hermeneutics of reform.”

He criticized the first of these at its roots, while illustrating the reasons for and validity of the second.

In particular, he brought light to the authentic meaning of the “steps that the Council took toward the modern age, which in a rather imprecise manner has been presented as an ‘opening up to the world’ [and] belongs decisively among the perennial problems of the relationship between faith and reason.”

Today, this relationship “must be developed with great openmindedness, but also with that clarity in the discernment of spirits that the world rightly expects from us.”

Here follows (in an English translation edited by “Asia News”) the part of the December 22 address to the curia that Benedict XVI dedicated to Vatican Council II.

It is a major document for the interpretation, not only of the Council, but also of the current pontificate:

”Two forms of interpretation have struggled with each other...”

by Benedict XVI


[...] The last event of the year that I would like to cover on this occasion is the celebration of the conclusion of the Vatican II Council 40 years ago. This memory brings to mind a question: What has been the Council's result? Has it been received properly? What, in how the Council has been received, has been good, what has been insuffiicient or wrong? What is there still to be done?

No one can deny that in large sections of the Church, the Council's reception has been carried out in a rather different manner, without even wanting to apply to what has happened the description that the great doctor of the Church, saint Basil, gave of the Church's situation after the Council of Nicaea: he compared it to a naval battle in the darkness of a storm, saying among other things: “Harsh rises the cry of the combatants encountering one another in dispute; already all the Church is almost full of the inarticulate screams, the unintelligible noises, rising from the ceaseless agitations that divert the right rule of the doctrine of true religion” (De Spiritu Sancto, XXX). It is not a dramatic description such as this that we would want to apply to the post-Council situation, but some of what has happened does reflect itself in it. The question arises: Why has the reception of the Council been so difficult for such a great portion of the Church up until now?

Well, all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its correct hermeneutic, on the right key to interpretation and application.

The problems of reception have arisen from a struggle between two conflicting forms of interpretation. One of these has caused confusion; the other, in a silent but increasingly visible way, has brought results, and continues to bring them.

On one hand, there is an interpretation that I would like to call “hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture”. It was frequently able to find favour among mass media, and also a certain sector of modern theology.

On the other hand, there is the “hermeneutics of reform”, of the renewal of the continuity of the single Church-subject, which the Lord has given us. It is a subject that grows in time and develops, remaining however always the same, the one subject of the People of God on their way.

Hermeneutics of discontinuity risk leading to a fracture between the pre-Council and post-Council Church. It asserts that the Council texts as such would still not be the true expression of the spirit of the Council. They would be the result of compromises within which, to reach unanimity, many old and ultimately useless things had to be dragged along and reconfirmed. It is, however, not in these compromises that the true spirit of the Council would be revealed, but instead in the drive toward newness that underpin the texts: only this would represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from it and in conformity with it, it would be necessary to go forward. Precisely because the texts would reflect only imperfectly the true spirit of the Council and its novelty, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts, making room for the new, in which the more profound, even though still indistinct, intention of the Council would express itself. In short: it would be necessary to follow not the Council texts, but its spirit.

In this way, of course, a huge margin remains for the question of how then to define this spirit and, as a result, room is made for any whimsicality. With this, however, there is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of a Council as such. In this way, it is considered as a sort of a constituent assembly, that eliminates an old consitution and creates a new one. But a constituent assembly needs a mandator and them a confirmation on the part of the mandator, that is the people that the constitution must serve. The Council Fathers did not have such a mandate and no one had ever given one to them; furthermore, no one could have done so, because the Church's essential constitution comes from the Lord and has been given to us so that we can reach eternal life and, starting from this perspective, we are also able to illuminate life in time and time itself. Bishops, through the Sacrament they have received, are trustees of the Lord's gift. They are “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1); as such, they must be found “faithful and wise” (cf Luke 12:41-48). This means they much administer the gift of the Lord in the right way, so that it does not remain hidden in some hiding-place, but bears fruit and the Lord, in the end, can say to the administrator: “Since you have been faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities” (cf Mat 24:14-30, Luke 19:11-27). This evangelical parable expresses the dynamism of faithfulness, which is of interest in service to the Lord, and it also makes evident how in a Council dynamism and faithfulness must become one.

In opposition to the hermeneutics of discontinuity is the hermeneutics of reform, as was presented first by pope John XXIII in his speech for the Council's opening, October 11, 1962, and then by Pope Paul VI in the closing speech of December 7, 1965.

I would like to quote pope John XXIII's well known words in which this hermeneutic is unequivocally expressed when he said that the Council “wishes to transmit doctrine pure and whole, without attenuating or falsifying it”, and continues: “Our duty is not only to watch over this precious treasure, as if we were only concerned with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with active will and without fear to this work, which our age demands... It is necessary that this sure and immutable doctrine, faithfully respected, must be deepened and presented in a way that answers the needs of our time. One thing is in fact the deposit of faith, that is the truths contained in our venerated doctrine, and another thing is the way they are enounced, maintaining nevertheless their same meaning and scope” (S. Oec. Conc. Vat. II Constitutiones Decreta Declarationes, 1974, pp. 863-865).

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a particular truth in a new way calls for fresh reflection upon it and a new relationship with it; it is also clear that the new word can mature only if it derives from an aware understanding of the truth expressed and that, on the other hand, the reflection on faith also requires that this faith is lived. In this sense, the plan proposed by Pope John XXIII was extremely demanding, just as the synthesis of faithfulness and dynamism is demanding. But wherever this interpretation has been the guideline for the reception of the Council, there new life has grown and new fruits have matured. Forty years after the Council, we can ascertain that the positive aspects are greater and more vibrant than they appeared in the years around 1968. Today we can see that the good seed, even if it develops slowly, nevertheless grows, and our profound gratitude for the work carried out by the Council grows along with it.

Paul VI, in his speech for the Council's closing, then indicated another specific motivation for which the hermeneutics of discontinuity could appear to be convincing. In the great debate concerning the human being that characterizes modern times, the Council had to dedicate itself specifically to the subject of anthropology. It had to raise questions on the relationship between the Church and her faith, on the one hand, and man and the modern world on the other (ibid, pp. 1066 s.). The question becomes still clearer, if in the place of the generic term of "today's world", we choose another more precise one: the Council had to find a new definition of the relationship between the Church and the modern age.

This relationship started out difficultly with the Galileo trial. It broke completely, when Kant defined “religion within pure reason” and when, in the radical phase of the French Revolution, an image of the state and of man was spread that practically intended to crowd out the Church and faith. The clash of the Church's faith with a radical liberalism and also with natural sciences that claimed to embrace, with its knowledge, the totality of reality to its outmost borders, stubbornly setting itself to make the “hypothesis of God” superfluous, had provoked in the 19th century under Pius IX, on the part of the Church, a harsh and radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age. Thus, there were apparently no grounds for an positive and fruitful agreement, and drastic were also the refusals on the part of those who felt they were the representatives of the modern age.

However, in the meantime, the modern age also had its development. It was becoming clear that the American Revolution had offered a model of the modern state that was different from that theorized by the radical tendencies that had emerged from the second phase of the French Revolution. Natural sciences began, in a more and more clear way, to reflect their own limits, imposed by their own method which, though achieving great things, was nevertheless not able to comprehend the totality of reality. Thus, both sides began to progressively open up to each other. In the period between the two world wars and even more after the second world war, Catholic statemen had shown that a modern lay state can exist, which nevertheless is not neutral with respect to values, but lives tapping into the great ethical fonts of Christianity. Catholic social doctrine, as it developed, had become an important model between radical liberalism and the Marxist theory of the state. Natural sciences, which would unreservedly profess to its own method in which God had no access, realized ever more clearly that this method was not comprehensive of the totality of reality and thus opened once again their doors to God, knowing that reality is greater than naturalistic method and what it can embrace.

It could be said that three tiers of questions were formed that now, at the hour of Vatican II, awaited a response.

First and foremost, it was necessary to define in a new way the relationship between faith and modern science; this regarded, however, not only natural sciences, but also historical sciences because, in a certain school, the historical-critical method claimed for itself the final words on the interpretation of the Bible and, demanding full exclusiveness for its understanding of Sacred Scriptures, it opposed, on important points, the interpretation that the faith of the Church had elaborated.

Secondly, it was necessary to define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the modern state, which made room to citizens of various religions and ideologies, acting impartially towards these religions and simply taking on the responsibility for the orderly and tolerant coexistence between citizens and for their freedom to exercise their religion.

To this, thirdly, was connected in a more general way the problem of religious tolerance – a question that called for a new definition of the relationship between Christian faith and religion in the world. In particular, in the face of the recent crimes of the National-Socialist regime and, in general, in a retrospective look on a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all important subjects – these great themes of the second part of the Council – uponwhich we cannot now dwell much here. It is clear that in all these sectors, which together are one problem, some discontinuities would emerge. Although this may not have been fully appreciated at first, the discontinuities that did emerge – notwithstanding distinct concrete historical situations and their needs – did prevent continuity at the level of principles.

The nature of true reform lies in this combination of multi-levelled continuity and discontinuity.

In this process of change through continuity we had to learn how to understand better than before that the Church’s decisions about contingent matters – for example, about actual forms of liberalism or liberal interpretations of the Bible – were necessarily themselves contingent because related to a reality itself changeable.

We had to learn how to recognise that in such decisions only principles express what is lasting, embedded in the background and determining the decision from within. The concrete forms these decisions take are not permanent but depend upon the historical situations. They can therefore change.

Thus, for example, with freedom of religion seen as expressing mankind’s inability to find truth, relativism becomes the canon. From being a social and historical necessity it is incorrectly elevated to a metaphysical level that loses its true meaning. It therefore becomes unacceptable to those who believe that mankind can reach the truth of God and, based on truth’s inner dignity, is related to such knowledge.

This is completely different from viewing freedom of religion as a necessity that human coexistence requires or even seeing it as an inherent consequence of the truth that such freedom cannot be imposed from the outside but must come from a conviction from within.

By adopting a decree on religious freedom, the Second Vatican Council recognised and made its own an essential principle of the modern state. And in doing so, it reconnected with the wider heritage of the Church.

The Church itself is conscious that it is fully in sync with the teachings of Jesus (cf Mt 22: 21), the Church of the early martyrs, and with all the martyrs. Although the early Church dutifully prayed for emperors and political leaders as a matter of fact (cf 1 Tm 2: 2), it refused to worship them and thus rejected the state religion. In dying for their faith in the one God revealed in Jesus Christ, the martyrs of the early Church also died on behalf of freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own religion. No state can impose any religion; instead, religion must be freely chosen with the grace of God and in freedom of conscience.

A missionary Church required to proclaim its message to all the nations must commit itself to freedom of religion. It must pass on the gift of truth that exists for all and at the same time reassure nations and governments that it does not want to destroy their identities and cultures. It must show that it brings an answer they intimately expect. This answer is not lost among the many cultures, but instead enhances unity among men and thus peace among nations.

By defining in a new way the relationship between the faith of the Church and some essential elements of modern thinking, the Second Vatican Council revised and even corrected some past decisions. But in an apparent discontinuity it has instead preserved and reinforced its intimate nature and true identity. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic both before and after the Council, throughout time. It “presses forward amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God,” announcing the cross and death of the Lord until he comes (cf Lumen gentium, 8).

Yet those who expected that with this fundamental “Yes” to the modern age, all tensions would melt away, and that this “opening up to the world” would render everything harmonious, underestimated the inner tensions and contradictions of the modern age; they underestimated the internal tensions and the dangerous fragility of human nature, which have threatened man’s journey throughout all historical periods and configurations. Given man’s new power over himself and over matter, these dangers have not disappeared; instead, they have acquired a new dimension. We can clearly illustrate this by looking at current history.

In our time too, the Church remains a “sign of contradiction” (Lk 2: 34) and for this reason in 1976 pope John Paul II, then a cardinal, gave it as the title to the spiritual exercises he preached to Pope Paul VI and the Roman curia. The Council could not abolish this Gospel contradiction in the face of the dangers and errors of mankind. What it did do was put aside wrong or superfluous contradictions in order to present to our world the requirements of the Gospel in all its greatness and purity.

The steps that the Council took toward the modern age – which in a rather imprecise manner has been presented as an “opening up to the world” – belongs decisively among the perennial problems of the ever changing relationship between faith and reason.

Undoubtedly, the Council faced situations that existed before. In his first Epistle, saint Peter urged Christians to be ready to answer (apo-logia) anyone who asked them the logos, the reason for their faith (cf 3:15). This meant that biblical faith had to interact with and relate to Greek culture, learning how to recognise, by interpreting distinctions as well as through contact and affinity with the latter, the one God-given reason.

When Medieval Christianity, largely schooled in the Platonic tradition, came into contact with Aristotle’s ideas via Jewish and Arab philosophers in the 13th century, faith and reason almost became irreconcilable. But saint Thomas Aquinas was especially able to find a new synthesis between faith and Aristotelian philosophy. Faith could relate in a positive manner with the dominant notions of reason of the time.

The exacting disputes between modern reason and Christian faith, which started off on the wrong foot with Galileo’s trial, went through several phases. But by the time the Second Vatican Council was convened new thinking was possible. The new approach found in the conciliar papers sets out only guidelines but also the essential direction so that the dialogue between faith and reason, very important nowadays, has found its orientation in Vatican II.

This dialogue must now be developed with the openmindedness, but also with that clarity in the discernment of spirits that the world rightly expects from us. We can look back with gratitude to the Second Vatican Council. If we read and accept it guided by a correct interpretation, it can become a great force in the ever necessary renewal of the Church. [...]

__________

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/12/2005 17.26]

that was lenghty speech he had right there but very brilliant!

USA TODAY ARTICLE ON BENEDICT

John Allen is quoted quite a bit in this article about Benedict's progress or lack thereof as pope in the past 8 months. Sometimes Allen sounds like his old pre-Benedict self. I don't see how they can say Papa is not doing much unless they just don't look at his schedule.

www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-22-pope-impressions_x.htm

CONSIDER THE SOURCES!

First of all, USA Today! What do you expect?

Second, why would an American newspaper quote two people picked out of the blue from England as its basis for saying "few Catholics know what the Pope wants" ? They could not ask or poll informally any of the 70 million Catholics in the United States? They could not send a correspondent to speak at random to the crowds who gather at St. Peter's for Angelus or the audiences to ask more representative Catholics?

Third - John Allen! Once a liberal, always a liberal? Is he trying to "make up" for the liberal side what they "lost" because Jeff Israely wrote a virtual encomium in Time? Everything he says in the following statement is just downright patronizing, questionable and disingenuous, to say the least! I will limit my comments to what he says in this paragraph, because there is more than enough there to dispute!

---

"Am I surprised by how slow he's moving? My basic answer is, yes," says Allen, author of The Rise of Benedict XVI: The Inside Story of How the Pope was Elected and Where He Will Take the Catholic Church. "I knew he was not going to turn the Earth on its head overnight. But given the vastness of his ambitions ... I would have expected in the first eight months he would be doing lots of things of consequence: more significant personnel moves, more significant documents, more serious public engagements, etc., etc."

---

"I would have expected in the first eight months that he would be doing lots of things of consequence." - What has he been doing then, all this time - twiddling his thumbs, indulging in trivia? Catechizing the faithful twice a week - even if that were all he managed to do (and we know full well that he does far more than the obligatory Papal routine) - is not a matter of consequence?

Where does this "slow-moving" come from? Slow-moving in relation to what? Aren't so-called Vatican experts schooled in the saying that the Catholic Church thinks in millenia?

Or "the vastness of his ambitions"? He who said very clearly his function was not to do his will but to listen to what God wills? Or who has said there is so much to follow through on John Paul's rich legacy, which is not to say that the follow-through can be done a matter of months!

"More significant personnel moves" - Obviously, the Pope doesn't find any of them so urgent he has to name names just because some cardinals are past 75 - that's a limit that the Pope can override. He served well past 75 himself. He'll move when he's ready, not before! And can Allen cite anything that has not been done or has been botched because the Pope did not name new names just for the sake of naming new names?

"More significant documents" - What exactly can be more significant than his major homilies so far, his addresses in Cologne, his 2006 Message for Peace, and especially, yesterday's address to the Curia? All that, by someone who said he did not intend to issue so many documents as John Paul. Perhaps he will not have as many encyclicals, but every homily he gives, every catechesis on Wednesday and Sunday, cannot but be significant because he is who he is - a profound thinker who is also a remarkable teacher.

"More serious public engagements" - Give me a break! Is Allen saying that the Pope's public engagements have not been serious
in the sense of significant? What were they, trivial? Bari, Cologne, the major Church holidays in Rome, the Bishops Synod?
Even the "minor" events like his meeting with the local clergy in Val d'Aosta and his homily at Santa Maria Consolatrice become major milestones because of what he manages to say.

Doesn't Allen read the text of the discourses the Pope gives to the procession of visitors he sees at private audiences? Whether it is to bishops visiting ad limina or ambassadors presenting credentials or representatives of other religions, the Pope has not limited himself to mere pleasantries, banalities and generalities - he has always managed to underscore concrete examples specific to the country or countries or religion or organization of the individual or group he is addressing, in order to enunciate and clarify key points of Catholic doctrine and practice. He did it again today with the laborers who renovated the papal apartments!

All these "expectations" are, after all, gratuitous. A Pope would betray the Holy Spirit if he made a show of doing things the way the John Allens of the world expect, instead of doing what needs to be done when it needs to be done.

And the outright statement that when we don't see the Pope, it's because he is resting "for health reasons" - that implies that all of a sudden, after April 19, Joseph Ratzinger, who put in full days working at the CDF five days a week for 24 years, is no longer capable of doing a full day's work! That's not a charitable statement to make - in fact, it is downright malicious, especially since the Vatican Press Office releases his schedule daily, and most days, he receives visitors in the morning and in the afternoon. He gets up at 5:30, he says Mass, he must read newspapers and journals, study documents, give instructions to his staff and to the Curia, dictate/draft/review messages/speeches/homilies, take his afternoon walk,etc- all this on top of his official schedule. Does Allen or any journalist do a fraction of what a Pope has to do?

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/12/2005 14.45]

hello????????im not surprised with what Allen wrote..grrr

From Corriere della Sera, in translation-
---------------------------------------------------------------

23 December 2005

Benedict XVI’s reformist choice:
Tradition and change, looking forward without denying the past
By Vittorio Messori

The occasion seemed pro forma and routine: the exchange of Christmas greetings between the Pope and those who work in the Curia, the complex machinery that manages the universal Church and to which every diocese contributes its best priests.

But wherever he has to speak, Joseph Ratzinger does not take things for granted. His German seriousness and his theological training do not allow him to give perfunctory speeches. Thus, instead of things destined to be lost in the rather frivolous tangle of holiday wishes and other well-meaning words, Benedict XVI yesterday offered his fellow workers at the Vatican some profound reflections on some of the most demanding themes. Such that he disconcerted many news agencies who, instead of a more arduous synthesis of the speech, chose to simply quote parts of the prepared text.

One of the themes was dear to the heart of his “venerated predecessor” as he always calls him: the relationship between faith and reason, to which John Paul II had dedicated an encyclical ["Fides et Ratio"] that is among the most dense there is. Another point was religious liberty, and the risk that a mistaken interpretation of the concept would carry Catholics towards relativism. Finally (although it is the theme that preceded all the rest), what authentic interpretation to give to the Second Vatican Council, 40 years since it ended.

It is this theme – since it’s impossible to discuss everything –to which I wish to call attention. In effect, this is the root of the ecclesiastical division that persists today between two groups who face each other as antagonists, incapable of dialogue and perjhaps, of brotherhood. “Progressives” and “traditionalists” – to use terms that are imprecise, overused, aligned to political terminology but meaningful to only a few – have found, and are finding, the reasons for their disagreement not so much in the text of single documents, as much as in interpreting the “spirit” which inspired these documents.

For the progressives, Vatican-II was a new beginning, a re-establishment of the Church, a “constituent assembly" (to use the word used by the Pope yesterday). The fathers united in council, almost like senators called to re-establish a state that lies in ruins and is sclerotic, would lay new foundations, as it were; or rather, find the old fundaments, those that are directly evangelical, but crusted over by a superstructire of 20 centuries of history. The Council, therefore, was not to to be the 21st ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, but a providential break, a discriminating factor, the dawn of a new day whose light would cancel out a past that was ambiguous, and grown unpresentable and unproposable.

For the “traditionalists”, on the other hand, Vatican-II not only did not change anything substantially, beyond a certain updating of language, and did not even merit the status of a Council. In effect, they claim, the Council presented itself only as “pastoral” rather than “dogmatic" in nature – it didn’t define any new truths nor did it condemn any errors. Therefore, the Council documents do not contain anything other than exhortations and good counsel. Words, in short, linked to the perspectives, often illusions, of the 60s, that now have nothing to tell us. Such noise, such agitation, such drama and perhaps even ruin, for nothing.

To these categories of “progressives” and “traditionalists”, which we sketched above in a somewhat caricaturish manner, Ratzinger offers that of “reformism”, by which he means a synthesis between tradition and change. It is not a position that he only assumed after becoming Pope.

The middle way between revolution and reaction is in the structure itself of Catholicism, which is based on the equilibrium between extremes, on the union of opposites, and which has, at bottom, the oxymoron as its means of understanding and living the faith.

For a son of Bavaria – a Celtic-Germanic zone within the limits of the Roman empire that was impregnated with the Roman faith from the very start of evangelization – the Catholic synthesis is instinctive. I noticed this right away, more than 20 years ago, when I placed my experience as a journalist in the service of his decision to make a report on the faith, which was later famously misunderstood as almost a manifesto of restoration, a renunciation of Vatican-II, an alignment with traditionalist theses. The new Prefect of the Faith was in reality already a “reformist” with regard to the Council – in recognition of his new role and with the full knowledge that, like nature, Ecclesia etiam non facit saltus.

Therefore, the march of the people of God through history is seen as a continual exploration of the depths of evangelical treasures, a rediscovery of new complexities, without denying the past whose lessons should allow moving forward without going out of line.

Among the images used in the New Testament to describe the Church, he (Cardinal Ratzinger) told me that one he loved best was that of the tree with many branches. The good peasant cares for the tree so that it is always vigorously growing, knowing that its life comes from the roots, which if cut off would result in ruin.

Neither rightist nor leftist (to use broad categories once more), this master of the faith is – from instinct and by reason – in the center. (He maintains that) to conserve and innovate, looking forward without denying the past, is the duty of anyone who truly wants to take Vatican II seriously. It may seem so obvious as to sound banal; but after so many decades, the lesson does not seem to have been learned yet by those in the Church who dream of "revolution” or "restoration” and who see in the Council either fracture or inertia.

VATICAN CITY, December 23, 2005(AP) Pope Benedict XVI will publish his first encyclical - a pontiff's most authoritative declaration - next month, the Vatican said Friday.

Papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls told the ANSA and Apcom news agencies that the encyclical will carry the date of Dec. 25, 2005. It will be called "Deus, Caritas Est," and will have the Italian title of "Dio E' Amore," ("God is Love"), according to Apcom and other Italian news reports.

"The decision to make it public in January is due to the fact that the pope will release important documents over this period," Navarro-Valls was quoted as saying by Apcom.

Italian news reports had said the encyclical was to be published on Dec. 8.

The spokesman could not be reached for comment late Friday.

Earlier this week, he released an end-of-year message to cardinals and the Vatican curia.

Encyclicals are the most authoritative documents a pope can issue. Benedict's predecessor, the late Pope John Paul II, issued 14 encyclicals during his 26-year pontificate.

LIGHTING CANDLES FOR PEACE

Papa appeared at his window today while the big nativity scene in St. Peter's Square was unveiled and choirs sang. He lit a candle for peace. Here's the details:

www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=93261

PAPA'S FIRST MIDNIGHT MASS

The crowd is forming for Papa's first midnight Mass which will also be broadcast to those in St. Peter's Square unable to get into the basilica and millions around the globe.

asia.news.yahoo.com/051224/3/2cym7.html

THE SCENE AT PAPA'S FIRST URBI ET ORBI

A joyous crowd greeted Papa's Christmas Day address despite rain. Sounds like they really love the guy but then, who doesn't?

uk.news.yahoo.com/25122005/325/unite-against-terror-pope-says-christmas-spe...