Posted on 03/23/2018 7:56:34 AM PDT by ebb tide
Monsignor Dario Viganò, Vatican communication’s strong man resigned in a letter to Pope Francis dated 19 March. The resignation was accepted yesterday “not without some effort” by the Pope who, in turn wrote to his now former head of communications begging him to remain as “assessor”, an ad hoc position made for the occasion, of the same department. It is the epilogue - for some inevitable, for others surprising - of the “Mystery tied to Benedict XVI’s letter of and its omissis. A “Mystery” still bearing many unanswered questions.
The letter with the omissis
On Monday 12 March, when presenting the series of 11 volumes dedicated to the “Theology of Pope Francis”, Monsignor Viganò read a letter sent to him by the Pope Emeritus. Benedict XVI had labelled as “foolish prejudice” that of Francis’ lack of theological formation, speaking at the same time of “inner continuity” between the two pontificates. The official communiqué presented Ratzinger’s letter as an endorsement to the Pontiff in office, but limited itself to reproducing only the first two paragraphs of the text. During the press conference Viganò also read a third paragraph, in which Ratzinger declined the invitation to write a preface to the volumes, explaining that he had not read them and that he did not have the strength or the possibility to do so. Failing to mention this passage in the official statement caused a first controversy to break out on Tuesday 13 March, to which another followed concerning the photo of the letter published by the Vatican media, which was blurred out on purpose in the last two lines.
As if that were not enough, on Saturday 17 March, while Francis was visiting Padre Pio’s places, indiscretion spread about the existence of a further omitted paragraph: the one in which Benedict XVI pointed out the inappropriateness of having chosen among the curators of the series, the German theologian Peter Hünermann, who had previously been critical of Ratzinger and John Paul II himself. Indiscretion which ultimately obliged the Holy See to finally publish the original text.
Doubts about the affair
Had Viganò chosen to disclose a private letter, omitting parts of it, without informing its author Ratzinger? Or did he somehow manage to warn Benedict XVI’s entourage, and notably his secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein? Questions that still go unanswered. Yet Vigano’ handling of this case spurred a tsunami of reactions, with repeated requests for his resignation. A “powerful “minister” of the Roman Curia, for in June 2015 he had received a full mandate and a free hand from the Pontiff - who had always defended him - to implement the restructuring of the Vatican media. The initial study of the project was entrusted to McKinsey (€420,000 consultancy plus expenses). The idea was to unify the various information realities, putting them on the web and creating a unique digital platform on which to arrange articles, images and podcasts, in an attempt to gradually reduce that significant deficit by cutting its expeses.
“I’m going to step aside”
In his letter of resignation Viganò makes no explicit reference to the “omissis” mess. “In recent days - the resigning prefect writes - much controversy has arisen about my work which, beyond my intentions, destabilizes the complex and great work of reform that you have entrusted to me and which now, thanks to the contribution of many people starting from the staff, is to its final stretch”. Viganò thanks the Pope for his support and renewed esteem. But he adds: “With respect for the people who have worked with me over the years and to avoid my person being able to somehow delay, damage or even block” the “path of reform” and above all, “for the love of the Church and of you Holy Father, I ask you to accept my desire to stand aside, leaving myself, if you desire, available to collaborate in other ways”.
The paragraph on Osservatore Romano
Francis responded by praising Viganò’s commitment and accepted “not without some effort” his renunciation, leaving him however in the organization chart of the department. Francis fiercely defends the media reform project “ approved and regularly shared by me”, adding a particularly significant paragraph, where he wishes to point out that the reform has “now reached its concluding stretch with the imminent merger of the Osservatore Romano within the sole communicative system of the Holy See”. Not just a random quotation, because this last merger had been delayed by the director of the Vatican daily, Gian Maria Vian with the endorsement of the Secretariat of State.
The Pope has now put down in black and white the desire to bring it to completion even without Viganò.
That email of Saturday, March 17
At the origin of the thunderous resignation of the Prefect of Vatican communication, there is certainly the communicative management of Ratzinger’s letter. But there is no doubt that tensions with other curial bodies, in particular with the Secretariat of State, contributed to Monsignor Viganò’s departure from the scene and to yesterday’s epilogue.
The Vatican Media reform has centralized considerable power in the hands of the prefect, and his management has caused more than one arm-wrestle. The last episode took place Saturday. The day before, on the morning of Friday, March 16, Francis had received in Audience, seminarians and priests from the Roman colleges. The Pope had given indications that he did not want the meeting to be live-streamed.
L’Osservatore Romano, who had a journalist present, published on the paper edition that same afternoon a short chronicle, summarizing the contents but without including any of the Pope’s quotations. On Saturday morning, while the Pope was in San Giovanni Rotondo, the Secretariat of State asked Francis if he wanted the integral transcription of the dialogue with the seminarians to be distributed to journalists and then made public. Bergoglio would have replied no, adding that the line to follow would be that of the Osservatore’s summary chronicle, which did not include any of his quotations. Thus, the Secretariat of State, at about 10.30 a.m., sends a message to about ten email addresses in the Vatican media and the Press Office, to inform them that the transcription of the papal text would not be published and that they should take cue from the news published by the Osservatore Romano.
The Prefect’s reply
Within a few minutes, a harsh reply from Viganò arrived at all the email addresses, unaware of the fact that the Secretariat of State’s indications were coming directly from the Pope: the prefect cried “confusion”, claiming the autonomy of the Press Office, and more specifically that of the Secretariat for Communication, with respect to the Osservatore Romano. In his reply, he adds that the other Vatican media reported the Pope’s dialogue with the seminarians as they considered most appropriate. When this email exchange took place, the controversy about rumors over Ratzinger’s letter omitted paragraph had yet to burst. The news on the undisclosed lines of the Pope emeritus provoked yet another earthquake, and after a quick round of consultations between Viganò, the Secretariat of State and Benedict XVI’s entourage, it was decided to finally publish the full text.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.