Seewald: Francis wants to erase Benedict XVI's legacy

Gay couples, Latin Mass, sexual abuse, purging of the men most closely associated with Benedict, the appointment of Fernández: Pope Francis has done everything he could to destroy what his predecessor had built. One year after the death of Benedict XVI, his biographer and friend Peter Seewald speaks out.

ECCLESIA

Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger would have been a figure to be remembered in the history of the Church even if he had not been elected to the papal throne. In 2005, however, the Lord called one of the greatest living theologians, the man to whom Saint John Paul II entrusted the custody of Catholic orthodoxy for 23 years, to become Pope. Benedict XVI's pontificate ended, traumatically, more than a decade ago as his earthly life ended a year ago, depriving the precincts of St Peter's of that 'service of prayer' promised at his last general audience on 27 February 2013. Also in light of the new season under the banner of a claimed discontinuity at the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith, what has become of Ratzinger's legacy in the current pontificate? This is a question the Daily Compass asked Peter Seewald, a German journalist, friend and biographer of Benedict XVI with whom he has written four interview-books.

Is it fair to say that the relationship between Benedict XVI and Francis was "very close", as Francis recently declared?
Good question. We all remember the warm words that Cardinal Ratzinger spoke at the requiem for John Paul II. Words that touched the heart, that spoke of Christian love, of respect. But no one remembers Bergoglio's words at the requiem for Benedict XVI. They were as cold as the whole ceremony, which had to be rather brief so as not to honour his predecessor too much. At least that was my impression.

Your judgement is harsh.
I mean, how does one manifest friendship? With a mere statement in words or by living it? The differences between Benedict XVI and his successor were great from the start. In temperament, culture, intellect and above all in the direction of the pontificates. In the beginning Benedict did not know much about Bergoglio, except that as a bishop in Argentina he was known for his authoritarian leadership. He promised his successor obedience. Francis obviously regarded it as a kind of blank cheque. Even his predecessor remained silent so as not to give the slightest impression of wanting to interfere in his successor's governance. Benedict trusted Francis. But he was bitterly disappointed several times.

What do you mean by this?
Bergoglio continued to write nice letters to the Pope Emeritus after his election. He knew he could not hold a candle to this great and noble spirit. He also repeatedly spoke of the gifts of his predecessor, calling him a 'great Pope' whose legacy will become more evident from generation to generation. But if one really speaks of a 'great Pope' out of conviction, shouldn't one do everything possible to cultivate his legacy? Just as Benedict XVI did with regard to John Paul II? As we can see today, Pope Francis has done very little indeed to remain in continuity with his predecessors,.

What does this mean in concrete terms?
Bergoglio is not a European. He has little knowledge of our continent's culture. Above all, he seems to have an aversion to the westernised traditions of the Catholic Church. As a South American and a Jesuit, he has erased much of what was precious and dear to Ratzinger. Decisions were mostly made autocratically by a small circle of followers. Suffice it to recall the ban on the Tridentine Mass. Benedict had built a small bridge to a largely forgotten treasure island, which until then had only been accessible through difficult terrain. It was a matter close to the German Pope's heart and there was really no reason to tear down this bridge again. It was obviously a demonstration of the new power. The subsequent purge of staff completed the picture. Many people who supported Ratzinger's course and Catholic doctrine were 'guillotined'.

Are you talking about the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, and the case of Monsignor Georg Gänswein?
It was an unprecedented event in the history of the Church that Archbishop Gänswein, the closest collaborator of a highly deserving Pope, the greatest theologian ever to sit on the See of Peter, was thrown out of the Vatican in disgrace. He was not even given a word of pro forma thanks for his work. Of course, the purge primarily concerned the man whose lineage Gänswein represents, Benedict XVI. More recently, it was US Bishop Strickland, Benedict's friend and critic of Bergoglio, who was removed from office on the pretext of financial misconduct; an obviously implausible reason. And when a Ratzinger supporter like 75-year-old Cardinal Burke is deprived overnight of his home and salary without any explanation, it is difficult to recognise the Christian fraternity in all this.

You mentioned the lack of continuity: do you think a document like Fiducia supplicans would have been published if Benedict XVI had still been alive?
In his small monastery in the centre of the Vatican, the elderly Pope Emeritus acted like the light on the mountain. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben also sees it as a katechon, a restraint, based on the Apostle Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians. The term katechon is also interpreted as 'obstacle'. For something or someone stands in the way of the end times. According to Agamben, Ratzinger, as a young theologian, in an interpretation of St Augustine distinguished between a Church of the wicked and a Church of the righteous. From the beginning, the Church was inextricably mixed. It is both the Church of Christ and the Church of the Antichrist. From this point of view, Benedict's resignation inevitably led to the separation of the 'good' Church from the 'black' Church, the separation of the wheat from the chaff.
However, Hong Kong's Cardinal Joseph Zen recently pointed out that Benedict himself had repeatedly warned of the "danger of a doctrinal landslide". When I asked Pope Benedict why he could not die, he replied that he had to stay. As a kind of memorial to the authentic message of Christ.

What are the most critical aspects of Fiducia supplicans?
In his speeches, Pope Francis says many right things. But a pastor, as the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa (presumably a genuine candidate for the next conclave) recently clarified, should on the one hand "listen to the flock", but on the other hand "also lead, offer guidance and say where they should go". Pizzaballa said: 'One must not make oneself dependent on the expectations of others. The problem with Francis in the past has been that he has failed to keep many of his promises, sometimes saying 'white' and sometimes 'black', making ambiguous statements, contradicting himself repeatedly and causing considerable confusion. In the case of a document like Fiducia supplicans, which can be interpreted in so many different ways, there is also the fact that what has just been considered correct is suddenly declared wrong without much of a decision maturation process. Not to mention the divisive effect this has on the Church and the absolutely disastrous timing of its publication. The big issue before Christmas was not the commemoration of Christ's birth, but the apparently much more important blessing of same-sex couples by the Church. The media far from the Church were enthusiastic about it and no one thought about the fact that such an important document was not - as was customary under Benedict XVI - discussed and approved by the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but was simply decreed autocratically.

Read the rest: https://newdailycompass.com/en/seewald-francis-wants-to-erase-benedict-xvis-legacy