But he did not say that during that same meeting – actually held in two distinct segments, first at 5 pm and then at 7 – Benedict XVI had written together with him a concise statement that was intended to be made public with the sole signature of the pope emeritus, to certify the full consonance between the two coauthors of the book and call for the cessation of all controversy.
For the purpose of publication, Gänswein delivered the statement – which Settimo Cielo has in possession and in which Ratzinger’s personal, even autobiographical, trait is evident – to substitute secretary of state Edgar Peña Parra. And it is reasonable to hypothesize that he informed both his direct superior, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and Pope Francis himself about it.
If for no other reason than it would tick off the Ivereighs, Martins, and Faggiolis of the world, buy Pope Benedict and Cardinal Sarah’s new book “From the Depths of Our Hearts”. https://www.ignatius.com/From-the-Depths-of-Our-Hearts-P3550.aspx Of course, there are many other reasons to buy it. The liberals, however, don’t want you to know about those. Their negative PR stunt has failed miserably. In fact, it’s probably helped sell more books than they could ever imagine. It’s been how many weeks? Guess what, the book is going to press as originally planned.
It’s been a few weeks and we’re still seeing the hysteria from the “We want married priests!” types.
Now, Ignatius Press, of which Mark Brumley is the president, is well known in these parts. They published Cardinal Ratzinger’s books before he became Pope Benedict, and they have published him under that title, too. They are devout Catholics, as is Cardinal Sarah. If you think they’re going to do anything against Pope Benedict’s wishes, you are a fool. They actually believe in everlasting life, the Ten Commandments, etc., so if you think they’re going to jeopardize their souls and lie just to sell more books, you are also a fool (or maybe a fool twice over)! I realize that it’s impossible for liberals to realize that some people live by moral rules and try not to put their immortal souls in jeopardy to make a buck, but they do, and if these idiots ever bothered to read these two authors, they would know.
So let’s look at how this went down. On January 12th, the French publisher announced the co-authored book.Let’s see, Pope Benedict wrote one chapter and the into and conclusion were approved by him. The estimates of content attributed to Pope Benedict either in his chapter or in the eleven pages of citations of him through Cardinal Sarah is about 40%.. Yep, that’s kind of the definition of co-author. (And with the update above, despite everyone knowing what co-authoring means, it can no longer be denied.)
On January 13th, “the information system of the Holy See”, Vatican News, published an article entitled “A contribution on priestly celibacy in filial obedience to the Pope.” That should have been the end of it. Also on January 13th, Cardinal Sarah posted correspondence between Pope Benedict and himself on the book collaboration. Again, the story should have ended earlier, but this was chance number two.
However, on January 14th, a German language news agency, KNA, quoted Archbishop Ganswein as saying all of this: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop-ganswein-benedict-xvi-wrote-text-but-did-not-agree-to-be-books-co-author-52484 After that article dropped, Cardinal Sarah marched over to Pope Benedict’s home, met with him, and declared ZERO misunderstanding between them. Somewhere along the way, Cardinal Sarah also said that Pope Benedict had seen the final version, including the cover which contradicts Archbishop Ganswein. Archbishop Ganswein has since gone dark and is said to be tending to “other duties”. After Cardinal Sarah’s visit to Pope Benedict, both Ignatius Press and Cardinal Sarah are sticking to the approved plan. Again, if you think that Ignatius Press or Cardinal Sarah would do anything that their longtime friend and colleague would not approve of, you’d be wrong.
Despite this, all the liberal minions are trying soooooo hard to spin this whole thing into a Cardinal Sarah vs. Pope Francis battle. They are totally ignoring the fact that Pope Francis’s own information system has confirmed that this book is consistent with the previous statements of Pope Francis. So who’s telling lies again? Oh, let’s see.
Austen Ivereigh in the Tweet posted above:
There has been endless discussion of Sarah’s (unconvincing) claim of celibacy’s ontological connection to priesthood. Now can we discuss the ongoing scandal of a Catholic publisher insisting that the pope emeritus co-authored a book he insists he never did? (I might point out that the only statements we have directly from Pope Benedict are found in the letters that Cardinal Sarah provided.)
And from Vatican News, the self-described information system of the Holy See:
The pre-publication material provided by Le Figaro indicates that, with their contributions, the authors enter into the debate on celibacy and the possibility of ordaining married men as priests. Ratzinger and Sarah — who describe themselves as two bishops “in filial obedience to Pope Francis” who “seek the truth” in “a spirit of love for the unity of the Church” — defend the discipline of celibacy and put forth the reasons that in their opinion would advise against changing it. The question of celibacy occupies 175 pages of the book, with two texts — one by the Pope emeritus and the other by the Cardinal — together with an introduction and a conclusion signed by both.
“The authors”, meaning more than one. ”Ratzinger (their use, not mine) and Sarah”, just as the book was titled by its authors and published by Ignatius Press. “with two texts — one by the Pope emeritus and the other by the Cardinal — together with an introduction and a conclusion signed by both.” The Holy See confirmed EVERYTHING that both Cardinal Sarah and Ignatius Press have said. So, you can issue an apology now, Austen.
Vatican News went on to say:
It is worth remembering that Pope Francis too has expressed himself several times on the subject. While still a Cardinal, in the book conversation with Rabbi Abraham Skorka, he explained that he was in favor of maintaining celibacy: “with all the pros and cons entailed, in ten centuries there have been more positive experiences than there have been errors. Tradition has a weight and validity”. In dialogue with journalists on the flight back from Panama last January, the Pope recalled that in the Eastern Catholic Churches the option of either celibacy or marriage before the diaconate is possible; but he added, regarding the Latin Church: “I am reminded of that phrase of Saint Paul VI: ‘I would rather give my life than change the law on celibacy. It came to mind and I want to say it, because it is a courageous phrase, in a more difficult moment than this, 1968 / 1970… Personally, I think that celibacy is a gift for the Church. Second, I don’t agree with allowing optional celibacy, no.” In his reply, he also spoke about the discussion among theologians about the possibility of granting exemptions for some remote regions, such as the Pacific islands. He specified, however, “there’s no decision on my part. My decision is: optional celibacy before the diaconate, no. That’s something for me, something personal, I won’t do it, this remains clear. Am I ‘closed’? Maybe. But I don’t want to appear before God with this decision”.
There is a reason Archbishop Ganswein has disappeared. It’s kind of the stuff movies are made of. He is THE only one who has contradicted the letters, statements, etc., and he didn’t even do that all the way. Not only that, he has Pope Benedict’s calendar that would show just how much collaboration was going on. Pope Benedict did indeed write one fourth of the chapters. Hardly just a quote. Kind of the definition of co-authoring. So, let me just ask you this. If Pope Benedict’s name were to be taken off the cover, do you think the Ivereighs, Martins, and Faggiolis of the world would be fine? Nope. In short, the liberal attack mob wants the book to go away. They certainly don’t want to address its content. They can’t. For all their fomenting, they’ve never even shown how it supposedly contradicts Pope Francis. They’ve spent WEEKS demanding that Pope Benedict’s name be removed. Can I just ask a little question? What would that change?!?!?! The book was still co-authored by the two men. Nobody has actually ever denied that. They can’t because all parties have admitted that. They’re simply ticked that it’s written by two Catholic superstars who are going to bring a lot of attention to a debate they don’t want to have. So, can they all shut the heck up now?! Geez. This isn’t even a small diversionary tactic. It’s so obvious it hurts.
Lastly, to you who are trying to portray Pope Benedict as an old man who can barely lift his head and hand, might I remind you that, in December, he launched a foundation for Catholic journalism in Germany? Might I also remind you that, less than 9 months ago, he wrote a scathing 6,000 word letter on moral relativism and the abuse crisis? Oh, and around the exact same time, he penned what ended up in the book which he later gave to Cardinal Sarah to include in the book. Nice try. Clearly he is not the “out of it and easily manipulated” guy you’d like him to be.
Once again, buy the book. Pope Benedict might not be with us too much longer, so let’s make one of his potentially last works a best seller!