Well well... we topped a million

Total Pageviews
1,000,863

The result of writing snippy stuff about the pope, I guess...

(Actually, I didn't install the visit counter until I'd been blogging at this site for five years, so, I expect we actually topped a million at least a couple of years ago... but anyway...)

I feel as though I ought to open a bottle of champagne.

Except that four months ago, for various reasons to be revealed shortly, I quit my regular gig, and now can't cover the gas or electric bills. Freelance gigs haven't quite flooded in as I had hoped.

I really could use a little help. Any donations to the tip jar on the sidebar would be greatly appreciated.



~

The fix is in

Everything's fine. Nothing to see here. Move along...

 Gagliarducci reports:

Some well-informed people say that the 2015 Synod will be completely different from any other. First of all, a midterm report will not be released. 

Avoiding the release of a midterm report would mean eliminating any possibility of discussion. The plan is for the Synod to carry out discussions mostly in “small groups” (circuli minores) without a general discussion. In the end, the reports of the small groups would be put in the Pope’s hands, and the Pope would then give a final address. No final report or post-synodal apostolic exhortation is foreseen at the moment, at least according to recent rumors.

In this way the adapters hope to convince the Pope to employ vague language so they can eventually exploit his words.

A little while ago, a friend of mine said that she felt confident that the "good" bishops attending the Synod would win the day in October. After asking her what evidence she has seen to give her that idea, and receiving only vague assurances about the working of the Holy Ghost, I responded that it wouldn't matter whether they did or not, since they had no power. It seems they are to have even less than none now.

The same people are in charge, and they were very unhappy with the outcome their machinations produced last year. Accustomed to operating out of the limelight, I guess. They didn't expect the uproar or the vast public exposure - and censure - their tactics would generate. Well, looks like they've solved that problem. I wouldn't be surprised to see the press conferences cancelled as well. While these things can be controlled, it is just too easy to slip up when there is a big crowd of journalists in the room with you. All they would need would be one member of the staff of the Vatican Press Office to offer a guest pass to the wrong sort of fellow, and all manner of difficulties would be unleashed.

Last year, I urged the bishops who were concerned with the direction things were taking to hold a separate press conference, since the official ones were so tightly controlled. That advice was ignored. I believe there has been a battle going on since October 2014 inside the rib cage of every bishop who retains a shred of the Holy Catholic Faith, between their desire to be good company men and go along and play nice, and their holy desire to defend Christ's Church and His flock.

We will see which side wins; whether they are men or the men-without-chests I have always believed them.

Either way, they clearly have no power to alter the outcome of the Synod. Whether the men coming to Rome in a month discover their long-lost vertebrae, the Synod has obviously been fixed from at least the time of the February 2014 Consistory.



~

How to think in three easy lessons

Now my expression, "people who don't know what the jiggety they're talking about" will become famous!

Why is it just nonsensical to say that "doctrine" and "pastoral care" are opposed? Because they are both about the same truth, the Truth, in fact.

Saying "The truth is true" sounds like it shouldn't need saying, but in the last two weeks, we have seen it denied either explicitly or implicitly by many, many people who are supposed to know better.
But what does "nonsensical" mean, really?

"Aristotle wrote: “there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories…This is clear, in the first place, if we define what the true and the false are. To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false.”

My first post at Steve Skojec's project 1Peter5

Also, I looked things up to write it, even in a BOOK! So it's a really good one.



~

Dr. Shaw asks, "Where do we go from here?"

Cue catchy Buffy song which will now play relentlessly in my head until at least bed time.

~

What we have seen this fortnight is, nevertheless, quite scary. We have witnessed the operation, exposure, and defeat, of a ruthless attempt to manipulate the synod and, through the synod, the whole Church. There is no reason to imagine the threat this represented is going to go away.

~

How it's done in the old town

Allow me to help people understand what just happened by making a comparison with a piece of legislation that is ongoing in Italy, and the political concept of the "ratchet effect".

The Italian anti-homophobia bill started out an absolutely absurdist, almost parodic piece of legislation that no government could possibly pass. It included, among other things, provisions for the arrest and detaining of people suspected of being likely to cause offense to gays, and allowed the courts to order such people to undergo re-education programmes, part of which was to work for the gay lobbyist groups.

Of course, the response was howls of outrage from the right, and from (likely carefully coached) people on the left, defending civil freedoms like freedom of expression and religion, but with everyone carefully saying, "But of course we deplore the evils of homophobia itself... "

Parliament carved out all the really outrageous stuff in committee, and presented the bill, with its 400+ amendments, in a new and acceptable form. The gay lobby groups dutifully issued press releases complaining that it was now toothless, and the bill is now peacefully sailing through the Senate more or less unopposed, and we are about to insert for the first time into Italian law the concept of "homophobia" (still undefined) as an offence. Mission accomplished.

Ratchet effect.

Now, ask yourself how the mid-way relatio at the Synod could have fulfilled such a role. The first one was a red herring; it was so obvious a piece of liberal engineering that anyone, even those bishops who are not that... shall we say... attuned to the Traditional end of the Church were shouting from the rooftops that it was impossible. Then, a revolt in the synod aula, and everyone congratulating each other on having thwarted the forces of darkness.

Two days later, presto! Along comes the final document with most of the squelchy stuff taken out (sort of) and everyone is shouting that it's a major victory for the faith, and Sauron's Morlocks have been defeated... cue swelling Aragorn coronation music...

Everyone now goes home to carry on our "weak and ambiguous" business as usual.

Wondering if I'm making it up?

Ask our friend Mr. Terrence Weldon over at Queering the Church what he thinks...

"Two (or Three) Steps Forward, One Back Is Still Progress"

"The interim report got such a strong reception on Monday precisely because it was so very much more supportive than anybody had been expecting. The fact that the same language did not make into the final report therefore, should have surprised nobody..

"The LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council press release draws attention to just how close we came to an endorsement of full and explicit inclusion (emphasis added):

'We note that the paragraphs on homosexuality which did not receive the required 2/3 rd‘s vote, failed by only two votes, notwithstanding significant support from a majority of bishops.'

...

"If the more welcoming / progressive bishops failed to retain the positive language originally proposed, for us or for those who have divorced and remarried, because they only just failed to secure the required two – thirds majority, it is far more important to note the far more dismal failure of the reactionaries to secure even a simple majority..."

~

So far from over.

So very, very far...

But Fr. Blake puts into words something I've been thinking: one of the better things to come out of this whole bizarre thing, as painful as it has been to watch, has been the absolutely undeniable fact of two utterly opposed and utterly implacable "factions" in the Church, and the war between them.

What will be very apparent is that there are definitely two factions, let's not be over dramatic, there is not a schism but there is a very visible split. And splits tend to multiply. [And I would say, widen, HJW]

The highly significant Kasper interview identifies it as a North South, black white split but there is also, significantly, a demographic split. Burke will be voting in the next Conclave or two after Francis is laid to rest, and possibly on his way to Beatification.

There is recognition too that Francis is partisan and really against collegiality, as much as any renaissance pope. I suspect that many Cardinals who voted for him are being forced to have serious second thoughts. His high-handed approach is more reminiscent of Vatican I, than Vatican II.

Too bad that war highjacked the Synod from its actual purpose, but maybe in the end that was really the more important topic...The catastrophe in the Church has been this Civil War that has not let up for 50 years. the aggressors were slowed and forced to be more stealthy and quiet for a long, long time, so much so that a lot of people almost forgot the threat. But they have roared back to life like the monster at the end of a horror film.

During this last two, agonizing, exhausting and incredibly stressful weeks a lot of things have come glaringly into the foreground that had previously remained the stuff of whispered, unofficial, backroom and coffee bar conversations. One of the biggest handicaps we have had has been the fact that very, very few have been willing to talk openly about the Church's civil war. Well, here it is, in all its glory, now undeniable, even to those whose strategy it has been to deny that it is going on.

More later.



~

And really, it's not all doom n' gloom either...

I can't give details, but I thought readers would like to know that the news out of the Synod isn't all bad. We have received messages from bishops and priests who very much appreciate the threat of the general direction things appear to be taking, and who say that they are fighting for the Truth. Their names are both the famous and the unknown, but they are the real pastors and shepherds, and they are not giving up.

The laity who retain the Faith and seek to find ways to preserve and defend it often feel as though they are alone, but it isn't true. While they may not be getting the press they deserve, there are leaders in the Church who still humbly and bravely follow Christ. I can't for the moment give names and exact quotes, but be assured that we are in contact with these good men, and they know what we know, and are on our side.



~

Crucify them!

Received the following message privately that seems worth passing on:

On a trad board, one of the forum members said the following: "My brother is in the FFI and he has told me that Francis has admitted making a mistake in appointing Volpe and will soon remove him.
He will also overturn the ludicrous ruling of not allowing the FFI from offering the TLM and the Traditional breviary."
I hope I'm wrong but I believe they're overly optimistic.

Our friend Dorothy adds the amusing comment: "Craziness. The president of Harvard is named Faust, and the nimrod in charge of destroying the FFI is called Volpe. Has life turned into a Harry Potter novel or what?"

Another friend comments:

When this ends, if not with total destruction of the FFI, they will have Volpi lift the restrictions under some pretense that his draconian measures have effected some good in the organization. But I fear that nothing short of total destruction will be the end, for this is their purpose, to send a message that traditionalism is fatal. Anything short of this sends the wrong message. The FFI cannot be allowed to survive.

Hard to argue with this. It is certainly a very visible form of public execution. There really can be no doubt that a clear and hard message is being sent by this "pope of mercy and forgiveness". One might almost be inclined to call it a crucifixion.



~

Last hurrah

So, there I was, sitting in the office about 7 o'clock, transcribing a video for a story with the headphones on. At five past seven, I thought I had better go down to the Piazza to watch for the smoke. When I took off the headphones I heard the bells ringing.

But it was too early, four ballots, so I still wasn't convinced until I got down to the street and saw people running.

I ran the two or three blocks to the Holy Office entrance and climbed over a barrier into the Colonnade. The cops had been stopping people today and making a half-hearted effort to check bags, but now weren't really bothering to stop anyone and a lot of people were just climbing over the railings to get into the Piazza.

I managed to push my way fairly close to the front, just to the left of the Loggia and stopped just behind a group of Eton-accented seminarians from the Venerable English College. We chatted a bit but mostly people were quiet. Some Italians sang a patriotic song for the Italian Republic, apparently unaware of the irony.

At "Habemus Papam" I fulfilled one of my lifelong Catholic wishes, and, together with 150,000 other people, punched both fists in the air and cheered, and chanted "Viva il Papa! Viva il Papa!". I suspect it will be the last time for a long time.

After that, one of the VEC boys said it all seemed surreal. It was. When the announcement came it all seemed rather perfunctory. None of the dramatic pauses. Tauran came out quickly, said the famous phrases and was gone almost before we'd had a chance to cheer.

Then came the name followed by silence. Few had understood Tauran's poorly pronounced, and slightly mumbled Latin version of it and those who did had no idea who it was. Tauran botched the papal name as well, failing to wait until the cheering had died down before speaking it quickly into the microphone, so nearly everyone around me were looking at each other saying, "Who? What was the name?" The cheering died away and the boys in front of me were clustered around one of their number with a smartphone who was talking to someone else, relaying information via the internet. (Yes, I get the irony; even the people standing in the Piazza had to consult the 'net to find out what had just been told to them directly. Is that a sign of something? Probably, but I'm too tired to speculate.)

Then we knew. Argentina. A Jesuit. 76 years old. Bergoglio. Francis "the first". But it all seemed so strange. So perfunctory and abrupt. There had been none of the drama, the pauses, the acknowledgement of the crowd's response. As though the whole business had to be got over with quickly. Before anyone had a chance to get their bearings, Tauran had gone. Some Italians tried to chant the new papal name, (which is how many of us learned what it was) but it just didn't seem to work, and the effort trickled down and died.

Then another moment and the crucifix appeared followed by a tall, erect man in white. At first glance I was reminded of Pius XII.

But again it was strange. He was in papal white, but not in choir dress. There was no apostolic stole. No red mozzetta. And he simply walked towards the railing of the Loggia and for a long moment just stood still, his arms straight at his sides. The crowd's cheering seemed to elicit no response at all. He was silhouetted against the light coming from behind the curtains and he seemed, simply, unmoved.

After his rather flat greeting, that included a joke, the only other huge cheer came at the mention of the name Benedict. After that, it was a relief to pray. A moment of silence came which was almost eerie. Have you ever been shoulder-to-shoulder in a crowd of 150,000 people and heard total silence? I'm not sure there is any experience like it. At that moment, a little thunder rolled distantly.

The VEC boys and I were the only ones to kneel for the Apostolic Blessing. Then there were a few more words, and the new pope simply turned around and left. People were left in the square for a few minutes, standing rather stunned. I'm not sure they were happy, except perhaps because the whole strange affair was over.

But I had already started working my way back through the crowd towards the Colonnade before Francis I had finished.

I've written here and elsewhere about the grave feeling of disquiet and foreboding that descended on me on the morning of February 11th. The conclave was conducted under a pall of gloom. The weather was awful. Cold, rainy, drizzly. On the morning of the Mass, it hailed.

This morning the sun was shining again. The news kiosks are piled high with Italian papers bearing the photos of a strange face, a man in white. Smiling.

Of course, there will be lots more, and I'm sure that I'll have a lot to say once the surprise wears off. But for now, all I've got is my gut, which tells me that last night was going to be the last time for a while that I will be standing in St. Peter's Piazza cheering.



~

Larry the Seagull predicts no pope tonight

"The Holy Spirit said he couldn't make it and asked me to fill in."



~

“It is a dangerous time. Pray for us."

Doom, gloom and the End of the World: My piece this week for the Remnant.

I seem to be in a bit of a mood...

ROME, March 12, 2013, www.RemnantNewspaper.com – The waiting time is drawing to a close. This afternoon, the cardinals will have their first ballot.
...

As always, the official line about the substance of the cardinals’ discussions is slightly at odds with the quiet, unofficial but much more frank assessments coming off the record.

[...]

...the loss of faith has been largely a product of the failure of the men running the Church in the last 50 years to teach anyone anything about it. There is a line in the old Baltimore Catechism: our purpose in life is to “know God, to love Him and serve Him in this life and be happy with Him forever in the next”. Take careful note of the order given. We cannot love what we do not know. Knowing comes first. Can it be surprising to the cardinals gathered here that, the Church on the whole having refused to teach the Faith in the last 40 years that Catholics don’t know Him, aren’t interested in serving Him in this life, or have any hope of happiness in the next?

...we know the origins of the corruption in the Vatican. ...It is perfectly clear, even to some in the mainstream secular media: the anti-Christian dogmas that have seeped into the Church, that Paul VI called the “smoke of Satan,” have created a moral corruption so entrenched in the upper management of the Catholic Church that it has created crippling administrative chaos. The “Vatileaks” affair has exposed the depth of the moral and organisational rot.

I find that I am not cheerful at the prospect of a new pope. It is difficult to be confident that the men of the conclave are capable of facing these awful truths.

[...]

Our current calamity in the Church, and much of that of the secular world, was produced by a hierarchy and clergy who, starting about 1965, decided that it was more important to go with the flow of the world than to continue the uncomfortable and difficult work of directing it toward salvation. For decades, many of the men sitting in those plush chairs in the Paul VI Audience Hall last week have variously either failed to expunge the anti-Christian dogmas that infiltrated the Church or were themselves the ones pushing them.

[...]

Can any Catholics be left, whether “liberal” or “conservative” or “traditionalist” who still trust that the men inside the walls have the will to do what is best, or even what they may think is best for the Church? How many of us now have any confidence that they know what the priorities must be, or that they remember that the first and last aim is the salvation of souls?

I read last night another of the daily letters by an American Vaticanista, Robert Moynihan, the editor of Inside the Vatican. He related a conversation he had with an anonymous cardinal who also seemed deeply troubled by Pope Benedict’s abdication. I was relieved to see that this cardinal, whoever he was, also seemed to understand, and perhaps shares the terrible sense of foreboding that has filled me and many others since this whole thing began. Seeing the man’s disquiet, Moynihan asked him what we could all do for them.

“…A look passed over his eyes which seemed filled with shadows and concerns. I was surprised at his intensity…He squeezed my hand.

“'Pray for us,' he said. 'Pray for us.'

"He turned as if he needed to go...He took a step away from me, then turned again.

“'It is a dangerous time. Pray for us.'”

~

Day Two and Second Chimney-Watch - Black smoke

Was just down in the Piazza. It was v. crowded, and end-to-end umbrellas. The weather is pretty nasty, raining on and off with a perpetual drizzle between, and cold. Not Quebec City-cold, but chilly enough to make it less than fun standing around in the Piazza in the rain.

Thank God for the Roman bar, a place of warmth, conviviality, tea, cappucino and sometimes even eggs and bacon. If you're looking for me in the next few mornings, I'll be waiting for the smoke in the All Brothers wine and coffee bar, the one closest to the news kiosk at the bottom of delle Fornaci, right outside the entrance to the underpass leading to the Holy Office. Eggs, bacon, toast and tea for 10 Euros, including table service. There's always a few journalists sitting around ticking away on their Macs who will yell out if the smoke starts, and it's only about a 200 yard dash to the Piazza.



~

"Collegiality," "transparency" and the "New Evangelisation" - translating the Romanita code

The conclave-watcher’s lexicon: what do they mean when they say that?

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent


The media and pundits, as well as churchmen, use a lot of jargon that many ordinary readers, unaccustomed to romanità, the carefully encoded diplomatic language used by the Vatican and its cadre of experts, will not be familiar with. A lot of the writing leading up to the conclave is about the “priorities” of the new pope. What should he do? This is where the issues start bumping up against both the jargon and the factions.

Since the cancellation last week of a series of press conferences organised by the Pontifical North American College, the cardinals have gone nearly silent. With one day left before the voting begins for a new pope, we have only the “experts” and pundits to guide our thoughts. Everyone is trying to piece together an overview of the situation, and the positions of the cardinals on an array of issues, a task that can prove daunting to those new to the Vatican-watching scene.

A small number of cardinals are still giving interviews to some MSM outlets, including Washington’s Donald Wuerl, who told La Stampa on Friday that he does not think this will be a short conclave. For those with ears to hear, Wuerl gave a signal to the other cardinals when he alluded to “collegiality,” a Vatican II buzzword meaning the union of all the bishops of the world with the pope. Wuerl told La Stampa that the new pope must focus on strengthening the relations between the “local church,” meaning the national bishops’ conferences, and the Vatican, a point that places him inside the “progressivist” camp. Since the 1960s, the Church in the western world, especially in Europe, has been locked in a power struggle between those supporting the “local church” who want to protect the power of the national bishops’ conferences – a post-Vatican II innovation – against the centralised authority of the papacy.

The growing power of the national conferences, which is often opposed to the canonical authority of a bishop in his own diocese, was one of the most serious obstacles to reform facing Pope Benedict. In one of his books, the former Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the national bishops’ conferences had become a power-brokering machine never envisioned by the Council. In the case of his own native Germany, the bishops’ conference openly defied both Benedict’s and his predecessor’s authority when they were ordered to cease being involved in the government’s scheme allowing women to obtain abortions. Wresting power away from the pope and the Vatican, effectively establishing quasi-independent, national Churches is a cause dear to the hearts of most European and some American “progressivists”.

Even terms with which most of us are familiar, like the “New Evangelisation” require some unpacking. Experts and cardinals alike are saying that this is a key catchphrase of this conclave. But what many don’t realize, is that term has a very specific, and strictly limited interpretation by the official Church. It does not mean converting non-Catholics to Catholicism. It means “re-presenting the historic faith” to non-practicing, fallen-away Catholics in traditionally Christian, western nations: or in other, more old-fashioned words, calling back the lapsed.

In the old days, before the coming of the Second Vatican Council’s asteroid, it was normal to speak of “converting” non-Catholics as part of the mission of the Church. That was what we understood missionaries to be for. But this term, also called “proselytising,” has become utterly anathema to some prelates – kryptonite. To be accused of attempting to convert someone Jewish or Muslim or even Anglican or Baptist or Lutheran is tantamount to being accused of a kind of spiritual genocide.

Most Catholics who are not hemmed around by the new Catholic cult of political correctness that has ruled the Church for the last few decades, take it for granted that if one believes in the Catholic religion, one wants others to join it. Everyone, in fact. Because we believe its claims to be true, and, applying some basic logical principles, the claims opposed to it to be untrue, we don’t want other people to live in the darkness of error. Particularly if that error can have dire eternal consequences. But this is too much common sense for modern churchmen, wedded as many of them are to the demure and evasive politesse of the modern “ecumenical movement”.

Another key catchphrase of this conclave is “transparency,” and it is often used in connection to the Vatican’s financial scandals and the “Vatileaks” scandals. A lot of this is obscure to most Catholics outside Italy. But here, where the Vatican is always in the headlines, it is one of the major themes of the news cycle. In a nutshell, the secretiveness and factionalism in the Vatican – allegedly including a group of practicing homosexuals – has left the day-to-day running of the Church in an almost unprecedented (for modern times) state of disarray. The solution, and one of the “priorities” for the new papacy is American-style “transparency” in the Church’s dealings.

This call has led to headlines like that of the Globe and Mail today: “Does the Catholic church need to install a no-nonsense CEO as its next pope?” But it betrays another of the secular world’s failures, echoed unfortunately by many prelates, to understand the nature of the Church.

The modern world offers little in the way of analogy for what kind of institution the Catholic Church is. Perhaps most often it is presented as a kind of multinational corporation whose dioceses and parishes around the world are branch offices with the pope as CEO. This model, while it may superficially resemble the Church’s operating structure, fundamentally fails to reveal its nature. The spiritual language describing the Church, on the one hand, as the “body of Christ,” and on the other as the “Bride of Christ” incorporate more of its reality. But such a personal, bodily, incarnational notion of ecclesiology is beyond the ken of the secular world.

Others are warning that such calls are more sinister than a mere misunderstanding, however. One writer and Catholic historian explained to me that the threat of such a spiritually impoverished notion of the Church is that it would lead to it being treated as just another political economic prize to be manipulated by interested parties. He compared our current situation with that of the conclave of 1559 that elected Pope Pius IV, right in the middle of the massive upheavals of the Renaissance and Reformation.

The same kind of “transparency” being recommended to the voting cardinals today by the ever-so-savvy secular world was in fact applied at the time. The result of everyone in Europe knowing what was going on inside the Vatican’s walls was that the Church was pressed all around by the conflicting demands. Every major power of the time tried to force the outcome of the conclave; the Holy Roman Emperor, the French and Spanish Kings, and the rulers of the minor Catholic States of Italy and Europe. These, my friend said, “managed to violate the standard operating procedures of the conclave and overwhelm the voting cardinals with suggestions and commands, accompanied by warnings and threats regarding the dismal impact that failure to comply would have on their future careers.”

“In other words, the all too porous walls of the supposedly secret conclave ensured that the fires of the already blisteringly hot internal factionalism were continuously stoked from the outside.”

This “transparency” he said, is nothing more than “the latest fraudulent bumper sticker slogan” of those pushing the progressivist agenda of further capitulation to the secular world. A policy that “has never provided anything more than repeated opportunities for the strongest wills to triumph over Christ in the name of Reason and Progress”.

First Chimney-Watch

First ballot: black smoke
By Hilary White

ROME, March 12, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Tonight was my first time. Nearly everyone I know in Rome has been in the Piazza for at least one papal election, so even though we knew there would be no white smoke tonight, it was an exciting moment.

As my friend and I were heading down Gregorio VII and past the Paul VI Audience Hall, I was calculating how long it would take me, at a dead run, to get from the office to the Piazza. I plan on being there for every ballot, but on the off chance that the white smoke appears while I’m working on something else, I wanted to know that I could make it down there in time. I figured I could do it in about six or seven minutes.

As we approached the Colonnade, it was clear that a lot of people were heading down to be a part of history. And everyone was walking a lot faster than Romans usually do.


When we got there, though, it took a moment to take in the size of the crowd. I’m not much good at estimating these things, but it was clear that at least ten thousand had come down, in a pretty unpleasantly cold drizzle. We all knew it wouldn’t be tonight, but no one wanted to leave until we’d seen it ourselves. My friend, who had been there on the great day in 2005, said it isn’t the sort of thing you ever forget.


Posters in the Borgo, close to the former Cardinal Ratzinger’s apartment, by the Commune (municipality) of Rome: a fond farewell to a beloved pope.


The Vatican’s busy media centre for the 5000+ accredited journalists.


More than I would have thought for the first ballot.


The loggia, all ready to go.


The Carabinieri, looking much more grumpy than usual.


Journalists thick upon the ground.


Lots and lots of nuns.


Young and old.


No pope tonight.

First ballot tomorrow morning, with a possible Chimney-Watch by 10:30 am.

Rorate Caeli has put up this handy schedule, so if you're here and don't want to camp out in the Piazza, you can know when it's safe to go get a pizza and a coffee.



~

Black smoke on the first ballot

Clever clever me, said I to myself as I ran out of the house this morning with all my gear: voice recorder, computer, mouse, power cord, internet stick, camera, spare batteries, press pass, binoculars...

Forgot the cable thingy that makes the photos go from the camera to the computer. So, my own pics will have to wait til later tonight when I get home.

Big crowd out tonight for the first ballot, even though everyone more or less knew that there was no chance of a pope on the first ballot. Thousands came anyway.

Everyone very cheerful, lots of folks wrapped in their national flags, lots and lots of nuns, and plenty of priests and seminarians in cassocks ... evidence of the Ratzinger Effect in action. I'm told that as little as five years ago most seminarians would not have dared to wear a cassock and if you saw one it was a signal he was with the SSPX. Times changed, and we hardly noticed.

More later.



~

Conclaving

A new verb.

I've been kind of busy. Sorry.

But here's some stuff to read about the Conclave.

~ * ~

I can't tell you how many times I've been asked by passing journalists, doing their drive-by interviews, why Benedict is so much less popular than John Paul II was...

One of them asked me this when I was on the way into the Piazza for the Last General Audience where I got about ten feet past the Colonnade before I was stopped by a wall of humans...

errr... buddy... have you looked at this crowd?

Doofus...

VATICAN CITY—Cardinals, clergy and common pilgrims erupted into thunderous applause at the mention of “pope emeritus” Benedict XVI on Tuesday at a special mass in St Peter’s Basilica ahead of a conclave to elect his successor following his surprise resignation.

The applause lasted nearly a minute after Cardinal Angelo Sodano, in his homily, evoked the “brilliant pontificate (of) the beloved and venerable Pontiff Benedict XVI”.

Now that he wasn't there to tell us to knock it off.

~ * ~

Gloomy, bored and restless: MSM journalists ain't got nothin to do. They clearly didn't expect to be sitting around in cafes interviewing each other. You seriously can't get a cup of coffee anywhere within a mile of the Vatican these days without pushing past a bunch of American or German or Italian press. Big cameras, covered in rain gear, sitting on the tables...

As each day passes without a date set by the cardinals for the start of the conclave, the more than 5,000 journalists accredited to the Holy See in the last few weeks are growing more gloomy, bored, and restless. Most of the world’s secular press is represented at what is understood, somewhat vaguely, to be an event of huge importance, but few have a thorough understanding of the nature of what they are covering.

They expected exciting press conferences with bona fide cardinals who would talk about the substance of their discussions. They expected, at the very least, regular bulletins issued by the Holy See Press Office giving updates on the progress of the deliberations. Or at the very, very least they were looking forward to a fascinating give and take between cardinals and “experts” on the issues, the positions of various factions, their priorities and expectations.

What they’ve had is Fr. Frederico Lombardi telling them again and again in response to questions, “I’m sorry, we have no information about that.” Throughout the week, with the official media center set up by the Vatican being a highly restricted area, with Wi-Fi and cell phone access shut down except on the provided computers, most journalists have been relegated to watching the press briefings piped in through closed circuit TV cameras from a separate building. Permits are required to set up a tripod anywhere around St. Peter’s and the Vatican, and even carrying a hand-held camera and too obviously interviewing passers-by will sometimes earn a rebuke from the Vatican Gendarmes.

But media people are not accustomed to these kinds of restrictions, or the closed-mouthed approach of the Vatican. They didn’t expect to hear about oaths of secrecy, threats of excommunication for people talking to the press. They didn’t expect to be asked for €500 for permission to upload video content and e-mail it overseas. This just isn’t how the rest of the world behaves towards them. In the rest of the world, they are courted, and plied with dinners, drinks, and juicy bits of information in equal amounts.

~ * ~

Dark Horse Cardinals: the bad news.

And the less bad news.

~ * ~

More later...



~

Darkened windows

I was in the Piazza this afternoon, and could not help looking up at those closed windows.

Also, still reeling from the absolutely incredible incompetence of the organisers in the Vatican's media offices. They've kicked everyone out of the Sala Stampa, which has great facilities but is built to accommodate no more than a couple of dozen reporters at a time, and moved us all into a "media centre"...

that has no wifi.

And no cell phone signal.

Yep.

They've accredited nearly 5000 journalists for the conclave, and they've set up a media centre where you can't use your phone or your computer. Instead, they've given us about 20 creaking old PCs with nothing but Spanish and Italian keyboards. They've had three weeks to set up for the presence of the world's media, and they've got 20 computer stations and about 30 more empty desks. As we were sitting in there today, watching the press conference from the first General Congregation, that we were only allowed to attend through closed circuit TV beamed in from the sala stampa, the technicians were still stringing cables to the other desks. They have no plans to provide wifi internet access. But I was told that there would be more computers available tomorrow.

Oh. Good.

Great work there guys.



~

This one made me laugh

"But hey, you know, we ain't biased 'r nuthin..."

...and what's with the English? Can't anyone afford copy editors any more?



~

Woo hoo!

I'm famous! (Again.)

Update: fixed link.

and

This too.

and another one...

Oh, I just realised that I've given away the fact that I'm googling my own name...

...ego-busted...


~

This just in

From the Vatican, issued to all who applied to attend their meeting

Dear Friends
By 8am Monday morning we had received over 400 requests.
On Wednesday 13 April we will close the application process and sort out requests into categories of language, geography, typology etc. and where necessary we will draw lots to make the final selection.

On Saturday a list of participants will be posted on www.pccs.va We are heartened by the widespread interest, and ask you all to be patient with this effort to increase dialogue with the blogging community, and also to support us with your prayers.
Richard Rouse & Ariel Beramendi

Richard Rouse spoke to Vatican Radio the other day, saying,

"One of the things we are a little bit aware of is that sometimes the Catholic blogosphere can become a bit of a ghetto…rather than engaging in the world outside."

When asked if he thought there are risks associated with such an initiative, Dr. Rouse said he knew the meeting could be different than others hosted at the Vatican.

“Certainly we are aware that a blog meeting can sometimes be a blog-fest and sometimes it can be a blog-fight,” he said. “We are aware of that, but our intention here…is to start to engage in a first step with Catholic bloggers. Further on down the line, I’m sure we will be able to articulate a more fulsome pastoral response to the reality, but first steps at a time.”

Discuss...