Pope Benedict’s abrupt resignation casts a disquieting light on an earlier bulletin. On December 3, 2012, the Vatican announced that the pope would begin posting on Twitter. Beginning December 13, he could be followed with the handle @pontifex.
The New York Times accompanied announcement of Twitter’s new convert with a photo that caught a fleeting, impromptu moment in an otherwise staged event. Credited to L’Osservatore Romano and taken some time during the previous year, it shows Benedict at his desk leaning over an iPad, a device he is clearly unfamiliar with. His right hand is being carefully guided by one unidentified cardinal as two others watch. It is a telling gesture.
//
At first sight, it made me uncomfortable. The optics were wrong. Now, after reading Canadian journalist David Warren’s trenchant and cautionary comment on the resignation, the photo vexes me even more. Those hands. They do not denote a pope anxious to embrace the Twitterverse, as Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi insists. Is a hand in such need of guidance likely to be one that reached for an iPad on its own initiative? The pope appears almost as a prop in a production not of his own making.
On whose behalf was this pseudo-event orchestrated? For the benefit of . . . what? Warren’s essay must be read in full. It places Benedict’s decision to surrender office within—and against—the intellectual climate of the Vatican, specifically its internal cultural politics.
The Vatican bureaucracy has been, in recent times, & perhaps inevitably, infiltrated by the very “progressive” forces it exists to fight. The Pope must be entirely on his toes in such an environment. A man of extraordinary humility but also astute, Benedict would be aware of the danger that members of this bureaucracy would exploit his mental & physical decline.
Bureaucracies acquire a life of their own. Self-serving, internally impelled, they grow and spread through the sheer force of inertia. Secular or ecclesiastical, it is in their nature to resist shifts in direction It takes an agile pope with deep reserves of stamina to alter a bureaucratic course or stay its momentum.
Reading between the lines, we are left to wonder if Benedict resigned in order to circumvent being used as a pawn of ambitious berrettas with agendas he had not the energy to deflect.
(To be continued)





February 13th, 2013 | 12:12 pm
Perhaps “expontiff” would be a more appropriate Twitter handle.
February 13th, 2013 | 1:47 pm
I don’t see his hand being “guided”. It looks to me like he has two hands on the tablet margins and whoever that is, is showing him something.
February 13th, 2013 | 3:42 pm
Guide. Demonstrate. Call it what you like. The point remains that the pope appears here as the passive recipient of instruction on a iPad. It seems out of sync with a scholar’s need to engage in discourse—not just tweet.
February 13th, 2013 | 8:10 pm
Without wishing to refute or contradict either David Warren’s or Maureen Mullarkey’s suspicions about the Vatican bureaucracy I think that too much is being read into this photograph.
Nobody suggested, to my knowledge, that the decision to set up a twitter account was entirely and exclusively the Pope’s idea, nor that he decided on his own to use an iPad for this.
With a workload like his, and considering his age and background, I don’t suppose B16 keeps up with technological
February 13th, 2013 | 8:14 pm
(please merge with previous comment)
… fads; it is likely twitter and social media were discussed and their use in evangelism etc evaluates. Then someone offers to show the Pope the new gadget lots of people use for this … I see nothing sinister in that, nor in the fact that he does not seem familiar with the iPad.
February 13th, 2013 | 10:30 pm
Sinister is not the word, Paul. Contradictory might be better. The announcement of
Benedict’s Twitter presence came within a few short weeks of his broadcast warning
against reliance on technological gadgetry.
February 14th, 2013 | 8:17 am
Warren writes: “At every level, from the parish priest up, the government of the Church must be taken back by those under holy vows, from those who are not, & never were nor will be.” I’m not sure what he means by this. If the problem is the eurotrash occupants of Church bureaucracy, or the broader Gramscian march through her institutions, these both involve people under holy vows, however faithfully observed. And maybe the photo-op is simply a way of backtracking from a misinterpreted statement about “reliance” on technological gadgetry. Nothing in the Faith proscribes the ipad, after all, where I, for example, have read more than one work by Joseph Ratzinger.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact