Ten years ago, at 11,41 on 11 February, it happened an event that no one expected and which in a short time went around the world. ANSA broke the news at 11,47 and only the authority of the agency convinced the editors of all the planet's media not to trash the dispatch, considering it more than a fake news a real grotesque provocation.
If the news had concerned the death of an older Pope, such a surprise would not have arisen: Benedict XVI had announced his resignation from the Throne of Peter and as bishop of Rome, a gesture that in memory of the Church historian had occurred only twice; but the first, that of Celestine V back in 1294, it had never been approved, because no one at the time had taken seriously the election of a prelate who already enjoyed a reputation for holiness while alive.
The resignation of Benedict XVI and the "ingravescenti aetate"
It was a journalist who realized that something exceptional was happening – see the essay ''The monastery'' by Massimo Franco for the Solferino editions ''Vatican correspondent'' of ANSA, who had followed the Consistory and who had stopped to observe, curious, what she was doing Pope ratzinger with a piece of paper in hand which, from the very first words, it was understood that it was written in Latin.
Giovanna Chirri – this was the journalist's name – she was lucky enough to have completed al classical high school rigorous studies of Latin and as soon as he heard the words pronounced by the Pope ''worsening aetate'' (the same as the ''motu proprio of Paul VI who, in practice, retired the Cardinals when they turned 75) sensed what was about to happen and what would became operational at 20 on 28 February (2013 was not a leap year).
Chirri asked for confirmation to the director of the Vatican press office, who confirmed the news. What happened next is well known and has been talked about for a long time after the death of the Pope emeritus, recalling that unusual gesture, looking for explanations and above all dwelling on theanomaly of the two Popes, made even more unique by the unexpected long coexistence between two very different personalities between them in the context of an institution Church very torn internally. Moreover, fate would have it that Benedict's survival for a more lasting period of the Pontificate would create some unexpected problems at the moment of his resignation.
The diarchy of the two Popes
Obviously in the communication society everyone is able to form an opinion by reading what has been written about it diarchy. If I may, as a layman, add a few personal considerations to the commemoration of that historic day, I must add that I have wondered all these years how it was possible such an emerging discontinuity between the Pontificate of Benedict and that of Francis.
It is difficult to enter into the dynamics that lead the Sacred College to elect a Pope, especially for those who believe in the inspiration of Divine Providence whose infallibility is a precept (it will be because the Almighty saw on that occasion aspects that escape us mortals ). Apparently the two Popes have thoroughly avoided any cause for disagreement, open and confidential, but the differences in the exercise of the ministry even an altar boy managed to catch them.
The Church of Benedict XVI
Raised to the throne of Peter in choosing the name, Cardinal Ratzinger had already wanted to underline what his vision of the Church was, which could not have survived separated from its roots in the Old Continent and its culture, including the Enlightenment. St. Benedict is the patron saint of Europe and it was the Benedictines who saved the classics of that Greek philosophical thought which, incorporated into the empiricism of the Roman Empire, was spread throughout the world.
Ratzinger, guardian of the faith for many years, had understood that the effects of relativism, rigged with modernity, would also involve the Church, if she had not remained anchored to those who were considered non-negotiable values. I remember an important homily that the then Cardinal Ratzinger delivered at the opening of the consistory called to elect the successor of Pope John Paul II (Missa pro eligendo Romano Pontiff, in St. Peter's Basilica on April 18, 2005). Those considerations on the Catholic Church turned out to be Frprophetic and anticipatory of what was to happen over the space of a few years and which Ratzinger, having become Benedict XVI, was unable to oppose.
''How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many fashions of thought... The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been agitated by these waves - thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, up to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so on. Every day – Ratzinger denounced – new sects are born and what Saint Paul says about men's deceit, about the cunning that tends to lead into error (cf. Eph 4:14) comes true. Have a clear faith, according to the Creed of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. While relativism, that is, letting oneself be carried "here and there by any wind of doctrine", appears to be the only attitude up to today's times. It is being established - here is the central question of the decline, ed - a dictatorship of relativism who does not recognize anything as definitive and who leaves only his own ego and his desires as the last measure''.
The Church was losing Europe in terms of ethics and therefore of the main function it was called to exercise, after the end of the temporal power. Europe – the cradle of Judeo-Christian civilization – discovered in new "golden calf" of ''rightism'' another ''immoral'' ethics because it is aimed at demolishing, in the name of the ''new rights'', every principle of natural law (on which the doctrine of the Church is founded) up to consolidating the new doctrines in positive law, which it no longer limits itself to transferring the natural rights of people into legal systems, but creates them, leaving ''one's own ego and its desires as the last measure''.
The Church of Pope Francis
What can we say, however, of the predominant ''world view'' in the Church of Francis? It has been noted several times that the Pope does not speak of Europe as not only a political but also a spiritual entity. Just observe the route of the apostolic visitations of Francis and compare them with those of Benedict to realize how much, for the first, Europe is marginal, while for the second it represented the main place of the Apostolate. And it is in the Church of the Old Continent where it is open the "civil war" which has repercussions in all directions in which European states have brought Christianity – often imposed over the centuries.
Sul doctrinal level Francis' Vatican is unable to settle on new values or to defend those of tradition. Stay halfway. Show openings in words (think of the issues of homosexuality), but is careful not to innovate the canons of Christian life.
The Papacy today conceal your uncertainties invoking the strengthening of pastoral action: as Francis said, priests are custodians of the flock and must have the same odor as the sheep entrusted to them. The late Cardinal Carlo Caffarra was the first to denounce this theory, when Pope Francis was still enjoying his honeymoon with the faithful and with world public opinion: ''A Church with little attention to doctrine - said Caffarra - is no longer pastoral, is only more ignorant”.
Today i Christians are persecuted in many areas of the world, the same ones that Pope Francis prefers in his apostolate. But in Europe - where the Church could make use of the rule of law and the possibility of influencing politics - Christians are left to themselves, their principles are banned by positive law in the name of an idea of freedom bordering on arbitrariness.
It would be necessary to reread the speech of Pope Benedict XVI in Regensburg - on 12 September 2006 - to grasp the strait connection between Western culture and Christianity. ''It is not surprising – said the Holy Father – that Christianity, despite its origins and some important developments in the East, finally found its historically decisive imprint in Europe. We can also express it inversely: this meeting, to which the heritage of Rome is added later, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe''.
