“It’s too powerful and fascinating,” Bergoglio’s followers painted him. Georg Gänswein knew the mechanisms of Vatican power: it was the result of a tacit pact that Francis and Benedict had made in 2013
The last official public appearance was almost a year ago.
It was January and waves of mud had hit Benedetto from Germany. They accused him of having underestimated cases of pedophilia as Archbishop of Munich.
After days full of poison and tension, it was now up to him, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, to present himself in the role of spokesman and protective shield for the emeritus pope. In the living room on the first floor of the convent where Benedetto lived, he read with a tense expression in front of the cameras the text with which the Pope Emeritus denied the allegations while acknowledging the historical responsibility of the Church for the abuses.
But Don Georg, as he is known confidentially, also remembered the beautiful letter that Francesco had sent to his predecessor. And for a few hours, Gänswein seemed to return fully to his role as Prefect of the Papal Household: a connecting point and a symbol of continuity between two pontificates. This has not been the case since January 2020. In the less and less muted conflict between the circle of power around Pope Bergoglio and the traditionalist world, which was determined to install Benedict, the prefect ended up being the scapegoat for the tensions that had grown over the years. And from one day to the next he was gone. Francis no longer wanted him on his right at official audiences.
In the Vatican, one still remembers the questioning looks of the men in tails and black waistcoats: The antechamber attachés of His Holiness in those January days 2020 were nervous because they no longer saw Gänswein. Nobody reported anything. Apparently everything went on as before. The tam tom of curial gossip gave him, as always, alongside Benedetto, and more so than before. And in his place had appeared Monsignor Leonardo Sapienza, his “Regent”, a member of the Curia. The head of the papal household was last seen alongside Francis on January 15, 2020 during the general audience. Then never again.
And the astonishment of the men in tails had reflected a sense of personal rupture after years of a working relationship marked by the Prefect’s loyalty and obedience; but always with a subliminal distance. Two weeks passed. Then, on February 5, 2020, the German Catholic daily Tagestpost, believed to be close to Opus Dei, leaked a first truth, with a few ink blots dictated out of prudence. The newspaper wrote: “Pope Francis has granted the Prefect of the Papal Household, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, permanent leave… The private secretary of the Pope Emeritus remains in office as head of the prefecture, but will be released for more time Benedict XVI…».
The explanation offered itself for many questions. What does “indefinite leave” mean? And how did you balance the task of chairing public hearings with attending them? An official statement would never have been made. The head of the Press Office of the Holy See, Matteo Bruni, only made an embarrassed statement to the news agencies. “No suspension,” declared Bruni. “Monsignor Gaenswein’s absence from certain audiences is due to an ordinary redistribution of the various duties and functions of the prefect of the papal household, who also performs the role of personal secretary to the pope emeritus.” Indeed, the redefinition of his role was a turning point. The pretext was the editorial clutter of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s book, which also contained a critical essay by Benedict on the possibility of admitting married men to the priesthood. But it was presented as if Ratzinger had co-authored the volume. It was not clear to what extent the Pope Emeritus and Gänswein themselves were informed of how the book would appear in bookstores. But the “placet” for publication was given. Gänswein let it be known that he had asked for Benedict XVI’s name and photo to be given. to remove from the envelope. It was all for nothing. In the circle of Casa Santa Marta it was decided to settle accounts with the prefect, considered a conservative linked to some traditionalist Catholic circles; feel comfortable in the Vatican rooms as well as in the salons of the “black” aristocracy; Tennis player admired by Roman ladies, who called him “the blond George Clooney of the Vatican”. But that was the froth of curial gossip. In fact, “Don George” was also the priest who served as spiritual counselor to couples he had followed for years. He followed the initiatives of the Ratzinger Foundation and the conferences of Benedict’s former theology students. The first misunderstanding with Francis, well diplomatized, occurred at the time of the election of the new pope. The day after visiting the apartment reserved for popes for decades, Bergoglio told Gaenswein that he usually slept well while he was after touring these rooms slept very badly.
Months of suspension and silence passed until one day Monsignor Gänswein was asked by the Casa Santa Marta to return the keys to the apartment reserved for the prefect: from there they would arrange everything. Gaenswein became a de facto target, also beyond his person: even if the indiscretion that the Pope had received some anonymous letters of a sexual nature against Don Georg leaked out from within Francis’ circle. It was a way of holding him at gunpoint and conditioning him, by those who wished to reduce his power, with an all-round defamation of this “celibate bureaucracy,” in German philosopher Carl Schmitt’s scathing definition, into what sexual habits, if necessary, became weapons for the inner struggle.
Francesco, one of his associates says, showed Don Georg the letters but told him he considered them garbage because he trusted him. But in the meantime there was talk of his impending transfer to Germany or his promotion to another position. There were drafts of curia reform in which the figure of the prefect of the papal household was reduced because he was only to accompany the pope within the Vatican walls. Gaenwein was immersed in the situation of someone who worked with Francesco on a daily basis; and parallel was next to Benedetto. “The Pope Emeritus did not want to become a barrier against the attacks on Francis, but he has actually become one. Their total reality has proven to be an objective and insurmountable barrier,” says Gänswein.
“It’s too powerful and fascinating,” Bergoglio’s followers painted him. Of course he knew the mechanics of Vatican power. He was active, direct, skillful. But Don George was the result of a tacit pact made by Francis and Benedict in 2013. His youthful and smiling face was intended to underscore the unity and continuity of a church shaken by sacrifice. However, his presence was also an element of confusion. When Gaenswein tried to explain the anomaly and pointed to an “extended” papacy due to the emeritus’s presence, suggesting “a pope of action and a pope of prayer,” they pounced on him anonymously. This is what happened with the “Notes on Pedophilia”: a text that caused a stir because it was again accepted as a kind of orthodox manifesto on a subject that until a few days earlier was being discussed by the world bishops led by Bergoglio. All enemies of the monastery immediately suspected that it was not Benedict but Gänswein who had written it. The spite proved unfounded, but it was an indication of which way the wind was blowing. And since January 2020, his position has remained as if in hibernation: embalmed alive in the limbo of a role he has maintained without being allowed to play. And now that the “man of the monastery” is gone, one of the questions that flares up with a thread of malicious oddity is what fate Francis intends to reserve for the person who was closest to the pope until his last breath Emeritus.
12/31/2022 (Change 12/31/2022 | 1:59 p.m.)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED