Yuku free message boards

My own view is that this is all a tempest in a teapot and that sometimes the coat of arms will show up with a mitre and sometimes it won't and that both versions are OK -- perhaps yet other versions will be created and those are OK too, as long as the scallop, Moor and bear are in place.

...

In the hectic days after the death of Pope John Paul II, I'm sure many things were happening that stressed to the limit everyone who was working on the transition to a new papacy. Occurrences such as releasing information (important and not so important) without getting a final imprimatur are, under those circumstances, entirely possible.

Rcesq, I must disagree.

I have had the - well, in some ways, the misfortune - of working in a large and very complex organization where, unfortunately, politics can be considered an ever-present entity. In this regard, the release of information, and most especially information concerning the decisions and policies of the highest-ranking officials in the organization, is given very careful consideration. This is so because, as I'm sure you understand, the "premature" release of information can lead to some very unpleasant consequences and implications, none of which should be considered as a "tempest in a teapot".

In the case of the supposed release of the design, the immediate consequences of these "reports" that Cardinal Montezemolo - and supposedly with the complicity of Arch. Piero Marini - released the information to the press implies the following:

1. That both prelates did not respect the Pope enough to get his imprimatur before they released information about something that is virtually as personal to him as his Papal name;

2. That the Pope ostensibly allowed himself to be "backed into a corner", so to speak, into accepting the design; why else would it be used for at least two and a half years?

I'm sure you'll agree that neither implication is a savory one.

Now, and I address my comments from this point onward to everyone, if we are suppose that the Pope was "backed into a corner", how are we to view the events that are happening now, and by events, I mean the use of the tiara in vestments that are prepared by a certain supplier, and yes, reports that have "surfaced" that the release of the design (and by implication, the design itself) was not sanctioned by the Pope? Is this some kind of "damage control"? If so, it is a rather clumsy attempt, if I might say so.

If we are to presume that the use of the tiara is to "correct an error", I agree with Benodette that there are better ways to do so - and dare I say it, more "straightforward" ways. It is one thing to presume that the use of the tiara in Benedict XVI's coat-of-arms is being done with his approval, it is another to have him say publicly that there was a "hiccup" in the release of the official design. For a man who has adopted the motto "Co-Worker of the Truth", certainly Joseph Ratzinger would wish to uphold the truth in this particular instance, especially since one of the implications of this turn of events is that he was "compelled" to accept a decision made by others. In so doing, however, I do not believe that he would countenance actions that amount to a virtual "smear campaign" against a man he himself elevated to the College of Cardinals and the Archbishop who served him as Master of Ceremonies for more than a quarter century.

Budwud is quite right in observing that during the first few months of Benedict XVI's papacy, while there were comments about the use of the mitre as opposed to the tiara, there was never any mention of supposed "information leaks". One has to wonder why all this is coming out now, and for what purpose? If there had been a "leak", it should have been corrected long ago - and neither Cardinal Montezemolo nor Arch. Marini would be where they are now. Why did we hear nothing of these reports when Cardinal Montezemolo was elevated to the College of Cardinals? Why was nothing ever said along these lines when Piero Marini was made Head of a Pontifical Committee? PaxTibi is right in saying that neither of them would have been fired, but in my opinion, both of them would certainly not have been given the positions they now occupy. After all, there is nothing insignificant about being raised to the College of Cardinals (Montezemolo), or being appointed as head of a Pontifical Commission (Marini) that has considerable international influence over the celebration of the Eucharist itself.

The individuals who are imputing such disobedience and disrespect - and yes, insubordination, as Benodette has aptly described it - on the part of Cardinal Montezemolo and Arch. Marini seem to have forgotten a number of important considerations. The first is that Cardinal Montezemolo, prior to his elevation to the College of Cardinals, spent many years as a career diplomat of the Holy See - and in the field of diplomacy, the implications of when - and whether - certainly information should be released is a matter that is accorded the utmost importance. I do not think that someone with such extensive experience in these matters as Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo would do something as indiscreet, and as disrespectful, as what certain quarters are alleging.

The second is that Arch. Marini was, prior to the election of Benedict XVI, already serving as Joseph Ratzinger's Master of Ceremonies during his years as a Cardinal; and since Cardinal Ratzinger came to Rome to serve John Paul as early as 1981, then it is clear that Joseph Ratzinger and Piero Marini have been working together for almost 27 years, prior to the advent of Guido Marini. I see no reason why we should not presume that in more than a quarter century, Piero Marini will not have gained a very extensive insight into Joseph Ratzinger's liturgical preferences; most assuredly, there developed a relationship of great respect and esteem - why else would Joseph Ratzinger have retained Piero Marini as his Master of Ceremonies for more than two decades, first as Cardinal and then as Pope? I cannot believe that Piero Marini would betray such trust, in such a rash and unseemly manner.

My question is this: why are certain quarters now making an attempt to imply that this coat-of-arms was not the decision of the Pope, and going to such considerable lengths to do so? Do they not agree with the ideals that are embodied in its design? Do they believe that he should have chosen differently?

Now, as regards the interchangeable use of the mitre and the tiara prior to the election of Benedict XVI - I must confess that I am definitely not comfortable with the opinion of Fr. Guy Sylvester that the depiction of the Papal coat-of-arms is dependent upon the preferences of whichever artist is executing it. I say this because I cannot help but think that the coat-of-arms is a very personal statement of the thought and theology of a particular Pope - you change one element, it is as if you are changing something in the visual "mission and vision statement" (as modern organizations put it) of the Pope. As I recall, there were comments when the letter "M" appeared in John Paul the Beloved's coat-of-arms, the argument being that letters are not supposed to appear in heraldic coats-of-arms, never mind the fact that John Paul intended it to honor the Mother of God herself, and his entrusting of his Papacy and himself to her prayers and protection. It's a good thing that in interchanging the mitre and the tiara in some depictions of John Paul's coat-of-arms, the artist(s) responsible didn't decide to do away with the "M". But never was it implied that anyone in the Holy See had taken the design of his coat-of-arms out of John Paul's hands.

I certainly cannot subscribe to Fr. Sylvester's statement that the coats-of-arms are not "slavishly copied over and over as if there is only one official version" - because there should definitely be only one official version. That's why it's called "official" in the first place - because it is supposed to be the definitive, sanctioned and authoritative version. The consistent use of the design of the coat-of-arms that has been specifically chosen by Benedict XVI is most definitely not an act of "slavish copying" - it is an act of respect for the decision of the Pope in a matter that will serve as the symbolic identification of his Papacy for all of history. Otherwise, why would a Pope go to the trouble of deciding on the elements of his coat-of-arms anyway, if different versions of it are going to be presented in accordance with the preferences of the artist who will execute it, or the sponsor of a vestment, chair or building to which it will be affixed? Why should their preferences take precedence over the preferences of the Pope? Is it so difficult to respect and honor and uphold the Pope's decision in this matter? Do they not trust his wisdom in making such a choice? Does anyone know better than the Pope himself, who has made the conscious decision to take on a responsibility that few men have the strength and the courage to shoulder, what he feels, in his heart of hearts, he must do for the Church, and how he wishes such ideals to be reflected in his coat-of-arms?

When all is said and done, I can only hope, as PaxTibi has said, that these "reports" are nothing more than gossip. That having been said, however, I know from unhappy experience that the reasons behind the existence of such gossip are far more disquieting than the gossip itself. Because when there are attempts such as these to besmirch the loyalty of a Prince of the Church, to continually harass a liturgical expert who has served two Popes with great devotion and commitment, and to give people the impression that the hand of the Pope himself can be forced by people around him, then I must say that I am very worried for Il Papa indeed. There can be no justification whatsoever for such attempts to besmirch the reputation of a Cardinal and an Archbishop, and to indirectly cast doubts on the capability of the Pope himself to make and implement his own decisions.