Tosatti Pro Libro Suo. An Explosive Conversation on Galleria Neovaticana
7 Marzo 2021
Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, I was very pleased to see that Gloria TV has reprinted the entire interview that Radio Spada had the kindness to do with me in relation to the publication of my new book, Galleria Neovaticana. Happy reading.
An explosive conversation: Radio Spada – Marco Tosatti su “Galleria neovaticana”
The new book Galleria Neovaticana [Neo-Vatican Gallery, soon to be published in English] was announced just a few days ago and has already aroused a great deal of attention. From the book’s subtitle (“Modernism, unnameable vices and corruption in the time of Bergoglio”) the reader will note that the most strictly doctrinal aspect is found in the premises (in particular we refer to the editorial note), while the “Neo-Vatican Gallery” properly understood can be discovered by paging through the various chapters of Marco Tosatti’s work and the introduction by Maike Hickson. Despite the clear diversity of positions on the origins of the crisis in the Church, today Radio Spada wanted to speak with the book’s author in order to provide some further insights to the many people who are interested.
Radio Spada: Dear Doctor Tosatti, welcome! Let’s start with the most immediate question: what is Galleria Neovaticana and why is it a book that should be read?
I believe that it’s an important book – although it’s small, it could certainly have been longer. Because it shows how the problem of abuse has been hidden, underestimated and mystified in the past few years; and even now, despite all of the bombastic statements about it, it continues to be a real problem. I am speaking of abuse, not pedophilia; because very often the victims are seminarians or young priests who are already adults. And even when they are minors, studies show that the victims are post-pubescent adolescents from 16-18 years old, almost 90% of the time. In the majority of cases, it is male on male abuse: and this opens up the theme of homosexuality in the Church.
RS: An objection that is raised right away is: is there really a need to speak of inconvenient facts and accusations that are a bit embarrassing, when the crisis that affects today’s clergy is first of all a doctrinal one?
In reality, if you read the book, you will realize that there is no giving in to spicy details and/or itchy details, and even less does it tickle the reader’s imagination. The book tries to show that because of the lack of faith, which is the first cause, illicit behaviors have prevailed in the Church; and that even the highest authority, which ought to sanction these behaviors, seems to turn a blind eye (or even both eyes!). Indeed, the number of people involved in these promoted behaviors suggests that they are chosen precisely because of their personal vulnerability, which makes them docile instruments. Anyone who is not compromised can speak with courage and clarity.
RS: We will not reveal anything to our readers, but paging through the book, one immediately has a double impression: 1) that there may exist, apart from individuals who may be implicated, a sort of pro-gay lobby in the highest levels of ecclesiastical authority; 2) that some of your fellow journalists are aware of this fact or at least have clues to that effect. At this point, the questions rise spontaneously. Why do only a strict minority speak of it or even mention it? In addition to what is written in the book – and strictly without naming names – are you, in the light of your long career, aware of further elements that confirm this hypothesis?
The facts speak for themselves, unfortunately, and they endorse the impression that you gave in point 1, including very recent choices: I am referring for example to the appointment of Cardinal Tobin to the Congregation for Bishops. You see, this book does not make judgments, but limits itself to listing facts and circumstances that are well-known, that for the most part are in the public domain; some of them were the result of personal information given to me while I was preparing it, which in the meantime came to light publicly. And the strength of the facts and circumstances is overwhelming, for those who want to take note. And so we come to point 2. Because we are witnessing, from the point of view of information about the Vatican, an unprecedented streamlining in line with the narration desired by the regime. This also happens in general information, as unfortunately we see happening on a daily basis. But in Vatican information, for a whole list of reasons – ideological closeness, professional weakness, psychological pressures, simple idolatry of personality – it takes real courage to shine light on the ties, sympathies, and toleration that the present leadership of the Church shows towards these type of people, and it is also problematic. Because it would mean shining light on a mechanism of power that seems to have very little to do with the Gospel. And anyone who would do it would immediately find themselves in a difficult position. And so it’s more convenient, in order to have a quiet life, to simply go along with the prevailing narration. Look at what happened with the denunciation of Archbishop Viganò: only two of my colleagues, Anna Matranga and Cindy Wooden, out of a parterre of dozens of correspondents, had the courage to ask precise questions of the reigning Pontiff. The others were silent. Indeed, there are even now those who, in the large international press agencies, seem to have only one purpose: attacking Viganò…This is painful for our profession.
RS: Let’s take a step back. You have been a vaticanista for decades, you have followed the affairs of the highest levels of the Church, you have been watching what happens on the throne of Peter with men who are quite different from each other. In the last few years, particularly with the daily work of Stilum Curiae, you have continually deepened the dramatic theme of the crisis in the Church. Was this a gradual awareness? Was there a triggering event? In short, was it “bergoglianism” that triggered the alarm?
Next December will mark exactly forty years since I began following this sector, after having previously covered news concerning parliament, diplomacy, schools and universities, trade union news, and general news. Among other things, through a series of fortuitous circumstances, I was the only journalist present at the moment when the body of Aldo Moro was discovered in the Via Caetani, and I reported the news half an hour before everyone else. I worked for La Stampa and Stampa Sera, which came out with an extraordinary edition. I followed John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and after decades of distance from the faith I returned to believing. This was, let’s say, towards the end of the 1990s. The problem however is that I have remained believing what the Church proclaimed and believed up until March 2013, in words, deeds, and above all in the choice of men. We are now witnessing a creeping dismantling. And it is impossible not to be aware of it, as the late Cardinal Caffara said: “Only the blind…”.
RS: Since 2016 you no longer write for La Stampa. Were your positions no longer welcome? We recently dialogued with Doctor Aldo Maria Valli and we asked him the same question. Outside of your field of work, how have the criticisms of “bergoglianism” been received in your circles of reference?
I worked for La Stampa for over forty years. At times I wrote articles which certainly did not please the ownership. But I was never censored. But then in 2016 I was censored, in the blog that I edited, San Pietro e Dintorni, in two different articles that dealt with questions linked to the family and the gay lobby. Furthermore, previously I collaborated with Vatican Insider; but as Sandro Magister wrote – and which has never been denied – Vatican Insider was receiving funding from American Catholic organizations, probably thanks to the good offices of the Secretary of State. And my position of denouncing certain facts – in particular during the two Synods onf the Family – made me annoying….Let’s go back to the previous question, the one on information.
RS: For our part, as you know, the work of Bergoglio is seen as a natural consequence of Vatican II in primis and of the serious errors of his recent predecessors in secundis. You had the opportunity to closely follow both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Can you give us, in your role as vaticanista, the personal impression that you had of these two pontificates and the men who ruled them?
I don’t think that there can be any doubts that both of them made mistakes, both in the choice of men from a doctrinal point of view (it’s no accident that Cardinal Ratzinger did not go to Assisi for the first inter-religious encounter for peace). But in both of them the faith was strong, and their respect for the two-thousand year tradition of the Church was rooted and solid. Neither one of them thought of themselves as constituting “mile zero” of the Catholic Church, as instead I have the impression is desired now.
RS: These questions could open up to many others, but for now, let’s stop here. Thank you again!
STILUM CURIAE HA UN CANALE SU TELEGRAM
(su TELEGRAM c’è anche un gruppo Stilum Curiae…)
E ANCHE SU VK.COM
Su Gab c’è:
SE PENSATE CHE
STILUM CURIAE SIA UTILE
SE PENSATE CHE
SENZA STILUM CURIAE
L’INFORMAZIONE NON SAREBBE LA STESSA
AIUTATE STILUM CURIAE!
ANDATE ALLA HOME PAGE
SOTTO LA BIOGRAFIA
Questo blog è il seguito naturale di San Pietro e Dintorni, presente su “La Stampa” fino a quando non fu troppo molesto. Per chi fosse interessato al lavoro già svolto, ecco il link a San Pietro e Dintorni.
Se volete ricevere i nuovi articoli del blog, scrivete la vostra mail nella finestra a fianco.
L’articolo vi ha interessato? Condividetelo, se volete, sui social network, usando gli strumenti qui sotto.
Condividi i miei articoli: