The media smear campaign against the bishop, who is stepping down. The reason? The priests didn’t like him

Rome. “Bishop who drove a Tesla sacked”, “Bishop who drove a Tesla steps down”, “Bishop in Tesla resigns”. These are just some of the headlines that appeared in Italian newspapers following the departure of Monsignor Guido Gallese, Bishop of Alessandria, who resigned after months of relentless pressure—particularly from the media—stemming from the apostolic visit conducted by Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello in the diocese. A visit which, it is understood, was rather hastily conducted, and the list of witnesses interviewed lacked many of those who could have immediately quelled the anti-Gallese grumbling amongst the clergy. In any case, the objective was clear: to shed light on a series of complaints (from elderly local priests and laypeople dissatisfied with the bishop’s pastoral approach) which had reached Rome in a highly organised manner (Il Foglio had reported on this extensively last February). Reassurances came from Alessandria: the visit is to the diocese and not to the bishop; things like this happen all the time without anyone knowing about them. Which is also true. Yet the outcome was a foregone conclusion: it was impossible to remain in office for years with the sword of Damocles hanging over him as a bishop who goes kitesurfing – a very serious accusation levelled by the indignant media, especially at a time when the Pope swims and plays tennis every week – who spends lavishly and even drives a Tesla. Praise for the bishop, mitre on his head, as he rides his bicycle into the cathedral. But a Tesla? No. One might think that there was more to the paperwork and the report prepared by the Piedmontese Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello. 

Serious shortcomings, extravagant spending, and inappropriate behaviour on the part of the bishop. He, the bishop, had already made it clear on Friday that there was nothing in that file: “Despite the media furore surrounding me, the visit followed its own process of discernment, at the end of which I received not a single written line and no sanctions whatsoever”. To the pragmatic and objective observer, however, this might appear to be a defensive manoeuvre: after all, it is the account of someone who was, in some way, forced to step down from office. The point is that even those who fuelled the aforementioned ‘media furore’ are now resigning themselves to the fact that there is no evidence against the prelate. Take Saturday’s edition of La Stampa, Cronaca di Alessandria, page 41. ‘The Vatican’s checkmate following a detailed dossier’ is the headline of an article presented as ‘Behind the Scenes’. And what does this ‘detailed dossier’ consist of? Well: having recounted the Tesla and kitesurfing stories, ‘all that remains are his relations with the clergy and groups of the faithful. From January to the present day, it has been almost impossible to find anyone willing to make a statement about the bishop, let alone do so publicly. In camera caritatis (as the saying goes), perhaps someone might let slip more or less benevolent remarks about an appreciation for unusual sports, or the use of accessories that aren’t for everyone, but also – and this is where we get to the heart of the matter – about relations with the various Catholic communities, the reorganisation of parishes, and so on. It was this rift that ultimately led to Gallese’s replacement’. So it was neither the Tesla nor the costs of refurbishing a few properties nor the kitesurfing. The problem was that the priests and laypeople (the committed ones, who are everywhere) were unhappy with the reorganisation of the parishes. Which is, in fact, the real reason for the upheaval; This reason had been circulating for just under a year in Alessandria: the discontent stemmed from this and, not least, from the perception of a bishop who was an outsider – a Genoese sent to an ecclesiastical region that is very protective of its autonomy, including its geographical autonomy. A situation that had become untenable, as Monsignor Gallese now admits: “The general atmosphere and the circumstances that have arisen have highlighted the need to turn the page, for everyone’s sake.” As for the relationship with the clergy, much can be understood from the bishop’s words: “The relationship with the clergy is a complex issue for all bishops, because priests are the most exposed and wounded part of the people of God. I include myself in this, personally… The weight rests entirely on the fulcrum: when a door opens or closes, it is the hinge that bears the creaking and the strain. That hinge, today, is our bishops and priests: I love the latter dearly and fully share in their daily struggles”. Rome has, after all, chosen the easiest path: with intractable problems and a bishop who is not well-received, a change is made. As well as setting a rather dangerous precedent – which, incidentally, would not even be the first – this grants local cliques the enormous power to choose a bishop to their liking. Or, worse still, to have him replaced if he does not please them. In fact, this goes even further than the most revolutionary proposals of the German synodal process, which would seek to ensure that the opinion of a few laypeople carries more weight than that of the Pope (who is in Rome, and therefore far away) in the process of appointing bishops. The hope is that no one will go so far as to say, sooner or later, that a Pope who plays tennis casts a bad light on bishops who prefer political party conferences to sport. As they say, nothing is impossible.