Perhaps what the two reactions point to is a fault-line, not for or against Pope Francis, but about the actual terms of the debate he is now weighing.
The final document of the Synod on the Amazon – a text which has in itself no magisterial weight whatsoever – famously called for priestly ordination of proven permanent deacons for service in remote regions. There is a debate to be had on the prudence and effectiveness of such a pastoral exception for a region as sui generis as the Amazon. Those with a wider frame of reference would note that Benedict himself supported a relaxing of the discipline of celibacy in some narrowly drawn cases, like former Anglican clergy.
But could it be that the real substance of the opposition to Benedict and Sarah's new book is aimed not at the exception but the rule itself?
Many in and around the Amazon synod have long signaled their desire to see a wholesale revisiting, if not abandonment, of the universal discipline of clerical celibacy in the Latin Church.
Ivereigh, for example, acknowledged in the run-up to the Amazonian synod that while a possible exception to clerical celibacy in the region could be important, "the bigger story is the ecclesiological reimagining that allows such a possibility to be considered." He went on to note that papal approval of the idea would hinge on a lack of visible controversy in its presentation.
"There is little doubt that if the synod reaches a calm consensus behind the proposal to ordain elders in order to promote regular access to the sacraments-which is very likely-Francis will not refuse," Ivereigh wrote in June last year.
Ivereigh seemed to expect that changes at the synod could lead to changes everywhere. He wrote that "The synod will focus resolutely on the Amazon, but if its vision of reform does not have repercussions for the rest of the Church, then, says [REPAM's executive secretary Mauricio] López, an important opportunity will have been wasted-an opportunity to show how the church's peripheries can shape its center."
"But," Ivereigh noted, "it seems unlikely Pope Francis will let that happen."
Moreover, the matter of clerical celibacy is already being discussed during the "binding synodal path" of the Church in Germany, a process hailed by Faggioli as an important new phase in the Church's post-conciliar development.
And the desire in some quarters to use an Amazonian exception to end the universal norm on celibacy has been expressed publicly.
In 2018, before the Amazonian synod, Bishop Franz-Josef Bode, vice-chairman of the German bishops' conference, said that if the ordination of married men were authorized for the Amazon, German bishops would insist on the same authorization. Bode called the necessity of extending the same dispensation everywhere "obvious."
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Opposition to celibacy, and the desire to see it ended, has not been limited to practical or disciplinary arguments.
During the Amazonian synod itself, retired Bishop Erwin Krautler insisted that "indigenous people do not understand celibacy." Krautler essentially argued that the Church's discipline – which has for centuries been upheld as a witness to eternal life – has no evangelistic value and is something "they cannot understand."
It is the multi-pronged attack on the Church's universal discipline that prompted curial cardinals like Sarah, Ouellet, Filoni, and Turkson, all of whom are known for their intense personal loyalty to Pope Francis, to intervene in favor of the value of priestly celibacy at the time of the synod.
Set within that context, the more outraged preemptive reactions to the Sarah and Benedict book begin to take a different shape.
Calling into question the pope emeritus' moral and physical ability to join a conversation in the Church is a marked departure from reaction to previous Benedict interventions. Last year, when the pope emeritus issued a lengthy letter on the sexual abuse crisis ahead of Pope Francis's Feburary summit, Ivereigh called it "a helpful contribution."
"Both the pope and the pope emeritus are at one in defending the freedom of the Church to be redeemed by God's mercy, and in opposing any attempt at neo-Donatist reform," he wrote for America magazine at the time.