Archive for May, 2009
I must confess that I have been very remiss about putting up any updates about the St. Elizabeth documentary since the end of December (here). A great deal has happened, not all of it good, but things finally seem to be back on track.
On returning from Hungary with a disk drive containing all the footage our camerman Michael shot, plus the tapes from my own camcorder, I expected to be able to start editing, or at least viewing the footage, right away. But when I made my first phone call to my mother when I arrived home, she informed me of my uncle Joe’s death. I left right away, and only after I returned from the funeral and Thanksgiving holidays did I discover that the drive was unusable. I couldn’t even read it with my computer.
Long-distance consultation with Michael didn’t help; I gave the disk to my brother Nick at Christmas, and he couldn’t access it either. So it eventually went back to Michael, who discovered that though it was supposed the be cross-platform, the formatting of the files themselves (at least that’s what I think he said), made it impossible to read on anything but a Mac. So he had to re-copy every one of the some 300 gigs of footage through his computer network from a Mac to a PC and then to the portable drive - which took around 200 hours. Which would have been fine, but he had to be absent on other filming gigs a good deal of the time during the next four months. I didn’t receive the footage until the middle of April, five months after I returned home. And even then we found footage that had not been copied, which had to located.
In the meantime, a lengthy illness, five separate tax returns for the back sales tax for my business, plus regular taxes on April 15, made it nearly impossible to keep up with my regular job (freelancers don’t get paid time off), let alone other tasks like writing the script and obtaining permissions for using still images and archive footage. I also had to test out various editing programs, and started learning to use Adobe Premiere Pro.
Then at long last, when everything was all set for editing, my laptop stopped working. The motherboard had fizzled out. Back it went to the company for repairs (thank goodness it was still under warranty), Then I had a replacement computer to set up, and finally to work — though I no longer had the trial version of Adobe Premiere, which was on the other laptop (you’re only allowed one trial version). To save time, I decided to resort to using the simple Windows editing program that I already knew for the trailer. Then when everything was ready again, I discovered that the drive I had copied my own footage on had failed. There were parts I hadn’t transferred to my laptop, so they had to be captured from tape again.
In the meantime, I finally got some good news: the Presidency of the International Council of the SFO (CIOFS) would be able to reimburse me for some of the filming expenses. They are also going to put the trailer on their web site and help promote the video when it’s done.
So things really seem to be back on track now, and the trailer at least is close to completion. In spite of the frustration, seeing all the tons of disconnected footage you shot finally connect and come alive into an actual story is thrilling. We already have a trailer from 2007 that focused on our interviews in Rome; this short teaser trailer will focus more on the actual experience of the Franciscans of the various orders who attended the celebrations in Rome, Assisi, Esztergom and Budapest, as well as an outline of Elizabeth’s life. It should be much more visually exciting than the first trailer.
So keep checking back here for the trailer, which I hope will be done in a couple of days. Then on to editing the real thing!
Oh and one more thing; if you want to be put on the e-mail list to receive updates about the documentary, just write to me at editor@taucrossbooks.com.
Filed under: Film, St. Elizabeth Documentary, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, Writing | |No Comments
According to John Allen’s column in the National Catholic Reporter online, even Italy’s major daily Catholic paper, L’Avvenire, the media arm of the Italian bishops’ conference, is now taking a “softer” line on legalized abortion. But this time the claim doesn’t hold up.
Comparing this article to the one in L’Osservatore Romano, Allen writes:
L’Avvenire, on the other hand, carried a harder-hitting front-page editorial on Tuesday signed by Francesco D’Agostino, chair of Italy’s National Bioethics Committee, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and a consulter to the Pontifical Council for the Family.
D’Agostino challenged Obama’s claim that abortion is always a “heart-wrenching” decision for a woman, arguing that in some cases abortion is simply viewed as a means of birth control, and one that doesn’t pose a particular ethical dilemma. In that sense, he accused Obama of being either naïve or deliberately disingenuous.
D’Agostino also insisted that anti-abortion forces have been misrepresented.
“Contrary to how they’re usually presented, opponents of abortion are not people who want to send women who have abortions to jail at all costs, or who want to see the doctors who help them at trial. They’re rather people who are convinced that it’s essential, not only for moral reasons but also for social reasons, that human life — including prenatal life — be recognized for its intrinsic value, and, as a result, be respected and protected,” he wrote.
In that regard, D’Agostino argued that if Obama’s desire to reduce the actual number of abortions is to be meaningful, and not just verbal, he must acknowledge that the legalization of abortion has “strongly attenuated” the respect for prenatal human life in advanced nations.
Although this was a more critical perspective than the L’Osservatore piece, there’s one interesting wrinkle. Towards the end, D’Agostino argues that abortion is an anthropological problem before it’s a legal one, because it raises the fundamental question of whether abortion truly involves the killing of a human life. He makes the following parenthetical remark: “One can agree or disagree with the decriminalization of voluntary abortion,” appearing to suggest that either view could be defended, as long as there’s clarity on the anthropological point.
That’s a more flexible position than many pro-life forces in the States could accept, for whom the legal abolition of abortion is the only morally defensible aim. It’s another reminder of the gap between Catholic cultures in Europe and America; in Europe, even the most ardent pro-lifers sometimes seem “soft” by American standards.
Whoa there Mr. Allen.
I actually think John Allen is pretty smart in his analysis (though I wish he would find a better to paper to write for). But not this time.
The “parenthetical remark” in the final paragraph reads in full: “Before being a juridical problem (one might or might not be in agreement on the de-penalizing (depenalizzazione) of voluntary aortion) the problem of abortion is an anthropological one: that on which we must all be agreed is that abortion means the killing of a human life.”
First of all, since the entire article is a kind of open letter to Obama and his supporters, it’s clear that these people are the ones being addressed in the closing lines, where he is urging them to admit the humanity of the unborn and that abortion is taking a human life. Nowhere does it say or imply that Catholics can be of two minds about working to outlaw abortion.
Second, what the author is talking about here is not the “legal abolition” of abortion. De-penalization or de-criminalization is the removal of legal penalties for performing, procuring or undergoing an abortion. That’s a whole separate issue. Should women be subject to criminal penalties for undergoing an abortion? Note D’Agostino’s remarks earlier in the article: “Contrary to how they’re usually presented, opponents of abortion are not people who want to send women who have abortions to jail at all costs, or who want to see the doctors who help them at trial.” It’s abundantly clear here what he’s talking about. Removal of the right to abortion from American law, or even making it illegal says nothing about penalties. People who want to abolish abortion can and do hold different opinions on this point, as D’Agostino noted.
I know of very few American pro-life Catholics who would support criminal penalties for women having abortions (though a number of them would support them for the doctors who perform them). On the other hand, Italians and American Catholics are abundantly agreed that “abortion is the killing of a human life.” This doesn’t exactly support Allen’s contention that Europeans take a “softer” line on legally outlawing abortion than American Catholics. In fact there is a great deal in common between us here.
But what about Allen’s larger contention about the “gap” between American and European Catholic cultures? I have a lot to say about that, an I’ll put it up here as soon as I can.
I wrote a comment outlining my disagreement on the NCR site. Around twelve hours later, it has still not been posted.
Update, Saturday p.m.: Nearly twenty-four hours, but still no posting of my comment.
In regard to the differences in culture, Mr. Allen doesn’t state what he bases his claims on. Hopefully it’s not L’Osservatore Romano’s poor excuse for journalism, which (as I’ve shown below), Italian Catholics are also ridiculing.
Yesterday, in a combox discussion, someone else pointed me to an earlier column by Allen:
In the view of some in the Vatican, underlying [America's] dualistic approach to foreign policy, is the legacy of Calvinism. The Calvinist concepts of the total depravity of the damned, the unconditional election of God’s favored, and the manifestation of election through earthly success, all seem to them to play a powerful role in shaping American cultural psychology.
After Cardinal Pio Laghi returned to Rome from his last-minute appeal to Bush just before the Iraq war began, he told John Paul II that he sensed “something Calvinistic” in the president’s iron determination to battle the forces of international terrorism.
Recently I was in the Vatican, and happened to strike up a conversation with an official eager to hear an American perspective on the war. He told me he sees a “clash of civilizations” between the United States and the Holy See, between a worldview that is essentially Calvinistic and one that is shaped by Catholicism.
“We have a concept of sin and evil too,” he said, “but we also believe in grace and redemption.”
First, I don’t know if Laghi was intending to include American Catholics in his description of America’s “Calvinist” character. But I do think it’s a ridiculously sweeping judgment, which Allen himself may or may not accept. And the context cited was the war in Iraq, not abortion. So my interlocutor may not be correct that this is the source for Allen’s claim. But let me say a few words about it.
The basis for the contention is that Calvinists have an all-or nothing dualistic mentality. You are either saved or not, no change is possible. You are either for us or against us. All evil is absolute evil. And apparently, as a corollary, Iraq is evil, so only total war is possible. And abortion is evil, so only total war is possible.
The language of dualism isn’t limited by any means to Calvinists. It’s right there in the New Testament:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be through him was life,
and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. . .
The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him.
(John 1:1-5, 9-10)
This is moral dualism: the world will be given a choice between light and darkness. John was against the metaphysical dualism of the Gnostics, who saw two opposing supernatural forces, good and evil, locked in struggle. John knows that there is one good God, who is in control. But he also knows that there is darkness in the world that must be overcome, the Christ will overcome, that Christians must work to overcome. This does not mean that all Christians who thought this have to be considered Calvinists.
All Italian Catholics and those in other European countries understand that it is a fight against darkness when they fight the legalization of abortion. They understand that if you are with Christ, you can’t be with Caesar if Caesar is a baby-killer.
The Italians, their bishops in the lead, fought over 30 years ago against the legalization of abortion in their country (One of the most vocal was Cardinal Albino Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I). Have Italians now changed, and adopted a more “European” ideal to replace their earlier “American” one? Highly doubtful. The Italians I quoted below understand they shouldn’t give the fight — some are even congratulating the American Catholics who spoke out about the Notre Dame scandal for their stand and called on their fellow countrymen to imitate us. (How very un-European of them!).
I don’t think Allen’s contention here holds up at all.
Filed under: Abortion, Church issues, Life Issues, Pope John Paul I | |No Comments
From the Catholic News Agency
Vatican newspaper finally reports on U.S. bishops’ criticism of Obama, Notre Dame
Vatican City, May 22, 2009 / 03:30 pm (CNA).- The Vatican daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, which has faced criticism from many pro-life U.S. Catholics for its positive assessment of Barack Obama’s presidency, finally reported today on the objection of U.S. bishops to both Obama’s pro-abortion record as well as to Notre Dame’s decision to invite him to its commencement speech.
In the article titled “U.S. Bishops and ethical questions,” L’Osservatore quotes the strongly-worded statement from the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput which comments on Father John Jenkins’ commencement speech that justified his decision to invite the President of the U.S. to Notre Dame.
The Vatican newspaper does not mention that Chaput’s words were addressed to Fr. Jenkins, but quotes the Denver Archbishop saying that “the most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist – by their words, actions and financial support – that institutions claiming to be ‘Catholic’ actually live the faith with courage and consistency.”
L’ Osservatore then explains that Archbishop Chaput “criticized the decision of the University of Notre Dame to honor someone who has demonstrated the willingness” to uphold Roe v. Wade.
“Other U.S. bishops recently,” the Vatican newspaper continues, “have recalled the non-negotiable terms in which (Catholics) must confront ethical issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research and the right to conscientious objection of health workers.”
L’Osservatore still seemed to defend Obama by saying that the President promised during the commencement speech at Notre Dame that “such a right must be defended,” but concluded with the article quoting the Bishop of Kansas City - St. Joseph, Robert W. Finn, saying that “Obama has closed any door to dialogue, affirming that he will not change his position on abortion.”
Also, George Weigel provides some excellent advice on “Parsing the Vatican Newspaper”
Filed under: Abortion, Church issues | |No Comments
This story is getting more interesting all the time. It seems that the recent strange editorials about Obama in L’Osservatore Romano can be traced directly to the personal opinions of its recently appointed editor-in-chief, Gian Maria Vian, who gave an interview defending his policy on May 19 to an Italian newspaper. I found this late last night at the Mirror of Justice blog:
If for Time Magazine the Pope was “sidestepping Notre Dame” , it may be worth to have a look at what Gian Maria Vian, editor in chief of L’Osservatore Romano said today during an interview with Paolo Rodari for the daily Il Riformista. Here are some quotes:
“Obama has not upset the world (…) His speech at Notre Dame has been respectful toward every position. He tried to engage the debate stepping out from every ideological position and outside every “clash logic”. To this extent his speech is to be appreciated.” (…) “Let me be clear, the Osservatore stands where the American bishops are: we consider abortion a disaster. We must promote, always and at every level a “culture of life”. What I want to stress is that yesterday, on this precise and very delicate issue, the President said that the approval of the new law on abortion is not a priority of his administration. The fact that he said that is very reassuring to me. It also underlines a my own clear belief: Obama is not a pro-abortion president”.
Rodari stressed that judgement on the President’s record is not exactly the same that the USCCB has. Vian answered: “This is our policy, the way we inform. If a national bishops’ conference says something , we report it. But we believe that it is appropriate to give also other relevant elements to judge concerning international information”.
The Osservatore Romano article, was to be sure, a news article, not an editorial. Many Catholics are calling it biased in favor of Obama. Whether it is or not, it’s certainly completely inadequateas reporting.
This was actually the first time the Vatican paper actually commented at all on the Notre Dame controversy. It published the opinions of the American bishops only belatedly, and the latest article made no mention of the massive response of over 75 U.S. bishops individually denuouncing the Notre Dame invitation or that the “predictable” protest actually consisted of an “alternative” graduation ceremony at the Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes on the Notre Dame campus with some 3,000 people in attendance.
Vian didn’t make it clear in the interview what “other relevant elements” his paper uses in making judgments, but none were observable in the article. For instance, it speaks of how Obama “chose” Notre Dame to address the subject of abortion, and of how he himself made the announcement at his press conference that he was stepping back from his commitment to FOCA (nowhere mentioned by name). Nowhere was it mentioned that throughout the controversy, Obama was forced to take these steps because of the outcry of Catholics across the country. His answer at the press conference was specifically to a question about the Notre Dame controversy. American news sources seemed to be agreed that Obama would have to speak about abortion during his speech at Notre Dame because of the outrage and the bishops’ statements and the protests. He is certainly not as much in control as it seems in the OR article.
But there’s more. Rodari put the interview with Vian on his blog, and there have been over a dozen comments so far. I’ve translated a few.
Luigi wrote:
May 19th, 2009, at 9:46 am.
The wait-and-see “tactic” of Vian does not convince me at all . . we will see what it leads to, I’m only afraid of disorientation and confusion. . . (why in the world is it in Italy that embryonic life is a “non-negotiable value,” while in the USA “let’s wait and see?”)
Paolo D wrote:
May 19, 2009, 12:05 pm.
In February, I cancelled my subscription to L’Osservatore Romano. I consider the direction that Vian has given to L’Osservatore completely negative. You can’t make the Pope’s newspaper a newspaper open to unbelievers who with their disquisitions and philosophies adverse to the Catholic Church, confuse, disorient and scandalize Catholics.
I am just as opposed to the personal and political opinions of Vian which do not reflect the action of the Church, the Pope, and in this case in regard to the support he gives to the most unbelieving and radical President the United States has ever had, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, a president who limits the religious liberty of a great country, in which I have lived , and which we have always recognized as “The Land of the Free.”
The personal sympathies of Signor Vian for Obama, expressed in L’Osservatore Romano in these past few days, have created a great bewilderment and strong complaints among American Catholics and the majority of their bishops.
Vian should see the preceding post by Rodari in regard to the arrest and brutal and shameful treatment of an elderly 80-year-old American priest, Father Norman Weslin, for having prayed on the campus of the Catholic(!) University of Notre Dame because it gave an honorary degree to Obama.
A day will come when it will no longer be possible to freely proclaim the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Churches. What happened on the campus of the University of ND, no longer Catholic but secularized, will also happen in our de-Christianized Europe. God bless men who are strong and ready for martyrdom like Father Norman Weslin.
One observation: who is that cardinal of the Curia that had the brilliant idea of promoting Vian as Editor in chief L’Osservatore Romano?
Shouldn’t we free ourselves from Vian as quickly as possible?
P.S. After all I would like to get my subscription to L’Osservatore Romano back - as long as it is the true mouthpiece of the Holy Father Benedict XVI.
Guglielmo wrote:
May 20th, 2009, 10:49 am.
In regard to that fox Obama, what can I say?
Washington is worth a Mass!!
His speech at Notre Dame is a masterpiece of cerchiobottismo [don't know what this is, something to do with circling; it's not in the dictionary] and diplomacy . . . but it doesn’t convince me one little bit. . .
The reference to the Protestant Henri IV and his famous saying “Paris is worth a Mass” couldn’t be more perfect.
It’s interesting to note that PaoloD cancelled his subscription to OR back in February, even before the Obama flap began. So Italians have thought there was something fishy going on at OR longer than Americans have.
I would say that Italian Catholics are blowing their stacks over this. We here in the U.S. are not alone.
Update: evening of May 22
Here are a few more comments, some not actually about the Osservatore article or the interview, but certainly reflective of the minds of many Italians. They are interesting in light of the fact that a) people are agreed that Obama is (or was) very popular in Europe and b) the talk going around that European Catholics in general and the Holy See in particular are “more balanced and reasonable” on abortion than American Catholics are. I’ll have more to say about that in another post.
Iginio
May 21, 2009, 1:48 p.m.
And let’s learn from the American Catholics, from those who are really believers, I mean the ones who have not let themselves be taken in by a politician who is in vogue. Why is believing in Berlusconi (even when he “acts”), shameful, when believing in Obama is supposed to be meritorious? Let the [cattaotagliatellisti-no idea] answer that.
Montserrat wrote:
May 21, 2009, at 2:19 p.m.
L’Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of a foreign state and should maintain a proper and sober style, as it does in an outstanding way under PROFESSOR Vian, especially when it deals with questions involving other countries, otherwise the Vatican would be accused of interfering in the politics of other states. There is the same great sobriety and emphasis on the essential in dealing with Italian affairs.
Luca wrote:
May 21, 2009, 3:00 p.m.
There is also the usual meager knowledge in Italy of the American reality. In American universities there is a obligatory conviction that’s all the rage that the instructor should be a “facilitator” who smooths over all differences and helps the students reach a presumed point of convergence. An American girl who is a friend of mine who was studying there was reproved when, as they were discussing the subject of abortion, she insisted on defining it as unacceptable; she was reproved because, by persisting in her attitude, she would keep them from reaching a compromise. Here it was Political Correctness has led to, to not calling things by their name. When this has been said, we must doff our hats to all those American Catholics who have had the courage to oppose the usual Smiling Politician of the Day who presents himself with persuasive tones (Does this remind you of something? But why if it was Berlusconi who did this, he was the devil, and if Obama he is the Messiah? Can someone explain that to me?)
For signora Montserrat : no one doubts the worthiness of Professor Vian, but keep in mind that there are also other scholars, no less cultivated and prepared than he is, who, while being objectively Catholic, and “not of the left’ (and without flaunting it; enough to be suspected as such), are prevented from a career for which they are perfectly cut out. Of ambiguous people (and therefore NOT evangelical) there are even too many; people used to say that to be “progressives” the Gospel should be understood in a radical way and without compromises, now, instead, in order to be “progressives,” we must be relativists and opportunists. Enough with this ideological blackmail. It’s time to change. Dialogue is born from identity, not from becoming colorless.
guglielmo returns with:
May 20th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
[the first part of this post dealt with other matters, such as the complaints about posts in English on the site]
. . . I continue to say that Obama is a fox, he has duped so many Catholics in the United States by the color of his skin, and well-crafted little speeches, [but] you should know that in Italy he would not have won . . . not, note carefully, because of the color of his skin, but because the Italian people are tired of hearing the abortion is a right and the embryo is not a person, even those who don’t go to Church!
Italian and American Catholics don’t seem that far apart to me.
Filed under: Abortion, Catholic Social Teaching, Church issues, Life Issues, Pope Benedict XVI | |No Comments
I’ve done it again — here is my latest letter to L’Osservatore Romano. (For anyone else who wants to write, their e-mail address is ornet@ossrom.va).
Dear Signore Fiorentino and editorial staff of L’Osservatore Romano:
I have noted with interest your May 18 news stories about President Obama and the pro-life question in the United Sates. Unfortunately, the whole text of these hasn’t been made available yet on the Vatican web site, so I must go by summaries. But the summarized and quoted text of one of these is once again creating an uproar in the States and causing embarrassment and damage to the pro-life movement.
First I’d like to thank you since it seems in one story you have indeed published the remarks of two leading U.S. bishops, Cardinal Rigali and Archbishop Chaput who are critical of Obama’s embryonic stem-cell research executive order and the resulting guidelines. These would certainly give a clearer picture of the extreme nature of this decision. I am especially glad because I pointed out Cardinal Rigali’s criticism to you in a previous letter. I am very happy to see you taking notice of this.
I am distressed however, that in the other story you put so much weight on President Obama’s remarks at Notre Dame about “seeking common ground,” reducing the need for abortion and helping pregnant women carry their babies to term. These would be laudable goals if the President had any intention of carrying them out. But with politicians it is always best to look at their deeds instead of their frequently empty words. And Obama is a consummate politician. The pro-life movement in the U.S. is not fooled by the President’s words because it knows about his deeds.
In fact that the very time he was speaking at Notre Dame, Obama was giving support in Congress to a bill said to be intended to reduce abortions, but that bill is not the Pregnant Women Support Act, which would give a great deal of government aid to pregnant women, fund crisis pregnancy centers and expand aid for poor mothers of infants and young children. Obama completely failed to give any support to this and similar bills as a senator. Nor is he giving any sign he will support it now.
Instead, he is giving his support to the Prevention First Act, which continues to fight the problem of unplanned pregnancies as Obama and the Democratic party have been doing for years — that is, increasing funds for contraception and sex education according to the model of Planned Parenthood. In fact, a huge amount of the money to be appropriated in this bill would go to Planned Parenthood itself, the great destroyer of the morals of our young, the great provider of artificial contraception, and, of course, the main supplier of abortion in our country. In short, Obama’s speech at Notre Dame was meaningless rhetoric.
Your failure to mention all this, in what looks like unrestricted praise for the President has already led U.S. news commentators, who have always been hostile to the pro-life movement to say that the Vatican is now taking its distance from the supposedly “right-wing’ and “extreme” pro-lifers in the U.S. This, even though it wasn’t the intention of your article, has really hurt pro-lifers and has given our enemies fresh ammunition against us.
But what actually hurts most of all is that your article apparently did not even mention the negative reaction of over 75 U.S. bishops to the University’s disobedience to the orders of the USCCB in inviting Obama. You also brushed aside the actions of the Notre Dame students and faculty to counter their university’s prostituting itself to power, as mere completely predictable “protest.” There was no word about who was protesting.
In fact, several dozen graduating seniors, along with 40-50 Notre Dame professors, including a number of Holy Cross priests, and Bishop D’Arcy, the ordinary of South Bend, the diocese in which Notre Dame is located, all boycotted the commencement, and met in the Grotto of Lourdes on the campus of Notre Dame, along with some 2,000 others, including other students, members of the community and pro-lifers from around the country to pledge their allegiance to the Messiah that Catholics are supposed to worship, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and His blessed Mother, instead of the secular pseudo-Messiah and merchant of death being honored inside with thunderous ovations by a seemingly Catholic university. The protest was followed with great attention by pro-life Catholics around the country, but almost completely ignored by the secular media, who focused only on a few protesters arrested during the previous days.
In ignoring all this, you have missed the real story. Many in the pro-life movement in the U.S. are now looking on this demonstration at Notre Dame as a source of pride and a new beginning for the movement, which is facing a very uncertain future and a very difficult fight under the current administration. They are heartened by the fact that our bishops were so vocal, and that some Notre Dame faculty and students have rejected the secularist model that Notre Dame and other Catholic universities in the U.S. have been adopting (and which our Holy Father Benedict XVI has so deplored) and are calling on them to again assume their true identity as institutions dedicated both to faith and to intellectual honesty and excellence – and also to dialogue where there is actual good will on both sides and not just self-seeking rhetoric.
I’m sorry that your paper doesn’t seem very well informed about what is going on in the Church in the U.S. and that this failure to pay attention to details has inadvertently given support to the enemies of the Church in our country.
Here is some more information about the Notre Dame protest movement. Some is from my web site:
www.pilgrimage.subcreators.com
and some from the Notre Dame Response group itself:
www.ndresponse.com
I hope that L’Osservatore Romano, as the voice of the Church for so many people in the world, will in the future remember to report with an eye on what is happening in the Church in the U.S. instead of being dazzled by the empty words from the White House,
Sincerely yours,
Lori Pieper, SFO
Bronx, New York
Filed under: Abortion, Catholic Social Teaching, Life Issues, Pope Benedict XVI | |2 Comments
« Previous Entries||
