In the excitement over the news of John Paul II’s beatification, and thoughts about John Paul I not accompanying him to the honors of the altar, I completely missed another bit of news; on January 14, Pope Benedict also signed the decree approving a miracle for an Italian Catholic layman, sociologist and economist Giuseppe Toniolo, which qualifies him for beatfication.
Toniolo (1845-1918) had immense impact on Catholic thought; his ideas on workers’ rights influenced Pope Leo XIII in his writing of his great social encyclical Rerum Novarum. He spoke on behalf of agricultural laborers and supported the spread of dairy cooperatives in northern Italy; he spearheaded the Catholic Action movement and had a great influence those who wanted to move Catholics back into politics, from which they were shut out during the forming of the Italian nation in 1870.
His ideas were adapted by the early leaders of the Partito Popolare in the 1920, and the future Democrazia Cristiana.
Toniolo was also married and with his wife raised seven children.
This is a delight and pretty heartening for me, because Toniolo was quite important to John Paul I. An admirer of Pope Leo’s encyclical, and an upholder of workers’ rights Luciani was very well acquainted with Toniolo’s thought.
In the 1960’s, he was bishop of Vittorio Veneto, which was not far from Toniolo’s birthplace of Treviso. Toniolo was buried in the church of the Assumption in Pieve di Soligo, in Luciani’s own diocese. Luciani recalled in one of his sermons how the farm workers would go to the church to venerate Toniolo. It was in fact in this very church that the healing that led to approval for the beatification took place. (It was of a young man in his 30’s who had sustained some injuries in a fall).
It was also in this church in May 1961 that Luciani gave a talk commemorating both the 70th anniversary of Rerum Novarum and Toniolo’s life and work. (I gave an exceprt from it here while talking about Benedict XVI’s social encyclical, Charity in Truth). At that time Toniolo was known as the “Servant of God,” because his cause had been introduced. He was declared Venerable by Pope Paul VI in 1971.
Here is a portion of Luciani’s talk, on Toniolo’s influence on Rerum Novarum and on his social innovations in the Veneto (I’ll repeat what was in the earlier post for better context):
I want . . . to explain the reason why Pieve di Soligo was chosen for today’s event. And the reason is right over there: the tomb of Giuseppe Toniolo, to the right of those who enter by the main door of this church. The diocese of Vittorio Veneto wants to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Rerum novarum. And where else, but close to the one who contributed from close by to the preparation of the famous document and who was a convinced and tireless propagator of the ideas of Rerum Novarum?
But I must clarify in what sense and within what limits Toniolo contributed to preparing the encyclical. Rerum Novarum, like other papal documents on social themes, contains three sorts of truths: truths of faith, of reason, and of simple observation.
Truths of faith: for example, in Rerum Novarum, the supernatural destiny of man is present from beginning to end; the reasoning that emerges, now here, and now there, is this: “Yes, let’s seek a good arrangement for the workers, but let’s recall that no arrangement can be good if it puts the other arrangement of heaven in danger!” In this area of truth, obviously, Toniolo had nothing to suggest to Leo XIII.
Nor did he in the sector of “truths of reason,” which is the sector of good sense, of natural law, old as the centuries, which the Pope interprets authentically. To this sector belong, for example, the statements of Rerum novarum about the right to property and the right of workers to unite in associations.
It is instead in the sector of observation that the advice of Toniolo could be useful. Social phenomena formed the material for observation. Society, in fact, changes as life changes, and to the changes there must correspond, on the part of the Church, not a different truth, but a different dose of the same truth. Hence a constant adaptation, an opening of our eyes to quickly register the signs of the new times.
I will supply an example: it is a truth of reason that the state must intervene in favor of the workers, in cases where they are not succeeding in reaching just and reasonable goals on their own. Well then, in Quadragesimo anno we hear Pius XI concerned with indicating the limits of state intervention and it is understandable; it was in 1931, the period of totalitarian governments that actually intervened too much in social questions.
In Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII urged the state to intervene in favor of the workers. This means that the Pope was convinced that in 1891 the workers could not do it alone and that the states were taking little action. But from where did this conviction come to him? Not from Sacred Scripture or from philosophy, but from the world itself, which from the observatory that is the Vatican, he sought to read as though in a book. He tried to make the reading easier for himself with the help of Catholic thinkers, who, however, were divided on this point.
“The state is like pitch,” said some; “if we dip our finger in it, we will not get it out again; the workers must act alone without the state!” “If the state does not intervene with its massive power, the workers will remain as miserable as they are, the power of the employers are too great!” answered the others, and they were the flower of bishops, thinkers and politicians, in France, Belgium, Germany and England. Among these was none other than Giuseppe Toniolo and he was distinguished among them by the moderation of his tone and the acuteness of his reasoning.
Did he have an influence on inserting the thesis of state intervention and other points in the encyclical?
The decree of introduction of the cause of Giuseppe Toniolo says the Leo XII “doctissimos in hac encyclica conscribenda consuluit viros, quos inter Servum Dei Josephum Toniolo [consulted very learned men in the writing of this encyclical, among them the Servant of God Giuseppe Toniolo.”
When questioned on the subject, the Servant of God was accustomed to change the subject. The thesis, however can be confirmed by comparison of passages of Rerum novarum with passages of two works by Toniolo and by the statement of well-informed people. And it is a pleasure to be able to say this here, in Pieve, from where in the vacation period of 1889 the letters were sent that consolidated the basis of that Unione cattolica per gli studi sociali, which called the attention of Leo XII to the Servant of God and his teachings. As if to say that Pieve too is connected by a thread, however thin, to the famous document!
Toniolo was a propagator of the social ideas of Leo XIII before and after the issuing of Rerum Novarum.
A few kilometers from here the social dairy of Soligo, the first in the province, was begun on May 24, 1883. It was founded by a lawyer, Gaetano Schiratti, but the idea belonged to his brother-in-law Toniolo. To how many social words did Toniolo give ideas, impetus and a contribution of work, of words, of writing?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Luciani, through his admiration for Toniolo, has helped pray this beatification into being. And so it turns out that he is connected by more than one “thin thread” to the announcements of of beatifications this week.
Well, that not exactly what they are playing (”Holy God we Praise Thy Name” perhaps?) but that is what many are feeling. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York is the new President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, a post he won in a surprise upset victory over its outgoing vice-president, Gerald Kicanas of Tucson. Since the former vice-president has almost invariably been elected president, this is indeed a surprise, perhaps even a change in the way the bishops will be doing things.
Kicanas had been receiving bad press in the last couple of weeks especially, because of his promotion to ordination of a seminarian who turned out to be a molester. Then there was his “liberal” reputation. He broke with many of the other bishops who criticized Notre Dame for giving an award to our pro-abortion president. So there were things to criticize. One good thing about Kicanas: he really showed up a reporter who tried to implicate the future Pope Benedict in the sex abuse scandal (I blogged about that here).
Did the bad publicity contribute to Kicanas’ loss? Is there a more “conservative” wind blowing for the bishops? Some commentators on the left want to make it seem as though this is a change toward de-emphasizing social justice issues like immigration in favor of ones “conservatives” supposedly favor, like abortion. Both Dolan and the new vice-president, Abp. Kurtz of Louisville KY, rejected this idea in their press conference.
Dolan will hold the presidency for the next three years, and I expect it will be a lively three years.
Oh and one more good reason to rejoice at a Dolan victory. His intellectual gifts as a Church historian and his spirituality are matched by his speaking ability. Here he speaks of Dorothy Day and while musing on her life, points out where most other “peace and justice Catholics” go wrong.
Well, here it is - five whole days after the march - and after a number of computer crashes (I seriously need more memory). I hope to have more of an account shortly.
Update: February 2. There isn’t really much to tell about the March itself. My trip to DC on January 21 went off well, and I got checked into my hotel at 4:00. I made the mistake of lying down for a while. I was desperately tired from getting up so early and wanted to rest before the Mass at the Basilica at 7:00. I should have left to go there at 4:00 instead of an hour later. I would have had to be there at 5:00 just to get seat from which I could see anything.
As it was, I had a number of delays from trying to figure out the D.C. Metro, or subway system, and by the time I arrived at the Basilica at 6:30, the place was packed to overflowing — people were standing five deep in the side aisles; only the central aisle through the nave was partly free - I literally could see nothing by peering in except the fresco on the dome, because everyone was already standing for the entrance procession, which took over half an hour! It included seven U. S. cardinals, 40 bishops and hundreds of priests, deacons and seminarians.
I managed to get the last seat left in the vestibule; many others who came sat on the floor or the choir loft steps. From there I was at least able to listen to the Mass and Cardinal DiNardo’s inspiring homily. But no opportunity to shoot any video. I decided to leave right after receiving Communion, so I could beat the crowd on the Metro. But because I couldn’t readily figure out which subway line I needed to take (that’s because the lines have different names coming and going!) it did me little good. By the time I figured things out, the Basilica crowd had caught up with me. It took me forever for me to find my way home, get something to eat and fall into bed.
Up at 7:00. I had to check out of the hotel, and take everything with me on the March (I had absolutely nothing with me but my video camera, clean top, nightgown, toothbrush and shampoo). At 7:30 I set out to get to the Blogs for Life Conference. It was easy, because the location was near the Mall, just 4 stops from where I was, on the route I’d taken the night before. To me, this was actually the most interesting and fun part of the trip. Many of today’s well-known pro-life faces were there, and there were a number of interesting short talks, as well as a refreshment break, which was very welcome, since I hadn’t stopped for breakfast. Two pro-life Congressmen, Todd Akin and Jim Jordan, took part. I’m only sorry I didn’t have room on the video for all the talks.
At 11:30, we walked right over to the Rally on the Mall, just six blocks away. The crowd was ENORMOUS! People handing out pro-life signs on every street corner. Outside the entrance to the Mall, I took video of people with interesting and diverse signs, including the “Thank you Bart Stupak” guy, and the Secularist for Life guy (who didn’t want to comment for the camera).
At the Rally, I was just on the outskirts (once again, I probably would have had to be there at 9 in the morning to be anywhere near the central action), and the people talking at the microphone came through only faintly on the loudspeakers, so I must have been quite a ways from them as well. Then, as last year, when the time came to start the March, we stood in position for over an hour while the marchers ahead of us proceeded.
To my amazement and delight, I found myself standing next to a group of Franciscans from the northeastern province of the U.S., including New York. They were accompany a group of students from upper New York State’s Franciscan school, St. Bonaventure University. The students (very largely female, Newsweek), told me off-camera about their pro-life efforts, which included making an internet video. They call themselves the “the Pro-Life Nerds.” I hope I got that right, because in addition to enthusiasm, the biggest thing in that crowd was noise!
At last we were off! But because of my back trouble, I had to drop out several times to find a bench or some steps along the route where I could rest, and of course, shoot video and do interviews. I also had to leave by 3:30, though I hadn’t even gotten past the Capitol, much less the Supreme Court. I did make it all the way up there last year. But now I had to find an ATM and a cab to get to the bus station on time. My cab driver was almost pop-eyed with frustration at trying to find an open street because of the March. “What a crazy day!” he said. “It’s crazy every year.” My cab driver the previous afternoon had told me that pro-life was “a very good cause to support”. Wonder what they and other D.C. residents think every year when they come home after dodging the marchers all day, and find hardly any acknowledgment on TV that the event even took place? My driver was a nice guy and got me to the station on time. But the bus was over an hour late — ha!
It seemed like a much longer trip coming back than going. And at last, I was able to watch the replay on EWTN and find out what the rally speakers had actually said. Well, I know now to be early for everything next year.
Enjoy the video, counter-cultural freedom fighters for life!
It’s called the Manhattan Declaration, and here it is in a nutshell:
THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
———————————————————————————————
The statement was drafted in New York on Septebmer 28, 2009 by Charles Colson, a prominent evangelical who founded Prison Fellowship after serving time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal, Robert P. George, a Catholic professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University; and the Rev. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School, an evangelical interdenominational school on the campus of Samford University, in Birmingham, Alabama. In just a few days since it was made public on November 20, it has received over 100,000 signatures, including those of over a 150 prominent religious leaders. Among the American Catholic hierarchy signing are: Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, Archbishops Donald Wuerl of Washington, Timothy Dolan of New York, Charles Chaput of Denver, Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, John Myers of Newark, John Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis, Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, and Bishops Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, David Zubik of Pittsburgh, and Richard Malone of Portland, who just lately led the successful campaign to prevent Maine from changing the definition of marriage.
You can read the full 4,700 word statement and sign here:
Here is the promised part II of the discussion of Lucien Gregoire’s “biography” of Pope John Paul I. At this point, I don’t really feel like writing too much more about Gregoire; this would be to give him much more attention than he deserves. So in this installment, I will talk about the source of some of the claims about John Paul I that have allowed books like his to be written to begin with.
Gregoire’s version of John Paul I’s Teachings as Pope
Gregoire claims that Luciani’s pre-papal works were confiscated by the Vatican after his death. He also claims that the Vatican altered John Paul I’s words as Pope on a massive scale, such as to give a complete different and opposite picture of his beliefs. For instance, here is Gregoire’s account of the programmatic statement of his goals for his papacy, delivered to the cardinals in the Sistine Chapel on August 27, 1978:
We must rise up the courage that is within us and set aside the convictions of our Christian forefathers and together we will muster the strength to lift those restraints that have been unfairly placed upon the everyday lives of so many innocent people by doctrine . . . for God-given human life is infinitely more precious than is man-made doctrine. (1)
Some people, believe it or not, have quoted these to me as Pope John Paul I’s actual words. Here, on the other hand, is an excerpt from his actual talk.
Overcoming the internal tensions which may have been created here and there, conquering the temptation to conform themselves to the tastes and customs of the world, as well as the titillation of easy applause, united in the same bond of love that must shape the inner life of the Church, as well as the external forms of its discipline, the faithful must be ready to bear witness to their own faith before the world,. . . the temptation to replace God with the autonomous decision that departs from the moral law is bringing modern men and women to the risk of reducing the earth to a desert, the person to an automaton, and fraternal living together to a planned collectivization, often introducing death where God wants life. (2)
If anyone thinks that Luciani felt that the Church’s doctrines are man-made, they are simply wrong!
The most audacious of all the things that Gregoire has written is his account of John Paul I’s last Wednesday audience on the day before his death, September 27, 1978. He claims that the Pope proclaimed his plans to permit birth control, and said the “Moses had great motive to have lied” when he said he had spoken to God. He also supposedly claimed that when the Church condemned the first test-tube baby, this was a sign that “Mother Church does not know right from wrong.” (3)
Here is a famous excerpt from that talk, which I have already published:
We all remember the great words of the great Pope Paul VI. “The peoples who are hungry are making a dramatic appeal to the peoples who live in opulence. The Church shudders at this cry of anguish and calls on everyone to respond with love to his brother.” (Populorum Progressio, no. 3) And then, here justice is united to love. Because the Pope says, still in Populorum Progressio: “Private property is not a undeniable and absolute right for anyone. No one has the right to be able to make use of his goods exclusively for his own benefit, beyond his need, when others are dying because they have nothing.” (Ibid., no. 22) These are grave words. In the light of these words, we must ask ourselves not only as nations, but as private individuals, especially we who are members of the Church: have we really carried out the plan of Jesus, who has said: “Love your neighbor as yourself”? (4)
here is Gregoire’s version of this passage:
Believe me, one day, we who live in opulence, while so many are dying because they have nothing, will have to answer to Jesus why we have not carried out his order, ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’
We, the clergy of the Church together with our congregations, who substitute gold and pomp and ceremony in place of Christ’s instruction, who judge our masquerade of singing his praises to be more precious than human life, will have the most to explain.
Remember the great words of Paul VI, ‘It is the inalienable right of man to own property. But it is the right of no man to accumulate wealth beyond he necessary while other men starve to death because they have nothing! (5)
Here is the actual video of the address (the part in question goes from 5:22 to 6:58):
Note that even those parts of Gregoire’s account that are similar to what was actually said have clearly been reworded by the author. For instance, the Pope very clearly says that the right of property is NOT an inalienable right. Even the order of the sentences has been changed (if there were omissions or if the order of the sentences had been done by editing in the Vatican version, there would have been jumps and cuts in the video, so it’s clearly Gregoire who changed it). As for the other parts of Gregoire’s version for which there is no recording, is there any doubt that these are fictional inventions? If we can’t trust Gregoire to give a correct version of the existing tape, can we really trust him to get the transcription of those mysteriously “missing” parts correct?
Gregoire claims that what the Pope really said, at this audience, especially the controversial parts, was published in an AP story that made newspapers worldwide, including the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. (6). How can it be that I myself have researched the reaction to John Paul I’s papacy in newspapers, both American and from around the world for some 25 years without ever seeing any such story? That’s because none exists! Gregoire’s audacity in regard to his faked sources is incredible.
If anyone needs further proof, Father Andrew Greeley was there at that audience where the Pope chatted with Daniele, and recorded his impressions of it in his book The Making of the Popes 1978. Naturally he didn’t mention a word about the Pope’s revolutionary ideas about abolishing the Mosaic law! Not to mention permitting birth control, which Greeley undoubtedly would have favored, and he most certainly would have mentioned such a statement if it had ocurred. And, as Greeley recalled, he not only heard the talk, he had a chance to look at John Paul’s own typewritten text. He certainly had a chance to know what he really said.
Gregoire says “The Church’s releases of the event are brief and edit out most of the Daniele dialogue.” (7) This is not only untrue, but completely absurd. The complete written text of all of John Paul’s Wednesday general audience talks was printed in L’Osservatore Romano. It is true that the Vatican didn’t release the whole recording of some them on its various commercial tapes/CDs, because of time limits. (But one seems to have been released on CD now that includes them all; Il Piccolo Catechismo di Giovanni Paolo I, by St. Paul Media and 30 Giorni). That is the sole basis, perhaps, for Gregoire’s wild imaginings. But it’s certainly no excuse for them.
I’m quite certain that Gregoire never listened to a single one of these tapes himself, because, among other things, I’m certain he doesn’t understand Italian. He actually appears to have gotten all of his ideas about the Vatican suppressing the Pope’s words from other authors – principally Yallop – who claimed that the Vatican massively censored John Paul I’s talks while Pope. He also used the published texts of the Pope’s audience talks in English and butchered them in his pursuit of his agenda.
Just last night, I began a discussion over on my YouTube channel with someone who claimed that John Paul I was a truly “open-minded” Pope who was going to make “tremendous changes” in the Church. In answer to my appeal to the facts of his beliefs as asserted in his writings, he /she replied that it didn’t matter what I said, or how many doctrinal statements I listed by Luciani, he and millions of others just knew, based on their “feelings” when they looked at him, that he was the Pope who was going to change it all. Depend on this sort of feeling long enough, and you will get delusions like Gregoire’s.
Other claims of Vatican Censorship of the Pope
So much for Gregoire. Let’s look at the wider issues.
Yallop started all this nonsense about massive Vatican censorship of John Paul I in 1984 by claiming that the Vatican hid or altered his record both before and after he became Pope. Yallop claims that on his election, the Curia snatched up all available copies of Luciani’s pre-papal writings, including his doctoral dissertation and locked them in the Vatican’s secret archives (8) Odd how I was still able to find copies of all those writings scattered over three dioceses without any trouble when I went to Italy seven years later! The first edition of his doctoral dissertation was still in the archives in Belluno, and the Luciani family also had a copy. The revised edition from 1958 was printed in the Opera Omnia in 1989. Now that there would have been a desire to bring copies of the new Pope’s writings to the Vatican is not surprising, but everything else Yallop says is completely untrue, and has caused enormous damage when it has been repeated and even exaggerated over the years. Gregoire obviously made massive use of Yallop’s work.
Other writers – who also seem to be basing the idea on Yallop — have made similar claims. In Their Kingdom Come: Inside the Secret World of Opus Dei, Paul Hutchison claims that “immediately after [John Paul I's election], a team of trusted priests from the [Vatican] Secretariat of State began cleansing the archives of documents pertaining to the new pope that did not agree with their imagine of the magisterium.” Specifically, the notes for Luciani’s 1965 retreat to priests in Vittorio Veneto were taken because they contained a passage expressing his hopes for a relaxation of the ban on birth control. (9)
There are a number of things wrong with scenario. First, Luciani’s personal files were indeed taken from Venice to Rome very shortly after his election, but it was at the Pope’s own request. Luciani kept his personal collection of notes on various subjects in a large collection of various notebooks and agende (hard-backed appointment diaries) with him at all times; he brought some of them to Rome with him before the conclave to work on a retreat for the priests of the Veneto he was planning to give. After his election as Pope, he quickly needed the rest to work on the text of his audience talks. Second, according to all the eyewitness statements, John Paul I entrusted the work of transporting the collection not to the Secretariat of State but to his own former secretary in Venice, Don Carlo Bolzan, who hired a Milanese moving firm to take care of the job. The material arrived at the Vatican on September 8. After the Pope died, everything was packed up again; all of his belongings, including his books, were returned to his family, as Edoardo Luciani and his wife testified to me personally.
The only exception where John Paul I’s manuscript notes in his agendas, which remained behind and were placed in the private archives of the Vatican, as is customary with the personal papers of Popes. Secrecy regarding these papers until a certain number of years have passed since the pontificate is also customary. This rule pertains to anything a Pope has written while Pope. What makes this case unusual is that these notebooks contained things John Paul I wrote throughout his career - his notes, reflections, quotations from his favorite authors, etc, as well as notes for his conferences and sermons. But he evidently also kept up his usual habit and wrote in some of the notebooks as Pope — for instance, his secretaries at the Vatican believe he wrote a draft for his will in one of them; but unfortunately, it was never found. The fact that he wrote, or may have written in his notebooks as Pope would explain why the Vatican felt it necessary to keep them. This was not the case with some of his other private papers, as we will see shortly. (10)
Third, if Vatican officials tried to suppress evidence of the text of the 1965 conference, they once again did a very poor job. It was published from the original typescript transcription of the talk, which had been recorded on audio tape. A copy of this transcript was also in Luciani’s personal files, with corrections in his own hand. The work appeared as Il Buon Samaritano, published by the Edizioni Messaggero in Padua two years after Luciani’s death in 1980. It was republished in the Opera Omnia in 1988-89. Both of these versions contain the precise passage on birth control cited by Hutchison. (11) The notes for the talk themselves were obviously freely available to Luciani’s former secretary in Vittorio Veneto, Don Francesco Taffarel, who used them for a book he published of the late Pope’s sayings. These notes of the Pope at least were clearly not locked up in the Vatican anywhere (12).
This stuff only makes headway because people seem to just naturally assume that the Vatican censors papal writings. This is especially true for John Paul I, because so many people have this odd habit of reading their own pet ideas into him.
This seems all the more plausible to some because of the repeated claims, even in supposedly reputable authors, that the Vatican “censored” Pope John Paul I’s talks as Pope, and changed his words before they appeared in L’Osservatore Romano. But is it really possible for the Vatican newspaper alter a Pope’s writings without anyone knowing it?
Stay tuned for the third installment.
NOTES
(1) Lucien Gregoire, Murder in the Vatican p. 128.
(2) The original Latin text is from the Acta Apostolica Sedis, LX (1978):691 99; the translation is mine.
(3) Gregoire, Murder in the Vatican, p. 13.
(4) L’Osservatore Romano, September 28, 1978. Once again, the translation of the original Italian text is mine.
(5) Gregoire, Murder in the Vatican, p. 9.
(6) Gregoire,Murder in the Vatican, p. 23.
(7) Gregoire, Murder in the Vatican, p. 16.
(8) Yallop, In God’s Name, p. 147.
(9) Robert Hutchison, Their Kingdom Come: Inside the Secret World of Opus Dei (New York, St. Martin’s Griffin, 2006), p. 247.
(10) Msgr. Carlo Bolzan, I miei vescovi, cardinali, sommi pontefici (Privately published by the author, 1981); Bolzan also gave a longer account in Humiltas (Italian ed.) June 1993, p. 10, in which he complained about the useless furor the notes caused. For the writing of his will, see La Stampa, October 2, 1978, p. 2.
(11) For the history of this text, see Il Buon Samaritano (Padova: Edizioni Messaggero, 1980, introduction.
(12) Don Francessco Taffarel, Papa Luciani: Un pensiero al giorno (Padua, Edizioni Messagero, 1990).
Pausing to look at all the sights on our way to Jerusalem. . . Mainly about faith, the Church, film, writing, famous Christian authors, and anything else I'm interested in at the moment.
The photo above was taken at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome in March 2007.
Quote of the Month
"The conviction that there is a Creator God is what gave rise to the idea of human rights, the idea of the equality of all people before the law, the recognition of the inviolability of human dignity in every single person and the awareness of people’s responsibility for their actions. Our cultural memory is shaped by these rational insights. To ignore it or dismiss it as a thing of the past would be to dismember our culture totally and to rob it of its completeness. The culture of Europe arose from the encounter between Jerusalem, Athens and Rome – from the encounter between Israel’s monotheism, the philosophical reason of the Greeks and Roman law. This three-way encounter has shaped the inner identity of Europe. In the awareness of man’s responsibility before God and in the acknowledgment of the inviolable dignity of every single human person, it has established criteria of law: it is these criteria that we are called to defend at this moment in our history."
Pope Benedict XVI to the German Parliament, Sept 22, 2011.
