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.
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 favor, and most certainly would have mentioned 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, largely because 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. Everything Yallop said was 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 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 this statement. First, Luciani’s notes for this conference, which was still unpublished at the time of his election, were, like the notes for the rest of his writings, in his personal files, not the diocesan archives. They would have been in the diocesan archives in Venice or Vittorio Veneto only if he left his papers to one of those dioceses in his will; in which case they would have gone there only after his death. Luciani kept his personal collection of notes in various notebooks and agendas.
Second, these personal files were indeed taken from Venice to Rome very shortly after John Paul I’s election, but it was at the Pope’s own request. He entrusted the work to one of his own secretaries, Don Caro Bolzan, who arrived at the Vatican with them on September 2. (10) John Paul I very much wanted to use this notes for his talks as Pope. After he died, these files were returned to his family, as Edoardo Luciani and his wife testified to me personally.
Third, if Vatican officials tried to suppress evidence of this text, they once again did a very poor job. The talk 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 by the Edizioni Messaggero in Padua two years after Luciani’s death in 1980, (11) and republished in the Opera Omnia in 1988-89. Both of these versions the precise passage on birth control cited by Hutchison.
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).
(11) For the history of this text, see Il Buon Samaritano (Padova: Edizioni Messaggero, 1980, introduction.
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.
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,
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 history of the Catholic missions is by now a long road: at the beginning of that road is the Father of Mercy, who holds out his arms to all his children. All those who encounter the missionaries encounter the Father. And they also encounter the Son, the first missionary, who, obeying the Father, comes to earth, becomes flesh in human nature, is one of us, in solidarity with our misery (except for sin) and ends up dying for us in order to then return to heaven, carrying on his shoulders the human race his has won back.
Out of the same mold are the missionaries, who repeat, in some way, his journey. They too leave their fathers and families and depart to go among a foreign people. They too strip themselves of the refined culture they have acquired in their homelands; and of their native customs and habitat, of a hundred little comforts, in order to be in solidarity. With who? With a people who are on one hand naked and poor, and on the other rich in possibilities, which the missionaries intend to respect, value and elevate."
Albino Luciani (Pope John Paul I), to the people of his diocese of Vittorio Veneto, on his return from the diocesan missions in Africa in 1966
