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,
In addition to the puff-piece editorial on Obama at Notre Dame (which praised the president for seeking “dialogue,” and saying very little about the Christian witness of the student and faculty protesters), OR has an article that, from the summary anyway, looks as if it is correcting the impression of that earlier editorial that Obama’s ESCR policy wasn’t as bad as thought. THIS story quotes Cardinal Rigali’s and Archbishop Chaput’s strong criticisms of Obama policy. It’s about time!
In my reply to the earlier article, I actually sent them Cardinal Rigali’s remarks! (So did many other people I’m sure).
I haven’t been able to find any trace of these articles in Italian on the OR part of the Vatican website, though.
Update: evening of May 22:
The Osservatore Romano article that I called a “puff piece” on Obama has been causing a firestorm in the last few days. Here’s a translation (thanks to Joey on Fr. Z’s blog-I’m too overwhelmed with work to do more than correct it a bit):
Obama in a Search for Common Ground
The search for common ground: it appears that this is the path chosen by US President Barack Obama in affronting the delicate question of abortion. Putting aside the heated tones of the electoral campaign, Obama affirmed as much on the occasion of the press conference for his [first] hundred days in the White House, when he affirmed that the launch of the new law on abortion is not a priority of his administration. And to reaffirm this position, the president chose the ceremony for the conferral of a doctorate of law honoris causa from Notre Dame in Indiana, the most prestigious Catholic college in the United States.
Increasing controversies have marked the weeks following Obama’s invitation from university president John Jenkins. And also yesterday—as was predictable—protests were not lacking. But from the podium prepared in the basketball stadium, the president invited Americans of all faiths and ideological conviction to “hold hands in a common effort” to reduce the number of abortions. “I don’t want to say that the debate concerning abortion will disappear: the opinions of Americans concerning it are complex and, at certain levels, irreconcilable,” the president said, exhorting those present to defend their opinions with passion and conviction, but “without reducing to caricature those who don’t think like us.”
In his speech Obama reaffirmed the line of the task force assembled “to reduce the number of abortions, diminishing unwanted pregnancies, facilitating adoptions, and assuring assistance and support for those who decide to keep the baby”. The president also proposed a conscience clause for doctors and paramedics who disagree with the practice of abortion. “But”—he added—“let us work so that our health policies are founded on clear scientific and ethical criteria, such as respect for the equality of women”.
In his speech the president reminded the students the challenges posed by the economic crisis and by violent extremism, by nuclear proliferation and pandemics. But the attention was completely focused on the issue of abortion. “Even if they do not agree”—he said—“we can agree that it is a painful decision for any woman”.
I’m going to post some comments from the pro-life rally at Notre Dame from those who were there, since it seems there was a major lack of mainstream media coverage, compared to what was given to Obama’s speech.
Crowds at Notre Dame rally
Estimates of the crowd at the Mass and rally ranged were about 1,000-2,000 people, and another 1,000 or so watching the rally on TV in the South Quad. A number of graduating seniors, sporting the cross and baby feet on their mortarboards, boycotted graduation to attend the rally, as did about 50 Notre Dame professors — in full academic regalia!
Graduating seniors protest at Notre Dame rally
(Both photos courtesy of the South Bend Tribune)
Here’s an on-the-spot report, by Deirdre Mundy, taken from Red Cardigan’s (Erin Manning) “And Sometimes Tea” blog:
The speakers at the rally weren’t terribly famous, but they were all very good. Father Wilson Miscamble, a Holy Cross father and a professor at Notre Dame, gave a great barn-burner to start things off, calling out the administration on their cowardice, and praising the students for having the courage to stand up for the truth, even when it was inconvenient. Also, he’s Australian, so he has a great accent, and he made Lord of the Rings references!
After Father Miscamble was done speaking, Bishop D’Arcy arrived. He said he hadn’t been planning on coming, because he hadn’t seen what he could possibly contribute, but that he realized the night before at Adoration that while D’Arcy the man wasn’t that important, the office of the Bishop was, and so it was his job to be there and let the protesting students know that the church stood with them. Very short remarks, but much appreciated.
. . . the next speaker, Father John Raphael SSJ, was awesome. He talked about abolition, civil rights, and abortion. He also had some great, snarky comments about the fact that Obama’s supporters called anyone who didn’t want him to get a degree from Notre Dame a racist, and well, what does that make Father Raphael? And then he ripped into Obama for being racist by promoting abortion for poor and minority women, and acting like a black mother on welfare can’t love her child as well as a white woman in the suburbs. HUGE reaction from the crowd, a really great speech. A reporter from the local Fox affiliate was there for some of it, but he seemed to be filming the crowd, not the speaker…..
The final speaker, Professor David Solomon, was joined on stage by about 50 professors in full academic regalia—they were all boycotting the commencement and supporting the ND Response kids instead. My husband pointed out that, sadly, it didn’t look like there were many younger faculty members with them—I don’t know if this is because the young faculty unanimously approve of honoring pro-choice speakers, or if they’re just afraid to speak out before they have tenure. Solomon’s talk was more about speaking the Truth even when it’s inconvenient, and fighting to make Notre Dame Catholic again.
I’ll be back with more and possibly videos as they go up. Notre Dame Response has said they might have some soon.
Update May 18: Superb article by David Freddoso, from the National Review Online, with more details from the Baccalaureate Mass, and Bishop D’Arcy’s homily, as well as the rally.
Another photo, this one of Fr. Frank Pavone leading prayer with Notre Dame students:
From History Professor Fr. Wilson Miscamble’s speech:
But what matters for us here is less what President Obama says, but rather what the day will mean for Notre Dame and its place in American Catholic life. The truth is this: This painful episode has damaged the ethos and spirit of Notre Dame. But there is another truth that we must also remember: IT IS NOT THE END OF THE STORY!
Some among the administration of Notre Dame will want the issue to “go away” quickly. It may even be likely that there are some among them who genuinely understand the evil of abortion, and who are inwardly troubled by these recent events whatever their outward bravado. –They will have a chance to show through future deeds and in very practical ways Notre Dame’s commitment to the prolife cause. Let us hope and pray that they take up that opportunity.
But we cannot rely on them. As we have seen, on their own, their commitment will never be more than tepid.
Instead, let us link ourselves with those Holy Cross religious over the generations who never gave up – whatever the set-backs … whatever the trials … whatever the personal cost. In some ways, the task before us today is tougher than theirs. In those early days, the problems were clear – but so too was the mission.
Now we are engaged in a more intellectual and spiritual struggle. Will we be true to the founding vision? Can we resist the subtle and not so subtle temptations to surrender our distinct religious identity –and conform to the reigning and rather barren secular paradigm of what a university should be?
The Obama visit suggests that the University’s leadership has succumbed to this temptation. Yet when we look back on these days, I have a sense that what will stand out is how a group of dedicated prolife students, wonderful alumni, and ordinary Catholics who cherish this place refused to acquiesce in the Administration’s willingness to wink at its most fundamental values in exchange for the public relations coup that attends a presidential visit.
The people who refuse to give up – and I speak especially of you students —have taken on the role of teachers here. While the administration and many of the faculty sold out easily for the photo-ops etc, you and some of your alumni sisters and brothers showed the benefits of your Notre Dame education. You held firm to the foundational principles of respect for life and for the dignity of every person. You are the ones who have understood what really matters. You refuse to just go along. You have made your voice heard and led the way to a better future.
Every once in a while, for all my scribbling in comboxes, I write something I think is well, kind of good. Today was one of those days. I wrote something I thought fitting for the anniversary of Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum. And since I want to put all the time I spent writing it to good use, here is my reply to a man who thought that the “social justice” and “common good” talk of Catholics is a crock, and that it’s all just a cover up for “socialist” ideas about the re-distribution of wealth. He thinks all social justice and the welfare state is a great evil. He says he really doesn’t care what papal social encyclicals say on this subject, and that they’re not infallible, though the Gospel is, he is for freedom and individuality, etc. (Evidently, in spite of this, he is a Catholic). My reply:
I was very glad to hear that you practice what you preach in the way of individual charity in helping that man [find a home]. It’s a great example and a true following of the Gospel.
But let me ask you something. Suppose you learned of a sweatshop or a factory where the employer required his employees to work fifteen hours a day, without air-conditioning or heating, without opportunities for meals, and their children as young as 9 or 10 years old, had to work with them under the same conditions, all for pay so small that it still left the whole family starving. And suppose there weren’t any laws to prevent the employer from doing that.
And what could you, being a Christian, do all by your lonesome to prevent this injustice and help this family? The answer is: not a lot, however charitable you might be, at least not without a shotgun, which not be at all advisable. In this case it’s clearly a matter for the law and the state. Fortunately, we don’t have to worry any longer about such things taking place because our laws about fair wages, child labor and proper working conditions prevent them.
One of the primary reasons that we do have these laws is because the Catholic Church took a leading role beginning in the late nineteenth century to call the world’s attention to the problems of working people who were faced with employment conditions similar to the above, and who were being solicited, to the great danger of their freedom and in their faith by the Communist and socialists and their labor organizations.
One hundred and eighteen years ago yesterday (May 15, 1891), Pope Leo XIII issued the first in the long line of modern papal social encyclicals, Rerum Novarum, in which he called for the neeed for true Christian’s workingman’s associations, and at the same time he asked that the State itself do something in this regard by distributing . . . .what? Not wealth (that was the Communist line), not charity (because that’s the individual’s duty), but justice. He even called it “distributive justice” because it meant giving everyone an equal shot and equal rights, including the right to be free from such oppression. The Pope thought that there were a few things, perhaps just a few, that the State could do well, and that was one of them. The social thought of the Church was one of the things that helped ensure that today we have laws regulating fair wages, and good working conditions.
So the Church’s social justice teaching is not socialism. Properly understood, it’s a preventative against socialism. And so it continues today, up through the writings of John Paul II (and Benedict XVI is about to issue his own social encyclical). Each of them spells out not only what the state, but individuals, small groups and associations, and the state itself should do to promote social justice. The primary duty of individuals and associations and the Church in all of this is charity, broadly speaking, but for the state it’s justice, because that’s the state’s job; it’s why states were founded, to ensure and protect every individual’s rights.
You have a strange idea that the social ideas of the Church are identical to those of the left wing of the Democratic party today, or to socialism, or the welfare state. The truth is, they’re not. There are people who misread these encyclicals on the left (and a good many on the left who claim to have read them and haven’t). There are a good many people on the right who shun them like the plague, and never read them, and insist that they are good Catholics while rejecting papal teaching without ever having read it.
In regard to one of your other statements, the social encyclicals of the Popes are not all strictly speaking infallible, but are part of the Church’s magisterium, or teaching authority. They are certainly worthy of respect, and at the very least, an unprejudiced reading.
I don’t know whether you ever have read them or not, but it sounds as if you haven’t. So in honor of the anniversary of Rerum Novarum, here’s a link:
There. Now you won’t even have to get out of your chair to read what the Church really thinks of these matters.
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.
