NEWS ABOUT THE CHURCH & THE VATICAN

From Diogenes who blogs at Catholic World News
www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&rec...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Arinze to Skylstad:
Sorry, not buying it

...or, to respond in ICEL-ese, "And also with you, pal."

A letter from Cardinal Arinze shows that, while the liturgy wars continue, the old tactics just aren't doing it. In the latest round of the Roman Missal translation battle, the U.S. bishops dug into their playbook and tried to run Pastoral Hardship Left in order to out-flank Liturgiam authenticam (they explained to Rome, you see, that we faithful are so besottedly in love with the 1974 ICEL Sacramentary that it would be cruel for the Holy See to make us change it for a translation closer to the Latin). Arinze wasn't having any:


2 May 2006

The Most Reverend William Skylstad
Bishop of Spokane
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Prot. n. 499/06/L

Your Excellency,

With reference to the conversation between yourself, the Vice President and General Secretary of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, together with me and other Superiors and Officials when you kindly visited our Congregation on 27 April 2006, I wish to recall the following:

The Instruction Liturgiam authenticam is the latest document of the Holy See which guides translations from the original-language liturgical texts into the various modern languages in the Latin Church.

Both this Congregation and the Bishops’ Conferences are bound to follow its directives. This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is therefore not competent to grant the recognitio for translations that do not conform to the directives of Liturgiam authenticam.

If, however, there are difficulties regarding the translation of a particular part of a text, then this Congregation is always open to dialogue in view of some mutually agreeable solution, still keeping in mind, however, that Liturgiam authenticam remains the guiding norm.

The attention of your Bishops’ Conference was also recalled to the fact that Liturgiam authenticam was issued at the directive of the Holy Father at the time, Pope John Paul II, to guide new translations as well as the revision of all translations done in the last forty years, to bring them into greater fidelity to the original-language official liturgical texts.

For this reason it is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes. Where there are good and strong reasons for a change, as has been determined by this Dicastery in regard to the entire translation of the Missale Romanum as well as other important texts, then the revised text should make the needed changes. The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.

Requesting Your Excellency to share these reflections with the Bishops of your Conference I assure you of the continued collaboration of this Congregation and express my religious esteem,

Devotedly yours in Christ,

+Francis Cardinal Arinze

Prefect, Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments

----------------------------------------------------------------

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 21/05/2006 19.15]

I have to say I don't really understand the logic of the people in the article above. Fr Maciel is a priest, priests say Mass. He is not allowed to have any public ministry. Therefore, when he says Mass, he will say it privately. Many US priests caught in the pedophilia scandals are subject to the same punishment.

What exactly do these people understand by excommunication? Someone in a state of mortal sin, who does not use the sacrament of penance, is excommunicate - that is, is barred from the sacraments (how this works when it is a priest who's obliged to say Mass daily I don't know). If Fr Maciel makes a thorough and clean confession, he surely cannot be denied the sacraments. We are all sinners. You can't kick someone out of the Catholic church in the way that a state can revoke citizenship, for example.

I think that the people clamouring for his excommunication are really saying that Fr Maciel should 'de-frocked', barred from exercising any functions of priesthood.

However, I don't see how even that can really make it up to the 200+ people who have suffered so appallingly at the hands of this man. What is important is that the Church accepts the charges made, and has acted. Fr Maciel will live out the rest of his life a pariah with no influence.

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Pope's Vicar-General for the Diocese of Rome and President of the Italian bishops conference, has been a fearless advocate of Church principles in the public arena.

he has drawn as much fire as the Pope from Italy's political left for "interfering" in affairs of State. That, of course, has not stopped him from saying what he needs to say, usually in tandem with Pope Benedict on matters that have to do with the defense of life, and the institutions of marriage and the family.

Sandro Magister devoted his blog on 5/17/06 to the important points in Ruini's opening address to the General Assembly of the Italian bishops conference last week. Here is a translation:

--------------------------------------------------------------

In the address with which he opened the General Assembly of the italian bishops conference on May 15, Cardinal Camillo Ruini examined the Catholic situation in Italy, particularly regarding the “commitment in favor of human life from the first instant of conception to its natural end, and of the legitimate family founded on marriage.”

This is what Ruini said:
“(We reject)abortion, 'an abominable crime' (Gaudium et Spes, 51) whose seriousness is becoming obscured in the minds of many but which remains 'an intrinsically illegal act that no circumstance, end or human law can ever justify' (cfr Evangelium Vitae, nn 58-62), just like euthanasia and the utilization of human embryos for research; and in the same manner, we oppose attempts to give an improper and unnecessary juridical recognition to forms of union which are radically different from a family, which obscure its social role and contribute to destabilizing it….

“Dear brothers, we know quite well that our commitment (to the principles mentioned) is often not tolerated and seen as an unwarranted intrusion by the church on the free conscience of persons and in the autonomous laws of the State. But we cannot, because of this, keep silent or fail to make our positions clear.

"Indeed our common and profound belief, confirmed by the clear and constant teaching of the Church and sustained by the human experience, in particular by the great traditions of civilization in our country, has to do with what the Pope recently called “non-negotiable principles” (address of 3/30/06 to representatives of the Popular Party of Europe).

"These are non-negotiable above all for their intrinsic ethical value, which is not abstract or a priori. They are linked to the birth and education of children as well as to the genuine and lasting happiness of individuals.

"For the rest, we should not merely look at the weight of the social and moral teachings of the Church: we have an opportunity to make a great public catechesis – patient and respectful but clear – which has already unwittingly favored the spread to ever wider layers of Italian soceity of a more precise awareness of certain essential values and the need to sustain and defend them for the common good.”

Earlier, Ruini had criticized the European Parliament for “insisting on pronouncements that do not respect the culture and traditions of the various member countries and which seriously contradict basiuc anthropological truths."

He cited the example of "the Resolution of January 18, 2006, regarding homophobia in Europe, which rightly denounces discrimination, contempt and violence against persons with homosexual tendencies, but also claims an equivalence in the rights of homosexual couples to those of legitimate families, asking the member countries – even if in a non-binding manner – for a corresponding amendment in their respective national laws."

In such attitudes by European institutions, Ruini said, "one can see not only the long-reaching wave of the process of secularization, but also the missed perception of a different climate that is making progress in Europe, with the rediscovery by the faithful of their own religious, moral and cultural identity and their corresponding values and essential contents.”

In his May 15 address, Ruini did not make the slightest reference to the opinions expressed by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini in his “Dialog on life” published in L’Espresso magazine on 4/21/06. But the difference between their views (on bioethical matetrs) is clear. Not only in the contents, but in the perspective with which each cardinal views the secular challenge.

Martini’s is pessimistic and defensive, tending to shade some principles in the belief that only that way is it possible to stem the invincible tide of secularization.

Ruini’s is more trusting and reactive, being convinced that Christians can come out of this trial strengthened and infused with new life, more than ever conscious of the perennial validity of the Church’s “non-negotiable” principles – provided, of course, that the Church continues to make of these principles a “great public catechesis.”

Ruini was similarly optimistic in the part of the speech he devoted to The Da Vinci Code:
“Editorial and cinematographic fads – these days, particularly, those that have to do with so-called Da Vinci Code – show the great necessity and offer the opportunity for detailed religious instruction as well as for correct historical information.

“Certainly, even the New Testament already recognized the tendency to look for fables instead of listening to the testimony of truth (cfr Tim 4,3-4; Pt 1,16), but it is difficult not to get the impression that the great success of works like DVC has to do with that self-hate, or self-denigration, that has insinuated itself into our civilization, as then Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out in his book, Senza Radici.

“But we must not yield to pessimism: in the end, the attraction of truth will be stronger than illusion, and people today have a great thirst for truth.” [So be it!]

Ratzigirl contributes this item from the Italian newspaper LA STAMPA today, here in translation:

Fr. Marcial Maciel, sanctioned Friday by the Congregation for the Doctirne of the Faith after years of investigating accusations of sexual abuse against him, wanted to be a saint like his great rival, Jose Maria Escriva Balauer who founded Opus Dei.

This was revealed by Jose Martinez de Velasco, editor in chief of the official Spanish news agency Efe and its former religion correspondent in his 2004 book “Los documentos secretos de los Legionarios de Cristo” (The secret documents of the Legionaries of Christ).

“According to what his closest collaborators say, in these last years of his life, Marcial Maciel has two obsessions which have accompanied him for some time but which have reached the intensity of a disease, almost: first, that he be named a cardinal; and two, that his followers will see him elevated to the altar (ie., proclaimed a saint),” according to Martinez, 54 years old. “The founder of the Legionaries believes that he has acquired during his lifetime a halo of predestination and protection from the Highest and therefore, he as well as his collaborators, make frequent references to the supernatural.”

The book also reports that he once told a youth gathering: “Every Christian cannot be a good Christian unless he embraces the Cross, if he does not suffer everything that comes to him in life for the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the road to sanctity. The Pope [John Paul II, who always had excellent relations with Maciel] has told you that youth have a very special role to play, that you should save the world through your sanctity. Note that he did not ask you to be merely good, but to be saints.”

---------------------------------------------------------------
It makes one curious to know what else Martinez writes in his book, doesn't it?

Wulfrune, the reaction of the accusers was to be expected - they want the book thrown at Maciel. Other accusers, victims of sexual abuse and victims' rights groups will surely be up in arms against the Vatican's 'compassionate compromise' in the case. I'm sure Joseph Ratzinger, veteran of countless 'outrage' campaigns directed at him, anticipated such reaction but went ahead anyway and did what he thought was right. Knowing that he would have sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this as in his other decisions and actions regarding the Church, we'll just have to let the protestors vent themselves.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 21/05/2006 19.18]

Legislating conversions: Weighing the message vs. the person

By Carol Glatz
5/19/2006
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI and a senior Vatican official voiced their concern over the lack of religious freedom in some countries, including unjust restrictions on a person's right to convert from one religious faith to another.

But while the pope and the Vatican's foreign minister, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, were making separate appeals for greater reciprocity in respecting the freedom of worship in mid-May, the Vatican was also co-sponsoring a meeting about how some religious groups abuse liberties by proselytizing, or by evangelizing in aggressive or deceptive ways.

Iraq, for example, has become an open field for foreigners looking for fresh converts.

Some Catholic Church leaders and aid organizations have expressed concern about new Christian groups coming in and luring Iraqis to their churches with offers of cash, clothing, food or jobs. The blatant proselytism in a predominantly Muslim country has made all Christians seem suspect or looked upon with hostility, some Catholic leaders and aid workers said.

Meanwhile, reports of aggressive proselytism and reportedly forced conversions in mostly Hindu India have fueled religious tensions and violence there and have prompted some regional governments to pass laws banning proselytism or religious conversion.

On the one hand, the Catholic Church would like governments to guarantee full religious freedom, including the freedom to convert.

In his May 18 address to Amitava Tripathi, India's new ambassador to the Vatican, the pope said, "the reprehensible attempt to legislate clearly discriminatory restrictions" on religious freedom "must be firmly rejected."

But on the other hand, some of these countries endorsing religious restrictions might be hesitant to loosen the reins, especially after reports about the aggressive nature of some Christian missionaries.

Imam Abdul Rashied Omar, who teaches Islamic ethics at the University of Notre Dame, Ind., was one of the 27 participants attending discussions about proselytism and conversion in the meeting sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the World Council of Churches Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue.

The gathering, held May 12-16 in Lariano, south of Rome, was to be part of a three-year project aimed at creating "a code of conduct" for converting people of other religious faiths.

In a May 15 telephone interview with Catholic News Service, the South African imam said he and some Muslim scholars want to re-examine Islam's traditional law against apostasy, which in some places is a punishable offense. But if scholars are going to successfully advance such reforms, Christians must practice and promote ethical evangelization, he said.

The imam said Muslim communities would have to be able to trust missionaries or aid groups' intentions and be confident that a change in laws concerning apostasy and evangelization would not amount to throwing open the doors to aggressive proselytizers.

Another participant, Sadhvi Vrnda Chaitanya, a Hindu monk from southern India, told CNS that India's poor and uneducated are especially vulnerable to coercive or deceptive methods of evangelization.

She said some groups might tell people to attend a church-based group or to send their children to Sunday school because rice will be offered there. She said some preachers tell villagers, "Your God cannot protect you. Give our God a try," which might tempt Hindus suffering from poverty, social stigmas, physical ailments or disabilities.

Chaitanya said religious organizations should continue their aid to the world's poor, but that it should not be tainted by evangelization or connected with conversion.

Interreligious dialogue, too, she said, should not be used as a platform for evangelizing others.

"If you have something to share, whether it is the good news or the mission of Jesus, please do so in a manner that is transparent and evident" and not disguised as dialogue, she said.

Despite disagreements among the participants, who included Jews, Buddhists, and Pentecostal Christians, all came up with 10 agreed-upon points, published May 16 by the WCC. Most notable was the appeal for individuals to "heal themselves from the obsession of converting others." While people have the right "to invite others to an understanding of their faith," it must be a transparent invitation that avoids denigrating other faiths "for the purpose of affirming superiority" of one's own beliefs, it said.

Aid work must not hide any ulterior motives and avoid exploiting vulnerable people like children and the disabled, he said.

The way forward is continued dialogue and cooperation between religions, the joint statement said.

But much work lies ahead, including getting Christian churches to agree on what constitutes an ethical way to evangelize, said the Rev. Hans Ucko, the WCC representative.

Concerns centered on "how can you make a Christian love not just his faith, but to also love his neighbor" and respect his or her identity and dignity, he said.

After all, he asked, what is more important: the message or the person hearing the message?

[Numerous media reports from India indicate that the pope's comments about religious intolerance in that country are not being received too well. The story below reflects the degree of tolerance being exercised at the moment.]


From Outlook India.com

Protest against Pope's comments

VARANASI, MAY 21 (PTI)
Activists of a cultural organisation here today burnt the effigy of Pope Benedict XVI protesting against his reported remarks with regard to religious intolerance in India. Workers of Hind Swaraj Abhiyan (HSA) took out a protest march from Ram Katora up to the Church road near the Catholic Church and held a public meeting where the speakers condemned the Pope's reported comments, a release from HSA said.

John Allens' Word from Rome for May 21
www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/
was largely about the Pope's forthcoming trip to Poland (posted earlier in NEWS ABOUT BENEDICT).

He has this talk with a leading theologian who apparently shares Pope Benedict's view on certain "non-negotiable principles" that the Church stands for and must defend in the public arena. He offers his views as well on secularism and the problem in Catholic universities.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I sat down on Monday with David Schindler, academic dean at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family in Washington, D.C. where he also serves as Edouard Cardinal Gagnon Professor of Fundamental Theology.

Since 1982, Schindler has been editor-in-chief of the North American edition of Communio, a federation of journals founded in 1972 by Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger, Henri de Lubac, and other European theologians.

Schindler, in town for a conference at the Lateran University and for meetings with the institute, has built his reputation as one of the most astute critics of liberal culture -- secular democracy, free markets, science as the paradigm for human knowledge, and so on -- and what he sees as its ambiguous relationship with a properly Catholic worldview.

In our conversation, Schindler argued that Jesuit Fr. John Courtney Murray, the American theologian who was a driving force behind the decree Dignitatis Humanae of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which recognized a strong distinction between church and state, in some ways muddled the waters.

In effect, Schindler said, Murray wanted to argue that the principle of human dignity means the state must remain neutral before competing value systems, allowing each person to choose, without acknowledging that basing all this upon human dignity is already a claim about values.

"The question is, did the church make its peace with the juridical state?" he said, meaning a state conceived basically in terms of free choice, regulated only by the rule of law. "That's left unresolved in Dignitatis Humanae, but I don't think Benedict XVI accepts it."

In other words, Schindler said, the pope believes that some values are so primordial that they can't legitimately be the object of free choice, and the state can't be neutral on them -- for example, the right to life.

"There aren't two ends to the human being," Schindler said, "as if there are two orders of existence. Politics has to be subordinated to the single ultimate end of human life."

I asked Schindler what he sees in terms of the lay role in the church in the 21st century.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, he said he hopes laity become more attentive to the "cultural dimension" of the faith.

"I think the question of what a lay person is, is far from resolved," Schindler said. "People think it to be obvious, but I'm not sure it is at all."

By that, Schindler seemed to have in mind the question of whether laity are adequately aware of the ways in which modern liberal culture may shape them in ways not always compatible with their Christian vocation.

"The tendency is to get involved with the world as it is, accepting most things, but drawing the line at abortion or something like that," Schindler said. "We think of the structures of liberal culture as given, and then we try to give them a religious intentionality."

That, he said, is not enough.

"Liberal institutions make ideological claims," he said. Even Catholics well educated in the faith, he said, often aren't aware of how "their categories are liberal categories."

Offering a small example, Schindler pointed to technology, often a fetish of liberalism. He said he's taken the Internet out of his home.

"It encourages us to communicate without seriousness, because of the immediacy," he said. "Everything has a surface quality."

In essence, what Schindler seemed to be calling for is a more "counter-cultural" laity, not just with respect to a handful of life issues, but capable of a much deeper criticism of 21st century secularity.

Schindler acknowledged that some people might see this as "imposing" a religious or theological framework on secular realities.

"But the inner meaning of every reality is love," he said, "and love has a logic. It's not a matter of importing a foreign logic from outside, but rather reaching in to the depths of things."

I asked Schindler for an example of a liberal institution that he thinks is in need of deeper Christian critique. His immediate response: "Academe."

"When we talk about a 'Catholic university,' we tend to assume that 'Catholic' is the adjective and 'university' is the noun, so it's what we have in common with everybody else," he said.

Schindler said that in the most fundamental sense, that's not true.

"The origin of the university is the Incarnate Word," he said. "The various disciplines and everything else that goes on should have some intrinsic relationship to that."

One litmus test, he said, for such an attitude would be to ask a Catholic university, "What does the faith have to do with the physics department?"

"There's already a theology implied in physics," Schindler said. "We can't lose a sense of urgency for the necessity of the most profound formation of the intelligence in dealing with these problems."

If you ask most people at a Catholic university where the place for contemplation is, most, he said, will point you to the chapel.

"The problem is that it's not operative anywhere else," he said.

This is really a political interview but because the interviewee is Marcello Pera, immediate past Senate President of Italy (friend of and co-suthor of a book with the Pope as Joseph Ratzinger), and he tackles issues that directly involve certain fundamental principles of Catholic Church and the Pope, I am posting it here.

Mr. Pera, a scientist, philosopher and ex-University professor, was interviewed by Mario Sechi of Il Giornale recently. He considers himself an atheist but supports many Christian principles relating to the defense of life, matrimony and the family.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Pera: «PACS unions are unconstitutional"
"New relationships are being recognized
but the Constitution defines the family
as a natural social unit based on matrimony"
Interivew by Mario Sechi


Benedict XVI these days has called the attention of the political world once again to the question of PACS [the Italian acronym for a proposed definition of new relationships that would be recognized juridically and have the same rights as heterosexual married couples]. Can we say that the Pope is playing a ‘pressing’ game here?

Not just on PACS, but all the issues in bioethics, we can speak of a solid and firm stand by the Pope, who always speaks univocally, and whose statements do not lend themselves to arbitrary interpretation.

It is of great benefit to everyone that the Pope reiterates the basic points of Christianity. It is good for non-believers because many laicists play around with our traditions without being aware of the harm they do in tearing down the foundations of our society, and some liberals have gone into hiding or on vacation [ie, they are keeping silent] out of fear of having to fight against their own intellectual laziness.

There are people who still think that to be a liberal means to hold different or opposing views from Christianity, or that to be a liberal excuses them from new responsibilities when facing new challenges.

And of course the Pope’s voice is useful for Christians, especially those who are tired, discouraged, uncertain, as we could see from the stunned silence that greeted the disconcerting and devastating declarations of that prelate [Cardinal Martini] who seems to think that in the field of bioethics, principles no longer exist, but everything comes into play, jesuitically, case by case, test tube by test tube, centimeter by centimeter, exception by exception. As though ethics, particularly Christian ethics, did not have basic values - the dignity of the human being, life, family, matrimony – but simply depended on a manual to be adapted to every patient’s circumstances.

Thanks once again to the Pope, who reminds us that the contrary is true: if you have no principles, you cnanot even confront the simplest cases.

The center-left says that it is the task of the State to defend and protect all citizens, including those who are not Catholics. Does that seem to you like a sufficiently secular statement?

It is a banally secular statement. It is so obvious it doesn’t say anything. But does our State also protect and defend anyone who professes a religion that allows bigamy? Or religions which allow sexual mutilation? Or religions which exalt suicide killers? Our State is liberal and democratic because it allows the widest possible tolerance insofar as it does not threaten the cohesion of society and the identity of the people. It doesn’t mean it is a-religious.

Simply consider that the basis for democracy is equality, by which we mean the equal dignity of every person – which is a typically Christian concept – not Greek or Roman or Muslim. The secularists of the center-left always slip away from this kind of evidence – they pretend they never went to school.

One prominent politician has said that the Italian solution won’t be like Zapatero’s in Spain. But the problem of the Church does not appear to have been resolved here. Why?

Zapaterista or not, it would be more honest not to play with words. “Pacts”, “unions”, “”living together” and similar terms serve to escape from the substance of the problem. PACS, or however they might call it - are these institutions of public right or not? Do the couples under PACS have the same rights as those united in matrimony or no? And are homosexual couples de facto or de jure?

According to you, a provision about de facto unions would be unconstitutional.

According to our Constitution, the family is a natural unit of society founded on matrimony. The word “natural” is a keystone: it means that it exists first and foremost, independently of the State’s recognition, like fundamental rights which are “acknowledged” and not simply guaranteed or constructed by legislation.

I dare anyone to say that that is not Christian doctrine as well, and I would very much like to know what conceptual contortions are necessary to say that PACS, particularly homosexual unions, are provided for in the Constitution.

I think that to satisfy the advocates of PACS, only a relativistic and nihilistic hermeneutic of the Constitution of the type “it is not written, but it is the interpretation” should guide the Courts!

But no one doubts there are inheritance relationships and subjective rights which must be regulated.
I don’t doubt that myself. But in fact there is already a whole range of subjective rights that are already recognized or that could be recognized. But not everything is that simple. If I get married and have a child, and then change my sexual orientation, will my wife and children have less rights than my new partner? There are analogous problems with de-facto heterosexual unions.

In the center-left, there is a variety of tendencies: from the Catholic view of the Margherita and Udeur to the secular view of Rosa nel Pugna. Do you think they are compatible positions? And who would win in a confrontation?

I think that Romano Prodi [incoming Prime Minister], when he comes to Parliament to ask for a vote of confidence in his program, will do well to gloss over these points. If he touches on bioethical problems at all, he will find out that he has no cover. The same thing if he tries to talk seriously about international politics, about Italy’s international role, its role in Europe.

I think the best thing for him would be to read the program of his Union, that which is in favor of the Nietschean “There are no texts only interpretations”. Inasmuch as that program, insofar as PACS and other fundamental issues are concerned, deliberately contains noncommital words and expressions that have no significance, he will make everyone happy. Then, he would do best not to do anything! Some will scream at him, but better some screaming than a government crisis.

Do you think such distancing could affect the tenure of Prodi’s government?

If Prodi really tries to do something [about these thorny issues], yes. But I predict he won’t, or postpone action, or shelve the issues. The last time (he led the government) he fell because of the economy. I don’t think that this time he will want to trip up on the question of embryos or homosexuals. He knows very well he does not have a majority.

The center-right seems to support the Vatican’s position at least in words. What about in fact?
I’m asking that myself. I would like to hope that they have understood the electoral lesson and are firmly convinced that to defend our fundamental values is a demand that is becoming more widespread. Their identity is tied up with this defense, and so they cannot do less.

Is the division in the center-left at this point also present in the center-right?

No. In the center-left, Senator Binetti [a Catholic female and Opus Dei member], who thinks like me, must co-exist with the Honorable Boselli and Capezzone, who think the complete opposite. In the center-right I do not see that division. Theree are no anti-clericals there, but there are those who say that when the Pope speaks up, that’s interference and he should be exiled to Avignon.

But doesn’t such a position risk being considered traditionalist and retrograde?

AS you know, I have defended for some time the position of liberal conservatism. The rights of freedom are good until they affect the foundations of our tradition, because once you touch that, you also touch the foundation of freedom itself. And it has affected even our identity, which must be defended, especially in a time of growing immigration, falling birth rate and depopulation, fanaticism and Islamic terrorism. Therefore, in the sense that I described, traditionalism is not to be derided but to be defended.

And don’t you run the risk of leaving the monopoly in the laic camp to the center-left?

No. We should leave to the center-left the laicists, anti-clericals, relarivists, nihilists. That’s completely different from the lay area.

You have launched the Committee for the West, which was reported in the foreign press as one of the few new things in the recent electoral campaign. Will you continue in politics or are you done after the elections and the defeat of what would be called your propulsive force?

None of us ever said or thought that the Manifest for the West was an electoral expedient. We will continue to keep it alive, to propagate it and to defend it, in Italy as well as the rest of Europe, where it has received a vast welcome, and we will work for it even more now that the victory of the center-left has put the Manifest itself at risk.

Condoms: Yes, or No?
“La Civiltà Cattolica” cuts off the pass
An article in the authoritative journal confirms
that the Church will not loosen its restrictions.
Not even when it comes to AIDS in Africa.
But fifteen months ago, in the same magazine,
cardinal Martini...
by Sandro Magister


ROMA, May 22, 2006 – La Civiltà Cattolica, the journal of the Rome Jesuits that is printed under the supervision of the Vatican authorities, doesn’t usually post to its website the complete text of all of the articles published in each of its editions. It does so only with one or two of its less significant articles, which are usually dedicated to art or literature.

But there are exceptions. In the case of an important editorial, or of another article also held to be significant, La Civiltà Cattolica immediately puts the entire text online, in order to bring the thinking of leading Church authorities to a wider audience.

This was done with an article dedicated to AIDS in Africa and to the Church’s efforts to combat it, published in the most recent edition of the magazine.

Why was this done? Presumably because during the preceding weeks there had been worldwide coverage of the controversy over the Church and AIDS, and in particular over the question of whether or not the use of condoms should be permitted.

The dispute was reignited by remarks from cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, and by later indiscreet comments about a possible Vatican document on the topic.

Both of these factors induced the opinion that the Church was about to loosen its ban on condoms, affirmed by the encyclical Humanae Vitae from Paul VI.

This, in fact, is what cardinal Martini said on the subject in his “Dialogue on life,” published in L’Espresso on April 21:

“Everything possible must be done to oppose AIDS. Certainly, in some situations the use of condoms can constitute a lesser evil. Then there is the particular situation of spouses, one of whom is infected with AIDS. The infected one is obligated to protect the other partner, who should also be able to take protective measures.

"But the question is instead whether it is convenient that the religious authorities be the ones to promote such a means of defense, almost as if it were believed that the other morally sustainable means, including abstinence, should be put in second place, while the risk arises of promoting an irresponsible attitude.

"So the principle of the lesser evil – which is applicable in all the cases provided for by ethical doctrine – is one thing, while the matter of who should express such things publicly is another. I believe that prudence and the consideration of the different particular situations will permit everyone to contribute effectively to the fight against AIDS without this fostering irresponsible behavior.”

The article published in the latest issue of La Civiltà Cattolica is an implicit response to the expectations for a change in the Church’s stance, beginning with the specific case illustrated by cardinal Martini.

And the answer is in the negative. Not only does the article make no direct reference to condoms, but it demonstrates that the Church’s activity is directed in an entirely different direction, which can be summed up in the word “chastity.” It maintains that the Church would do nothing but harm if its efforts in combating AIDS “seemed to support promiscuous, excessive, and destructive behavior.”

That this is also Benedict XVI’s thought is beyond all doubt. At the same time as La Civiltà Cattolica was publishing its article, the pope referred twice – in addresses on May 11 and 13 – to the encyclical Humanae Vitae by Paul VI, describing it as “prophetic and always relevant.”

As for Africa, which is being ravaged by AIDS, it too is among pope Joseph Ratzinger’s foremost thoughts. On a number of occasions, he has expressed his conviction that “the African continent is the Church’s great hope.”

Cardinal Martini is a Jesuit. And the Jesuits have been for years among the most active in fighting AIDS in Africa, in almost thirty sub-Saharan countries.

The author of the article in La Civiltà Cattolica is also a Jesuit: Fr. Michael F. Czerny, director of the African Jesuit AIDS Network, AJAN, founded in 2002 with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. He is also the author of the book “AIDS and the Church in Africa: To Shepherd the Church, Family of God in Africa in the Age of AIDS,” published in Nairobi in 2005 by Pauline Publications Africa.

Here follows an excerpt from the article. The complete Italian version, which is much longer, can be read on the website of La Civiltà Cattolica, issue 3741 of May 6, 2006.


AIDS, the greatest threat to Africa
since the time of the slave trade
by Michael F. Czerny, S.J.

Sickness and shame often go hand in hand. In many African societies, some diseases – leprosy is one example of many – are traditionally considered ignominious and unclean. Relatives tend to hide the fact that a loved one has contracted such an illness, often until it is too late.

The HIV virus, because it is incurable and is transmitted by sexual contact, assumes a particular power when it also spreads shame and disgrace. Some examples illustrate the suffering, isolation, and rejection that the disease brings with it.

In Abidjan, Jacques, who lives with his four wives, becomes ill with symptoms of fever, coughing, and weight loss. He goes to the hospital with his youngest wife. Tests show that he has tuberculosis, and that he is also HIV-positive. He receives advice about his condition, and is encouraged to tell his other wives about it. He not only does not tell them, but he continues to have sexual relations with them.

In Swaziland, Prince Tfohlongwane speaks in favor of the segregation of those who have HIV and AIDS: “Rotten apples should not be kept in the same barrel as the good apples, or in the end the good ones will also be spoiled.”

In Nigeria, it is said that a military administrator has ordered the arrest and imprisonment of all those who are sick with AIDS in his state, asserting that this decision would help to prevent the spread of the HIV virus.

In South Africa, the Gugu Dhlamini community has killed a woman simply because she publicly declared that she was HIV-positive. People were afraid that the fact that she lived among them would leave a mark of disgrace on the entire community.

The result of this disgrace and discrimination is a harmful and destructive separation: the pure from the impure, the normal from the abnormal, and, always, “us” from “them.”

Jesus reveals his sensitivity in the face of this powerful cultural subterfuge in his encounter with the adulteress. Apart from being the bearer par excellence of the mark of disgrace, she embodies the entire nation of Israel, which bears the marks of religious infidelity to God’s covenant.

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7). What is the first stone? It is that judgment which brings the mark of disgrace, discrimination, the exclusion or persecution of another person or group. The mark of disgrace is part of that general structure of classifications and rules that we call culture, and it possesses an enormous power.

One aspect of the Church’s battle against HIV and AIDS that cannot be ignored is the clash of cultures that is evident in the way in which Africans and Westerners think about some key questions.

For example, in Europe and America the main motivation for this stigma is the fear of suffering and the denial of death.

For its part, African culture – and in this it is close to the Christian faith – accepts suffering as part of life, is not as preoccupied with sickness, misfortune, agony, and death, and is of great support to those who suffer. So here the stigma proceeds from confusion, ignorance, and shame about sexuality.

For Westerners, it is the sexual revolution of the 1960’s which is largely responsible for the prevalent attitude toward sexuality and the definition of behaviors and values that are now being exported all over the world under the impulse of globalization. It is a paradigm centered upon the individual and his autonomy.

In the positive sense, it has allowed women to play a more important role outside the walls of the home and within society, liberating them from some of the patriarchal structures that fail to acknowledge their uniqueness and prevent them from making their voices heard.

But it cannot be denied that the Western attitude toward sexuality has a dark side, and the Church works tirelessly to remedy this.

According to the dominant and globalized culture, persons find their value not in what they are, but in what they have and what they consume: goods, power, pleasure, prestige. Happiness and success are identified with extensive consumption.

The dominant myth of the culture of globalization is that sex is simply something else “to have.” Sex concerns the individual alone, it is a question of personal preferences and private behavior. It is equated, from a moral point of view, with eating and drinking, as a response to an appetite that is satisfied solely for the sake of pleasure.

This is the Western attitude.

The African experience has been much different. There are taboos that encourage self-control in sexual matters. Some of the traditions are opposed to sexual relations during pregnancy and lactation, and in cases of adultery. In many ethnic groups, virginity before marriage is obligatory. Instead of considering such behaviors out of fashion, as is the case in the West, efforts should be made to study how to encourage such practices, acknowledging the value of these positive elements in African culture.

In Africa, fertility is a primary value, because it generates life, and chastity is a value insofar as it protects life and the quality of life, which is thought of as a direct connection between the living and the dead.

Sexuality is considered morally neutral, and, in itself, neither good nor bad. It is often compared to a fire in the home. Fire can be domesticated and used for cooking, or it can burn down the roof and the whole house. The image of fire is very fitting, and helps explain why traditional cultures, rooted in their regional identity, maintain norms of sexual behavior.

The Christian ideal of sexuality is a dynamic combination of freedom and responsibility integrated into the personality at each stage of life. Its traditional name is chastity: interior wholeness as lived by a physical and spiritual being.

Chastity means forming and ordering one’s sexuality to the service of relationships and communion with others, of love and friendship. The aim of chastity is to permit each person to love in the personal manner specific to each sex, to be ready to face in the proper way marriage, religious celibacy, or the single life.

Chastity is a very personal task that engages the entire life, but the meaning of sexuality goes so far beyond the individual that chastity also includes a cultural effort: “There is an interdependence between personal improvement and social progress” (Gaudium et Spes, 25).

The rich countries have harshly criticized the African Church for not distributing condoms in order to resolve the crisis. A brief response to these criticisms is that Catholic morality is, in reality, more faithful to African culture, which does not justify free sex or treat sexuality like a commodity. The campaign in favor of condoms has a sense of cultural imperialism about it, and when faced with such an alternative the Church will always take the side of the poor.

But the problem is naturally much more complex, and it must be acknowledged that the Church finds itself constrained, at the limits of its capacity, to speak consistently and at the same time in an opportune way to people in the most diverse situations.

The secularists opt for a pragmatic approach, the one most commonly used today, based upon the issue of public health. For its part, the Church must offer to those who will listen a moral and spiritual ideal, rather than a purely pragmatic approach, and many persons have decided prejudicially, for whatever reason, to ignore this message.

If some have turned their backs on the idea of personal responsibility open to the transmission of life, is it likely that they need or appreciate the Church’s advice on how to minimize the deadly consequences of their actions? It will be difficult to get a hearing for such an appeal to human decency, and the risk of appearing to support promiscuous, excessive, and destructive behavior is too high for the Church to tolerate.

The Church does not face the pandemic of AIDS and HIV as “a problem to be solved.” Instead, it listens to the voice of the Lord, who says: “I came that they might have life, and have it in abundance” (John 10:10). Following the example of Jesus, the Church calls the faithful to disinterested, service-oriented love, and thus to the fullness of life for all.

So in what way does culture – superficial disgrace and discrimination, the depths of sexuality, justice in society – present a challenge to African Catholics in the era of AIDS? And what challenge does the culture hold for Catholics of other countries who want to demonstrate a close and well-informed solidarity with them?

1. Touching those who are “marked” and excluded.

When parents, relatives, friends, and acquaintances discover that a baby has been born with a serious physical and mental disability, aren’t they tempted to marginalize and exclude the child? And, from the earliest moment, isn’t there a danger that the child will be made to feel the weight of everyone’s disappointment and shame, beginning with his parents? And haven’t we heard heartrending stories about discrimination against disabled children, adolescents, or adults, who are cast out and treated as if they were not authentic human beings?

To the extent to which this is true, it can help us to understand in part how HIV/AIDS acts on a cultural level. And if we are able to oppose this “inevitable curse,” we owe this to a great extent to Jean Vanier – the founder of “L’Arche” and of “Faith and Light” – who for 40 years helped the Church to discover that the disabled are not only the heart of the community, but have an authentic ecclesial and social mission.

Vanier did not accomplish this transformation by denouncing the stigma of the disabled, but by accepting them, loving them, and placing them at the center of the community. It is therefore good to know that, in order to free ourselves from the mechanism of the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS, it is not enough to change our thoughts and our words. This is not even sufficient in Africa, where politicians, sports champions, music stars, and religious leaders denounce the marginalization of the sick, or even declare that they themselves are HIV-positive. In fact, since they are important, rich, and powerful, they seem to be safe from the threat of discrimination, while the common people are too sick and too vulnerable to enjoy such immunity.

Fighting discrimination means extending one’s own hands, touching, acting. Just as Jesus identified himself with the suffering, we Christians are called today to identify ourselves with the vulnerable and the suffering in the face of the great threat of HIV/AIDS. This is the usual way of acting for the Church, which brings consolation to orphans, widows, the elderly, and to entire families, as to the many vulnerable women and children whose lives have been devastated by the disease. In other words, it is a Church that includes the excluded, drawing to itself and touching the “plague-stricken.”

2. Saying a radical “yes” to human sexuality.

Affirming the dignity of persons means shaping their morality, encouraging them toward life and liberty. This means having the courage to say “no” to oneself, and teaching others to say “no,” in the name of a “yes” to life. Not all needs are legitimate, not all choices are wise, correct, and life-giving.

The so-called “change of behavior” is a praiseworthy attempt to instill ethical responsibility without invoking God or expressing moral judgments. The Church promotes the defense of upright behavior, in addition to the changing of what should be changed, but everyone is a sinner, and the Church calls everyone to conversion, repentance, and determination.

Catholic morality faces the issue of sexuality with persons of different ages, in such a way as to do justice to this great gift and mystery. This is because the topic of morality is at the center of the Church’s fight against AIDS, of the formation of the followers of Christ, and of service to persons in difficulty.

Clear and effective teaching often demands a generous response. Last year, in Durban, 72 young delegates from eleven African countries publicly proclaimed their commitment to combat HIV through the assumption of a lifestyle that promotes healthy and moral behavior: “We understand that lifestyles and societies have changed, and can change for the better thanks to our efforts. For that reason, with renewed commitment and energy, we intend to promote life through the renewal of our society in the realm of behavior, as Africans responding to Africa, beginning with ourselves.”

Many in the West would consider such an aspiration to be hardly realistic, if not absurdly outdated. Nevertheless, from the viewpoint of those on the front lines, such a courageous analysis and such determined resolution deserve admiration and support.

But African cultures and customs also have their faults, as for example the vulnerability of children and adolescents to abuse, the condition of women, the sexual status of men. It is the Africans themselves who must criticize these situations. Christian sexual morality has, perhaps, always gone against the prevailing tide, and it does so in a new way in the era of AIDS, opposing the global myths on sexuality. And when it is necessary, it even questions the Africans and their cultures.

3. On distributive justice and generous solidarity.

Many in the West often ask why AIDS is such a serious problem in Africa, and why statistics there are worse than anywhere else in the world.

This insistent question can be answered with a single word: poverty. It is not a reply that finds much enthusiasm in the West. And yet the poor and marginalized members of African society do not have access to basic education, to information about HIV and AIDS, to health care, work, treatment, or support. Such a situation of injustice makes people more vulnerable to the threat of HIV and to the tragic consequences of AIDS, which they would not suffer if they had a standard of life somewhat similar to that in the West.

When, in 2000, South African president Thabo Mbeki asserted that the real cause of AIDS is poverty rather than HIV, he was widely criticized. But there is a good bit of truth in his controversial assertion, and the African bishops identified and articulated that which was valid in his intuition: the virus develops in direct proportion to poverty.

In order to combat AIDS in a responsible manner, we must teach respect for the sacred value of life and a correct approach to sexuality. But doing this without considering the often extremely difficult conditions in which African people live would mean insisting always on good intentions and on will power alone, overlooking the forces and structures that oppress the poor. One would then fall into moralism without being able to accomplish anything positive.

For this reason, whether one refers to the reduction of poverty, sustainable development, the millennium goals, or the fight against AIDS, the objectives are always the same: the hope is that the Church in the West may be capable of following the Church in Africa in the struggle for justice and victory over AIDS.

Conclusions

A. Stigma and discrimination are reactions linked to ignorance, fear, insecurity, not much different from what anyone would experience in any part of the world when threatened by HIV or by other profoundly disturbing forms of human weakness. Stigma and discrimination should be condemned, but their causes must also be understood, and this requires authentic cultural change.

B. Sexuality is shrouded, in every place and at every time, with an important sense of mystery, and the way in which the Africans integrate their sexuality should be heeded and appreciated, as the Church seeks to do.

The threat of HIV does not change the Church’s morality - which is founded upon the Sacred Scriptures and two thousand years of tradition - but the spread of the virus makes it more urgent for the Church to transmit and communicate its morality to the faithful, particularly to the young, and to those who, explicitly or implicitly, share Christian values. There is an urgent need to resist the globalized culture and to promote African values, and one cannot help but recognize that Catholic morality is an important means of reaching these goals.

C. Service and social justice are an integral part of the Church’s response to AIDS. This is why the Church, in a completely natural way, combines pastoral ministry with health care, the exercise of compassion, and spiritual support; with personal morality, social ethics, and education for prevention.

Offering compassion without considering the structures of sin, or preaching morality and prevention without combating poverty, means scorning the tradition of the Church and denying its mission to proclaim the Kingdom of God, in which sin and death are defeated forever.

But fourteen months ago,
in “La Civiltà Cattolica”...

In the same magazine that published the article referred to above, fourteen months ago the question of the legitimacy of using condoms was addressed in an entirely different way – and by the same author who is the focus of controversy today: cardinal Carlo Maria Martini.

In its edition number 3712, February 19, 2005, La Civiltà Cattolica published a conference by Martini on a great Jesuit philosopher and theologian, Bernard Lonergan, a Canadian, professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, who died at the age of 80 in 1984.

In the conference, Martini extolled Lonergan’s skill in applying philosophical and theological categories to concrete topics.

And as evidence he referred to a letter Lonergan wrote on September 6, 1968 – forty days after the publication of Humanae Vitae – “on the relationship between Aristotelian and modern forms of thought in regard to human fertilization, with some important intuitions on the problem of contraception and the relationship between causation and statistical laws.”

Cardinal Martini didn’t add anything else.

But if you read the letter by Lonergan that he cites, which can be found in the “Lonergan Studies Newsletter,” no. 11, 1990, pp. 8-9, you will find an argument that leads directly to admitting the permissibility of contraception.

Lonergan begins by noting that traditional Catholic doctrine on the sexual act proceeds directly from “De generatione animalium” by Aristotle, according to which “every act of insemination is intrinsically procreative.”

But then – Lonergan continues – two factors intervened to change the view of Catholic theology in this matter.

The first factor was the discovery that “the Aristotelian position is erroneous.” Insemination and conception are known to be distinct. The relation between the one and the other “is simply statistical,” and in the great majority of cases no new life is produced.

Is this statistical relation sacred and inviolable? If one responds that it is, then contraception must always be prohibited. If one responds that it is not, it is permissible to use the pill, the diaphragm, the menstrual cycle, thermometer...

The second factor of change was the recognition that the sexual relationship between spouses expresses and reinforces their mutual love. This recognition – Lonergan notes – is absent in Aristotle, but is present in both Vatican II and the encyclical Humanae Vitae.

But Humanae Vitae continues to maintain that the “unitive sense” of the sexual act preserves an inseparable “procreative sense.”

And thus the encyclical – Lonergan maintains – remains in “the interval between the discovery that Aristotelian biology is mistaken and the discovery that marital intercourse of itself, per se, is an expression and sustainer of love with only a statistical relationship with conception.”

The central question – Lonergan concludes – “is that, when there is no valid reason whatever for a precept, that precept is not of general law.”

Humanae Vitae, therefore, did not pronounce the last word, in the judgment of Lonergan/Martini. It can be debated, and remains open to future changes.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/05/2006 1.03]

Sandro Magister's blog today quotes some of what Cardinal Camillo Ruini said in a press conference Friday at the end of the General Assembly of the Italian bishops conference. But since I translated last night a 5/19/06 article in Avvenire about the same press conference, I am running that translation instead - it contains the paragraphs quoted by Magister along with other material.
----------------------------------------------------------------

"We cannot keep quiet
about irrenounceable values"
By Salvatore Mazza

The “pressure” in the issue of PACS [Patto civile di solidarieta, which would give common-law heterosexual couples and same-sex couples the same recognition, rights and benefits as married heterozexual couples ] does not come from heterosexual couples.

“The true problem is with homosexual couples” and "not all of them" but “only gay couples,” those who advocate a culture of “gay pride.”

This is what Cardinal Camilo Ruini, president of the Italian bishops conference (CEI, from the Italian acronym), said, responding to questions about PACS at the concluding press conference of the 56th general assembly of the CEI.

Ruini said he knows “many heterosexual couples who live together (outside wedlock). I have good relations with them. We priests concern ourselves a lot with de-facto couples from the ethical and pastoral aspects. We concern ourselves with all people independent of the moral situation they may lead.”

He stressed: “It is not such couples that who are demanding agreements that will entail rights and duties. If only because if they wanted to, they could simply get married. But a lot of them wish to live together freely. None of us molests them for this. Because later, if they wish to, they could get married. Or perhaps their relationship does not last. In the United States, it seems the average heterosexual couple stays together 13 months, in Italy a little longer."

According to Ruini, heterosexuals who live as de-facto couples (common-law relations) “do not marry because they do not want to take on obligations.” But beyond the question “can rights be given if the recipient refuses to take on obligations”, for Ruini, the thorniest problem remains 'gay' couples, because:

“It is from them that the pressure comes. Not all homosexual couples ask for recognition: many in fact do not want to come out in the open. But the 'gays' have set in motion a campaign to elevate homosexuality, to proclaim its 'value'.

“We are not asking for any law against them nor do we want to cause any aggravation of their condition. Right now they have access to all the forms of protection that exist. However, it seems to the Church altogether improper that gay couples be recognized by law as ‘unions’, which would automatically become an institution similar to matrimony. And this is negative for the younger generation.”

More in general, Ruini then reaffirmed that “We do not ask for much, only that things are not done that will represent a point of vulnerability not only to the country’s religious tradition but also to the ethics and culture of the nation, and which would be accommodated by the Constitution. “

Thus, about the “dialectic between the advocates of an ethic without absolute values and those who share and sustain irrenounceable values,” Ruini adds that “in certain aspects of the political field, it is not about insisting on consensus at all costs. In this case, evidently the different dialectical positions can speak out in a free democratic confrontation.”

And the question of PACS is precisely one of those “divisions over irrenounceable values of whoch we must realistically taske into account. We cannot not take into account the tradition and the deep convictions of the Italian people. And we cannot renounce irrenounceable values to avoid division.”

Ruini would not make a comment about the new government. “I have not read their program yet. But Ruini noted that “the institution of a Minister for Families” was an noteworthy. “You know the attention that the Church gives to problems affecting families.”

To a question about the words of Bertinotti (the new President of the Italian House of Representatives) criticizing the Pope, Ruini said, “Certainly, it is possible for anyone to dissent. Howeever, my reservation in that regard had to do with the fact that a person who carries an important public office would make ad-hominem references.”

Finally on the question of clemency (for prisoners), Ruini said: “Our position is that of John Paul II when he spoke to the Italian Parlimaent: a more mature position that takes account of, on the one hand, a hope that sentences may be shortened, and on the other, of the security needs of the citizenry.”

---------------------------------------------------------------

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/05/2006 2.51]

In light of Papa's trip to Poland:


Poland digs in against tide toward secularism

By Tom Hundley
Chicago Tribune
Published May 23, 2006


WARSAW -- Poland could be Europe's first red state.

The 25 members of the European Union do not think of themselves in terms of blue states and red states, at least not yet. If they did, the map of Europe would have a decidedly blue hue. Even countries with conservative governments, such as France and Germany, are blue when it comes to the "values" debate.

But Poland cuts against the grain. Lech Kaczynski, winner of last October's presidential election, is opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. He has instructed his education minister to come up with guidelines for the "proper upbringing of children." And lately, he has been spending a lot of time cozying up to conservative Christian groups.

While Christianity appears to be in a steep decline across most of Europe, in Poland the faith still burns brightly. The question is whether Poland is an anomaly, a quirky throwback to another era, or whether it is harbinger of Europe's coming culture war.

Poland's churches are packed; its seminaries still are churning out healthy numbers of priests. According to census data, 96 percent of the population identify themselves as Roman Catholic; 57 percent say they attend mass every Sunday. There seem to be as many statues of Pope John Paul II as there once were of V.I. Lenin.

This week Pope Benedict XVI will pay homage to his predecessor with a visit to Poland, and Poles have responded by modestly covering up some of the racier lingerie ads along the processional route.

Pope Benedict's itinerary

The pope's stops will include Warsaw, the Auschwitz death camp and Wadowice, Pope John Paul II's hometown.

It was the late pope's fervent hope that the intense spirituality of his native Poland would spark a "new evangelization" of Western Europe. During most of his papacy, there was scant sign of that happening.

But more recently Poland has emerged at the fore of a fledgling movement to restore Christian values to Europe.

"What's new in Poland is that political parties want to express their Catholicism," said Pawel Spiewak, a Polish sociologist and expert on right-wing politics.

"A few years ago, a typical Pole was Catholic in his private life. Now he is expressing it openly and wants to express it as public policy. It's atypical for Europe," Spiewak said.

Beginning in 2003, the Polish government led the push--ultimately unsuccessful--to include a reference to Christianity in the new EU constitution.

Aleksander Kwasniewski, the reformed communist who was Poland's president at the time, told a British newspaper that "there is no excuse for making references to ancient Greece and Rome, and to the Enlightenment, without making reference to the Christian values which are so important to the development of Europe."

An unusual argument coming from a self-professed atheist, but Kwasniewski always has grasped the importance of religion in Polish political life.

Last year, the Polish delegation to the European Parliament made waves by setting up an anti-abortion display in the corridors of the parliament's headquarters in Strasbourg, France. A scuffle ensued when guards attempted to remove it.

"We follow the teachings of the church and the advice of the bishops," said Piotr Slusarczyk, a spokesman for the League of Polish Families, a conservative Catholic party that was behind the anti-abortion display.

In addition to abortion, Slusarczyk said the league opposes gay rights and euthanasia. It also favors large families and takes a dim view of the EU in general.

"Our goal is to defend Catholic values and to defend Poland against Western tendencies that are being promoted by a vocal EU lobby," he said.

Religion and politics blend naturally in Poland.

From the BBC:

India protests over Pope comments


Benedict's XVI's envoy received a dressing down

India has summoned the Vatican envoy in Delhi in protest over comments by the Pope in which he condemned attempts to ban religious conversions.

India's junior Foreign Minister, Anand Sharma, told parliament on Tuesday that the envoy was told in "no uncertain terms" of India's disapproval.

The Pope criticised India last week for what he called "disturbing signs of religious intolerance".

India's main opposition party, the BJP, has already protested to the Vatican.

'Religious intolerance'

Pope Benedict XVI made the comments last week while talking to India's new Ambassador to the Vatican, Amitava Tripathi.

Religious conversions are a controversial issue

The pontiff criticised India for "disturbing signs of religious intolerance which have troubled some regions of India".

He specifically cited attempts by some Indian states to introduce legislation to ban what right-wing Hindus call "forced conversions".

India's foreign ministry has now reacted strongly to Monday's papal comments.

"India is a secular and democratic country, in which adherents of all religious faiths enjoy equal rights," said Junior Foreign Minister Anand Sharma.

Interference

Correspondents say that Mr Sharma made the comments in response to opposition criticism that India had not protested against the "grossly unwarranted" statement from Rome.

Rajnath Singh, the President of India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) wrote to the Pope on 20 May.

"My interference in your religious domain within the Vatican will be unwelcome, uncalled for and will be treated as interference in your religious management and administration," the letter said.

Earlier this month, the state governor of India's western state of Rajasthan refused to sign a contentious religious freedom bill, which would have banned people from being converted to religions "against their will".

Human rights agencies and minority groups also opposed the bill, saying it was introduced to appease radical Hindu groups.

But the BJP-led Rajasthan government, led by the BJP, said that the bill had been introduced to stop religious conversion by means of allurement, greed or pressure.

The BJP says that it supports legislation to ban "forced religious conversions", because many Christian missionaries recruit converts among the majority Hindu population using financial and educational enticements.

Christians make up just over two percent of India's 1.1 billion mainly Hindu population.

This item is 'significant' only that it was issued by the official Chinese news agency Xinhua. Otherwise, it really says nothing new.

BEIJING, May 25 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said here on Thursday that the communication channel between China and the Vatican is "unblocked" and China is sincere about wanting to improve ties with the Vatican.

Reports say that Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen will depart for the Vatican on Friday and may meet with Pope Benedict XVI to discuss Sino-Vatican relations.

Spokesman Liu Jianchao said China hopes the Vatican will respect the Chinese government's religious policies and relevant laws and stop interfering in China's domestic affairs under the pretext of religion.

He said the Chinese government has two principles in dealing with relations with the Vatican. First the Vatican must terminate its so-called diplomatic links with Taiwan, and it should not interfere in China's internal affairs, including any intervention under the pretext of religious affairs.

--------------------------------------------------------------

What exactly do they mean by "interfere" and "intervention"? The Chinese government may well say that of any statement at all from the Vatican about the Catholic Church in China!

AsiaNews ran these stories today, May 25, on Mgr. Li Duan, Archbishop of Xian, who dies last night at age 79.

Chinese bishops invited to the Synod
remember Mgr Anthony Li Duan

A great and exceptional figure, he was committed to reconciliation within the Church in China. With his death, the bishop of Shanghai is worried about the loneliness of younger bishops.

Rome (AsiaNews) – Mgr Lucas Li Jingfeng from Fengxiang, Mgr Joseph Wei Jingyi from Qiqihar and Mgr Aloysius Jin Luxian from Shanghai remember with emotion the “great and exceptional” figure of Mgr Anthony Li Duan, archbishop of Xian, who passed away last night at the age of 79. All four of them were invited last year by Benedict XVI to the Synod of the Eucharist.

“Last year we were supposed to be in Rome together,” Bishop Lucas Li, whose diocese borders that of Xian, told AsiaNews. “With that invitation we felt the weight of our responsibility vis-à-vis the Church of China and the Holy See,” he said.

With the passing of his fellow bishop, Mgr Li, who is now the oldest bishop in Shaanxi province, feels a bit alone “at the helm of the Church”.

“He was respected by everyone, always available and committed to bridging the gap between the official and the underground Church gap”.

Bishop Li Duan devoted much of his time to listening, bringing together, giving advice to bishops from both the official and underground Church so that they could understand one another and be reconciled with the Pope and amongst themselves.

By contrast, the Patriotic Association (PA) tried for decades to drive a wedge between ‘patriotic’ and ‘illegal’ bishops and believers, opposing loyalty to China to fidelity to the Holy See.

For years Bishop Lucas Li, who belongs to the underground Church, had tense relations with the Bishop of Xian. But more recently the two prelates had become “good friends” and the Church in Shaanxi was able to find a basis for reconciliation. Mgr Lucas Li was even able to get the government to recognise him as the bishop despite his refusal to join the PA.

Speaking from China’s extreme north, underground Bishop Wei Jingyi told AsiaNews about Li Duan’s great work.

“He always tried to bring unity to the official and underground Church like we are doing now. As everyone knows the problems between them and their divisions are the work of outside organisations.”

As soon as he learnt of Bishop Li’s death, Mgr Wei relayed the information to the faithful of his diocese, asking them to pray for “this great pastor of the Church”.

For Shanghai’s official bishop, Mgr Jin Luxian, Li Duan was a “great friend and an excellent pastor whose concern was the fate of the whole Church of China.”

For Bishop Jin, Li was “was very intelligent, capable of facing and transforming any contradiction into something good.”

For years, Bishop Li Duan was deputy chairman of the Council of Chinese Bishops (akin to a national bishops’ conference but without the Holy See’s recognition). But he always upheld the principle of separation between state and church in a country like China where the government and the Patriotic Association claim the right to name bishops.

Because “China has many elderly bishops,” said the 94-year-old Jin, the appointment of younger bishops last year is an issue of concern to him.

“There is a young bishop in my diocese: 43-year-old Mgr Xing Wenzhi. In Xian, there is the young bishop Dang Mingyan. I pray God to let us be with them a little longer so we can accompany them in their still limited pastoral experience”.

Recently the government’s Religious Affairs Bureau and the PA summoned newly-appointed bishops to train them in the government religious policy. The goal is to convince them of the correctness of the PA’s decision to name bishops despite the Holy See’s disapproval.

For this reason, Bishop Jin said, “we call on believers to pray for our Church in China"

25 May, 2006
Mgr Li Duan died wearing
the ring the Pope gave him

He might have been named cardinal in pectore (secretly) by John Paul II. He was a great man, respected by the official and underground Church between whom he tried to build bridges for the sake of unity.

Xian (AsiaNews) – He died with the ring on his finger Benedict XVI gave him after the Synod on the Eucharist. To anyone who visited him in hospital, Mgr Li Duan would show it with pride. “This is the ring of my communion with the Pope,” he used to say.

The archbishop of Xian, who passed away last night, had been invited to the Synod with other three bishops, both official and underground, but the Chinese government refused them the necessary papers to travel.

The Pope gave all four bishops a ring to symbolise that, despite their absence, they were still considered members of the Synod.

Fr Peter Barry, an expert at Hong Kong’s Holy Spirit Study Centre, spoke to AsiaNews about Archbishop Li.

“I visited the bishop last January in hospital. He showed me the ring the Pope gave him. It seemed to be his most precious thing.”

However minor this episode may be it shows the type of man Mgr Anthony Li Duan was and the depth of his love for the universal Church and its pontiff.

According to Father Barry, Archbishop Li “is perhaps one of the most exceptional personalities in today’s Chinese Church. He was a member of the official Church, but entertained relations with the underground Church. He was well respected by both branches of the Chinese Church.”

“He was very courageous. In January 2000 he refused to take part in ordinations deemed unlawful by the Holy See, thus showing obedience to papal injunctions.”

“He was a man of great spirituality and this enabled to face any problem with serenity like the case involving nuns in Xian, who were beaten because they opposed the confiscation of their school by the authorities. He chose to buy back the school and the land, which are near the Cathedral, to avoid any further problems for the Church.”

“Some young bishops, who are today following in his footsteps, grew up around him,” he said.

Fr Gianni Criveller, from the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions (PIME), who also works at the Holy Spirit Study Centre in Hong Kong, remembers him for his Catholic clarity.

“His line was clear: The Catholic Church is the one united around its bishops in communion with the Pope. For this reason he was critical of the Patriotic Association’s attempts to name bishops on its own. For the same reasons he refused to take part in the unlawful ordinations of 2000, which caused him to endure long interrogations, experience oppression, and be subjected to checks by government officials. For years his seminary was penalised.”

Father Criveller remembers that despite all the difficulties “Mgr Li was always unruffled and optimistic, above of all about the future of the Church. He used to say: This is the right time for the evangelisation of China.”

In fact, in Xian as well as in the rest of China the number of conversions and baptisms is growing at a phenomenal rate amongst intellectuals, university students, and professionals.

“When people pointed out that Protestants were growing more quickly than Catholics, he said without any regrets that it was a good sign.”

“‘It is a beautiful thing,’ he used to say, ‘that so many people get to know Jesus. And when some of them get to see the greater richness of the Catholic faith, they become Catholic.’”

Archbishop Li was twice in forced labour camps; first, from 1960 to 1963, and then from 1963 till 1979. And yet he was a diehard optimist, one that felt no resentment, even when it came to the future of state-Church relations.

“In the last 10 to 15 years, Li Duan became the Vatican’s most trusted man in China,” said Father Criveller. “The Holy See trusted him with the task of bridging the gap amongst underground communities. And in the last few years, he did succeed in gaining the trust of many underground bishops.”

When John Paul II named a cardinal in pectore (in secret) during the 2003 consistory, many observers believed that he was the one the Pope had in mind.

Anthony Dang Mingyan, auxiliary bishop of Xian, told AsiaNews that when Archbishop Li died, in addition to himself, several priests and tens of faithful from Xian had gathered around the ailing prelate.

He was still conscious almost up to the end passing away with sound of their voices in prayer. Yesterday morning AsiaNews heard from him for the last time. At 2 am he had an attack.

The funeral is scheduled for May 31 in Gongyi parish (Lintong), where Mgr Li served as parish priest from 1980 till 1987 right after he was freed from forced labour camp. He will be laid to rest in the church itself.

His body will lie in state in Xian Cathedral for three days. Masses and vigil prayers will be held under Archbishop Li’s successor, Auxiliary Bishop Dang Mingyan.

Governor in India Refuses
to Sign Anti-Conversion Bill;
Bishops' Conference Praises Decision

JAIPUR, India, MAY 23, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Indian bishops' conference praised a decision by a governor of Rajasthan state to reject an anti-conversion bill that was strongly opposed by religious minorities.

Pratibha Patil, the governor, turned down the "draconian" Religious Freedom Bill which "was hurriedly approved" by the state Assembly, said the bishops' conference in a statement.

The legislation went "against human rights and the citizen's rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution," said Archbishop Stanislaus Fernandes, secretary-general of the conference.

The bill had been approved just over a month ago. Conversion activities were causing problems of law and order for the authorities in the state. The Religious Freedom Bill ostensibly aimed to prohibit conversions by "force, or seduction or fraudulent means."

According to the bill, if there was a complaint about a conversion, the offender could be detained, without bail, even before an investigation opened. Violators of the bill would face up to five years in prison and a fine of about $1,100.

Bishop Oswald Lewis of Jaipur, the capital, had already assailed the bill. "It is against the Indian Constitution and curtails a person's freedom," he said. "We feel that it will be misused against us."

In Rajasthan, Christians constitute 0.11% of a population that is 89% Hindu and 8% Muslim.

Five other states -- Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Chhattisgarh -- have passed similar legislation.

Cardinal Dias Defends Pope
on Religious Freedom;
Answers Critics of Benedict XVI

BOMBAY, India, MAY 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The recently appointed prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples has responded to the criticisms of "a tiny politico-religious fraction" in India directed against Benedict XVI.

The critics assailed the Pope because of his rejection of laws contrary to religious freedom.

In a statement issued Tuesday by the Indian bishops' conference, Cardinal Ivan Dias recalled the words uttered by the Pontiff last Thursday when he received India's new ambassador to the Holy See.

Cardinal Dias quoted the Holy Father as saying: "The disturbing signs of religious intolerance which have troubled some regions of the nation, including the reprehensible attempt to legislate clearly discriminatory restrictions on the fundamental right of religious freedom, must be firmly rejected as not only unconstitutional, but also as contrary to the highest ideals of India's founding fathers, who believed in a nation of peaceful coexistence and mutual tolerance between different religions and ethnic groups."

Noting the criticisms launched by "a tiny politico-religious fraction of the religious majority in India," as a reaction to these words, Cardinal Dias stressed that "freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate one's religion have been enshrined in the Constitution of India."

It is but "an affirmation of the human rights to which every man, woman and child is entitled," the 70-year-old former archbishop of Bombay stated.

He emphasized that conversions "should never be induced by force, fraud or allurement. The Catholic Church considers all such conversions as invalid.

"But, any opposition by law or de facto to a genuine conversion, besides being a grave violation of the code of human rights and of the spirit of the Indian Constitution, is, above all, an unwarranted interference in God's unique competence in the matter."

Cardinal Dias regards as "imperative that the said group [of critics] be asked to produce factual evidence proving a single forced conversion to the Catholic Church in India as a sign of its bona fide intentions."

"All allegations made in this regard in the past have proved to be utterly false," he recalled.

About 80.5% of India's 1 billion inhabitants are Hindus, and 13.4% are Muslims. Christians represent 2.3% of the population; Catholics comprise 1.8% of the total number of inhabitants.

On Tuesday, the Indian episcopate's ICNS information service explained that Rajnath Singh, president of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, wrote the Pope saying that his comments on India's anti-conversion laws "has pained us all in India."

The letter followed several protests of BJP leaders against the Pope. On Saturday a Hindu group set fire to images of the Pope in several places in the state of Madhya Pradesh, in opposition to papal "interference" in the country's affairs.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 26/05/2006 0.41]

Father Richard Neuhaus
on Loving the Church:
"Main Problem Is a Lack of Faith"

NEW YORK, MAY 23, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope has brought clarity to confusions and gentle firmness to controversies in the Church.

So says Father Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things and author of "Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy and the Splendor of Truth" (Basic Books).

He shared with ZENIT his thoughts on thinking with and loving the Church, and why lack of faith is the faithful's greatest challenge.

One of the main themes of your book is St. Ignatius of Loyola's exhortation that we should "think with the Church." What did he -- and you -- mean by that?
Yes, it's a marvelous phrase -- "sentire cum ecclesia." It means to think with the Church, but also to feel with the Church. In short, to love the Church.

If we love the Church, as a lover loves the beloved, then we will her to be, we will her to flourish, we will her to succeed in the mission she has been given by Christ.

As in a good marriage, the Catholic never thinks "I" without thinking "we." It is necessary to cultivate this communion of shared devotion, affection and purpose in a very disciplined way, for not all aspects of the Church are lovable, just as we are not always lovable.

Nonetheless, we are loved by the Church, and most particularly by all the saints in the Church Triumphant. Sentire cum ecclesia means being concerned never to betray St. Paul, St. Irenaeus, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Theresa and the faith for which they and innumerable others lived and died.

And, for all the inadequacies and sins of the Church and her leadership in our time, it means always doing one's best to support, and never to undermine, the effectiveness of her teaching ministry.

She is, after all, the bearer and embodiment of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is nothing less than the story of the world -- without which the world, and we with it, is lost.

In your days as a Lutheran pastor, you were known as someone who "spoke truth to power," yet in your book you extol docility and obedience as typically Catholic virtues. Do you see any necessary tension between the two?
I hope I am still someone who speaks truth to power, although that phrase has in it the temptation to an arrogant assumption that I have a unique hold on the truth.

The phrase is more appropriate in a political context of challenging corruptions of power in earthly regimes. Unlike the Church, political orders are not established by Christ to be his body on earth.

As Pope Benedict writes in Deus Caritas Est, politics is the realm of justice while the Church is the realm of love. That does not mean that questions of power and politics do not arise in the Church. They do, but they are alien elements.

The Church is constituted by and for love. Docility and obedience are strong, not weak, virtues. They require sensitivity and responsiveness to the beloved. In such a relationship, one may sometimes admonish, reproach and suggest a better way, but always within the bond of love. See above on sentire cum ecclesia.

Your book seems to echo G.K. Chesterton's statement that there was never anything so exciting or perilous as orthodoxy. Why do you believe this is the case?
I am always honored to be associated with Chesterton, one of the great Catholic spirits of modern times.

Yes, orthodoxy is a high adventure -- intellectually, spiritually, aesthetically and morally. It is ever so much more interesting than the smelly conventions that so many, viewing orthodoxy as a burden, embrace in the dismal ambition to be considered progressive.

In the encyclical Redemptoris Missio, John Paul II said that the Church imposes nothing; she only proposes. But what she proposes is an astonishment beyond the reach of human imagining -- the coming of the promised Kingdom of God, and our anticipation of that promise in the life of the Church.

It is a great pity that so many are prepared, even eager, to settle for something less than this high adventure.

For instance, in "Catholic Matters" I discuss the preoccupation with being an "American Catholic" when we should really want to be "Catholic Americans." Note that the adjective controls.

The really interesting thing is not to accommodate our way of being Catholic to the fact of our being American but to demonstrate a distinctively Catholic way of being American.

Are the main problems in the Church today primarily intellectual or spiritual?
The main problem in the Church today -- as it has been from the apostolic era and will be until our Lord's return in glory -- is a lack of faith.

Our sinful nature resists, does not dare to believe, the good news of our salvation now and forever. This has intellectual, spiritual, aesthetic, moral and whatever dimensions you want to name.

We have turned the high adventure of discipleship into something dreary, drab and predictable. This is nowhere so evident as in the long-standing intra-Church squabbles between left and right, liberals and traditionalists.

In "Catholic Matters" I refer to the "discontinuants" of both left and right -- those who speak of a pre-Vatican II Church and a post-Vatican II Church as though there were two churches. The alternative is to gratefully and loyally take our place in the glorious, and sometimes stumbling, march of the one Church through time to the end of time.

A major theme in your book is the importance of a revitalized liturgy for renewing Catholic life. How do you see that occurring?
Don't get me started. The banality of liturgical texts, the unsingability of music that is deservedly unsung, the hackneyed New American Bible prescribed for use in the lectionary, the stripped-down architecture devoted to absence rather than Presence, the homiletical shoddiness.

Where to begin? A "high church" Lutheran or Anglican -- and I was the former -- braces himself upon becoming a Catholic.

The heart of what went wrong, however, and the real need for a "reform of the reform" lies in the fatal misstep of constructing the liturgical action around our putatively amazing selves rather than around the surpassing wonder of what Christ is doing in the Eucharist.

All that having been said, however, be assured that there has never been a second or even a nanosecond in which I've had second thoughts about entering into full communion with the Church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time.

What have we learned from Pope Benedict XVI thus far about the appropriate approach to the "confusion" and "controversy" existing in the Church?
When Pope Benedict was elected, my first words were "Deo gratias." And I repeat those words every day since.

John Paul the Great, as history will surely know him, was a gift of person and charism that happens every millennium or so. As Benedict was his intimate collaborator, so he has pledged himself to continue and expand John Paul's initiatives, and especially his teaching initiatives. Nobody is better equipped to do so, as we have seen in the year past.

To the confusions he brings an exquisite clarity in setting forth the truths by which the Church is constituted, and in inviting the world to engage the truths upon which its future depends.

To the controversies he brings a pastoral heart and a gentle firmness that can turn rancor into reason and recall those who are at odds with one another to their shared devotion -- as in sentire cum ecclesia.

He is not going to straighten out everything that is wrong with the Church, beginning with ourselves. Our Lord will do that in due course.

Provincial council in Spain orders crucifixes removed from school

Abuja, May. 26, 2006 (CNA) - The provincial council of Andalusia in Spain has ordered the removal of all crucifixes from the classrooms of St. John’s School in Jaen, in response to a complaint by a man who said he did not want his children to be exposed to Christian symbols at school.

The decision means that crucifixes can only be displayed during religion class or in the classroom where religion is taught. The council also prohibited any kind of extra-curricular activity related to religion and warned that teachers who disobey the ordinance would be subject to disciplinary measures.

Antonio Aranda, a spokesman from the Diocese of Jaen, said the decision could mean students might not be able to attend presentations on Catholic universities or that nativity scenes would not be allowed to be displayed during Christmas.

“They want the crosses to be removed from the school yet they don’t demand that the school’s name be changed, which refers to a great mystic poet,” Aranda noted.

The bishops of the region of criticized other recent ordinances which could lead to more attacks on the family, human life and freedom of education and religion.

The Pope and the Press - John Allen CCN lecture

John L. Allen Jnr gave the following CCN World Communications Day lecture in London on 24 May.

This may seem a rather odd way to begin a lecture on "The Pope and the Press," but bear with me. In 1967, the Beatles released a song entitled: "Fool on the Hill." It opened as follows:

"Day after day, alone on the hill,
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still.
But nobody wants to know him,
They can see that he's just a fool
Well on the way, his head in a cloud
The man of a thousand voices
is talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make "

As with so many works by the Lennon/McCartney duo, the reference of these lyrics was not immediately clear, and debate ensured as to what, or who, they were talking about. Among the theories that floated around, some music critics cited Pope Paul VI. Even before the release of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul struck many as an isolated, sad figure increasingly ignored by the world he so desperately wanted to engage. In 1967, it was possible to conceive of the pope as someone of whom it could be said that "nobody ever hears him, or the sound he appears to make."

How much things can change in a mere forty years. Had "Fool on the Hill" been released in 2005 instead of 1967, I dare say it would not have occurred to many people to regard Pope John Paul II as the song's inspiration. Agree with him or not, few ignored this pope.

Indeed, one would have to reach back to the High Middle Ages to find popes who had a comparable impact on the public affairs of his own day, and that was in the context of a handful of emerging monarchies in Western Europe and their attempt to reassert Christian power in the Holy Land. John Paul II, on the other hand, was a player on a truly global stage, who helped bring the Soviet system down in Eastern Europe, averted at least one war in Latin America, and contributed to suppressing a broader Christian/Muslim conflagration at the time of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Part of John Paul's capacity to act as the Prime Minister of the Human Conscience, the most important voice for human dignity in global affairs, was his instinctive genius for mass communications.

One brief story will make the point. When Lech Walesa, the founder of the Solidarity Movement in Poland, visited the pope for the first time in the Vatican, John Paul received him in the Sala Clementina. When he entered the room, Walesa departed from the script and fell impulsively at the pope's feet to kiss his ring. As it happened, the legendary Vatican photographer Arturo Mari was changing a roll of film at that instant and uncharacteristically missed the shot. John Paul caught what had happened out of the corner of his eye, and promptly told Walesa to get up and do it again. He wanted that picture to finish on the front page of every newspaper in the world, implicitly making the point that this was not a radical firebrand but a loyal son of the Church whom the pope embraced. That kind of papal savvy, as we now know, repeatedly changed history. Biographer Jonathan Kwitny once called John Paul II "The Man of the Century;" I suspect many of my colleagues in the press would join me in also dubbing him "The Story of the Century."

It wasn't just that John Paul intuitively understood the power of the press. He reflected deeply on the spiritual dignity of communications. Speaking to a thousand journalists in January 1984, John Paul said the church must be "a 'house of glass' where all can see what is happening, and how it carries out its mission in faithfulness to Christ and the evangelical message." In that same year, John Paul appointed a professional lay journalist, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, at the time the Rome correspondent of the Madrid daily ABC, as the director of the Vatican Press Office, a revolutionary move within the world of the Vatican towards realising this vision. (To this day Navarro-Valls remains the only lay head of a Vatican office to whom clergy report).

John Paul's appreciation of the dignity of journalism can be glimpsed from a 1979 address he gave to reporters covering his trip to the United Nations:

"You are indeed servants of the truth; you are its tireless transmitters, diffusers, defenders," the pope said. "And I say to you, take it as my parting words to you - that the service of truth, the service of humanity through the medium of the truth, is something worthy of your best years, your finest talents, your most dedicated efforts."

I confess that this affirmation of John Paul that this job, despite its frustrations and imperfections, is something worthy of my best years and my finest talents has often sustained me in difficult moments.

At one level, then, we might suppose that the problem of the relationship of the Pope with the press has largely been solved. Follow the example of John Paul II, and all will be well.

And yet.

And yet there are obvious signs that things are not so simple. Though John Paul's charisma and dramatic personal biography captured the interest of the global media for a quarter-century, surprisingly little of that seems to have transferred over into improved comprehension of the institution he led. From the point of view of Catholic communications, 2005 will be remembered as a year of great irony. The death of Pope John Paul II provoked an outpouring of positive coverage of Roman Catholicism worldwide. At the same time, however, 2005 also witnessed the zenith of the Da Vinci Code phenomenon, in which tens of millions of otherwise reasonable people pronounced themselves "intrigued" or even "persuaded" by a vision of Christian origins and Church history so replete with errors and misinterpretations as to be almost self-parodying. It is as if people were to take "Hogan's Heroes" as a guide to the reality of Nazi concentration camps, or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" as a credible lesson in the science of archaeology. If people can take The Da Vinci Code seriously, it clearly suggests the Catholic Church has a rather grave image problem.

One could add the continuing fallout from sexual abuse scandals, or the basic misunderstandings of Church teachings across a wide variety of issues that continue to haunt most media coverage, as further examples of the point. The end of the John Paul era thus reveals a "Best of Times, Worst of Times" dynamic: The Church was led by a Great Communicator, but it doesn't seem to have great communications.

My suggestion therefore would be, the Catholic Church cannot rely solely on charismatic popes to solve its communications problems. The tendency of the modern media to separate celebrities from the institutions they represent inevitably means that images of popes do not ipso facto become images of the Church. This was true of John Paul, and it will be even more true of Benedict XVI, who is a lucid and penetrating thinker but not a riveting media figure. Personalities come and go, but structures and habits of mind endure. There are structural reasons why the Catholic Church so often struggles to communicate effectively, both on the part of the Church and the part of the modern media, and we must analyse and challenge them if we are to make headway.

My premise tonight is that there are powerful reasons why both Catholicism and the press should strive to understand one another better. From the point of view of the Church, prejudices about religion recycled endlessly in the press are a serious impediment to evangelisation. If the Church can express itself more effectively, it ought to do so. From the point of view of the media, in a post-9/11 world there is a growing realisation that religion remains a powerful motivating force in human affairs, whatever the biases about it may be in secular newsrooms, and we cannot pretend to cover current events adequately without understanding it.

Church structures that Impede Communications

(1) The Cultural Gap

First of all, the Church often does not have a sufficient appreciation of the depth of the cultural gap separating the thought world of the Vatican and of Roman Catholicism from 21st century secular modernity. One telling example was revealed by the sexual abuse crisis, and the bitter debates it engendered over "accountability."

Perhaps no aspect of the crisis so angered many observers as the perception that the bishops were "getting away with it," that very few of them lost their jobs. This reaction is drawn from modern corporate and political life, where poor performance or scandals are always followed by firings. Football coaches lose their jobs if their teams don't win; corporate CEOs are sacked if their companies don't perform.

Of course, this generally doesn't happen in the Church. Yet it is a terrible misconception to believe that Church officials do not therefore regard themselves as accountable. Leadership in the Church, from the ecclesial point of view, is accountable primarily to the tradition, and ultimately to God. Most Church officials sincerely believe they will stand before the bar of judgement someday to answer for their decisions. The episcopacy is not a job where performance is judged by the bottom line, but a sacramental bond between bishop and diocese more akin to a marriage. For this reason, the bias is strongly in favour of a bishop remaining in place during times of crisis. To walk away would seem a failure in fidelity, and a kind of behaviour that is itself "unaccountable." It is precisely in such a moment when he must buckle down and repair the harm; that's what it means to be accountable.

This model can, perhaps, leave the Church too reluctant to remove dysfunctional leaders. At the same time, it is also true that the secular West is a disposable society where relationships are too often, and too easily, discarded. The divorce rate is merely one example. We lack a sense of accountability to our commitments, and in that context the Church's insistence that bishops live up to theirs may be a salutary corrective.

In any event, my point is that too often Church spokespersons leave all of this unsaid, forgetting that statements and actions absent the proper context are ripe for misunderstanding. It was never that Church leadership lacked appreciation for the value of accountability, but rather that they had a different understanding of what it implied. All this has to be spelled out in language that normal people can understand.

(2) After-the Fact Communications

The Church too often conceives of communications as an after-the-fact enterprise. First, decisions are made, policies are crafted, liturgical, doctrinal and disciplinary texts are prepared, and then we decide how to present them to the outside world. Communications personnel are thus reduced to waiting outside doors while the important conversations go on, then scurrying to the copy machine once deals have been struck. The cost of this approach is that decisions are reached without adequate consideration to how they will be received, reported and communicated. Instead, communications ought to be a constitutive element of policy-making, and the Church's communicators should be at the table while the sausage is being ground.

An example may be useful. Last November, the Holy See issued its long-awaited document on the admission of homosexuals to the priesthood. That document had been in the works since 1994, and during that time it was the object of repeated leaks and counter-leaks in the press, each cycle sowing further confusion. Expectations were created on all sides that were destined to be unfulfilled.

Had a communications expert been involved from the beginning, she or he could have explained that given a topic of such intense public interest, a decade of behind-the-scenes work would inevitably create a series of unauthorised accounts, many of them partial or misleading. It might have been better to follow the procedure employed by some bishops' conferences in drafting important documents, of forming a working group whose membership is made public, holding hearings, and releasing drafts of the document for comment from bishops and theologians along the way. This way there would be no mystery about its evolution, and everyone would understand the concerns it is attempting to address is by the time it appears.

The traditional counter-argument is that one shouldn't create pressure on the Pope by anticipating his decision publicly, and there is much wisdom in that concern. The Pope should be as free as possible to render the judgement he believes is consistent with the teaching and tradition of the Church. Yet what a communications expert could explain is that in today's media environment, the notion that a topic this explosive could be studied for a decade without any public discussion is a fantasy.

There will be disclosures along the way in any event; the only question is whether they will be on the Church's terms or someone else's.

(3) Who speaks for the Church?

Too often, we put the wrong face forward in presenting the Church's message. We accept the vestigial clericalism that identifies "the Church" with "the hierarchy," so our most important spokespersons are almost inevitably clerics. On a wide range of issues, however, it would be infinitely preferable for well-formed lay people to take the lead.

To offer just one example, 2002 was the most intense year of the sexual abuse crisis in the United States in terms of media coverage. I was frequently baffled over the course of that year by the way in which negative news about the Church was reported without any sense of context. While the Church indeed failed to adequately protect hundreds of children from sexual abuse by clergy, it is also a fact that in the same year, 2.7 million children were educated in Catholic schools in the United States, many of them in urban and low-income areas; nearly 10 million persons were given assistance by Catholic Charities USA, most of them women and children; and Catholic hospitals spent $2.8 billion in providing uncompensated health care to millions of poor and low-income Americans, again a disproportionate percentage of them children. Any adequate reckoning of the Church's treatment of children should have brought all that activity into the picture.

Why didn't it happen?

I submit it's often because, in the first place, most of that activity is carried out by laity, and it's not instinctive for secular journalists to think of them as "the Church." (I can't tell you how often a secular colleague will call me for a recommendation of someone to interview on a given topic, and if I suggest a lay person, the response almost invariably is: "No, I mean someone from the Church.") Second, when clerics took to the microphones, any such rhetoric would have seemed defensive and self-interested. What we needed were poor mothers with children in Catholic schools, or Catholic children whose lives had been saved by charity care from Catholic hospitals, to make those arguments. We needed mothers and children to say they still loved and trusted the Church despite the disappointments and betrayals, and I am confident they could have been found in abundance. Cardinal Newman once famously said the Church would look silly without the laity; I would submit that during the sexual abuse crisis, we too often looked not just silly, but almost sinister.

(4) We're Not Selling Soap

There is a final structural reason why the Catholic Church is sometimes hamstrung in competing in the marketplace of ideas, one that has more to do with its inner nature than questions of strategy or cultural adjustment. There are simply some ways in which, to be true to itself, the Church must be a sign of contradiction, and that means not always doing the "saleable" thing from the point of view of PR.

Recently I visited the University of Texas in Austin, where I lectured on the first year of Benedict XVI's pontificate. The next day, I sat down with a group of 20-something Catholics at the University Catholic Centre. Among other things, I asked them to identify their frustrations with the Church. Almost to a person, the responses focused on one concept: communications. These young Catholics watch TV and surf the Internet, so they see how highly motivated and well-organized interest groups compete effectively in the public square. For the life of them, they cannot understand why the Catholic Church, with its 2,000 years of wisdom and its tradition of faith and reason, can't show at least as much imagination as Federal Express or the National Pork Producers' Council in getting its message out.

At one level, their question is eminently fair. Yet implicit in the desire that the Church act more like the Pork Council is that the Catholic Church is just another special interest group, a "lobby" with an agenda, and we should play the game of "spin" and PR as well as our best secular competitors. The risk is that beating secularity at its own game means that we play according to its rules. We can forget that the Church does not simply inhabit a culture, but, as Pope Benedict XVI continually reminds us, it is a culture there is a distinctively Catholic-Christian set of assumptions, values, and premises which are supposed to be our points of departure. Sometimes this point means the Church simply cannot engage in the thrust-and-parry of modern communications without compromising its identity.

To take a concrete example, last week I broke the news of restrictions imposed by the Vatican on the ministry of Fr Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, signalling a finding that at least some of the charges of sexual abuse lodged against Fr Maciel have substance. Many people wondered why the Vatican was not more forceful in its disciplinary action, which would have allowed the Pope to take greater credit for firm action. In part, there is a canonical motive without a trial, there can be no public finding of guilt. Yet there is also an appreciation within the Holy See that the totality of a person's life cannot be reduced to the worst moments in that life, and hence that mercy must always temper justice. If this were an institution concerned solely with public relations, a different logic would apply. But the Church faces a higher standard, which means it cannot always do what would be easiest to "sell" in a given moment.

Media Structures that Impede Communications

(1) Emphasis on Conflict

Conflict is the stuff of drama. Hence stories of disagreement, of competing visions and high-stakes showdowns, will always attract press interest. This does not imply that journalists invent conflict, but that conflict plays a disproportionate role in shaping news judgements. As regards the Church, by an obsessive focus on a narrow canon of controversial issues, such as women priests or birth control, journalism ends up distorting what the Church is really saying and doing.

Pope Benedict, for example, has to date spoken much more often about the plight of Africa than he has sexual ethics, yet it is the latter that inevitably grabs headlines because it generates controversy. Hence the media ends up promoting an image of the papacy as "sex-obsessed" that the pope's own record does not support. Basic fairness should require that journalists reconsider this filter. This does not mean ignoring controversial matters that are of great interest to a portion of our audience, but surely in covering any world leader we must also provide a basic sense of what his real concerns, his real priorities, actually are.

A classic example of this disproportion in media attention came just this week. On Sunday, Benedict XVI issued a strong appeal on the issue of world hunger, and endorsed a United Nations-sponsored "Walk the World" initiative that day which was intended to raise consciousness. It's rare that the Pope would lend his name in this way to a specific advocacy campaign not sponsored by the Church. Even in the Roman papers, however, the story finished on the inside pages, in one case below a photo spread of an attractive 21-year-old Italian girl, infamous for killing her mother and little brother five years ago, who was released from jail for three hours on Sunday to take part in a volleyball game. Had the Pope chosen instead to condemn the gay rights movement, one can be sure that this would not have been the case.

(2) Balance by Way of Caricature

The "he said/she said" approach of many news stories, which seeks balance by quoting extremists on opposite sides of a question, tends to make celebrities out of ideologues while more centrist voices struggle to be heard. Tacitus once said of the Roman armies, "They made a desert and called it peace." We might sometimes say of modern journalism, "They made a caricature and called it balance."

This insight implies that journalists should not seek just the most shrill or clamourous voices on issues, but also people who can speak from the "sane middle" of the Church, who likely represent the largest single constituency on any given issue. Reporters will have to work harder to find such people, because they rarely make headlines or appear on talk shows, but they can articulate what most in the Church are actually thinking. One's copy may not be quite as sexy, but it will better reflect the reality one is purporting to describe.

(3) Religion Not Taken Seriously

Many secular news outlets do not take religion seriously as a news beat. As one representative way of making the point, only within the last 12 months has CNN hired a single "Faith and Values" correspondent to cover the entire galaxy of religious phenomena. Inevitably, this means that the coverage of the Church is episodic, random, and often superficial not through any fault of the individual journalist, but rather the short attention spans in their organizations and limited resources. To some extent this situation reflects commercial assumptions about the interests of readers and viewers; to some extent, too, it reflects the biases of secular elites who call the shots in newsrooms, who often see religion as quaint at best, dangerous at worst. Ironically, it's usually those who think religion is terribly dangerous who give it more air time.

(As an aside, I take no pleasure in observing that in my experience of giving interviews on Catholic matters to press outlets all over the globe, I have found the disdain for religion, and consequent ignorance of even basic religious realities, to be especially pronounced in the British press, though with notable exceptions. Why this should be so calls for a level of cultural analysis I'm not sure an outsider should dare attempt.)

In any event, gross errors of fact, mischaracterizations, and misleading generalisations, which would never see the light of day in stories on politics or business, often sail through to the front page when it comes to religion. For example, in July 2003, during the peak period of the sexual abuse crisis in the United States, CBS Evening News opened its nightly news broadcast by asserting, "Now it turns out the orders for this cover-up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican." The "smoking gun" in the CBS report, based on an earlier story in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, was a 1962 Vatican document titled Crimen Sollicitationis, which decreed that canonical investigations of some sorts of sexual abuse, especially abuse of the confessional to obtain sexual favours, were to be covered by perpetual secrecy. In fact, the CBS report was based on a basic misunderstanding of the difference between canon law and civil law. Crimen sollicitationis imposes secrecy on canonical procedures; it says absolutely nothing about the civil reporting of crimes. While there was certainly a mentality in the Church that discouraged airing its dirty laundry, sensationalistic stories about Crimen Sollicitationis amounted to a red herring that fuelled conspiracy theories about how the "cover-up" was engineered in the Vatican, when in reality the problem is a much more diffuse and widespread phenomenon of Catholic culture. (Indeed, if only it were as simple as flipping a switch in Rome!) Understanding that point required a grasp of canon law and Catholic life that few reporters possess, and certainly can't be expected to acquire under the pressure of near-instantaneous deadlines.

Correcting this is not a matter of requesting special treatment for religion, but demanding the same treatment other serious news beats receive the same preparation, the same diligence, the same caution about sources, the same insistence upon context, and so on. Surely after 9/11, the 2004 elections in the United States, and the massive global reaction to the death of John Paul, even the most hard-bitten secularist can recognise that ignorance of religion is tantamount to ignorance of the world.

(4) The Trouble with Specialists

If the problem with general assignment reporters and editors is often religious illiteracy, those who specialise in it, and here I am thinking especially of the Catholic press, often suffer from the opposite malady: They know too much. Journalists drawn to covering the Church often have one of two motivations. Some are deeply convinced of the truth of the Catholic message, and see journalism as their way of defending the Church from her enemies. Others feel hurt or betrayed by the Church, and believe the Church needs to undergo significant reform, usually in a progressive direction greater democracy, women's rights, tolerance of theological dissent, and so on.

Nothing is wrong per se with either of these instincts. In a secularised world often dogmatically hostile to institutional religion, the Church needs capable apologists. The Church is also semper reformanda, continually in need of reform, and it depends upon prophets who push it to realise the best version of itself. (This, of course, is not to suggest that every apologia currently in circulation is helpful, or that every version of "reform" has merit.)

The point, however, is that while these instincts have value for the Church, they don't always make for good journalism. The news business needs editorialists and pundits, but the heart of the trade is reporting providing a serious, reasonably objective presentation of a set of facts, so that people may then have a rational debate about what the story means and what to do about the issues it raises. When journalists skip past fact-collection and objective analysis, and move directly into drawing conclusions, the risk is that they end up skewing the public debate.

Conclusion

What I have been trying to argue here is that in explaining the rather mixed record of the Church in communications, both the Church and the press must shoulder their share of the blame. Both need to grow in their understanding of the other.

To drive this point home, let me tell a brief story set in rural Western Kansas in the United States, where I grew up. A Yankee lawyer went pheasant hunting one weekend. He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side of a fence. As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly gentleman asked him what he was doing. The lawyer responded, "I shot a pheasant and it fell in this field, so I'm going into retrieve it."

The old farmer replied. "This is my property, so the pheasant belongs to me."

The indignant lawyer said, "I am one of the best trial attorneys in the US and, if you don't let me get that bird, I'll sue you and take everything!"
The old farmer smiled and said: "Apparently, you don't know how we do things here. We settle things like this with the Three-Kick Rule."

The lawyer asked, "What's the Three-Kick Rule?"

The Farmer replied. "Well, first I kick you three times, and then you kick me three times, and so on until someone gives up."

The Yankee attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old guy. He agreed.

The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to the city feller. His first kick planted the toe of his heavy work boot into the Yankee lawyer's shins and dropped him to his knees. His second kick nearly wiped the man's nose off his face. The lawyer was flat on his belly when the farmer's third kick to a kidney nearly caused him to give up.
The Yankee lawyer summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet and said: "Okay, you old coot, now it's my turn."

The old farmer smiled and said, "Naw, I give up. You can have the bird."

Too often, it seems to me, the relationship between the Church and the press is a version of the Three Kick Rule a search for cheap shots and manipulation of the other, rather than a relationship built on mutual comprehension and respect. One hopes we can grow beyond the "three-kick" dynamic, because we have much to learn from each other, and to a great extent the common good depends upon our doing so.


© Independent Catholic News 2006

Second-guessing John Paul II

Pope Benedict's crackdown on clergy abusers threatens his predecessor's legacy.
By Jason Berry, Jason Berry is coauthor, with Gerald Renner, of "Vows of Silence." He is directing a documentary based on the book's account of the Maciel saga.

May 28, 2006
Los Angeles Times

ON MAY 19, Pope Benedict XVI disgraced one of the most powerful priests in the Roman Catholic Church, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the ultraconservative Legion of Christ. Benedict's decision to publicly discipline the priest came after an investigation into allegations that Maciel had sexually abused "more than 20 and less than 100 victims" in seminary, according to the National Catholic Reporter.

On the face of it, the pope's "invitation" to Maciel to give up his public ministry in favor of a quiet life of "prayer and penitence" may not seem a terribly harsh punishment for an alleged serial sex abuser. But in doing so, Benedict did something extraordinarily unusual: He cast doubt on his predecessor's judgment.

The culture of apostolic succession invites each new pope to be exquisitely respectful of the popes who came before him. Historians now must scramble to explain why the late Pope John Paul II, who called for the church to atone for institutional sins by "the purification of historical memory," sheltered Maciel for years. Utterly ignoring the pleas of Maciel's victims that the priest be held to account, John Paul praised him instead. In late 2004, the pope celebrated Maciel for his "integral formation of the person" even as the sexual-abuse charges against him, dating from 1976, gathered dust in the Vatican.

In late 2004, the German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who has since become pope, clearly distanced himself from the dying John Paul by ordering an investigation of the allegations against Maciel. Under Ratzinger, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has historically tried theologians who publicly questioned church doctrines, had been dealing with hundreds of cases of pedophile priests whose bishops wanted them laicized. Ratzinger wanted to move Maciel's case to the top of the list. Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's secretary of state, pressured Ratzinger to ignore a 1998 canon-law suit seeking Maciel's ouster. But Ratzinger realized that Maciel loomed as a potential scandal for the next pope. Sodano will soon retire.

In 1997, Gerald Renner and I wrote an investigation of sexual-abuse allegations against Maciel, profiling nine of his accusers, that was published in the Hartford Courant. Maciel declined to be interviewed for the piece, but he asserted his innocence in a statement. His lawyers threatened the newspaper with legal action and bombarded editors with documents seeking to discredit the accusers. In response to our requests for comment, the Vatican made no assertion of Maciel's innocence, not even a "no comment."

Eight of the men (one had died) from Mexico and Spain filed their canon law case with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a year later. They accused Maciel of sexually assaulting them as young seminarians in the 1950s and 1960s. They also charged that he violated confession by forgiving their "sins" — a crime in church law with no statute of limitations.

Juan Vaca, now a 69-year-old college professor on Long Island, first sent a petition to the Vatican in 1976, identifying himself and 20 others as victims of Maciel. A second ex-Legion priest corroborated his petition. The Vatican did nothing then. Nor in 1978 when Vaca tried again. Nor in 1989 when, upon leaving the priesthood, he wrote a detailed letter about Maciel to John Paul.

As Maciel hid from the media, a few Legion priests sought public roles. Mel Gibson used several as advisors in making "The Passion of the Christ." NBC News hired Father Thomas Williams, one of Maciel's foremost defenders, as an "ethics commentator" and on-camera analyst on papal succession, never mentioning his order or association with Maciel.

The Vatican communique expelling Maciel "gratefully recognized" the Legionaries and their lay wing, Regnum Christi, as independent of Maciel. Maciel admitted no wrongdoing, but accepted the decision "with complete serenity and tranquillity of conscience…. Following the example of Christ, he decided not to defend himself," according to a Legion statement.

A man accused of pedophilia by "more than 20 but less than 100" victims comparing himself to Jesus is hubris unknown even in our celebrity culture.

The Legionaries are now in spin control. They note that the Vatican held no trial and nothing was admitted. Ergo, they imply, the punishment could be wrong.

Maciel launched the Legion in 1941 in Mexico. The order is small, about 600 priests, but has branched into the U.S. with two dozen prep schools and two seminaries for teenage boys, an achievement made possible by Maciel's huge fundraising efforts. The Legion is built on a cult of personality. Maciel's picture hangs in every school, where children are taught that he is a living saint.

The Legion has 60,000 lay supporters in Regnum Christi. They are deeply orthodox. They study Maciel's letters in prayer groups. They must be in a spiritual freefall right now, and for that we must feel sympathy. They were betrayed.

Legionaries of Christ take a vow never to speak ill of Maciel and to report on anyone who does — vows that, in effect, reward spying as an act of faith.

Pope Benedict has shattered the meaning of those vows. Now, the Vatican must install "visitators" — outside clerics to oversee, and change, the internal culture — in the order. If it does not, the Legion will continue to promote the myth of Maciel's innocence, undercutting Benedict's authority, even as it urges obedience to the pope.

Leaders of new movements to hold gathering on the beauty of being Christian

ROME, May. 29, 2006 (CNA) - In anticipation of their meeting with Pope Benedict on June 3rd in St. Peter’s Square, leaders and members of the various ecclesial movements will gather for a conference May 31-June 2 at Rocca di Papa, Italy to discuss the theme, “The beauty of being Christians and the joy of communicating it.”

Organized by the Pontifical Council for the Laity, the conference will bring together over 300 leaders and members of the new ecclesial movements to discuss the theme that was inspired by the words of Pope Benedict XVI in his inaugural homily on April 24, 2005: “There is nothing more beautiful than being reached, than being surprised by the Gospel, by Christ. There is nothing more beautiful than knowing him and communicating his friendship to others.”

Organizers said the conference would provide an opportunity to reflect on the very nature of the Christian experience and how it is lived out in the different ecclesial movements and associations.

Among those expected to speak at the conference include Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, Alba Sgariglia of Focolare, Kiko Argüello of the Neocatechumenal Way, Giancarlo Cesana of Communion and Liberation, Patti Mansfied of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, and Father Laurent Fabre of the Chemin Neuf Community,

Others scheduled to speak at the conference include Marc Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec, who will address the conference on “The beauty of being Christian,” Vittorio Messori, who will talk on witnessing to the beauty of Christ in contemporary society, and Luis Fernando Figari of the Christian Life Movement, who will speak on bringing the faith to young people.

The event will conclude with a Mass celebrated by Archbishop Josef Clemens, secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Laity.

More information on the conference can be found at: www.laici.org